Battle-lines drawn over EU's future
This is a day to view some of the battle-lines being drawn in Europe. Firstly, the British government has published its European Union Bill. Its purpose is to draw a clear line preventing the "slippery slope", where more powers move inexorably to Brussels.
For many in the Conservative Party, this all comes too late. They argue that very substantive powers were handed to the EU under the Lisbon Treaty. That battle, however, is lost to them. A minister said to me: "We are accepting the Lisbon Treaty as a done deal." The past has been accepted. There is no wish, said the minister, to reopen treaty changes.
So to the future. There will now be a "referendum lock": any new EU treaties or major changes to existing treaties will have to be approved or rejected by the British people in a referendum.
Examples would be a decision to give up the UK's border controls or to join the euro.
But ministers will have to decide whether treaty amendments are "significant" before recommending a referendum. New directives or obligations would not necessarily trigger a poll. So some new powers could go to the EU without the British people being consulted.
The judgement as to what is "significant" could prove controversial and could lead to legal challenges.
As expected, there is a "sovereignty clause" confirming that EU laws will only take effect in the UK with the agreement of the UK Parliament. The clause is intended to underline Parliament's sovereignty.
The bill also seeks to limit so-called "ratchet clauses" or "passerelles" where some competences can be automatically extended. These would now require primary legislation.
The bill is intended to deliver on a Conservative election promise that never again will power be transferred to Brussels without the British people having a say.
It will not satisfy a significant number of Conservative back-benchers. Nor will it satisfy others.
But some like Liberal Democrat MEP Andrew Duff say: "We will be keen to reassure ourselves that this Bill does not substantively change the terms of the UK's membership of the EU...
"The move to referenda seems to be calculated to appeal to a populist and nationalist constituency which undoubtedly exists in the UK."
We may soon learn what is to be the final budget increase for 2011. The expectation is that the European Parliament, under pressure, will settle for 2.91%, the figure David Cameron persuaded some European leaders to insist was their top figure. MEPs, who wanted a 5.9% increase, have insisted that extra money is needed to fund the new institutions brought in by the Lisbon Treaty.
Even if there is agreement on a 2.91% increase, the MEPs have put down a marker that in future they want a stronger say over spending including direct EU taxes. Several countries including the UK and Germany oppose such taxes but the budget is shaping up to be another battle-line.
Then there is the euro. Ireland is teetering on the edge of a bail-out. Portugal may not be far behind.
"Ireland is close to losing credibility among investors," said one analyst. "There will have to be a bail-out in the end," said Ashok Shah of London and Capital.
Ireland does not need funds from the markets until June next year but the cost of borrowing is shooting up and there has been a dramatic sell-off of Irish bonds. The sentiment is moving against Ireland surviving without a rescue. Two-thirds of economists and bond strategists polled by Reuters foresaw a bail-out by the end of next year.
Ireland is about to announce its fiscal plan for the next four years. It will need a further 15bn euros in savings. No one doubts the Irish government's determination to find those savings both by raising taxes and cutting spending. The details will be announced in the budget on 7 December. But - and here's the rub - the financial markets fear the austerity measures will only make matters worse by choking demand. Ireland, they believe, is locked in a deadly downward spiral.
Being locked into the euro, Ireland does not have the freedom to lower its exchange rate and so boost its exports. There are only two alternatives left: fierce austerity and/or a bail-out.
Here again there are battle-lines. Several European leaders have recently said that the whole European project depends on the euro surviving in its present form. They are statements rooted in a deep anxiety but no one should doubt the determination of Europe's high officials to fight to save the single currency. The question is this: Is it better to defend countries staying in the euro at all cost or might it make sense for some countries to leave the single currency for a period, sort out their economies and then rejoin the euro some time in the future?
Much of the European year has been devoted to firefighting to save the euro. The final weeks of 2010 look as if there will be more of the same. It is another fault-line.
It did not help sentiment that the Greek government announced that it was unlikely to meet the budget deficit agreed with the EU and the IMF. The deficit will likely be 9% rather than 8.1%.
And then lurking in the background is the big clash of visions. Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the Council, declared in Berlin that "euroscepticism leads to war". He went on to say that "a rising tide of nationalism is the EU's biggest enemy".
He added the thought that "the time of the homogeneous nation state is over". Those comments have enraged some but President Van Rompuy speaks with a candour not always shared by other senior officials. You know where you stand with him. He challenges the idea of the nation state surviving in the globalised world.
Of course there are others who say that the EU is profoundly undemocratic, bureaucratic and wasteful of money. They would argue that increasingly - when given the chance - Europe's voters show they see their identity tied to the nation state.
But all around there are big defining arguments over the future shape of Europe.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Van Rumpoy’s speech was a disgrace. He warns in one place that the biggest enemy of Europe is fear; “Fear of ‘enemies’ within our borders and beyond our borders.” But it is not EU-skeptics that raise such fears but van Rumpoy himself who declares elsewhere in the very same speech “there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world … It is more than an illusion: it is a lie!” So it is he himself who is raising fears about outsiders who will do you down! And what is his evidence for such xenophobic fear-mongering when small states like Singapore or Switzerland with no links to supra-nationalism so consistently out-perform the eurozone and never started a war?
Mohammed Ali once said “No VietCong ever called me a n*****”. Well Mr. Van Rumpoy, nobody outside the Brussels bubble ever said EU-sceptics are aggressive nationalist of the type who cause war. Nobody in the countries (Brazil, Russia, India USA, etc. ) that you raise xenophobic fears about us being “unable to survive” against without Brussels, are destroying our representative government the way that the EU is. So what have we got to fear from them?
And it is a bare faced cheek for this man to talk about democracy when he (like Barrosso in Portugal) resigned from the highest democratic office in his country to take up a more powerful position in Brussels that no ballot box can reach. This man deliberately turned his back on democratic politics, spends half a speech applauding governments for resisting “populist” opinion (is he aware that British voters largely agree that it is time to tackle the debt?), the other half raising xenophobic fears about being “unable to survive” in the big bad world and then has the temerity to cast the undemocratic institution he heads as a saviour of democracy?!?
Liberal nationalism is as different from the aggressive nationalism of a Hitler or a Stalin as oil is to water. Liberal nationalism is essential for representative government (democracy) and democracy is essential for the preservation of peaceful relations between nations. I am happy to be a liberal nationalist in the way that Mahatma Ghandi and Thomas Jefferson were liberal nationalists, and would remind Mr. Rumpoy that Stalin headed an undemoratic multi-national federation held together by fear which very nearly did start World War III.
As for cast-iron Cameron and vague Hague’s Bill: In the UK there is no distinction between constitutional law and regular law. They can both be changed with a simple majority in Weatminster. So there is nothing to stop a future government repealing this so-called ‘lock’ on their first day in office and ratifying a new EU treaty the second. This lock is broken by design.
In the EU you get what you negotiate and the French and Germans want something now. Now is therefore the time to secure a return of powers from Brussels. And Clegg could not stop it. Is he really going to incur the wrath of Sarkozy, Merkel and his former colleagues at the EU Commission by refusing to ratify a treaty that they believe necessary to save the Euro simply because it returns some powers to Uk? No chance. Or bring down the government of which he is part and fight an election on the issue of defending Brussels power? No chance. So the only conclusion has to be that if Cameron does not want to negotiate now under circumstances so favourable, he does want to negotiate at all. And for that he deserves to follow Brown as the second unelected prime minister a row to leave office after one term.
Complain about this comment
"the time of the homogeneous nation state is over".
This has been true in europe for decades and a good thing too. We are by our nature now all interdependent and increasingly so in a globalised world. Can't believe there are still people who believe that its possible to be isolated and still be progressive and civilised. The fact is that the utlilitarian need for a federated world Government to manage the lessening world resources might actually come about quicker than european integration. In the end its not about wheather institutions like the EU should exist but what format they take and how they are run.
Complain about this comment
Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the Council, declared in Berlin that "euroscepticism leads to war".
Really? I would say the opposite.
Complain about this comment
GH reports: "There will now be a "referendum lock": any new EU treaties or major changes to existing treaties will have to be approved or rejected by the British people in a referendum."
Seeing is believing.
Complain about this comment
"never again will power be transferred to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Please, stop; I cen get a hernia from laughter.
Complain about this comment
"Ireland is teetering on the edge of a bail-out"
Gavin, perhaps you should go to Ireland and report your first hand observations.
For while everybody has concentrated and moaned about Greece and Spain (v. rarely - Portugal) nobody, but nobody looked really carefully at Ireland's predicament.
IMHO Ireland is going to be next candidate for a EU bail out.
Complain about this comment
Some might see it as ironic that Van Rompuy's views on the nation state are almost certainly defined by his own national experience. As a Belgian he can hardly be expected to have much confidence in the 'homogenous nation state'. But Belgium is hardly typical.
Complain about this comment
"Being locked into the euro, Ireland does not have the freedom to lower its exchange rate and so boost its exports."
Confer it with China (an export-based economy) already panicking about a prospect of getting some of its own medicine:id est U.S. lowering dollar's exchange rate by printing extra 600 billion greenbacks.
[And that's only till June]
Complain about this comment
" Greek government announced that it was unlikely to meet the budget deficit agreed with the EU and the IMF. The deficit will likely be 9% rather than 8.1%."
And what have you expected?
That it would?
Complain about this comment
'lurking in the background is the big clash of visions. Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the Council, declared in Berlin that "euroscepticism leads to war".'
Perhaps we should discuss a definition of napalm again?
Complain about this comment
In the last 235 years, UK had fought 3 major wars, Napoleonic Wars, World War 1 & 2, to save Europe from centralization and, even fought one to prevent decentralization from itself and lost, USA War of Independence. Today, UK’s descendants will vote to decide which “significant” EU cetralisation dictates to accept. This got to be political Darwinism in reverse, thus, evolved the weaker political human species.
I am glad I am Indonesian; I do not have to worry about somebody’s supranational ambitions. My relatives burn vegetation to clear land, and the neighbouring countries, including ourselves, could only moan and cough in the regional haze. As my government told Singapore and Malaysia, economic progress cannot come only with Indonesia alone bearing high developmental costs to suit them.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps EUSSR should start combating deficits and waste Obama style?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-panel-probes-stimulus-waste----at-Ritz-Carlton-107236598.html
Complain about this comment
#7. At 11:41am on 12 Nov 2010, 0lli
When PM of Belgium recently he managed to keep the three regions from splitting and managed to manage his own Flemish nationalists, probably because he is a fervent federalist. The latest offering from the NVA party in Belgium whilst the three sides search for a government, is that all powers (almost) be returned to the regions but the federal government stays, what a waste of money. It is therefore no surprise that now Rompuy is the EU man that he must maintain the EU federal disaster at vast cost and try to stop nation states regaining competences. He is merely doing in the EU what he has done in Belgium, and if it hasn't worked in a small country like Belgium, well, enough said.
Complain about this comment
"In the last 235 years, UK had fought 3 major wars, Napoleonic Wars, World War 1 & 2, to save Europe from centralization and, even fought one to prevent decentralization from itself and lost, USA War of Independence. Today, UK’s descendants will vote to decide which “significant” EU cetralisation dictates to accept. This got to be political Darwinism in reverse, thus, evolved the weaker political human species."
Since the 19th Centuary European nations have been involved in over 46 wars. At the end of world war two it was decided that the cause of this was excessive national ambitions that prevented genuine intergovermental action.The horrors of eccessive nationalism as exemplified with NAZI Germany and sovreignty at all costs mentality which sometimes evolves into 'sovreignty over others' of which many European nations were particulary guilty was the root cause of many of the wars. The axe was finally begun to be buried with the treaty of Rome in 1957, not just as a mere free trade area but as a political ideal as a start where european nations would start to pool sovreignty, accepting that there are some policies a country cannot and should not selfishly pursue at the expense of its european partners.
Complain about this comment
I see a lot of vague populist statements again. I really wonder why some of you take the time to type them and put them on these blogs. Postulating nonsense without giving arguments, you guys get a kick out of it?
@Freeman: European integration has meant peace to the european continent. Economic analysis shows the benefits of economic integration. Economic analysis shows the benefits of this integration is bigger with a customs union than with a free trade area (EEC vs EFTA). Political analysis shows eurosceptics are mainly to be situated in populist parties or populist wings of parties. Historical analysis shows the dangers of populism.
@Olli: homogenous nation states never have existed. The opposite is something that nationalistic politicans would want you to believe.The large migrations (historic and current) in human (and european) history have made that homogeneity does not exist. The only countries that come close in Europe are Iceland and Portugal, but obviously even they are not 'pure' nation states.
@sayasay: There are no EU dictates. Decisionmaking at the Eu level is made in a democratic way. You can ditch the populist vocabulary therefore ;)
Complain about this comment
The UK is in the EU because the US wanted it. “Enter, mess it up, slow down the political union and break it if you can.” was the mission received. The UK will never leave the EU but if allowed to by its master.
Complain about this comment
#16
"The UK is in the EU because the US wanted it. “Enter, mess it up, slow down the political union and break it if you can.” was the mission received. The UK will never leave the EU but if allowed to by its master."
LOL!
Complain about this comment
Another good post.
Cameron may be playing a very good game here. If the law is passed then in any future negotiations withn the E.U. he merely has to suggest that he would need to refer it for a referendum to get the desired result. Because if any one thinks the British people would agree to any more transfer of powers to the E.U. they are badly mistaken.
This will not mean the rolling back of E.U powers but I sincerely hope it does mean the end to them increasing. This could be a great day for democracy. I just hope ther E.U. countries follow suit, although to be fair Ireland got there way before us.
Complain about this comment
I appreciate there are some big debates within Europe but in my view there are far bigger and more important debates occuring at the globval level. It is the the outcome of the global debates which will have a far greater impact on the average EU citizen.
The great tragedy is that the EU is now so obsessed with its internal debates that it is not playing a proper role at the global level.
There neeeds to be a total rewriting of the global financial and political systems to reflect the new rtealities of global power. In my view the EU could take a leading and progressive role in shaping the new global order. It could play the middle man between the US and China/India etc.
Unfortunately it appears the EU would rather endlessly discuss their own internal issues. The longer time goes on the less chance the EU will have to influence the shape of the new global order.
I hate to say it but I am actually hoping Sarkozy (with France heading the G20 next year) can live up to his hype and take the lead in laying the foundations for a new global order. France (and indeed Mr Sarkozy) is sufficiently arrogant (subjectively determined) to think it (and he) can play a vital role and sufficiently unimportant (objectively determined) to actually play the role of the agenda setter and go-between without threatening people.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat @ 12
In using the label EUSSR are you suggesting that the EU in future loookj to include the nations of the ex USSR. If so that is a brilliant idea - at least as a long term goaal.
If you are using it to say the EU resembles the USSR then either
- you are guilty of massive hyperbole which undermines your credibility; or
- you believe this comparison I can only assume you went to school before we entered the EU.
Complain about this comment
The British Government has published its European Union Bill - purpose to prevent the "slippery slope" where more powers move inexorably to Brussels.
All I can say to this is thank goodness the Lisbon Treaty is signed and is therefore a done deal. In the future, there will be a "referendum lock".
For the life of me, I don't know why Britain is so downright Eurosceptic, but I've come to the point where I think a referendum may be the way to go - in or out, get it done and over with. If I had anything to do with it, I would challenge Britain with a change that would force a referendum.
Ministers will have to decide whether treaty amendments are "significant" before recommending a referendum. I don't know how the EU can continue to deal with Britain with its Ministers playing cat and mouse games. And then comes this statement from Liberal Democrat MEP Andrew Duff: "We will be keen to reassure ourselves that this Bill does not substantively change the terms of the UK's MEMBERSHIP of the EU...Tell me truly, do you think the EU is so very delighted to have Britain as a member in the first place? Neither in not out, always bickering and disagreeing, always trying to protect its own sovereignty...not realising that the world is quickly changing and without unions, a country will become like a turtle on its back. e.g. Just look at Africa - individual nations picked apart by internal bickering, war, and western greed: NO UNITED AFRICAN VOICE!
I have no doubt that the MEPs, who wanted a 5.9% increase, are correct in declaring that the extra money is needed to fund the new institutions brought in by the Lisbon Treaty. These things do not come free, but I'm sure David Cameron will get a huge public boost from holding his line.
Mark my words: Neither Portugal nor Ireland will revert to further bail-outs.
China is eager to ensure the welfare of Greece, Spain, Portugal...You know, all the little STUPID PIIGS. In October, China agreed to buy Greek government bonds when Athens resumes issuing; it's a show of support for the country whose debt burden pushed the euro zone to crisis.
Premier Wen Jiabao also said he wanted to boost shipping and trade ties with Athens. Wen: "With its foreign exchange reserve, China has already bought and is holding Greek bonds and will keep a positive stance in participating and buying bonds that Greece will issue."
In fact: China, maybe to goad the United States emphasized its willingness to cooperate with all 27-nations of the EU on financial issues.
You say two-thirds of economists and bond strategists polled by Reuters foresaw a bail-out by the end of next year. Ya well, they are wrong.
Being locked into the euro, Ireland does not have the freedom to lower its exchange rate and so boost its exports. The Chinese, unlike the Americans, despise (perhaps too strong a word) artificial manipulation of the markets. The Chinese deal with reality. There are NOT only two alternatives left: fierce austerity or a bail-out. There is also, like they have already done with Portugal and Greece, a Chinese commitment to buy and buy bonds as long as required. The Chinese desperately want out of the American money market and the becoming-more-worthless-by-the-day American dollar.
Wen: "China is prepared, hand in hand with the EU, as passengers in the same boat, to strengthen cooperation in order to confront the financial crisis...I believe that we can undertake a genuine effort to promote the reform of the international financial system and strengthen its supervision." Now doesn't this make sense?
Wen said China wanted to boost cooperation with Greece on all fronts, including setting up a shipping fund and doubling bilateral trade to $8B by 2015.
Wen has also been in direct contact with Brussels, where he attended the EU-China summit before going on to Germany, Italy and Turkey.
The question is this: Is it better to defend countries staying in the euro at all cost or might it make sense for some countries to leave the single currency for a period, sort out their economies and then rejoin the euro some time in the future?
It makes more sense for troubled countries to remain on the Euro, restructure their economies (in conjunction with Brussels' uniform financial regulations), and climb out of the financial box to see new currency ventures as well as sources of funding.
Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the Council: "The rising tide of nationalism is the EU's biggest enemy". Right on! It leads to protectionism, which leads to "every country for itself", which can so easily lead to war.
Complain about this comment
#15 Jean-Luc
homogenous nation states never have existed.
I don't disagree with you - and I think it's a good thing we're all mongrels - but then what's Van Rompuy talking about when he says "the time of the homogeneous nation state is over" (above in the GH piece).
European integration has meant peace to the european continent.
Most of what follows this in your post is a non sequitur. It's all about economic benefits. You end with Historical analysis shows the dangers of populism. Well, you could argue that 'populism' is another name for democracy.
I realise you're talking about the like of Nazism - but Hitler was democratically elected. The vast majority of dictators have not been. He's pretty much the exception that proves the rule. Which means that the 'dangers of populism' are somewhat exaggerated.
Decisionmaking at the Eu level is made in a democratic way.
That's like saying Myanmar is democratic because the Junta have a vote before they do something.
Complain about this comment
#16 VinceMilan
The UK is in the EU because the US wanted it. “Enter, mess it up, slow down the political union and break it if you can.” was the mission received. The UK will never leave the EU but if allowed to by its master.
Who said this - and to whom ?
How will the 'master' make its wishes known ?
Does it depend on who is in power in the USA ? Because over the years, they've been kinda different.
Complain about this comment
#14 phoenix
...The axe was finally begun to be buried with the treaty of Rome in 1957, not just as a mere free trade area but as a political idea...
A popular misconception - "Partly, in the aim of creating a federal Europe two further communities were proposed, again by the French. A European Defence Community (EDC) and a European Political Community (EPC). While the treaty for the latter was being drawn up by the Common Assembly, the ECSC parliamentary chamber, the EDC was rejected by the French Parliament. President Jean Monnet, a leading figure behind the communities, resigned from the High Authority in protest and began work on alternative communities, based on economic integration rather than political integration"
Complain about this comment
@14, phoenix "the 19th Centuary European nations have been involved in over 46 wars"
I was only referring To the UK or Great Britain or whatever it likes to call itself. If she got involved in the other all “46 wars”. Then, the culling through ‘reverse Darwinism’ is more intense than I thought. Do you really need a Babel-like organization to survive? Is there a shortage of ‘standing on my own two feet’ capability? UK stayed out of the Euro currency union based on confident self-beliefs. But today, I guess submission is your way to get fed.
Complain about this comment
@15, Jean Luc “There are no EU dictates. Decisionmaking at the Eu level is made in a democratic way. You can ditch the populist vocabulary therefore”
I got yours and my same point very well understood. Why? Because dictated it so: your instruction to “ditch” it, says it.
Complain about this comment
@ Clive Hill: to say that Hitler was democratically elected is akin to saying that Mugabe was democratically elected.
You're factually correct in saying populism is a form of democracy. Originally it was about the views of ordinary people. However, that assumes that the ordinary people are properly informed: but, from what I saw and heard on a recent visit to the UK, they appear to very poorly informed. There was though, I noted, a fair amount of misleading (or equally uninformed) opinion (posing as "news") in your newspapers. It seems Gavin Hewitt is an exception?
European integration is not "all about economic benefits". It was the wish of the founding fathers that it should be a social and political union. Economic treaties either fail at times of stress or become lopsided (eg NAFTA is more about US control than real free trade).
Gavin, the debate about countries leaving the Euro is an old one. Generally the conclusion is that this would be the surest way to cripple a country long-term. Leaving the Euro cannot be done overnight (agreement of other EU members; new currency to be printed/issued; exchange rate €/new currency agreed; etc, etc). Meantime the markets would just wait???
Nationalism is the natural haven when times are hard. It's easier to believe that one can pull up the drawbridge and keep out the crisis. But there's one factor the founding fathers of the EU could not have foreseen - and that is the shift in global power that is taking place. Individual nations of Europe will not be able to stand alone against the mightier forces that are now on the world scene. And, even though this possibility would not have been evident when the EU (or predecessors) was founded, it is further evidence of the rightness of bringing European nations together.
Complain about this comment
#22. BluesBerry wrote:
"For the life of me, I don't know why Britain is so downright Eurosceptic" (Please use the expression 'Anti European' not their bowdlerised term - call it what it is - bigoted hatred of foreigners.)
Oh come on, when Rupert Murdoch was done out of his rightful Presidency of the British Republic he had to engage in a bitter 'solar' diatribe of retribution!!!! Hating foreigners is what the British Red Tops do - it is why they exist! Our Tabloid press promotes anything that will create conflict. The mid market press is dominated by the papers who see Margaret Thatcher as dangerously left wing. The so called heavyweights are again dominated by the republican Murdoch clan as is satellite TV.
These papers set the agenda. Before the war many of them supported National Socialism and wanted to bring it to the UK and they have never really forgiven that Nation for not going along with them so they are intent on destroying the country as a punishment for past wrongs.
They don't care for what is best for the British people at all. They will cheerfully promote conflict as it sells papers. They will cheerfully see the massed ranks of the unemployed made destitute just for the front page pictures.
The press and their political place men have worked tirelessly to promote ignorance in education and give it an A*. They are not interested in facts if they are inconvenient to the propaganda and lies that they want to peddle.
Complain about this comment
So the ordinary Brits are again having the wool pulled over their eyes by their ruling Aristocratic elite !
Like lambs to the slaughter (politically naive) they pray little will change !
Complain about this comment
#15 Jean Luc: "European integration has meant peace to the european continent."
This cannot be proved, it is merely your assertion. It is certainly true that, after WWII, European integration was seen as a way to ensure that there were no more wars between European nations. However, it cannot be known whether this has, in fact, prevented any wars as this experiment has no control group.
My view is that, following the horrors of the two world wars, another major war in Europe was very unlikely for at least 50 years with or without the EEC/EC/EU. But that is just my opinion. Your claim is also merely an opinion - no more, no less.
Complain about this comment
powermeer 4,5,6,8,9,10,12.............
You are becoming a bore. Why don't you go to Mark Mardell's American blog and bore your fellow Americans witless? Give us a break - PLEEEEEEEEEESE! All this scrolling past your puerile contributions makes my fingers numb.
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Re #15
What You see as "..vague populist statements.." is in other Citizens' terms the Public Free-Will completely ignored by a 'one-size-fits-all' Brussels Political core aided & abetted by a wholly unrepresentative, unaccountable Parliament and self-serving, power accruing ECJ whose regard for the Individual Citizen is in 3rd place to vested 'big-Business/big-Government' interests and perpetuation/developing of their own power-base.
For sure the EEC & even EU have contributed to a peaceful 'west' Europe.
Then again, we may be sure, so too to a large extent upto 1989 did NATO & the Warsaw Pact.
Post-1992 & Maastricht whilst the the eastward expansion of the political-construct EU has gone on at a considerable pace, it would seem 'peace' has come at the price of individual EU Citizens being denied participation/consultation on the most significant political-economic-fiscal-judicial-military developments of the last 2 decades.
One wonders quite how much longer in the 3rd decade post-Maastricht that 'peace' will survive intact?
Like You, I'm hoping for a good scenario: Unlike You, I am not optimistic of what 2015-16-17... have in store for EUropeans, so long as the EU-Brussels continues in its blind authority-asserting, stiflingly-centralising & anti-Democratic manner of ignoring its 500+ million Constituents.
At some stage when EU-Brussels 'political-push' comes to 'shove-Citizens Rights' beyond their limit of tolerance there will be a dangerous Civil reaction.
Complain about this comment
#32 MH
-- it may protect against arthritis or other finger-joint illnesses !
Complain about this comment
I am from Greece and i study integration processes in Argentina. I would like to underline that the EU model is considered a quite successful form of integration here. Economical theories suggest that regional trade liberalization is a second best theory. However, the first best solution, that would be multilateral global liberalization, is an utopia at the moment. Simply because it's impossible to fairly redistribute the benefits of it, since there isn't any form of global government, while in regional integration this is possible. Statistics show that the EU since it's creation has been beneficial for all member States. We cannot, of course, know, how the growth of each state would be if it wasn't part of the EU. Specially for economically strong countries (as France and Germany) the EU has been quite positive, since they have an advantage in selling their goods compared to other, extra-EU countries. Therefore I believe that the "poor german tax-payer" has been favored by the EU process (since many of them are employed in industries that mostly sell in Europe) and owe to support weaker countries that are the existing market for the goods produced in Germany or France. Portugal, Greece or Ireland could simply import asian goods that are cheaper. They don't because of the EU, so the benefits have to be redistributed.
I am not trying to excuse the PIGS with the previous comments. I think we owe to look the growth these States have had since the introduction of the common currency. They had a significant growth by increasing public spending, partly because of the economy harmonization project in the eurozone. They did so, with a balance deficit increasing and now we can see the result. However, I think welfare increased in a big scale since 2000 and austerity measures are necessary now. It's part of the game and I believe this game has favored the PIGS as well if we see the benefits they had since the Maastricht Treaty. If you also consider corruption, tax-evasion and clientelism (high in many of the PIGS) and the side effect of the austerity measures, which hopefully will be to reduce these negative factors in each of the economies, I think the late crisis can also have positive future effects.
Of course the financial crisis affects the process of integration as it did in the seventies (oil crisis and the abandon of the dollar-gold convertibility) and probably it will slow it down for some years. However, since it has been positive in the past for all member-States and since the institutional independence level is quite high, I believe it's hard to stop it right now and go back to the traditional State characterized by high protection and more sovereignty that also led to the two World Wars.
Complain about this comment
Re #32
"..puerile.." and MHoward?
Somebody lend the Scots moaning misery a mirror!
Complain about this comment
"Here again there are battle-lines. Several European leaders have recently said that the whole European project depends on the Euro surviving in its present form. They are statements rooted in a deep anxiety but no one should doubt the determination of Europe's high officials to fight to save the single currency. The question is this: Is it better to defend countries staying in the Euro at all cost or might it make sense for some countries to leave the single currency for a period, sort out their economies and then rejoin the Euro some time in the future?"
The bit about troubled countries leaving the Euro to sort out their economies and to then re-join will not work. The reason Ireland got into a mess is that their productivity does not match the likes of Germany. Ireland is essentially too small to compete economically with Germany. They may leave the Euro for a while, reduce the real exchange rate, and tidy up the national finances, but they would be back in the same position five to ten years after rejoining due to the different dynamics.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I shall once again mention that the latest survey from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation showed an increasing support of EU among Germans. The report on the survey will be very easy to find on www, just look for the foundation. It will also interest our friend from Argentina.
There are quite a few themes in this article. I shall here just mention that the UK is now implementing a model (referendum if the government wants it) that are similar to that Denmark has used all the time. This model has kept Denmark within the EU but in the periphery of the union at the same time.
We can expect the same to be the case with the UK.
Complain about this comment
#33CBW
---and NOT ONE WORD about the responsibilities of the UK parliament to its citizens !
--every thing a NAZI, STASI, or EU PLOT against the saviors of the world ????
Complain about this comment
#38 Champagne_Charlie
---I notice that !
Complain about this comment
#30 #40
quietoaktree;
Why do you care? Do you believe you have been ordained to save the British from themselves or something?
Complain about this comment
37. At 6:36pm on 12 Nov 2010, Lorentz wrote:
" ...The reason Ireland got into a mess is that their productivity does not match the likes of Germany. Ireland is essentially too small to compete economically with Germany...."
Hi Lorentz,
The problems Ireland have had very very little to do with competing with Germany, and much more to do with property and financial bubbles (which the EU warned of semi annually since 2002), tax base erosion, negligent and negligible regulation, spiraling costs, and governmental, instititional and administrative paralysis.
Ireland's current course, painful and horrible as it is, is probably the most appropriate course for it to take. There is no question of leaving the Euro - Ireland's membership of the Euro enjoys support exceeding 84% according to latest surveys.
Mickalus
Complain about this comment
The former Stasi stooge & frustrated goopse-stepper continues to write piffle & balderdash on the UK political scene of which he plainly has as little knowledge as his trifling 'aristocracy-CAP' meandering contributions.
I'm reasonably content with the 'Referendum-Sovereignty Lock' Bill as it is presently suggested it will operate if passed by the UK Parliament.
The UK is in the the EU; PM Cameron & Deputy Clegg never promised any Referendum on membership of the EU (though, of course, that would be my preference) before or during the General Election.
Cameron did renege on his promise of a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and that is a serious black-mark against him & his wretched Conservative Party.
However, Cameron did explain that he would introduce precisely the sort of Bill that this article refers to as an alternative to what would surely be a futile political kicking-match between Brussels & London (& 26 other fed-up Nations) to have Lisbon re-negotiated.
If this Bill does get onto the UK Statute book the inference for the UK is that there will be no Treaty changes that further reduce the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and thereby the British Citizens; for the EU the implication is the UK will not co-operate with any measures that allow further encroachment of Brussels into the National Political-consciousness of the UK.
This will be noted by other luke-warm member States who will doubtless watch the effect of the UK 'Lock' with interest and recognising their own Citizens' concerns may start to consider something similar's advantages/disadvantage for their States.
As I've often written: I await with interest the reaction of Brussels to being thwarted by the UK in this manner and its referral of the issue to the ECJ. At that critical juncture every EU Citizen will grasp the inescapable fact most Britons have all along understood - - the EU is anti-Democratic at its core and will use artifical, biased, elitist Legal Appointees to subvert the Democratic Ballot box expression of Public opinion - - the implications for the continued existence of the EU entity in its present highly dogma-driven centralising form is very questionable. Citizens of EUrope will not take kindly to having 3, 5, 15, 27 Judges removing their Right & Responsibility to exercise their choices via Democratic consultation.
Complain about this comment
@ 39, Mathiasen
Could you please tell us the title of the survey or the publication date?
To clear things up, when i said the "poor german taxpayer" i was referring to certain front pages of german tabloids, Merkel's declarations as: "sell your islands" and the considerable delay in taking a decision on how to deal with the greek crisis. Obviously i don't include the germans as a whole, but a general impression that was created of the "poor" germans. Germany accepted being the "locomotive" of the european "train" and that implies benefits and costs. Now that is the cost period, many people seam to react. By the way, a lower euro as a result of the greek crisis gave a boost to Germany's exports to extra-eurozone countries while was almost indifferent to France or other big countries in the area that mostly export to intra-zone States, so a change of the euro compared to other currencies is insignificant. Anyway, i have no reason to question the survey and i think it's quite positive and honest that germans support the EU project and shall continue doing so. I repeat here, that first of all, the blame goes to the greek government as well as those of the other PIGS for the mess in their economy. The way the european public opinion saw it and the delay of a decision was crucial though.
I certainly agree of the role in the periphery of the EU that the UK has since it entered the Community. Future will show if that was a right decision or not. Since the end of WWII and until now, Germany, France and Italy (that were much more positive towards integration) grew much more from an economical point of view than the UK did, though were much more devastated and destroyed in the end of the War.
Complain about this comment
@45. At 8:48pm on 12 Nov 2010, mosta
The first problem we have here is that BBC only allows very little written in anything else but English. (I have some understanding for this, but that is another matter.)
If you find the article in Wikipedia on "Konrad Adenauer Foundation" you will find the (almost similar) German name for it, and then you are ready to go to the German www-site of the foundation.
The survey is to be found under "Publications". It was published the 2nd Nov 2010, but only in German, I am afraid. The title was in my translation: "Opinions on the European integration". It concerns opinions of Germans on the European Union. They are more positive than expected and more positive than they have been in the past.
With a little luck you will be able to find the German text.
Good luck!
Complain about this comment
#42 Champagne_Charlie
-- No, perhaps only others from them.
When false information is posted in an attempt to show superiority and it is obvious that no attempt has been made to understand their own society (or politics) other than school- class acceptance --then I reply.
Complain about this comment
#42 Champagne_Charlie
I offer #44 CBW as typical example.
He thrashes around and for the lack of knowledge about Britain condemns Germans (and those he hopes are) to prove his non-existent superiority.
Complain about this comment
#44 CBW
´If this Bill does get onto the UK Statute book the inference for the UK is that there will be no Treaty changes that further reduce the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and thereby the British Citizens; for the EU the implication is the UK will not co-operate with any measures that allow further encroachment of Brussels into the National Political-consciousness of the UK.
This will be noted by other luke-warm member States who will doubtless watch the effect of the UK 'Lock' with interest and recognising their own Citizens' concerns may start to consider something similar's advantages/disadvantage for their States´
What is this nonsense ?
Let it be known !
The Government of Britain and its citizens will lead Europe and free it from oppression, servitude and dictatorship.
National-Political-conciousness in Britain ?????
Tell that to Granny --and hope she no longer uses coal to heat !
Complain about this comment
"The question is this: Is it better to defend countries staying in the euro at all cost or might it make sense for some countries to leave the single currency for a period, sort out their economies and then rejoin the euro some time in the future?"
Absolutely absurd. You cannot simply opt in and out as the mood takes you. This experiment - if that is what it is - either has to be seen through or abandoned. There has been too much messing about. As to Mr. Van Rompuy, his candour is refreshing but he needs to understand that the tide of public opinion may not be with him and he may end up, Canute like, drowning in his own opinions especially amongst those - myself included - who are unclear what useful purpose he and his office served in the first place. Without him and the noble baroness, the 2.91% should be achievable.
I notice that QOT is back to Brit bashing. What a shame. We were quite close to having civilised exchanges.
Complain about this comment
#50 Threnodio
I cannot have a civilized exchange with nincompoops.
--and pointing out Britain´s deficiencies is only Brit-Bashing to the Brits with nincompoop knowledge, attitudes and ideals.
--- Many of which CBW has again shown to possess in his armory of nationalistic re-cycled garbage !
Complain about this comment
i think mr van rumpuy is living in the past the youth of europe dont want to fight each other europe has evolved since the the last war so war would be highly unlikely if there was no eu
he doesent understand that the people of europe dont want a new country they just want to work together on certain issues,not to be part of a new state,
europhiles like to portray european union in its current form as the only alternative to anarchy and losses in trade which is wrong
Complain about this comment
#14 Phoenix
The Treaty of Rome was between 6 adjoining European Mainland states , who were all defeated and overun in Worldwar II . It should have remained that way and would probably have succeeded . Britain should never have joined the EEC !!! The European Union should never have grown .
The size it is today will be its downfall .
Complain about this comment
'But some like Liberal Democrat MEP Andrew Duff say: "We will be keen to reassure ourselves that this Bill does not substantively change the terms of the UK's membership of the EU...
"The move to referenda seems to be calculated to appeal to a populist and nationalist constituency which undoubtedly exists in the UK." '
EUpris: Well he certainly has the right surname!
Re: "The move to referenda seems to be calculated to appeal to a populist and nationalist constituency which undoubtedly exists in the UK." '
It is called democracy Mr. Extremely Duff. Democracy is clearly something many "EU"-lovers despise.
Complain about this comment
35. At 6:23pm on 12 Nov 2010, mosta wrote:
"I am from Greece and i study integration processes in Argentina. I would like to underline that the EU model is considered a quite successful form of integration here. "
EUpris: In that case they clearly do not know much about it. Maybe they just get their "information" from the "EU" like so many badly informed people.
Complain about this comment
#20 Casandra
The problem with the EU is that it is internally ROTTEN TO THE CORE .
The internal problems far outweigh international or global problems .
The G20 is a huge waste of money , but a jolly get together for world leaders . The results of their conferences are ZERO , as this and proceeding years have show . " Jack in the Box " Sarkozi may make some impressions with his antics , but the result will be the same ,ZERO .
Complain about this comment
15. At 1:33pm on 12 Nov 2010, Jean Luc wrote:
" ...
@sayasay: There are no EU dictates. Decisionmaking at the Eu level is made in a democratic way. You can ditch the populist vocabulary therefore ;)"
EUpris: Bullproduct! The imposition of the Lisbon Treaty was dictatorship. The "EU" is a dictatorship.
THE "EU" IS A DICTATORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#21 Casandra
What a silly comment !!! The USSR was a dictatorship . Despite pretentions of democracy the EU has become the same , EUSSR . We call it what it is , not what it purports to be .
Complain about this comment
I find Gavin's post hugely disquieting !!!
Truth is that David Cameron's government offer the British people nothing . Successive British governments are as Warm Putty in the hands of the EU , the present government is no exception . The idea that any new EU treaty will go to a referendum , subject to the governments approval , is a nonsense . I can just see a treaty looming and a potential referendum , then the government decides it isn't necessary .
Bluesberry is a "Dyed in the wool", "Born again" believer in the EU .
Theory is one thing , Reality is another !
I seldom agree with what Bluesbery thinks and has to say .
However , he is right that Britain should hold a referendum on whether to leave the EU or stay in . Of course British governments fear that the result would be a foregone conclusion , to leave the EU . The EU might be happy to not have the bickering eurosceptic British public ; but the loss of Britain's financial contribution might be felt . But for that they might have already told britain to go . £48,000,000 a day !!!
If Britain were to leave the EU "Roll on the Day", it may very well have a domino effect and other countries leave too .
Many in Britain and Europe see the EU as a turtle on its back . Many British people would rather Britain sink into oblivion than remain a member of the EU . The EU is at deadlock and will never succeed in its quest to become one federal state .
Some of Bluesberry's arguments regarding Globalism may be valid .
However I do not believe that the EU wants to sell out to China , to be fully in the financial hands of China , even to spite the USA . Bluesberry makes me recall Adam and Eve in the garden of eden ; China the serpent persuding Eve to eat the apple and give Adam a taste .
China is a Communist State and many see the EU as the EUSSR , the EU could be a satelite state of China . The Chinese do not despise artificial manipulation of currency values , that is exactly what they do themselves , they object to the USA doing it . That has been almost the only argument at the current G20 , have you not been listening .
Some countries remaining in the Eurozone may never recover ; but does that matter , if the EU were one state , resourses would be pooled , if the Germans were hugely successful , they could support all the weaker areas . I believe it would probably be best for some countries to leave the Eurozone in order to recover their financial viability . If say five countries left the Eurozone , the immage of the Euro would be greatly diminished . It is my guess that any country leaving the Eurozone will never return .
Two thirds of economists did not see a bail out , they see a default .
That too , may not happen ; but in the event of PIIGS countries needing a bail out , the money is only promised, not in place . Some PIIGS countries having to pay up might exacerbate the situation .
Herman Van Rumpoy is right " Euroscepticism leads to war " , the rising tide of nationalism is the EUs biggest enemy . It is my guess that the majority of European citizens are on the side of the enemy .
Let the war begin !!!
The EU will be in a similar situation to the USA in Iraq and Afganistan ; a NO WIN situation and a huge loss of face to withdraw .
Complain about this comment
"Decisionmaking at the Eu level is made in a democratic way."
I warned you I can get hernia from laughter. So phhhllleeeease!
Complain about this comment
"powermeerkat @ 12
In using the label EUSSR are you suggesting that the EU in future loookj to include the nations of the ex USSR. If so that is a brilliant idea - at least as a long term goaal."
Actually I was merely suggesting a similarity of modus operandi of Soviet Commissars and EU Commissars.
However, there are plenty of people in the EUSSR who suggest that Russia itself should be admitted not only to EU but also to NATO.
[That will be the day U.S. will finally leave the worthless Pact]
Complain about this comment
Buzet "He is merely doing in the EU what he has done in Belgium, and if it hasn't worked in a small country like Belgium".
The proponents of 'European identity" have failed to notice that Albanians, Bulgarians, the French, Germans, the Irish, Italians, Lithuanians, Poles, Norwegians, Swedes, Ukrainians, want to become Americans the moment they are legally admitted to the U.S.
Most certainly a pipe dream in case of EUSSR.
[Just as it was in case of USSR or Socialist Yugoslavia]
Complain about this comment
"you [PM] are guilty of massive hyperbole which undermines your credibility; or
- you believe this comparison I can only assume you went to school before we entered the EU."
I went to school when Soviet Union was occupying half of Europe it "liberated" (with no peep from progressive "Old Europe") and when there was still something called European Community.
[Which has degenerated by now into a semi-authoritarian superstate]
Complain about this comment
"Decisionmaking at the Eu level is made in a democratic way.
That's like saying Myanmar is democratic because the Junta have a vote before they do something."
For geographically impaired: that's Burma.
While EUSSR is in a part of Europe which U.S. prevented Soviets from 'liberating' in 1945 and keeping 'free' for almost half a century.
[a major mistake judging by many comments here]
Complain about this comment
margaret howard wrote:
powermeer You are becoming a bore.
If you can't take a heat, go back to the kitchen.
Complain about this comment
CWB "thrashes" Germans and their allies on this Veteran's Day.
How outrageous! ;-(
Complain about this comment
"I am from Greece and i study integration processes in Argentina. I would like to underline that the EU model is considered a quite successful form of integration here. "
Perhaps you should study instead economics of Argentina and an economic model which made it such an envy of the world.
[Post-Pinochet Chile will qualify for an admission to NAFTA - which will then become AFTA - much earlier than Argentina. Or even Brazil.]
Complain about this comment
Re #59 HUaimek: " The Chinese do not despise artificial manipulation of currency values , that is exactly what they do themselves , they object to the USA doing it."
I'm glad China is finally going to get some of its own medicine (artificially lowering exchange rate of its yuan by at least 30% to boost its export-based economy) and do hope we'll print another 600 billion greebacks in the second part of 2011.
[even if Mr. Hujintao and Mz. Merkel don't like it too much]
Complain about this comment
#63 powermeerkat
I went to school when Soviet Union was occupying half of Europe it "liberated" (with no peep from progressive "Old Europe") and when there was still something called European Community.
You might note these items from the Yalta and Potsdam conferences:
Yalta:Churchill alone [i.e. not Roosevelt] pushed for free elections in Poland. The British leader pointed out that UK "could never be content with any solution that did not leave Poland a free and independent state". Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, but forestalled ever honoring his promise.
Potsdam:Roosevelt had brushed off warnings of a potential domination by a Stalin dictatorship in part of Europe. He explained that "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man" and reasoned "I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
The latter possibly a misjudgment on Roosevelt's part.
Complain about this comment
The reality is that people who think that the UK will prosper by fighting the only trading block that will have it (the EU) are not patriots but zealots with no understanding of international trade and globalisation. Globalisation will force through the loss of sovereignty for truly large countries like Russia or China, let alone tiny UK.
The USA is in a different trading block and it is going to be a much diminished and anyway half hearted ally. The other thing many of our compatriots don't understand is that the UK is not what it used to be. The economy is dangerously dependant on a confidence trick premised on artificially inflated house prices, this will end, and the true effects and real size of the british economy will emerge. Without the crutch of the real-estate bubble, the british economy will be revealed as a fairly tame affair.
in a glibalised world
Euroscepticism is suicide..
nationalism/"patriotism" is the last refuge for scoundrels..
Complain about this comment
ThrenodioII
Re #50
"..civilised conversation.." is only possible if both in the discussion have knowledge & understanding of the topic and do not start from the premise 1 particular Nation has to be at fault irrespective of everything else.
You have an abundance of the positive qualities needed for thoughtful/thought-provoking conversation. Whilst I might sincerely disagree with You on several issues we do in our occasional exchanges write from that starting point.
As every previous Blog contribution & the '8' contributions between #31 & #51 on this Article so amply demonstrate the strutting critic of all-things English has neither knowledge nor understanding of the the UK: Most telling of all, he does not have the wit to acknowledge what he believes passes for conversation/debate is merely personal gratuitous, contemptuous prejudice against another European peoples.
E.g. Nothing in my #33 or #44 contributions mentioned 'nazis', or 'condemned Germans' still less claimed any 'superiority' for Britons (QOT #48). Indeed, nothing in #33 or #44 in any way suggested the UK will lead EUrope and free it from oppression' (QOT #49).
On the contrary, my #44 clearly puts the case of a UK Parliament re-asserting some Sovereignty via the 'European Union Bill': I point out, if it is enacted then other member States of the EU will look to see how it progresses (as Mathiasen so knowingly/understandingly put it at his #39 the UK is to some extent merely emulating Denmark). Thus, as the UK is such a notable EU member the impact of 'Referendum Lock' will be all the greater.
Only a Comment by someone completely out-of-touch with Political reality would try to imply the 3rd largest contributor to the EU making Law to possibly step back from further participation is 'not' a significant Political development.
It has to be said: The poor fellow cannot read English too well and I grant it is a handicap to his ever knowing or understanding the topics in a genuine manner (that said, I will readily admit his English is far better than anything I could manage in his German - - so, we should be pleased he does try to communicate with us 'nincompoops' - - only trouble is it is his own lack of depth lets him down at every stage).
Do hope You will continue to enjoy conversation with all & sundry on these Blogs: Your enlightened and straightforward contributions are in marked contrast to the absurdity of several contributors. Their ad infinitum complaints about the 'England'/'English' suggest an entirely obscurantist agenda is at work as though all EUrope's ills are resolved were England to go quietly into the political wilderness. Some go so far as to insist if England bend the knee and mea culpa thrice daily a cure for all the World's woes will have been found.
IMO, there is no genuine conversation, discussion or debate to be had with people of such wilfully ill-informed, prejudicial views.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Now lets hear the excuses and how Britain will free Europe from Serfdom !
Please don´t all rush at once !
http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/mep-leaps-to-defence-of-uk-deputies-over-attendance-record/
Here is another link for the weak hearted Geriatrics among us.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa
Complain about this comment
Clive Hill
Re #69
Absolutely agree.
Infact, so do all the reasoned, factual reality Histories of the period.
It was Churchill circa 1944-45 pressed for a more vigorous political challenge to Stalin. He had never had any doubts about the true intentions of Stalin's 'liberation' policy for East Europe. One reason for Churchill's insistence & support for France being included as a front-rank 'Power' at the Allied Conferences was his desire to have another European voice as G.B. was squeezed by the separate diplomacy of the 'Big-2'.
It was an aging, physically drained and intellectually weakening Roosevelt who acquiesced to Stalin's duplicitous gestures & assurances. This policy was continued to a great extent by Truman until 1946 as he sought to convince Stalin coexistence could include 'democratic' elections across all Europe post-conflict. Only after his election in 1948 did Pres. Truman properly articulate the late Roosevelt's 'Talk softly carry a big stick' Cold War stance.
Of course, it is only fair to add that quite what the USA would have been able to do or accomplish differently at Yalta & especially post-Potsdam than Roosevelt's compromise-line is very difficult to envisage. The immense task of confrontation of a victorious USSR that had paid such a sacrificial price in the defeat of Nazi Germany would have fallen almost entirely on it - - G.B. being in about the same condition as Roosevelt by 1945.
At that point respective 'military liberation' fait accompli in East & West Europe did mean addressing matters as they were on May 7th 1945 and not as the hindsight-revisionist Historians would prefer to recall & rewrite them.
In the most enromously difficult political-military-economic-social disaster of the 20th Century it is all credit to the USA for having stepped 'upto-the-plate' (Marshall Plan 1947 & funding-equipping NATO) as they say and taken on the role of saving a portion of Europe from rapidly withering into the political & military doom & gloom of the Kremlin's clutches.
Let us hope it is not too late for the recklessly boastful, egotists currently dominating the EU-Brussels entity to come to their senses and realise in the 21st Century the USA remains EUrope's greatest and most vital ally.
Have to admit seeing the policies of Paris-Brussels-Berlin hegemony I don't hold out much hope.
Complain about this comment
Re #72
I suspect no one on this Blog has even the remotest idea about EUrope's "..serfdom.." and still less of any connection with a Bill to be put before the UK Parliament concerning the UK establishing the 'sovereignty' of Parliament?
This isn't even 'piffle & balderdash', it is the jottings of the insane who've taken over the asylum!
Complain about this comment
CBW
To quote a famous American saying of WWll --
´The problem with the British -is that they are underpaid, undersexed and under Eisenhower !´
Perhaps you are keen to be drawn into the wars America suggest --but why should Europe sacrifice its foreign policies for continual Poodledom ?
Complain about this comment
@CLIVE HILL
Re "That's like saying Myanmar is democratic because the Junta have a vote before they do something."
Nope, because elections are not free in Myanmar as they are in the EU. So you will have to show how the situation in Myanmar is identical or ressembles to a large extent that in the EU.
@VSTRAD
Re "This cannot be proved, it is merely your assertion. It is certainly true that, after WWII, European integration was seen as a way to ensure that there were no more wars between European nations. However, it cannot be known whether this has, in fact, prevented any wars as this experiment has no control group. "
Indeed there is no control group. But economic integration (such as Eu integration) means greater interdependency, which means diminishing incentives to start wars. Therefore european integration has meant peace, not because it is european but because it is integration.
Therefore my assertion is a tad more than an opinion.
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "What You see as "..vague populist statements.." is in other Citizens' terms the Public Free-Will completely ignored by a 'one-size-fits-all' Brussels Political core aided & abetted by a wholly unrepresentative, unaccountable Parliament and self-serving, power accruing ECJ whose regard for the Individual Citizen is in 3rd place to vested 'big-Business/big-Government' interests and perpetuation/developing of their own power-base."
Again, it all sound really interesting and convincing to the uncrictical reader "free will ignored; unrepresentative and unaccountable; etc" but you are not saying anything in reality. Just bloated words. Some even plain lies. For instance: the Parliament is accountable because MEPs have to be re elected every five years. You POSTULATe the ECJ is self serving, but you don't show how this is done. And you postulate that the citizen is in third place to big government and business but you do not show how and even if it were the case you do not show how this is different from national politics (where, presumabely the citizen is in first place?)
In short, as you always do, you postulate without argumenting. You make unsubstantiated claims on the EU AND you fail to show how your claims apply to the EU but do NOT apply to national politics.
Re "Post-1992 & Maastricht whilst the the eastward expansion of the political-construct EU has gone on at a considerable pace, it would seem 'peace' has come at the price of individual EU Citizens being denied participation/consultation on the most significant political-economic-fiscal-judicial-military developments of the last 2 decades."
Again the same thing. Please show us how the citizen is being denied participation. And please enlighten us on the participation of the UK population in the most recent military developments in the UK: participation of the Uk in Iraq war, the nuclear power of the UK, the nuclear submarines etc.
Re As I've often written: I await with interest the reaction of Brussels to being thwarted by the UK in this manner and its referral of the issue to the ECJ. At that critical juncture every EU Citizen will grasp the inescapable fact most Britons have all along understood - - the EU is anti-Democratic at its core and will use artifical, biased, elitist Legal Appointees to subvert the Democratic Ballot box expression of Public opinion - - the implications for the continued existence of the EU entity in its present highly dogma-driven centralising form is very questionable. Citizens of EUrope will not take kindly to having 3, 5, 15, 27 Judges removing their Right & Responsibility to exercise their choices via Democratic consultation.é
Please oh please comment on this:
The British people have ratified the Treaties (under international law it is irrelevant how this is done, as long as it is according to the national constitutional requirements, which it is in our case). Therefore the UK has an obligation under international law to implement directives. If the UK refuses to implement directives it breaches its obligations under international law and this breach will be noted by the ECJ.
There is nothing undemocratic about it, because if the UK people are fed up with the EU, they can leave the EU. The fact that they do not get this opportunity is also undemocratic, but then you should blame the UK national government. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
@EUPRISONER
Re "EUpris: Bullproduct! The imposition of the Lisbon Treaty was dictatorship. The "EU" is a dictatorship."
If the lisbon treaty was 'imposed' on you, you should complain to your national government. So ask for explanation with Mr Brown and Mr Cameron, who promised you a referendum, but then backed down, as he obviously would do, because his country needs the EU.
Complain about this comment
CBW
Freedom is the right to say NO !
--Blame your own Government for being in the EU for that !
--But do not blame other European Governments for not saying YES to what you (and Britain) deem to be in the interest of the WORLD !
I have enough problems with right-legged Poodles as it is !
Complain about this comment
Re #75 & #77
Never know when to quit putting Yourself forward as the ass' rear, do You? Or, is it that Your English comprehension is really that bad?
Typical examples of some compulsive-obsessive disorder to lambast the 'English'!
Nothing I wrote in any way invites the follow-up attack-comments in #75 & #77.
Until You are able to contribute in a meaningful & substantive manner that does not involve simplistic diatribes against England & the English this attempt to include You in 'civilised conversation' is at an end.
Complain about this comment
"But all around there are big defining arguments over the future shape of Europe."
Where? Show me one.
This is pure wishful thinking from Hewitt. He wants to see big defining arguments because then he could report on something interesting. As it is, through no fault of his own, he is forced to report on the same old thing: the aristocracy of Europe meeting behind closed doors and saying sweet nothings to a press corp who are owned by political parties or private sponsors of political parties.
There are no "defining" arguments over the future shape of Europe in existence, simply because nobody can point to a variety of options on the table. The option for direct democracy is not on the table. The option for anything except control by the dominant parties is simply not on the table. The option to dismantle the vast transfer of taxpayers wealth from workers to the land owning gentry via the EU institutions is simply not on the table.
Nothing is on the table. No change, not a single idea for change, is being put forward.
Cameron's wet rag of a new law simply promises the same thing the house of lords promised, and that in itself is nothing more than a political argument that may or may not be tested. Ergo, parliament is the supreme power. No parliament may bind a future parliament.
And that is all very well, if you believe it. But whether a parliament may bind a future parliament is not quite the same question as whether a parliament may castrate a future parliament. IF a future parliament still has the power to make AND ENFORCE law, then of course it cannot be practically bound by past parliaments. But if a future parliament no longer has the power..... the practical, guns-on-the-street power, to make and enforce law..... then it doesn't matter what political philosophy you believe now.
The raw fact of political power is that if the various state police unions and military high commands of European nations become bought out of nationalistic sentiments, any parliament that goes against the wishes of the police chiefs and military commanders will be branded a riotous assembly and disbanded by force. Such a parliament, no matter well endorsed by the population, will be described as a terrorist and revolutionary gathering, and it's elected parliamentarians will die in police torture chambers and in front of firing squads.
If you doubt that this is the origin of political power, and you wish to dispute Chairman Mao's dictum that power comes from the barrel of a gun, consider the reasonably recent past of the European project.
The national socialists of Germany spread and cemented their power HOW, exactly?
We all know the reputation of the Gestapo and the SS. These bodies were simply the politicized branches of the police force, and the military. And what did they do?
They spread a message to bring a united Europe into being. They tortured and killed anyone who stood against their masters, and they worked on an international level. The gestapo and the SS were pioneers of international policing and law. They had to be. It was their grand task, as they unified Europe and defined who was a legitimate "leader" of the glorious European peoples.
The EU will continue to seek increased economic power of the various police unions and military establishments across Europe. This activity has been ongoing and increasing since the Treaty of Rome. If you examine the various ratchet clauses in the Lisbon treaty, most concern police activity and FUNDING for police activity.
As European national governments are forced by the bankers to slash their own national police and military spending, so too will the European police and military spending increase. That is what Lisbon achieves. It is called "increased European security", but this can only be true if you believe that national police forces are incompetent. What is really happening is not an increase in policing, but rather a transfer of competencies and funding from the national to the EU sphere.
And that is exactly what a student of European history would expect.
The EU was built and designed by the same people who established the gestapo and the SS, and who lament the passing of those glorious pan European forces of order and political righteousness.
There are no defining arguments occurring in Europe. There is just the relentless slide of a feudal and ultimately brutal political economy back into the dark ages from whence it originates.
Once again, Europeans are mere spectators as their lords and princes build secret police forces that operate beyond the rule of law. Democracy is as remote and as despised in Europe as it has ever been.
Sooner or later, there must be a reckoning between the ideals of the modern rule of law and the legitimacy of feudal titles and systems of political control. Sooner or later, it must be acknowledged that these tow things are mutually exclusive.
You simply can't have a democracy and the rule of law in a feudal society where one class of titled aristocrats has the lawful right to farm, tether and butcher the lower orders with impunity.
Complain about this comment
"margaret howard wrote: powermeer You are becoming a bore" "#65
powermeerkat wrote:
If you can't take a heat, go back to the kitchen
It's: If you can't stand the heat GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN. H.Truman
Complain about this comment
CBW:
"Until You are able to contribute in a meaningful & substantive manner that does not involve simplistic diatribes against England & the English this attempt to include You in 'civilised conversation' is at an end."
It is so refreshing to witness a chap of CBW's intellectual prowess laying down the law with regard civilized conversation.
I am filled with admiration for his splendor and bravery, and my vague suspicion that the very small cranium of the peacock indicates vegetative levels of intelligence cannot dampen my wonder at the rainbow of glory that fills the world when he is demonstrating his worth.
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Re #76
I don't propose to explain yet again how the EU Parliament is Unaccountable & Unreprersentative: You can claim whatever You like for MEPs facing their Constituents and I will deny any such thing occurs - - no EU Parliament is susceptible to nor concerned with its Constituents once it has been elected (by as we all know 4 successive less than 50% Voter Turnout!).
As for the ECJ it is a body of 27 Justices who have no option but to support the EU or they would never have been appointed: Similarly the ECJ has a legal framework that can and does over-ride National Parliaments authroity - - this is a supra-National Judiciary whose power to undermione, subvert, contradict the Democratically expressed Free-will of the Citizens is without doubt an ongoing dangerous threat to all EUrope's Democratic traditions.
It isn't "..just bloated words..", but as we long ago established as You have absolute contempt for Democracy and scant regard for Your fellow Citizen's Right & Responsibility to express themselves there is no surprise in Your assertion its all "...unsubstantiated" & "..postuolation" whereas You of course are the only correct version!
If You had bothered to read my #31 & #44 You would have noticed how I acknowledged UK was committed to the Lisbon Treaty & is in the EU: You would have noted all through I referred to precisely the situation now emerging - - the UK Parliament is to consider a European Union Bill that will set-up conditions for the re-establishment of Parliamentary Sovereignty. If passed into UK Law the EU-Brussels entity will need to address just how far it wishes to go in challenging that UK Sovereignty.
The clash that follows may result in a legal stand-off, or, it may have consequences as yet unforeseen: A future UK Government after the Coalition may indeed be more hostile/negative toward the EU and force the issue of which body (Westminster Parliament or Brussels) has ultimate authority. Just because an international document is signed does not mean it has to be obeyed forever & a day - - just see France, its hardly stood by any EU Directive or Legal constraint since Maastricht. Then again, why not take a look at the wholly illegal 'Bail-out' package cobbled together to save the EUro-zone from oblivion. After that patent breech of practically every EU Financial-Trading-Subsidisation order "PLEASE" Jean Luc don't try to tell any Eurosceptic the EU Rules & Regs are there for everybody's benefit!
You lie more than anyone, but then that is in the nature of any dogmatic 'pro-EU': It is in Your pro-Brussels' DNA to make-up a new set of self-serving circumstances at every turn of the political acquisition of control over all of EUrope. Your sort hate it that the UK still won't bend the knee as far & as often as the mainland - - You instinctively recognise the threat the UK's 'Referendum Lock' and would rather try to pretend that it is really nothing at all.
Well, if that is the case, why are You 'pro-EU' on here writing so much verbiage about how it isn't important and the English are again being fooled? If You know so much better than us illiterate, ill-informed English then just why is the 'pro-EU' lobby so fixated You all piled into this Blog to declare the Bill doesn't change anything!?
We shall see, Jean Luc: So far as I'm aware everything You & I have debated for the last 2 years has materialised fairly much as I argued. The EU has become less Democratic (I ask You again - - at which % Low Voter turnout does Brussels EP finally acknowledge it has NO MANDATE from its Citizens? If 2009' 43% isn't the figure, then do tell at which tragically low-point does Your EP cease being Representative?). The EU has encouraged the ECJ to become more involved in Political Judgements and the UK via this Bill has begun to distance itself from the notion a bunch of European MPs & Judges will continue to decide the UK's future.
At this point in time it is only a Bill and will have to go through all the hurdles of Committee hearings, the line-by-line examination of the detail, and MPs & Peers are at liberty to introduce amendements of all sorts (to weaken or strengthen depending on perspective): Indeed it will need to be reviewed with an eye to EU Legislation & International Treaty obligations, to say nothing of the 3 'Devolved' Governments' opinions (they tend to favour strong G.B. - EU ties).
So, there is much at stake: Not least the credibility of Cameron himself - - he has a large rump of EU-sceptic/Coalition-sceptic MPs in the Conservative Party - - to stay as Tory leader he'll need to keep the balance between 'Sovereign' UK & 'pro-EUropean' idealism. A juggling act that has unseated such Tory luminaries as Thatcher & Major - - there is nothing safe about Cameron's position as Leader anymore than there is about UK being bound by EU treaties - - they both are worth less than the ink they're written in!
Complain about this comment
#78 CBW
Then answer Jean Luc adequately --
--and consider the mind-set necessary for your contributions on this topic and previous !
Complain about this comment
Re #81
Oh no!
The droning poor sap of the Alpine slopes is amongst us again!
For those seeking his inimitable prose style & compassionate view of his fellow humans please refer to any number of his comments regarding 'dregs' & 'jews' etc.
Yes, I'm afraid that really is the measure.
Complain about this comment
lochraven
Re #80
I believe Powermeerkat meant exactly the jibe as he wrote it to Scotland's supreme whinger, i.e. 'back to the kitchen'.
Complain about this comment
The EU is nothing like the USSR.
It hasn't conquered anywhere.
It has no Gulags.
It has Freedom of Speech, of press, of religion, etc.
Its Parliament is freely elected and made up of several parties.
Its member states Governments are all democratically elected.
It is a free market economy, hell, that is one of its specific aims.
You have freedom to travel within the EU.
You have the freedom to leave the EU.
Member countries explicitly have the ability to leave the EU.
The Judiciary within the member states and within the apparatus of the EU is independent.
The USSR was the opposite of all those things.
It conquered places.
It had Gulags.
It didn't have Freedom of Speech, of press, of religion, etc.
Its Parliament wasn't freely elected and only had one party.
Its member states Governments where just as bad.
It was a state controlled economy, everything owned by the state.
You didn't have freedom to travel.
You didn't have the freedom to leave the USSR, hell, they built a wall in Germany to keep people in.
Member countries couldn't leave the USSR, you could expect tanks to roll up if you tried.
The Judiciary was a puppet of the state.
Maybe you CAN point out some superficial similarities, the EU is a tad socialist, the Commission isn't directly elected, the ECJ rulings sometimes (all the time) upset Euro-sceptics. But to say they are directly comparable is stupid.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Good idea: Leaving the Eurozone to recover ones own economy.
Unfortunatelly, there is no option like this in the treaty.
It should be changed! No bail-outs (forbidden in the treaty) any more!
Complain about this comment
Re #83
Classic 'nincompoop'!
Everyone is familiar with the obtuse, poorly researched 'links' etc. that take the place of debate/discussion.
Try #82.
Bye.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "I don't propose to explain yet again how the EU Parliament is Unaccountable & Unreprersentative: You can claim whatever You like for MEPs facing their Constituents and I will deny any such thing occurs - - no EU Parliament is susceptible to nor concerned with its Constituents once it has been elected (by as we all know 4 successive less than 50% Voter Turnout!). "
The thing is you do NOT explain. I keep asking you to substantiate your claims and you refuse.
Let's take a recent example again: the US general elections: turnout was again lower than 50%. According to your logic, this makes the US Parliament undemocratic, unaccountable and means that US citizens have spoken out against the Federal level of the USA.
Re "As for the ECJ it is a body of 27 Justices who have no option but to support the EU or they would never have been appointed: Similarly the ECJ has a legal framework that can and does over-ride National Parliaments authroity - - this is a supra-National Judiciary whose power to undermione, subvert, contradict the Democratically expressed Free-will of the Citizens is without doubt an ongoing dangerous threat to all EUrope's Democratic traditions."
It is clear you do not know how the Judges get appointed. They are proposed by their own governments (not by any EU institution) so it makes no sense to say they HAVE to support the EU otherwise they would never have been appointed. According to your logic they in fact would have to support national sovereignty otherwise they would not get nominated.
And again you fail to see the relationship between the judiciary and the legislator. Judges being able to quash decisions decided through democratic process is part of every civilized national state. If you claim this makes the EU undemocratic you should point out how this same characteristic present in national states does not make the undemocratic. Good luck with that.
Re "It isn't "..just bloated words..", but as we long ago established as You have absolute contempt for Democracy and scant regard for Your fellow Citizen's Right & Responsibility to express themselves there is no surprise in Your assertion its all "...unsubstantiated" & "..postuolation" whereas You of course are the only correct version!"
THeir right and RESPONSIBILITY to express themselves? It is you who are downsizing this responsibility. If they would act responsible we would have a higher turnout in elections! (national and european)
Re "If You had bothered to read my #31 & #44 You would have noticed how I acknowledged UK was committed to the Lisbon Treaty & is in the EU: You would have noted all through I referred to precisely the situation now emerging - - the UK Parliament is to consider a European Union Bill that will set-up conditions for the re-establishment of Parliamentary Sovereignty. If passed into UK Law the EU-Brussels entity will need to address just how far it wishes to go in challenging that UK Sovereignty."
It will go as far as the UK has committed itself. Which means the UK already lost substantial sovereignty.
Re "Just because an international document is signed does not mean it has to be obeyed forever & a day - - just see France, its hardly stood by any EU Directive or Legal constraint since Maastricht. Then again, why not take a look at the wholly illegal 'Bail-out' package cobbled together to save the EUro-zone from oblivion. After that patent breech of practically every EU Financial-Trading-Subsidisation order "PLEASE" Jean Luc don't try to tell any Eurosceptic the EU Rules & Regs are there for everybody's benefit!"
Do you actually read what I write? Of course it does not have to be obeyed forever and a day. That is why I am refering in EVERY post of mine that the Uk has the possibility to leave the EU.
Re "You lie more than anyone, but then that is in the nature of any dogmatic 'pro-EU': It is in Your pro-Brussels' DNA to make-up a new set of self-serving circumstances at every turn of the political acquisition of control over all of EUrope. Your sort hate it that the UK still won't bend the knee as far & as often as the mainland - - You instinctively recognise the threat the UK's 'Referendum Lock' and would rather try to pretend that it is really nothing at all."
I don't recall you caught me on a lie. I on the other hand pointed out to different falsities your posted on these blogs in the past. The only thing I dislike (not hate) is the UK's sitting on the fence. Either you participate or you bugger off. I don't really care about the sovereignty bill either, in fact it's quite a laugh and I do not know what Cameron wants to achieve by it, other than fooling UK citizens into believing the UK will reserver (or even regain) more sovereignty than other EU states
Re "Well, if that is the case, why are You 'pro-EU' on here writing so much verbiage about how it isn't important and the English are again being fooled? If You know so much better than us illiterate, ill-informed English then just why is the 'pro-EU' lobby so fixated You all piled into this Blog to declare the Bill doesn't change anything!?"
Lol, you are trying to present me as someone who dislikes the english and thinks of them that they are illiterate and ill informed. You won't succeed old chap. But the question is simple. De iure sovereignty for the UK would be to leave the EU (and all other international organizations and treaties for that matter), a little bill won't help. So tell us, why does Cameron not simply give you the possibility to leave the eU.
Re "We shall see, Jean Luc: So far as I'm aware everything You & I have debated for the last 2 years has materialised fairly much as I argued. The EU has become less Democratic (I ask You again - - at which % Low Voter turnout does Brussels EP finally acknowledge it has NO MANDATE from its Citizens? If 2009' 43% isn't the figure, then do tell at which tragically low-point does Your EP cease being Representative?)."
Democracy cannot be reduced to turnout at parliamentary elections. We could also say the EU has become more democratic because the only directly elected power has received more competences and decides on more issues than before. Obviously you 'forgot' this.
Re "The EU has encouraged the ECJ to become more involved in Political Judgements and the UK via this Bill has begun to distance itself from the notion a bunch of European MPs & Judges will continue to decide the UK's future."
And do you have an example of 'the EU' encouraging the ECJ to lay down political judgements? Or are just postulating random stuff?
Very interesting as well to read "a bunch of European MPs & Judges will continue to decide the UK's future." Those poor englishmen's future decided by nasty europeans! The reality of course is that the UK itself can simply let other EU member states know that it wishes to leave the EU. That would be the of the entire problem. Now why do you 'forget' this option and why do you prefere to hide the UK's political elite's OWN decision behind a facade of supposed continental coercive force?
Complain about this comment
Hot news from the BBC
"The Irish Republic is in preliminary talks with eurozone officials for financial support, the BBC has learned.
Correspondents say it is no longer a matter of whether but when Dublin formally approaches the Financial Stability Fund (FSF) for a bailout.
The provisional estimate for FSF loans lies between 60bn and 80bn euros.
The Irish government has not formally denied that it is in talks about accessing the FSF, insisting instead that "it makes no sense" to do so."
Any one like to guess how long the FSF is going to hold out for and how soon the UK is going to be asked to contribute money it doesn't have to save the sacred cow called the 'Euro'?
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Re #90
Quote, "..the thing is you do NOT explain. I keep asking You to substantiate your claims and you refuse.
Hmm, 3 things come to mind:
1) I've replied to You at #31, (indirectly at #44) & #82 - - I know as a 'pro-EU' You're never likely to be strong on figures, however, '3' is sufficient in my book to indicate a response of some depth to Your version of what is 'substantiated'.
Just to remind You our previous discourses always came down to this point: You try to tell me how I should debate and I in turn inform You that the rules are not Yours to insist upon.
2) Despite complaining (#90) I never substantiate You then write 11 full paragraph replies in between quoting each of what You allege is my 'refusal' to substantiate!
Now again, I recognise as a 'pro-EU' You will not actually consider any reply that does not chant "EU is good! All else is bad!" as worthy of consideration, however I'm afraid mate that is not how I and other EU-sceptics see it.
You have presented Your view (#15): I replied at #31; You riposted at #76 and I in turn at #82.
We conclude with Your #90 & my #whatever it is... I think You will find there is substance to my argument it is just that as an EU supporter You don't really want to accept any view except Your own.
3) JeanLuc, I'm afraid You have still to grasp the basic of this debate sequence: Much as You may consider what You write is above reproach and the unvarnished, indisputable truth of the matter at hand, there are those like me who do not agree and what is more we do not have to comply with Your version in any way, shape or form.
I have given several reasons of why the EU Parliament is Unrepresentative & Unaccountable: For You to continue to maintain less than 50% Voter Turnout at 4 successive EP Elections is an endoresement & mandate for the MEPs is plainly ridiculous. Whatever happens at National Elections is entirely a different matter from the EP Elections. If 50 down 43 is the EP succeeding in engaging, consulting & finding Citizen approval then by Your logic when under 43% Vote at the next Election it will be proof positive the EU Parliament need no longer hold Elections because Citizens must be content with the EU!
That is the state of Democratic Accountability the 'pro-EU' such as You are in all seriousness suggesting: A complete reversal of the idea of 'majority' & even of 'coalition' - - the 'pro-EU' maintains the less Citizens Vote the better the Political scenario - - it is dangerously anti-Democratic, but then You've often shown it does not worry You in the least.
JeanLuc, the EP most certainly isn't a corruption on the lines of Burma's recent insult to the term Democracy, but the idea that less than 1 in 3 Voter participation is Democracy in-action within the EU is ludicrous and if You were honest with Yourself for a moment You'd admit as much. The ECJ and the Commission have also failed to involve, consult seek approval/support from the Citizens. That some utterly remote, totally unaccountable Judicial body can decide on behalf of 500+million Citizens is a nonsense if Democracy is to function. There has been no response from the Commission or its President Barroso to the failure to engage with the Citizens: The complete sidelining of the EP as well as the total lack of consultation with Citizens during the 2010 EUro-crisis is indicative of the worsening Democratic-deficit within the EU.
I'm not going on with this: We've been here before and rehearsed these points many times.
Time will tell if You or I have got some things right/wrong: With the emergence of the UK European Act & the evident wish of the Paris-Brussels-Berlin hegemony to push for new Treaties the decade ahead is full of negative & positive possibilities for the UK and the EU.
Complain about this comment
Buzet 23
--As long as your Aristocrats milk it ?
Is the exchange rate fixed Euro/pound fixed for the CAP ?
Must Britain buy hard currency to pay its EU debts ?
Complain about this comment
CBW
´Time will tell -----´
I have been telling you for ages how UK politics work --you are in the EU until it becomes too dangerous for your closed ´Her Majesty´s´ system that has been perfected over the centuries.
That and only that, is the UK sovereignty you are defending ---the status quo !
--and the status quo is the reason millions have left Britain -- never to return !
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat (61):
European Union already includes former USSR Soviet Republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. And from the beginning of 2011 Estonia will be the first former Soviet Republic to join the Eurozone.
What goes to other former USSR Soviet Republics, many of them have declared goals on becoming members of the EU, most known examples being Ukraine and Georgia. In case of Russia, like I have said before, there is and there should not be any restriction on Russia to join the EU. Of course Russia would have to fulfil membership criteria and more importantly abandon its aspiration to be an independent world power and settle to be just another state inside a large federation.
In case of US-EU relationship, you might want to ask yourself, is it really in the interest of the USA to not be allied with the largest economy in the world that shares many common values and that is an peaceful democracy?
To general discussion...
Single nation breaking out from the Euro is more or less impossible. At my current employer we have been doing serious amount of work to handle Estonia becoming a Eurozone member. We also have done much work to transition to the SEPA system.
I would say that for most corporations and banks, it has become more or less impossible to move out from the Euro without 2-3 years time frame due to information systems. In the coming years when corporations and banks start seriously consolidating their Eurozone operations and information systems, it will become entirely impossible to withdrawn from the Euro. The corporations will be unable to do it.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "I've replied to You at #31, (indirectly at #44) & #82 - - I know as a 'pro-EU' You're never likely to be strong on figures, however, '3' is sufficient in my book to indicate a response of some depth to Your version of what is 'substantiated'."
Get this CBW, writing something in the box and clicking 'post comment' is not necessarily the same as replying to what I wrote.
Again you are trying to turn this into a discussion of me trying to impose things on you which I don't.
So let me write again which points you have not addressed, although I (implicitly) asked:
Voter turnout in the US is also below 50%, why don't you apply your democracy test on the US. Likewise (I mentioned this numerous times before) in some constituencies in the Uk turnout is also below 50%, why don't you apply your theory there either?
Re "Now again, I recognise as a 'pro-EU' You will not actually consider any reply that does not chant "EU is good! All else is bad!" as worthy of consideration, however I'm afraid mate that is not how I and other EU-sceptics see it."
Again you are playing man not ball. The problem is most of your posts are made up of personal attacks or other info that does not address the issues I raised, issues in your discourse which are problematic.
So you can reply to me by writing an entire book, if you keep evading the issues I raise, you are NOT replying.
Re "We conclude with Your #90 & my #whatever it is... I think You will find there is substance to my argument it is just that as an EU supporter You don't really want to accept any view except Your own."
No not really, try to count the number of times I explicitly asked you to give your elaborated views. Time and time again you refuse. So instead of actually repling to me you AGAIN play man and not ball by concluding I would not be interested in 'other' views.
Re "I'm afraid You have still to grasp the basic of this debate sequence: Much as You may consider what You write is above reproach and the unvarnished, indisputable truth of the matter at hand, there are those like me who do not agree and what is more we do not have to comply with Your version in any way, shape or form."
Again you are playing man not ball. I have asked you numerous times to give your elaborated views on certain issues.
Re "I have given several reasons of why the EU Parliament is Unrepresentative & Unaccountable: For You to continue to maintain less than 50% Voter Turnout at 4 successive EP Elections is an endoresement & mandate for the MEPs is plainly ridiculous"
In fact you have only given one. A turnout below 50%. I responded by asking your opinion on other elections where turnout in general or in specific consituencies is below 50% and you never gave a comment on that. Other than saying 'we are debating EU politics, not national politics'. That my friend is ducking questions.
Re "If 50 down 43 is the EP succeeding in engaging, consulting & finding Citizen approval then by Your logic when under 43% Vote at the next Election it will be proof positive the EU Parliament need no longer hold Elections because Citizens must be content with the EU!"
No idea how you can make such a conclusion. You seem to ill understand the nature of EP elections. It is not about voting for or against the EU. Just as UK General elections is not about voting for or against the UK.
Re "That is the state of Democratic Accountability the 'pro-EU' such as You are in all seriousness suggesting: A complete reversal of the idea of 'majority' & even of 'coalition' - - the 'pro-EU' maintains the less Citizens Vote the better the Political scenario - - it is dangerously anti-Democratic, but then You've often shown it does not worry You in the least."
You'll have to quote me saying that the less citizens vote the better. That is again you presenting a wrong idea and attributing it to your political opponent. Not only is it very uncourteous, but it is also an age old trick used by populists.
Re "the EP most certainly isn't a corruption on the lines of Burma's recent insult to the term Democracy, but the idea that less than 1 in 3 Voter participation is Democracy in-action within the EU is ludicrous and if You were honest with Yourself for a moment You'd admit as much."
I never said such a low turnout is good. And I have always deplored such a low outcome. However that is something different from concluding the EP is undemocratic and unaccountable.
Re "The ECJ and the Commission have also failed to involve, consult seek approval/support from the Citizens. "
Please tell me which court first seeks to approval of citizens before making judicial decisions?
Re "That some utterly remote, totally unaccountable Judicial body can decide on behalf of 500+million Citizens is a nonsense if Democracy is to function."
Please tell me how the supreme judges of the ECJ's accountability is different from that of national supreme judges.
So, I'll repeat them, so that you cannot claim to have responded to my questions whilst in fact you haven't.
How is low voter turnout unproblematic for national elections but so problematic for EP elections?
How are the judges of the ECJ and their accountability and competence any different from other supreme judges (in national jurisdictions) that makes the ECJ undemocratic and yet other supreme courts remain democratic.
Complain about this comment
#93
quietoaktree;
Are you aware that Britain is amongst the most transparent of all EU countries as far as CAP payments are concerned, and that Germany is amongst the worst?
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc to CBW:
"Re "the EP most certainly isn't a corruption on the lines of Burma's recent insult to the term Democracy, but the idea that less than 1 in 3 Voter participation is Democracy in-action within the EU is ludicrous and if You were honest with Yourself for a moment You'd admit as much."
I never said such a low turnout is good. And I have always deplored such a low outcome. However that is something different from concluding the EP is undemocratic and unaccountable.
Re "The ECJ and the Commission have also failed to involve, consult seek approval/support from the Citizens. "
Please tell me which court first seeks to approval of citizens before making judicial decisions?
Re "That some utterly remote, totally unaccountable Judicial body can decide on behalf of 500+million Citizens is a nonsense if Democracy is to function."
Please tell me how the supreme judges of the ECJ's accountability is different from that of national supreme judges.
So, I'll repeat them, so that you cannot claim to have responded to my questions whilst in fact you haven't.
How is low voter turnout unproblematic for national elections but so problematic for EP elections?
How are the judges of the ECJ and their accountability and competence any different from other supreme judges (in national jurisdictions) that makes the ECJ undemocratic and yet other supreme courts remain democratic."
And this is how the EU wins: because it really is no worse than the national systems it replaces. And when it is compared to the ridiculous UK system of sham democracy, with its Lords, bloodline heads of state, military worship and rampant nationalistic indoctrination, the EU looks OK. It might not be democratic, but at least it is arguably a step forward from the divine right of kings and the feudal system of the middle ages.
Jean Luc knows he is on strong ground debating with CBW. CBW is such a pompous and verbose nationalist that he will never be able to forgo his pride and sense of british superiority. And so, Jean Luc must win any reasonable debate. All he has to do is exactly what he does here: point to the UK and say "How is this any better?" All CBW can do in response is splutter and burble his pompous and arrogant indoctrination.
But note that Jean Luc has not answered the question about whether the EU system is democratic by any fair standard. He makes zero effort to argue that it is a good system, insofar as it genuinely tries to embody democratic principles.
He doesn't have to, and he is not stupid, so he leaves it alone. He knows the EU is a playground for European aristocrats. He likes that about it, because he is the continental equivalent of CBW: a class obsessed sycophant to power.
But if Jean Luc was for real, he would know that Europe does have systems where the judiciary are bound by the laws made by citizens. Switzerland, of course, is the example that proves just how bankrupt the democratic credentials of the EU are.
So Jean Luc avoids a debate with the Swiss reality, and instead focuses his energies attacking the pompous hypocrisy of the british myth, as it is so perfectly embodied by our resident English clown.
And that is how the EU will win. Because the choice is being presented to Europe as the british myth of the two party democracy owned by the aristocrats, or the EU system of two party democracy owned by the continental aristocrats.
Europe is going to go with the EU because they can't stand the hyper nationalism and incredibly arrogant indoctrination of the british.
Complain about this comment
lochraven wrote:
"margaret howard wrote: powermeer You are becoming a bore" "#65
powermeerkat wrote:
If you can't take a heat, go back to the kitchen
It's: If you can't stand the heat GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN. H.Truman
If someone doesn't get it, well he/she/it doesn't get it.
Complain about this comment
#97 C_C
No. ---any source ?
I only know that 2 Germans have managed that for individuals the publication of their names and amount received are not to be published.
For companies-- yes.
But for large private landowners --no.
Complain about this comment
#96
"Voter turnout in the US is also below 50%, why don't you apply your democracy test on the US. Likewise (I mentioned this numerous times before) in some constituencies in the Uk turnout is also below 50%, why don't you apply your theory there either?"
#98
"So Jean Luc avoids a debate with the Swiss reality"
The Swiss "reality" is the lowest electoral turnout of any democratic country in the world bar Poland. Now, why should anyone care about the Swiss system if the Swiss themselves dont care? Maybe it explains why an American has to do their evangelising for them.
Complain about this comment
Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, but forestalled ever honoring his promise.
Re #69 Clive Hill: Potsdam:Roosevelt had brushed off warnings of a potential domination by a Stalin dictatorship in part of Europe. He explained that "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man" and reasoned "I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
The latter possibly a misjudgment on Roosevelt's part.
Your're very kind to call it a misjudgment on FDR's part.
The only excuse might be that by that time he was already very ill and semi-senile.
The tragic blunder you've alluded to explains why in its aftermmath a number of presidential terms have been limited in the U.S. to just 2.
Complain about this comment
"Only after his election in 1948 did Pres. Truman properly articulate the late Roosevelt's 'Talk softly carry a big stick' Cold War stance."
CBWYou're referring to the "real Roosevelt"'/s (i.e. Teddy) famous walk softly but carry a big stick" advice.
However, one should remember that it was Truman's timidity, naivete and a lack of strategic perspective which led to his firing of McArthur and a subsequent stalemate in the Korean War for which we pay dearly till this very day.
BTW. At least some of us do remember valiant British military participation in that war.
Complain about this comment
@ CBW: so, only 43% of voters turned out for the EP elections? The fact that you did not vote is your democratic decision. Thus, the EP was democratically elected - by those who did choose to vote.
If your EMP does not offer opportunities to meet his or her electorate then you should write to them to complain. My EMP, here in France, holds surgeries (tho I have never felt the need to attend) - but then the EU is seen differently from here :-))
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Re #96
Quote from #92, "..Whatever happens at National Elections is an entirely different matter from EP elections." : I.e. a National/State Election involves the Citizens of 1 Nation - - the EP is a supra-national entity - - the idea that EU27 Populace can express their Democratic concerns never mind indicate any approval/consent/opposition/rejection at the supra-National level is a bogus, anti-Democratic ploy. What has the USA or UK, Malta, Sweden, Germany, Czech etc. National Elections to do with the Policy formulation & enaction at Brussels: Nothing whatsoever! The Ballot box for a Nation and the Balot box for Brussels are entirely different Political species - - You know this but wilfully refuse to recognise it - - the one Election directly corresponds to the National Citizenship; the other is some amorphous blob of humanity drawn from 27 states without any reference to Citizens' interests, concerns, beliefs, aspirations - - it just simply exists so EU-Brussels can claim a fig-leaf element of Democracy, but nothing about it is responsible to nor accountable to the Constituents across 27 Nations.
The EUropean Court of Justice is entirely different from any National Court as You well know, but again deliberately attempt to imply it operates & its judgements are just like those within a Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The ECJ can & does over-turn Policies Voted on and agreed by Nationally Elected Parliaments. It does so on the understanding it is applying supra-National authority placing Brussels' Law as supreme over National Law: That is the whole point of the 'Sovereignty' debate, JeanLuc - - the British tend not to like or approve of Law made without their Consent - - all this anti-English rhetoric by some (not You) on here is because they completely misconstrue the role of UK Parliament within the Un-Written Constitution: Parliament is the Law provider, but it also must operate inside the State with Citizens' participation & consent. Yes, there are times when Parliament appears to over-ride public opinion or put it to one-side: E.g. EU membership a case in point - - though, as I've often remarked I'm far from convinced this devisive issue would have a clear-cut Referendum vote for withdrawal; in a political sense every UK Parliament post-Maastricht has latched onto this aspect to avoid the ultimate Ballot box challenge. However, Parliament must answer its Constituents every 5 years or less (e.g. often 'less', such as 5 General Elections between 1997 & 2010 - - didn't notice the EU Parliament resigning & going to their Constituents early on a matter of principle!?).
Like the EU Parliament, so it is with the ECJ: It isn't concerned with the Electorate Citizenship, but with its set of constitutional edicts which are gradually supplanting every 1 of the 27's National Democratic process with rule by an "..utterly remote, entirely unaccountable Judicial body.." who have never received any Consent or Approval by Citizens. The ECJ is not a USA Supreme Court: It is NOT there to TEST & WEIGH-IN-THE-BALANCE the rightness of anything - - the ECJ role is to put the EUropean Union at the centre of Political deliberation in 27 Nations & ensure Brussels' perspective is the one that prevails.
The ECJ does not give a moments reflection to safe-guard, uphold the Rights & Responsibilities of the Citizens in a supra-National political construct whenever it might do so at the expense of ensuring the supra-National entity rules supreme over 27 National Governments.
If You don't get these vital differences by now then I am at a loss as to how further explain it for You!
As to the rest: I've answered all this stuff before and really am not willing to keep doing so. You support the EU in its present form, to my mind ipso facto You are anti-Democratic - - and yes, there are sections of some of Your previous contributions that do lend weight to the notion You don't mind at all if fewer Citizens vote - - however, I've also dealt with that before as well as Your low opinion of fellow Citizens. I'm not doing it again.
Complain about this comment
#101 C-C
--If I understand properly, the Swiss are voting all the time on various issues ?
The Government appears to be there just to keep things running ?
Complain about this comment
frenchdreck
Re #105
So, precisely as I was arguing earlier: The 'pro-EU' seriously are stating that a declining Vote is an indication of Democracy at work!
It would funny if it were not so incredibly dangerous for every EU Citizen.
I will ask You, frenchderek as I did JeanLuc, with 4 successive EP Elections having less than 50% Voter participation (& in 5 east European Ntions it was less than 25% turnout - - 3 of those being under 20%) when exactly is the Democracy in BrusselS so pleased with itself it need not bother with anymore Elections? Afterall, by Your argument the declining Vote is the indicator of success & contentment across the EU!
Complain about this comment
76 Jean Luc writes:
"In short, as you always do, you postulate without argumenting. You make unsubstantiated claims on the EU AND you fail to show how your claims apply to the EU but do NOT apply to national politics."
How true! He reminds me of a character in the satirical magazine Private Eye by the name of 'Dave Spart', forever ranting and raving.
An excellent set of postings, however I fear he will soon cut you off as he has done with everyone who has challenged his indoctrinated opinions.
As he says at 92:
"I'm not going on with this: We've been here before and rehearsed these points many times." Meaning I don't really know what else I can talk about without making a complete prat of myself.
Anyway, thanks for a most enjoyable read.
Complain about this comment
CBW
´The ECJ does not give a moments reflection to safe-guard, uphold the Rights & Responsibilities of the Citizens in a supra-National political construct whenever it might do so at the expense of ensuring the supra-National entity rules supreme over 27 National Governments.´
The ending of corporal punishment in British schools comes immediately to mind.
There was also a case on the Isle of Man many years ago ?
Complain about this comment
Re #95 Jukka Rohila
The biggest trade association is APEC - responsible for over half of global output and ecopnomic activity- whose leaders are meeting right now in Japan.
As for Estonia entering euro zone I hear that in view of the current crisis guite a few people in Tallin start to have second thoughts.
And as for Russia's qualifications for a membership in EU and NATO you may want to read that piece by a BBC correspondent who's just finished a 3 year stint in that country,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9184718.stm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#106
--If I understand properly, the Swiss are voting all the time on various issues ?
The Government appears to be there just to keep things running ?
Turnout at federal level was 49% last time. It is more like 30% at local level but I dont know how often the Swiss vote at that level, presumably varies by canton. Democraythreat?
Complain about this comment
#109
quietoaktree;
The Isle of Man is not part of the UK.
What point are you making with regards to the ending of corporal punishment in the UK (which was outlawed in 1987)?
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat (110):
EU isn't a trade association. EU is responsible for both governing the internal market and external trade affairs of the whole union. For example in the WTO it is the EU that is doing all negations with other countries not the individual EU countries. EU uses also power both against member states that break rules of the internal market, but also against other states that break their treaty obligations.
For example...
"In late Autumn of 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge — steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002 — and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs; in retaliation and under WTO rules, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan — each tariff was calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. Faced with the threat, the U.S. backed down and withdrew the tariffs early."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff
And what goes to Estonia, they made the final decision to join the Euro in the midst of the worst crisis that had hit Euro. They pretty well know what they are doing.
And what goes to Russia and to the article you linked, I don't see how that impacts Russian possible membership in the EU. If Russia and Russians want to have capitalistic society, then they can have it and be part of the EU as long as they fulfil the membership criteria including being a democratic country.
Complain about this comment
Nik
Here is a present for you !
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/judgment-of-the-uk-court-of-appeal-england-and-wales-civil-division-in-the-case-of-meletios-apostolides-v-david-charles-orams--linda-elizabeth-orams-january-19-2010-82802657.html
Complain about this comment
@ 55, EUprisoner209456731
I am speaking about my professors and not random people in the street. Mostly they give statistics on the success of the EU that are exact. Intra-zone trade, infrastructure etc. Lack of democracy in the EU is a problem. The Lisbon's treaty target was to give more democracy and transparency in the Union. The bigger powers the Euro-parliament was given is the proof of that. If the majority of people around Europe don't mind about voting for the EU-parliament it is clearly not the EU's fault.
@ 67, powermeerkat
Studying integration processes, means i am studying economics of Argentina, along with the rest of the MERCOSUR countries or Chile. If you are referring to the protectionist Argentina until '76, i agree. But that was other times. Then there has been a turn to liberal economies around the world that actually destroyed Argentina. By the way, you should know that the EU might be liberal (economically speaking) in the inside but it's highly protectionist to the rest of the world (CAP etc.).
As for the NAFTA and Chile... Argentina and Brazil have been offered to go into a free trade area with the US in the 90's. They rejected it because they were afraid their industries would be destroyed by the advantage of the yankee industry. Plus that Brazil has this vision of becoming South America's leader and going in a FTA with the US wouldn't help that. Look at the permanent place in the UN Security Council is looking for or the support to Iran for it's nuclear program. You can't be a world power if you don't have the atom bomb and Brazil is trying or will try to have it. Chile is a smaller country and might be beneficial for them to go into a FTA with the US. As for the chilean miracle, just check out how many people in Chile are under the line of poverty and if there is any welfare state compared to those of Argentina or Brazil (free education, hospitals etc.)
Complain about this comment
#51 - quietoaktree
"I cannot have a civilized exchange with nincompoops".
That would rule out talking to yourself in the mirror then.
Complain about this comment
The 'Orams' case!
As previously discussed, as previously referred to, as previously debated re 'Mrs Blair QC', Greek Cypriot Law heard in the UK, & the European Court ruling etc....
Not only utterly obtuse, not only struggling with comprehension, not merely unable to sustain any argument, but also some 36 hours behind the debate on this Blog!
It is getting too embarrassing to even point out this nincompoop's unending deficiencies!
Complain about this comment
Re #109
Adding to the demonstration of anti-English bile without knowledge or understanding on this Blog:
The Ban on Corporal Punishment of children in State Schools in England & Wales in 1974 & Public Schools in 2003 was of course as a result of a Judgement by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - - a Judicial body wholly unconnected to the EUropean Court of Justice (ECJ) - - not that it makes any difference to the fruit & nut contributions of one on here!
Indeed, contrary to #109, very sadly, nothing of substance 'comes' to that particular 'mind'!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #98
Emerging from the Alpine cave to find common cause with JeanLuc even though JL is promoting the thing that attracts the ire & outrage of the pontificating sage of the Swiss more than any other political debate on this Blog!
And for what?
Why to do-down CBW!
My, my... how minute an Alp is when up close & personal.
Complain about this comment
#93. At 3:52pm on 13 Nov 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
Buzet 23
--As long as your Aristocrats milk it ?
Is the exchange rate fixed Euro/pound fixed for the CAP ?
Must Britain buy hard currency to pay its EU debts ?
What debts, it's the sodding EU that has the debts with the UK.
Complain about this comment
Re #108
My censored #120 was a reply to You, Margaret.
It merely reminded You that for so long as You are remembered for writing in support of denigrating jews in Israel, the Poppy Appeal, Remembrance Sunday etc., Your chances of being on the same sentiment page as the Editors of Private Eye are about as likely as a Tetse Fly at the North Pole!
Complain about this comment
#71 - cool_brush_work
Your kind comment is appreciated but the bottom line is that many of the more interesting characters who used to populate this blog have simply given up. I am in e-mail contact with several of them and we seem to agree that the general tone is descending into gut-wrenching banality. Curiously enough, I really don't mind being hated for being British but I do object profoundly to being described as a 'nincompoop' and having my intelligence insulted by people who are plainly driven by prejudice.
I do recall that, occasionally, when we got out of line, Mark Mardell would quietly whip us back into shape. Maybe a bit of interactive engagement from Gavin might be useful but, to be honest, if I am going to carry on being hounded by people simply because they don't agree with me, my inclination is simply to get the heck out of it.
Complain about this comment
#123 - cool_brush_work
We are just in a never ending descending spiral. Starting with Americans who hate everything European, American expats who hate anything European with the exception of Switzerland, a plethora of people who hate everything British and a Scot that hates the English. All we need now is a progron directed at Brits who are shacked up with speakers of Finno-Ugric languages and you and I will end up sharing our own private facility - which would be infinitely preferable to some of the company we are currently keeping.
Complain about this comment
95. At 4:34pm on 13 Nov 2010, Jukka Rohila
You think it's impossible to leave the Euro, what foolishness, all banks and most international companies will have IT systems that handle multiple currencies and multiple accounting books. Just how is it impossible? Don't forget that to introduce the Euro that's how all the central banks and banks worked as I worked for a central bank to do just that.
Complain about this comment
ThrenodioII
Re #124
Very sad and unfortunately very true.
I did for a very long time resist joining in with the epithets. However, it gradually became clear to me that it was my being 'English' that many contributors found fault with and readily leapt in with all sorts of garbage.
Apparently to express a liking for one's English/British heritage & to consider alongside its many warts its substantial virtues is not to be entertained by quite a few on here. If one accepts at face value the sentiments of some on this Blog the 'English' are plague-level species Europe and the World would do well to eliminate.
I've got increasingly into 'lecture-mode' (as MHoward calls it) & I do regret it, but then to have people describe the nation of my parents & my children as 'degenerate' or worse is not acceptable to me. I'm afraid I'm not as decent nor civilised as Your good self: In any Pub were these things said in my prsence it would be fighting talk irrespective of my age or however many I faced.
Still, perhaps when all is said and done, as You suggest, the best thing is to leave these imbeciles to their ill-formed prejudices and look elsewhere for rational thought & interesting exchange of ideas.
My heart is with WebAlice etc. What an example of comradely spirit to one and all! The Russian among us demonstrating the 'civilised' nature that Europeans so like to claim as their benchmark: Why can't people contribute without dripping animosity against the English at every sentence?
Anyway, enough of it for today.
Cheers & luck.
Complain about this comment
CBW The #115
--- Osram case was ONLY for Nik ---and had NOTHING to do with your discussions.
---I had made that clear --so what is the complaint ?
Complain about this comment
#128 - quietoaktree
Well to be honest, if you insist on publishing links, you should be unsurprised if people follow them. Perhaps you should have put it in an envelope, marked it 'Private and Confidential' and posted it.
However, since you did post it, you may have noticed that "The UK Court of Appeal decision upholds the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of April 27, 2009 . . . "
So much for the theory that British courts do not have the power to rule on ECJ judgments. Where does this leave the argument of those who claim the ECJ is the supreme arbitrator of European law? Answers on a postcard please (marked 'Private and Confidential') to . . .
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (126):
The reason why it is impossible is because corporations consolidate their functions and systems. After the Euro, from operational and system point of view there is no difference between operations in Finland and in Estonia, they are all the same and they are all guided by the same ERP. After the SEPA, all bank transactions can be ran from a one bank and from one account.
Now when you operate under these conditions enough time, it will be impossible to move away A) because any change you introduce will shake up how you do business, and B) all systems are ran and are developed from the point of view of being operated under these conditions.
Complain about this comment
#124. At 8:27pm on 13 Nov 2010, threnodio_II
Quite so, pity CBW is not part of the e-mails.
Complain about this comment
#124 Threnodio
The ´nincompoop´remark was not directed at you --But in response, why serious argument was difficult.
#125, CBW, Buzet --Just drop the nationalism and we will get along fine !
-and stop acting like spoil brat cry-babies if we don´t accept it !
--Just look at your remarks about Scots, Irish, French, Germans, Greeks, Swiss, Americans, Spanish etc. --- and get a hold of yourselves.
Complain about this comment
#130. At 9:15pm on 13 Nov 2010, Jukka Rohila
Jukka, please go back to school, there is no operational or system point of view on this, all banks, companies have to deal with multiple currencies as it is not just the Euro or Dollar. The means of transfers, transactions is irrelevant, whether it be Swift or the European system they handle both. Your reasoning is flawed as nothing is ever cast in stone, especially if it involves accountancy or IT.
Complain about this comment
#93
quietoaktree;
Is the exchange rate fixed Euro/pound fixed for the CAP ?
Yes, once per year, at the moment its 1E = 86p
Interestingly, in 2006 it was 1E=68p
Must Britain buy hard currency to pay its EU debts ?
What debts does Britain have to the EU?
Complain about this comment
#132. At 9:22pm on 13 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
You are like a lost soul, swimming in a sea without knowing where you belong, it's really sad that you have never learnt to belong to somewhere and be proud and happy of a place. The rest of us have happy memories and whilst there is never a paradise, there are very good points about where we live or have lived. That's why we can't stand failures like you and some others who continually blame others for your misfortunes. I was happy in virtually everywhere I have lived and I will support those places, whether that be England (multiple areas), Belgium (multiple areas) or Germany (Dusseldorf). Your concept of Nationalism is quite frankly pathetic.
Complain about this comment
#134 C-C
-- Instead of debts, read ´payments´
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (133):
Maybe you should go back to work inside a corporation before commenting.
When you consolidate businesses to work as one, what you are doing is moving from several systems into a one, and from several units/persons doing same functions to having a one unit/person doing it. If you try to move away from that back to something else, you increase complexity, and you make it lot harder for the business to succeed and compete, because it overhead costs just exploded.
But lets approach this question from another perspective. How about we ask, how long would it take for an average American corporation to handle one US state moving away from US dollar on using their own state currency... My guess would be from "not possible" to "it will take years to realign our businesses and system to handle this".
That is the reality on how things will be inside the Eurozone in the not so distant future. Businesses will consolidate and they won't maintain any redundancies as that is overhead costs that they can't afford, they will be just the same as American corporations.
Complain about this comment
#129 Threnodio
---not my ball !
Only for Nik -- to show that some of the Ancient Brits and others in North Cyprus are on their own -
for the present--if they are living in Greek Cypriot property.
Complain about this comment
#137. At 9:51pm on 13 Nov 2010, Jukka Rohila
You seem to be working with some very limited scope people, accounting consolidation and consolidated reporting are all part of business, whether they use the same system or numerous systems. I really can't see why you consider that difficult, what do you think people like me used to do all the time with take-overs etc.
Complain about this comment
#136 - quietoaktree
Although I am not aware of any legal reason why this should be the case, the Treasury have traditionally funded their EU contributions from the proceeds of indirect taxation. As someone pointed out in an earlier thread, the current increase in VAT should more than cover increased payments and should make no difference to the sums available to spend domestically.
In fact, CC is quite correct. The UK is a net contributor both to the EU budget and the CAP and there is no indebtedness. I note that you have corrected this while I was writing this post.
I also notice in the past hour it has become clear that Ireland is in discussion for bailout funds (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11750676). I derive no satisfaction from this and feel for those who are suffering but it does suggest that the UK may be much better placed than others and that gleeful predictions of the UK's imminent economic demise may be greatly exaggerated. Painful it may be, terminal it is not.
Complain about this comment
#137 - Jukka Rohila
If only you were right. The reality is very different. I do not work within the corporate environment but work with several large ones and I never cease to be bewildered by the extravagantly complicated network of corporate identities, subsidiaries, associated companies, offshore holding companies and other mechanisms they use with the deliberate intention of tax avoidance. Given the astronomical fees that their corporate lawyers, accountants, auditors derive from this, I am beginning to think that the money saved is far outweighed by the expenditure lavished on this pretense. These businesses are not consolidating. They are fragmenting into individual entities each requiring management systems, executive structures and so on the whole purpose of which is push money around until it gets lost.
Complain about this comment
#141. At 10:20pm on 13 Nov 2010, threnodio_II
Quite so, dealing with multiple entities is bread and butter to any half decent accountant, as to the benefit, well I guess that depends on legislation, taxation rates, as well as tax avoidance and of course tax evasion (that which is illegal).
Complain about this comment
#140 Threnodio
This financial mess is far from over. During the next two years the Sub-crime problem is expected to be at least the same again for America. Ireland´s housing bubble has burst, although it seems the UK has more of a ´personal credit´problem (Question?), if the banks stay the way they are.
The low Euro only helped for a few months, however I doubt that the 60 billion Euros for Ireland will help much against the 600 billion dollars being printed. I am not enthusiastic that Germany will be able to keep the 3% growth with an ever decreasing dollar -- and many of the other EU countries, definitely not their lower growth.
With at least 1 million more unemployed expected in the UK -- its going to be hell for many more until this financial roulette is controlled.
Complain about this comment
#140
"I also notice in the past hour it has become clear that Ireland is in discussion for bailout funds (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11750676). I derive no satisfaction from this and feel for those who are suffering but it does suggest that the UK may be much better placed than others and that gleeful predictions of the UK's imminent economic demise may be greatly exaggerated. Painful it may be, terminal it is not."
The Celtic Tiger is now a rug. I dont know what the sterling value is of Britains exports to Ireland, but they amount to 35% of Irelands imports. An imploding Ireland is the last thing Britain needs right now, for both economic and political reasons.
Complain about this comment
#100
quietoaktree;
Re: our CAP conversation.
http://www.farmsubsidy.org/transparency/
For discussion only, i am not attacking your anti-monarchy standpoint, just putting the point of view across that the reason you can find newspaper articles about CAP subsidies in Britain is because the information is so easily obtainable (from DEFRA) as opposed to say Germany. Germany has been dragging its heels from the start on this, and following the case of those 2 farmers, has brought down its website, so is even more opaque than before. I ask you to consider that point equitably when discussing the "island of the uninformed".
Complain about this comment
#143
With at least 1 million more unemployed expected in the UK -- its going to be hell for many more until this financial roulette is controlled.
Agreed, but it should be noted that the governments cuts are a 5 year programme, not overnight.
"although it seems the UK has more of a ´personal credit´problem"
An eye-watering £1.5 trillion pounds (excluding mortgages at £1.2 trillion).
Complain about this comment
145 C_C
If I remember correctly, I heard (read) the 400,000 for Sandringham from the German media and that publishing was compulsory. I don´t know what German website had the info. as foreign links are not allowed on the blogs. My computer just striked as I tried your ´Farmsubsidy link however it has been published before on the blog.
I was flabbergasted to hear that UK personal debt (per capita ?) was higher than in the USA --
´We are living in interesting times --- but why does it have to be us ?´ --to quote some wisecrack.
Complain about this comment
#145C_C
--just looked at the German Government site. They say it the info has been taken down because of the court case.
This would imply the info was there previously. I do faintly remember some farmers were not happy about their names and amounts being published ---and obviously started a court case to fight publication -- probably that stopped some (all ?) publication until the appeal was heard.
´The land of the uninformed ´championship has not yet been lost.
Complain about this comment
#145 C_C
The website says the permitted info. will be published --when the new rules are set.
German farmers may get 30% less CAP after 2014 (as the other original EU members ?) to pay the Eastern European farmers. Wasn´t there talk of UK cuts as well?
Complain about this comment
I say this from way over here
Power meer Kat you are welcome to stay:)))
If I and WebAlice can be here you can too :)))
Too, bad Margaret is taking out her unpopularness on you:)
I like you Margaret, but that was no class apparant :)
Its everyone else whom insults you not us or powermeerkat
How ungrateful you are :)
He at least writss a perspective--I myself believe in the EU and Europe,
he is just being funny and you are not laughing
Here this is how it goes,
heheheehehhe
Repeat, resume and attack ur criticizers or
better yet ignore those and go on commenting :))
Complain about this comment
BTW,
Margaret, if you (remember this is only advice)
give your opinion,
instead of naming the dumb dumbs you end up better off,
hmmm fighting back, I like your spunk...
also, I get sick, too of negative opinions,
Why can we not talk about postives for once!
*see below
Complain about this comment
At 12:30 pm on Monday after noon, NASA is scheduled to
give a news conference about a discovery in our cosmos
What is it ...does anyone have any ideas???
planet inhabitable, making all this ummm nothing much or
alien spaceship? or ....or what are the ideas here,
prejudice gene discovered in Europe...once man entered elsewhere the gene
called prejudice against tribes of un-related peoples was created
that is what I wanna know -- does prejudice equal hate against non incestous peoples????
hating non relatives?
Yuk all that incest
Complain about this comment
Its maybe why America IS more successful....we variete our species while you all just carry on more and more less sucessful variety
Complain about this comment
btw, if anyone does care---where is Marcus?
I hope he isn't sick or worse...
has discovered other commenters on other blogs
ohhhh nooooo ..
Complain about this comment
#70 CitySlicker
Globalism is the biggest evil of our time , next to religion , computers and television .
The EEC was a trading block and still could be today , and there would be no arguments .
Maastricht , you name it , Lisbon , the EU and the concept of ever closer union is the problem today . The British people have never accepted John Major's signing of the Maastricht Treaty . Britons are not alone in not wanting to be part of a single federal state of Europe .
If you want a European trading block ; go back to the EEC , have a commonwealth of nation states . As "Rumpy Pompuy" says
"Euroscepticism leads to war" . Your economic and fiscal commonsense are on the losing side . There is a state of passive civil war in Europe , the EU and everything it stands for is the enemy . As things stand the EU will never go forward ; if push comes to shove against the democratic will of the people , there will be national riots right across Europe , as we have seen already .
The EU needs to reduce itself to a small central administration of the sovereign member states . Get rid of the commission , the parliament , the ECJ , the European court of Human Rights , get rid of the vast numbers of bureaucrats , pare the costs down to the minimum , return to the EEC .
Complain about this comment
So you are saying, in essence, less centralisation, Huaimek.
Equals more...what?
More traditions preserved?
I'm all for less cloning of culture. We need more diversity not less,
but more trade:))
Is that it?
Complain about this comment
That is why an independent Russian is so important, Web Alice.
More diversity for the "world." Oh, I hope for life on other planets!
Complain about this comment
#137 Jukka Rohila
That is , if the Euro has not already colapsed in the not too distant future .
It is another very good reason why Britain does not join the Euro .
Complain about this comment
#156 Stevenson
Yes , I am saying do away with the centralisation , it will ultimately sink the ship .
Equals Less EU central control .
Yes , preserving national traditions , more national diversity rather than less . let every country govern itself how it wants to , without central interference . European countries have an advanced civilisation and culture , which is being destroyed in the name of progress and by huge influx of external immigrants .
When you say more trade , what can you mean , when nearly , if not every country in Europe has huge debts and some countries are bankrupt .
In terms of trade , I suspect the EEC was as a effective as the EU , if not more so . The EEC was about trade the EU has a priority of creating a single federal state of Europe , no matter what the cost .
" Friends who become Bedfellows often fall apart "!
Complain about this comment
agree look elsewhere
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (139):
Reporting and accounting are for recounting the history of business. That is not that that difficult to do. The hard part what I'm talking about is doing the actual business: what to sell and to who, what to do and who to do it, etc..
Complain about this comment
#148 #149
quietoaktree;
There was some information on the German site, they meet the minimum standards as specified by the EU. The point is that a) they were the last to do so, and b) you cant see how much, where they are located, have not allowed the data to be downloadable, cross-referenceable, missed out whole years worth of information, not included search functions on the data (it was just an enormous list of names (This person or that person is a recipient, and thats it, on a.pdf format). That kind of thing, you know, the dragging of heels and being as obstructive as possible without breaking the law.
(Greece cant even manage the minimum)
"´The land of the uninformed ´championship has not yet been lost."
I'm afraid, on this particular issue, Germany narrowly avoids relegation, whilst Britain is in the Champions League. Greece would be bottom of the league with no points. I would strongly suggest a rethink on the issue, not withstanding your views on wealthy royals receiving CAP, which I share.
"The website says the permitted info. will be published --when the new rules are set. "
Yes, clearly the British are no more immune from the restrictions of law than the Germans are, they can only publish what they are allowed to. But the willingness is there, and that cant be said about Germany. You have to wonder why, hiding behind privacy laws doesn't cut it with me. I really want to see who gets what, and how much, in Germany. It would make your hair curl i'm sure. The German nobility may not have any advantageous rights under the law anymore, but they still exist. I wonder how much CAP this Baron gets for example?:
"Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg....He gets more than he needs from his family estate in Bavaria. If duty impels him, German politics will be all the richer." Source: the guardian (link included blog comments so I assumed it might get rejected)
"German farmers may get 30% less CAP after 2014 (as the other original EU members ?)"
Watch and see the hell that will cause in Germany, when the big collective farms and the large industrial producers (like the sugar industry) have their say.
Complain about this comment
Re #114 Jukka rOHILA
Perhaps you should re-read BBC correspondent's piece written on the eve of him leaving Russia after 3 years.
It's not so much about capitalism, as about a general lawlessness, rampant alcoholism and, last but not least, massive corruption.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9184718.stm
Complain about this comment
#148#149
Further to my comments on German nobility:
"Though the formal power of the German nobility is gone, it still remains a considerable social force. After the debacle of World War II, the aristocracy gradually reformed in groups based on religious affiliation or province of origin. For well over 30 years, these groups have been affiliated as the "Vereinigung der Deutschen Adelsverbaende" and published the monthly "Deutsches Adelsblatt" in the small town of Westerbrak (now part of Kirchbrak). The legalistic "Deutsches Adelsrechtsausschuss" was set up, composed of members from various noble and chivalric organizations, to determine in questionable cases who belongs to the nobility or if a person has a right to a noble title he claims. Only if there is a positive judgment by this organization can someone join one of the nobles' associations or have their family listed in the Gotha.
It has been estimated that there are some 40,000 nobles of all ranks in Germany today."
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm#p3-2
I wonder how much CAP they get between them, German secrecy stops me from finding out. It also stops me from finding out who has land and how much is inherited. The Guttenbergs certainly pass their land down the family tree.
"He resides at his family castle in Guttenberg, Bavaria (district of Kulmbach), a village whose history is closely associated with the House of Guttenberg, and in a mansion in Berlin. The castle has been in the possession of the Guttenberg family since 1482. The Guttenberg family owns most of the land in Guttenberg and has the right to appoint the local parish priest, in return for their financial support of the church. The family has had this right for several centuries"
Since 1482....owns most of the land in Guttenberg....has the right to appoint the local parish priest in return for the financial support of the church. Hmmmmm
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 Re #135 & ThrenodioII Re #125
Hear, hear!
At the top of this Blog is an article about Britain's Government introducing a Bill on future UK relations with the EU.
Early on You and I comment on this article and on the meaning of the Bill and possible implications for UK - EU political evolution.
Instantly the mind-numbing anti-English verbiage gets underway! Immediately QOT informs us the English are fools, being conned, are serfs, don't understand etc. etc. Our comments that stuck precisely to what the article was about are dismissed as nationalist, flag-waving etc. etc. and because we are unintelligent nincompoops etc. etc.
Likewise with DemocThreat, almost no thought given to the topic, just a reductive work-out of spleen against an 'English' perspective - - this from someone who labels the 'English' as baby-killers, most bloodthirsty race, rapists, slaves of a monarchy... has never written positively on Britain/England - - and wonders why there is a lack of respect!
I have 4 fairly lengthy exchanges with JeanLuc, a 'pro-EU' about the UK - EU relationship - - a Scottish contributor reads the 8 Comments and all she writes is insults about the 'English' person: No critique, no joining to offer different viewpoint... CBW is English so I'll spit...
The outright prejudice is quite amazing and very saddening.
It beggars belief any of them is attempting debate/conversation and not simple, plain, crude, deliberate antagonism toward English contributors.
"drop the nationalism.." and 'we'll get on fine'! What a sick joke: In other words don't write explaining the British/English perspective, just admit UK/England is always at fault and the EU/Europe is marvellous.
We should recall ThrenodioII is 'pro-EU' but as he's 'English' he gets the same vitriolic flack as those of us who view it in a different light.
"look what you've written about..." others - - remarkable - - he clearly identifies each of the National Contributors who write as he does... i.e. lambast the English without pause or thought... and admires them.
Completely oblivious he displays the style of deliberate insult that is all their trademark, e.g. "...stop acting like spoilt-brat cry-babies".
It never occurs to him neither do the 'English' have "to accept it".
The oddest thing is that You, me, Thren all live in Europe: We have considerable family, work & cultural experience of both sides of the Channel - - that too is held against us - - though DT's 'lifestyle' is similar because he is anti-English he does not qualify for the blanket condemnation by others... Strange, or part of a motivational pattern!?
We live, write & read in interesting Blog times.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
#152
"prejudice gene discovered in Europe"
#153
"we variete our species while you all just carry on more and more less sucessful variety"
Another one who thinks irony is what you do when your clothes are creased.
#154
if anyone does care---where is Marcus?
No, not really. Do you and powermeerkat intend to carry on his good work?
Complain about this comment
#161. At 07:53am on 14 Nov 2010, Jukka Rohila
Reporting and accounting are not just for historical comparisons etc, they are for controlling the business and for making future predictions, trends etc. To change a business and make it inflexible is a recipe for disaster as part of business is being flexible and able to make changes quickly to follow trends, market changes, legislation etc.
Complain about this comment
#162. At 08:03am on 14 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie
Your last paragraph reminded me of how large a say the sugar industry have regarding the CAP in many of the EU's member states. I noticed their market share a few weeks ago and remember being surprised as to how large it was. I can just bet there are an awful lot of lobbyists across the EU, bunging and twisting the arms of the politicians.
Complain about this comment
I miss him !
Marcus was last seen 8th November on BBC blogs !
Complain about this comment
The UK is the home of clubs from gentleman clubs to various type of clubs.
If the members of the clubs behave like the UK in the EU club by now will be impossible to purchasing a black ball.
If you are member of a club you duty is to give 100% to make the club the best in the world.
Giovanni
Complain about this comment
"Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg....
All 10 of them?
Complain about this comment
#168
Buzet;
Already profitible Euro big business and already wealthy landowners (yes, including aristocrats all across Europe) take the lion's share of CAP payments, not the ordinary farmer. That creates powerful lobby and vested interest groups, way way way more powerful than the influence the British Queen has over the EU, or over anyone for that matter.
Given the number of CAP millionaires there are in Germany , France and Italy, the average payout of £12,000 made to UK farmers seems positively pitiful. The system is broke and its the givers not the receivers who need to sort out a better way to ascertain recipients income, in an area as complicated as land.
Complain about this comment
Re #166 re#152
It's a tough job but someone's got to do it.
Womans work is never done.
[even if you're not a Scottish fishmonger]
Complain about this comment
#171
"All 10 of them?"
I wondered that at first! Until i saw Freiherr at the end and realised it was one person lol. Imagine my surprise when i discovered who he was... an aristocrat, married to an aristocrat (Stephanie, Countess of Bismarck-Schönhausen) with a mansion in Munich and inherited lands in Guttenberg....and he's the German Minister of Defence.
Complain about this comment
I can't be bothered to once again argue the EUrosceptic case.
I'd just like to confirm my opposition to the UK being a member of this nascent federal supra-national superstate.
And Giovanni (@170), if the EU is a 'club' I do hope that if we don't leave you will expel us. I am sick of paying membership fees for other members to drink, dine and fornicate at my expense.
Complain about this comment
#170
If the UK received a black-ball from the EU, they would take it and put it on a table behind a triangle of 15 red balls and carry on playing.
Complain about this comment
Re 174 re #171 champagne_charlie
Very few Russians know that their all time favorite leader -besides Georgian Soso Djugashvili aka as Stalin- Catherine the Great
was actually Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg from Stettin. :-)
Complain about this comment
"Imagine my surprise when i discovered who he was... an aristocrat, married to an aristocrat (Stephanie, Countess of Bismarck-Schönhausen) with a mansion in Munich and inherited lands in Guttenberg....and he's the German Minister of Defence."
I was once allowed to view (with gloves on) an original print of Guttenberg Bible in the Library of Congress.
But I never thought... WOW!!!
Complain about this comment
#170. At 09:30am on 14 Nov 2010, john
In most clubs where you have a nasty little clique the club self destructs by many of the members leaving, especially those that thought they were joining a friendly club and were willing to pay their membership fees for the benefit of the club. Having a self appointed clique is always a disaster and the EU is no exception with France and Germany being the manipulating little clique.
Complain about this comment
#178
I was once allowed to view (with gloves on) an original print of Guttenberg Bible in the Library of Congress.
Gutenberg (one 'G') and not related but still, I envy you that. I dont know whether the British Library copy can be viewed by appointment or not, or just online, I must check that out. An amazing EUROPEAN achievement ;)
Complain about this comment
#177
Very few Russians know that their all time favorite leader -besides Georgian Soso Djugashvili aka as Stalin- Catherine the Great
was actually Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg from Stettin. :-)
I think the same applies to the British view of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas....
Complain about this comment
#76 Jean Luc
@CLIVE HILL
Re "That's like saying Myanmar is democratic because the Junta have a vote before they do something."
Nope, because elections are not free in Myanmar as they are in the EU. So you will have to show how the situation in Myanmar is identical or ressembles to a large extent that in the EU.
Elections to the EU parliament are free and fair. The EU parliament is not, however, the final arbiter of EU law. For the most part, the Council of Ministers - which is only indirectly elected - is.
Further, EU law is proposed by the EU Commission which is appointed.
All of that was most obviously manifest in the increase in the EU budget. The ratchet effect was obvious. The increase to 5.9% was proposed by the EU Commission. The increase was approved by the EU Parliament. It was only disapproved of by the Council of Ministers.
Now, you can argue that that's the democratic deficit as work. The elected body being thwarted by the indirectly elected body.
Do you think that any opinion poll conducted in any EU country would have approved the 5.9% increase ?
The 'democracy' involved in the EU, such as it is - and as others have pointed out, turnouts are low and policy understanding is poorly explained everyhere and limited by its arcaneness - this 'democracy' is too distant to be classed at the same level as national democracy.
Would you say the UN is a democratic institution ? Would you say that UN ambassadors carry out the will of their peoples ? Would you say that their peoples even understand what they do ? I believe the EU operates at a similar level. Whereas the UN is confined to areas of foreign policy, however, the EU makes decisions much closer to home.
You can argue that the rulers of Myanmar were appointed originally (as generals and other military officers) by a democratic government. They were therefore indirectly elected. Since then they have appointed others, rather as the EU Commission is appointed.
On the bill in the UK parliament concerning UK sovereignty - it is pointless. Constitutionally, in the UK the UK parliament is supreme. That means that the UK can legally reverse any EU law's effect in the UK by voting against it in parliament. Treaties are irrelevant.
Do you think the EU would enforce such a law ? Explain to me the mechanism by which they would do it.
Complain about this comment
champagne_charlie wrote:
#178
I was once allowed to view (with gloves on) an original print of Guttenberg Bible in the Library of Congress.
Gutenberg (one 'G') and not related but still, I envy you that. I dont know whether the British Library copy can be viewed by appointment or not, or just online, I must check that out. An amazing EUROPEAN achievement ;)
Charlie, you may be pleased to learn, that thanks to some primitve, uncouth Yanks (I can't take a credit since I'm a Confederate) you may now view Guttenberg Bible and similar priceless European prints (and paintings) in super high resolution on the net.
If you have fiber optics 100 Mb/sec connection.
Complain about this comment
champagne_charlie wrote:
#177
Very few Russians know that their all time favorite leader -besides Georgian Soso Djugashvili aka as Stalin- Catherine the Great
was actually Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg from Stettin. :-)
Charlie: I think the same applies to the British view of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas....
PM: True, just as that there were quite a few pro-Nazi British aristos, including a certain pre-WWII monarch....
[Not that an American hero, Lindbergh...:(]
Complain about this comment
C-C
There was definitely a court injunction placed on the name publishing until a decision -- this would be normal.
The land owned by German ´Nobility´are known (as far as I am aware) --in Britain this is not the case. I dislike argumentation justifying inequality within a society -- with the claim others are just as bad -especially if simple nationalism is the reason.
The overrepresentation in Governments and ministries by those of nobility, wealth or religion is a problem for most Democratic countries --- even in America. I make no excuse for it--no matter where it occurs and if it influences political decisions.
Within Germany (reunified) the previous land owners could buy their Eastern estates back (price?) --those who did would probably also receive CAP funds. Furthermore, a buying spree of land occurred in Eastern Europe by ´Westerners´buying up the cheap farm land --counting on the CAP subsidies.
If given the opportunity my critique is far from one-sided (to repeat--I have lived in 3 societies).
I´ll willingly make a deal with those contributors who leave cheap nationalism out of their argumentation --not to criticize at the same level --any takers ?
Complain about this comment
RE #185
---At the same (previous) level.
For those only too willing to misunderstand !
Complain about this comment
#185 - quietoaktree
"The overrepresentation in Governments and ministries by those of nobility, wealth or religion is a problem for most Democratic countries -"
Your point would be a valid one were it not for one consideration. In order to serve in government, these people first have to mandated. The simple truth is that, however wealthy they may be, they have been elected and it would be entirely wrong for them to be excluded from the democratic process simply because they are rich and aristocratic. If you take Otto von Habsburg for example, he is the legitimate claimant to both the Austrian and Hungarian thrones. Nevertheless, he has been an elected member of the EP for many years and his democratic credentials are impeccable.
I personally very much dislike the mechanism by which British governments can bypass the democratic process by simply 'booting someone upstairs' to the Lords so that they can become a minister without all the hassle of being elected but it is nether fair nor true to tar other European systems with the same brush.
Complain about this comment
#183
Charlie, you may be pleased to learn, that thanks to some primitve, uncouth Yanks (I can't take a credit since I'm a Confederate) you may now view Guttenberg Bible and similar priceless European prints (and paintings) in super high resolution on the net.
If you have fiber optics 100 Mb/sec connection.
Pfft, I wish! Thats the trouble when BT has a monopoly over telecomms infrastructure. Can you believe the main trunking from the exchange to my local junction is fiber-optic but they pulled copper through from the junction to the houses to save money.....So...2meg is my limit due to line length. I should move, to an area with Virgin cable but the wife thinks internet speed is a poor reason to do so :)
Complain about this comment
#185 - quietoaktree
"I´ll willingly make a deal with those contributors who leave cheap nationalism out of their argumentation --not to criticize at the same level --any takers ?"
That has always been my position and I don't think I am open to the accusation of 'cheap nationalism'. I do, however, reserve the right to say so when I think the British have something right and I really don't see why I should hold my tongue when I feel she (or anyone else for that matter) is being unfairly criticised. Now if that is nationalism, no dice. I prefer to think of it as free speech.
Complain about this comment
What is it with Globalists? In the past, there were free nations that could resist a despotic state from aggression. We fought the Nazis in the last war. In the globalist utopia, there would only be one organizing structure. If that structure falls under the control of a bunch of despots at a future date, you can kiss any form of resistance goodbye.
We want national sovereignty Herman, and you are right, it is the enemy of a meglomaniacal supranational state, and the ambitions of a bunch of power hungry control freaks.
Complain about this comment
#187 Threnodio
There are many titled (as others) who are definitely ´worth their salt´ --those I did not intend to criticize.
Some are given safe areas to contest or elected on a party ticket (%) others as in Germany had been given Foreign Office jobs for life (the recent Aussenamt(?) scandal. Most countries are still plagued by such practices.
Unfortunately ´Jobs for the Boys´is especially true in some countries more than others -- Law and the Military are other popular areas.
Complain about this comment
#185. At 11:05am on 14 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
"I´ll willingly make a deal with those contributors who leave cheap nationalism out of their argumentation --not to criticize at the same level --any takers ?"
Ah, all the arguments of a spoilt child who won't play unless he/she/it has its own way in everything, personally I think it's better just to leave a spoilt child to play by itself alone, rather than appease and succumb to the attempt to control.
As threnodio just said, free speech, and if I wish to praise or criticise a country or someone then so be it, that's not nationalism. You seem to have a phobia about -ism's and see them under every stone, get a life and move on.
Complain about this comment
#189 Threnodio
So be it !
Complain about this comment
#190 Vryman
You are optimistic !
--the end is one company !
Complain about this comment
#190 -Vryman
"We fought the Nazis in the last war".
Yes we did but we did not beat them. What finally did for them was a grand alliance of Brits, Americans, Commonwealth and empire nations, resistance movements, and a number of other countries which either threw off their burdens and changed sides or were quietly supportive from the side lines. Even then, it was only possible with the involvement of one of the nastiest and bloodiest dictators in history in the form of Stalin. It was a concerted international effort.
After all that, we still were left with Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, Tito in Yugoslavia, Ceauşescu in Romania. We have had atrocities in Bosnia following the break up of Yugoslavia, a military junta in Greece, years of chaos in Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Basque separatism, Bader-Meinhoff, Red Brigades - oh and the small matter of a Cold War, bloody uprisings and repression in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland - and that's just in Europe.
I am not personally a globalist but I am a regionalist. Nation states are simply not powerful enough to resist overwhelming forces and collaboration between like minded nations is a far more effective in action and a far greater disincentive to any mavericks who would raise their heads above the parapet.
Complain about this comment
178 powermeer wrote:
"I was once allowed to view (with gloves on) an original print of Guttenberg Bible in the Library of Congress."
GUTENBERG with one T. Johannes Gutenberg was a German printer, GUTTENBERG is a small town in Bavaria. Incidentally there are two Guttenbergs in the USA, one in Iowa and one in New Jersey.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "National Elections to do with the Policy formulation & enaction at Brussels: Nothing whatsoever! The Ballot box for a Nation and the Balot box for Brussels are entirely different Political species - - You know this but wilfully refuse to recognise it - - the one Election directly corresponds to the National Citizenship; the other is some amorphous blob of humanity drawn from 27 states without any reference to Citizens' interests, concerns, beliefs, aspirations - - it just simply exists so EU-Brussels can claim a fig-leaf element of Democracy, but nothing about it is responsible to nor accountable to the Constituents across 27 Nations."
At last we have arrived at the core of the issue.
Let us recap: you accuse the EU of being undemocratic. So to prove this you need a democracy test, your test comes down to voter turnout below 50%.
That is your 'democracy test'. But now it is revealed that your 'democracy test' which you implicitly have presented as a general test, is (to you) in fact a very specific test that you only wish to apply to the EU. For some reason national polities that are called 'democracies' do not have to pass this test in order to be democracies.
What is this reason we might guess? You don't have a really good reason, you just postulate that the EU and national states are 'different'. Of course they are different, but your 'general democracy test' should not be. Democratic standards do not change. Basically your difference comes down to the very subjective notion of citizenship. You feel national citizenship is something 'natural' therefore by default the national level is presumabely democratic. To you the EU citizenship is 'unnatural' therefore the EU is by default undemocratic.
This might be how you 'feel' and you have all right to, but please do not represent your 'feelings' as the result of objective analysis of democratic feautures of the EU polity.
Re "The EUropean Court of Justice is entirely different from any National Court as You well know, but again deliberately attempt to imply it operates & its judgements are just like those within a Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The ECJ can & does over-turn Policies Voted on and agreed by Nationally Elected Parliaments. It does so on the understanding it is applying supra-National authority placing Brussels' Law as supreme over National Law"
Again the same problem: You do not 'like' those judges having the competence to note the incompatibility. But simply postulating the ECJ is different from other supreme judges won't help you further. This is again your problem; you think you have proven they are different by simply claiming it. That is not the case.
Supreme national judges also have the competence to declare local or regional legislation as incompatible with the (federal) constitution.
Re "Like the EU Parliament, so it is with the ECJ: It isn't concerned with the Electorate Citizenship, but with its set of constitutional edicts"
You have a very wrong view about the seperation of powers. Judges are there to uphold the law, not to be concerned with the electorate. This is so in every modern national state, and likewise for the ECJ.
Re "The ECJ does not give a moments reflection to safe-guard, uphold the Rights & Responsibilities of the Citizens in a supra-National political construct whenever it might do so at the expense of ensuring the supra-National entity rules supreme over 27 National Governments."
have you actually ever read an ECJ judgment? i can give you a ton of judgments where the ECJ makes those balancing exercises you claim it never does.
So perhaps you won't believe this, but (to conclude) you have NOT shown how the ECJ and EP are different from national supreme judges and parliaments. The argument you gave on elections is sentimental and the ones on the judiciary were refuted by me. Please give us other arguments and please tell us why the US general elections (despite turnout below 50% were democratic).
@CLIVE HILL
Re "Elections to the EU parliament are free and fair. The EU parliament is not, however, the final arbiter of EU law. For the most part, the Council of Ministers - which is only indirectly elected - is.
Further, EU law is proposed by the EU Commission which is appointed."
Since Lisbon, the EP and Council are on most issues co legislators (not in defence area). So you are a bit outdated there.
The council of ministers in turn is composed of ministers accountable before democratically elected national parliaments.
The Commission is a feature unique to the EU level yes. One can note that in reality the vast majority of national legislation is also proposed by the national executive and not the national legislator.
So the major de iure difference between the EU and national state (not even de facto) is the right of proposal of the Commmission. I don't really believe this makes the EU undemocratic.
Re "The 'democracy' involved in the EU, such as it is - and as others have pointed out, turnouts are low and policy understanding is poorly explained everyhere and limited by its arcaneness - this 'democracy' is too distant to be classed at the same level as national democracy."
Well, if people don't want to put in effort in 'understanding the EU' they shouldn't complain about the EU either. It is very simple. And yes democracy works better at lower levels. But 'nationalists' cannot use this argument because a lot of competences which are situated at the national level should go to a lower levelif this principle would be applied for real.
Re "On the bill in the UK parliament concerning UK sovereignty - it is pointless. Constitutionally, in the UK the UK parliament is supreme. That means that the UK can legally reverse any EU law's effect in the UK by voting against it in parliament. Treaties are irrelevant.
Do you think the EU would enforce such a law ? Explain to me the mechanism by which they would do it."
Treaties may be irrelevant to national law, but under internatonal law (which i presume the UK would still respect unless it wants to be a paria state) it is bound by its commitments: pacta sunt servanda.
So if through this national bill, the Uk does not honour its obligations under the EU treaties, the ECJ will first order the UK to respect its obligations and in a second ruling order it to pay fines.
Again under the EU treaties the UK has the obligation to implement these rulings (incl paying fines). If the UK then refuses to implement EU legislation and those rulings it has de facto set itself outside the EU.
What happens next is indeed very interesting. I hope you agree that if the UK de facto sets itself outside the EU, it should just let the other EU MS know that is wishes to leave the EU. If it doesn't, the other MS may de iure establish a new international organization without the UK but keeping everything else of the former EU.
Obviously it won't come to that. The Uk will just honour its obligations, because the UK needs the EU. Mister Cameron might get a lot of votes by going on about 'UK sovereignty' but he knows himself the UK has given away already a large part and will have to honour its obligations.
This is something some people here find hard to grasp: 'Brussels' never stole anything, it was given to 'Brussels' out of free will by national politicians (ministers and parliamentarians). In the case of the UK: UK leaders had to beg three times (two refusals by De Gaulle) for the then EEC to be willing to take over part of UK sovereignty.
Complain about this comment
@ Jean Luc: thanks for that - you said it so much better than I could. I would still argue that - whilst EP election turnouts have nothing to do with democracy - the fact that the electorate are barred from electing the President of the EU Commission is, to me, anti-democratic. And that is the fault of national leaders (eg Mr Cameron or his predecessors) - as are too many of the EU democratic problems. They see the EU as their "club". How they agreed that, under Lisbon, the powers of the EP should be increased is puzzling.
As fas as anyone leaving the Euro is concerned it's not a question of corporations or even of central banks - it's that all the necessary steps would take so long. And you can't expect the markets to sit on their hands whilst this is happening. They would drive the leaving nation's banking system into the ground: the mess would be bigger than anything yet seen (Brazil included), since all other countries had the ability to devalue their own currencies, whenever they (and the IMF) wanted.
Complain about this comment
#197 - Jean Luc
"UK leaders had to beg three times (two refusals by De Gaulle) for the then EEC to be willing to take over part of UK sovereignty".
Oh heavens, learned and intelligent argument shot straight through the foot in the final paragraph. Nobody begged anyone for anything. De Gaulle's veto was entirely predictable the first time around and not unexpected. The request - not a plea - was a approach to test the water. There must have been something the British to believe that they had addressed some of the de Gaulle concerns when the second application was made but clearly that was not the case. It was also entirely predictable that, post de Gaulle, the objections would fall away.
As to the 'willingness to take away some of the sovereignty', you appear to forget that the EEC was a free trade area. It has since evolved into something much more political and, while Britain has certainly drawn lines in the sand that other members have not - sometimes to the frustration of others - the UK has voluntarily conceded sovereignty on a range of issues by negotiation. No one has ever gone cap in hand to anyone.
Complain about this comment
#197 Jean Luc
Treaties may be irrelevant to national law, but under internatonal law (which i presume the UK would still respect unless it wants to be a paria state) it is bound by its commitments: pacta sunt servanda.
The European Communities Act 1972 makes clear that the UK Parliament is supreme in all UK law, especially vis a vis the EU. This law was the basis on which the UK entered the EEC.
So if through this national bill, the Uk does not honour its obligations under the EU treaties, the ECJ will first order the UK to respect its obligations and in a second ruling order it to pay fines.
Again under the EU treaties the UK has the obligation to implement these rulings (incl paying fines). If the UK then refuses to implement EU legislation and those rulings it has de facto set itself outside the EU.
What happens next is indeed very interesting. I hope you agree that if the UK de facto sets itself outside the EU, it should just let the other EU MS know that is wishes to leave the EU. If it doesn't, the other MS may de iure establish a new international organization without the UK but keeping everything else of the former EU.
The thing about that is, what is the legal position of the 'former EU' ? Presumably all of the treaty obligations still exist but for one disputed area. There is no question anyway of this becoming a legal wrangle. It will be political.
Obviously it won't come to that. The Uk will just honour its obligations, because the UK needs the EU. Mister Cameron might get a lot of votes by going on about 'UK sovereignty' but he knows himself the UK has given away already a large part and will have to honour its obligations.
EU law has been broken many, many times by EU member states without penalty. Most recently by the French over the Roma. The French have made some face-saving publicity for the Commission and that will be that.
Much more obviously, the Stability and Growth Pact was violated over and over again - and the criteria for entry to the Euro volated to death by various member states. No sanctions were imposed. Creative accounting was used. A skill the EU learned from its audits.
This is something some people here find hard to grasp: 'Brussels' never stole anything, it was given to 'Brussels' out of free will by national politicians (ministers and parliamentarians). In the case of the UK: UK leaders had to beg three times (two refusals by De Gaulle) for the then EEC to be willing to take over part of UK sovereignty.
A year before the Treaty of Rome was signed, France secretly applied to be a member of the Commonwealth. The UK prime minister of the time turned them down.
The refusals by De Gaulle were because he feared the influence of others on the CAP, through which France was milking West Germany - and because he wanted France to be the primary foreign policy force in the EEC. The UK was another permanent member of the UNSC.
The UK was also represented on the committee of the European Coal and Steel Community from which the EEC was formed. Britain declined to join, mainly because of Euratom, this article suggests. I have seen a documentary which interviewed a foreign office official of the time who said that problems with the UK unions were much more of an issue.
This was because the core of the EEC was the Coal and Steel community and it was feared many UK jobs would be lost.
Complain about this comment
@Frenchderek
Re "Jean Luc: thanks for that - you said it so much better than I could. I would still argue that - whilst EP election turnouts have nothing to do with democracy - the fact that the electorate are barred from electing the President of the EU Commission is, to me, anti-democratic. And that is the fault of national leaders (eg Mr Cameron or his predecessors) - as are too many of the EU democratic problems. They see the EU as their "club". How they agreed that, under Lisbon, the powers of the EP should be increased is puzzling."
Direct election of EU president could indeed enhance accountability. It should be noted however that the leaders of teh national executives do not get directly elected either!
Threnodio
Re "
Oh heavens, learned and intelligent argument shot straight through the foot in the final paragraph. Nobody begged anyone for anything. De Gaulle's veto was entirely predictable the first time around and not unexpected. The request - not a plea - was a approach to test the water. There must have been something the British to believe that they had addressed some of the de Gaulle concerns when the second application was made but clearly that was not the case. It was also entirely predictable that, post de Gaulle, the objections would fall away."
Yes, begged is exagerated. It was used to emphasize that it was the UK who wanted membership of the EEC, not the other way around.
Re "As to the 'willingness to take away some of the sovereignty', you appear to forget that the EEC was a free trade area. It has since evolved into something much more political and, while Britain has certainly drawn lines in the sand that other members have not - sometimes to the frustration of others - the UK has voluntarily conceded sovereignty on a range of issues by negotiation. No one has ever gone cap in hand to anyone. "
The EEC was NEVER a free trade area. This was the whole point why the UK didn't want to be a member in the first place. It was a customs union with already then the seeds of political integration. The UK did not like this and therefore established teh EFTA (Europeean Free Trade area), this WAS the Free trade area the UK wanted. But only a year after its establishment the UK saw that the benefits of eec membership were much larger, and therefore applied to the EEC.
Quite baffling that these simple facts (EEC: Customs union, therefore unacceptable at first to the british; EFTA; free trade area) are unknown..
Complain about this comment
QOT
I know you are interested in who owns what in Britain as regards to the Queen, the royal family and hangers on aristocrats. You might be interested in the following article in today's Sunday Times under the headline:
Scots breeze in to grab Queen's wind farm cash
......
The Crown Estate has plans for about 7,000 offshore turbines to be licensed over the next decade, raising up to £250m in rent from energy companies each year. Under a new agrement with the Treasury, the Queen could reap up to £37.5m a year from the Crown Estate, with a significant slice generated from new offshore wind farms.
....
A Scottish government spokesman said: "Post-devolution it is an anomaly in that Crown Estate commissioners who MANAGE THE SEA BED UP TO 12 MILES FROM SHORE AS WELL AS THE FORESHORE, are not accountable to Scottish ministers or the Scottish people. The Scottish government is determined to ensure we secure the benefits of this bounty."
I know you have had some arguments with a few contributers as to German aristocrats benefitting from CAP but I bet there a none in your country who own the foreshore as well as the seabeds up to 12 miles from the shore!
Complain about this comment
200 Clive Hill wrote:
"A year before the Treaty of Rome was signed, France SECRETLY APPLIED to be a member of the Commonwealth.
What the article actually said was:
France SECRETLY CONSIDERED membership in the 1950s, under the leadership of Prime Minister Guy Mollet.
Quite an important difference.
Complain about this comment
#202MH
Thanks !
The usual culprits laughed me out of town when a I posted link mentioned sea coast Rights.
´The land of the TOTALLY uninformed -and proud of it ´
Complain about this comment
And for the Scots among us !
http://www.oilofscotland.org/
Complain about this comment
#204
"The land of the TOTALLY uninformed -and proud of it"
I see a leopard will never change its spots.
Complain about this comment
#199 Threnodio
In the 70´s Britain was again on its knees --hardly a free choice of equals. The pound went from DM8 to DM 2.20 (or thereabouts) over the next years.
The slang for DM10 note was still ´Ein Pfund´
Britain was in its usual mess --and only The ´privatization´ of Scottish oil saved it.
Or is it Her Majestys oil ?
Complain about this comment
#206 C_C
I offered my hand --and a Gauntlet was the reply !
My hand is still offered to those who accept it !
Complain about this comment
JeanLuc
Re #197 & #201
As You well know there is a practical difference on which I base all my 'democracy' points and which You signally fail to address with every one of our exchanges over the years.
The EU is NOT a Country: It is supra-National and has none of the in-built qualifications of centuries or even mere decades as a recognised singular, political entity.
Thus, for example, one of the literal landmark contributions to the evolution of England and Great Britian was the Ordinance Survey Mapping of the 18th Century; further back one might use Magna Carta, the Parliamentary-led Revolution against King Charles; nearer the present day the international Treaties that took the UK into NATO, the EEC (even Maastricht!); and specific to modern Britain the transition to 'Devolved Government'.
None of those are present in the political-construct called the EUropean Union: It of course has ante-cedents, but it is not a Nation, not a State and is not in any way representative of the 500+million Citizens inhabiting it.
Its semblance of 'Democracy', the utterly Demographically illogical & totally Geo-politically nonsensical EUropean Parliament has no Mandate to even exist never mind an Electoral Concensus for it to act for those 500,000,000!
Each State within the EU has a National 'sovereign' Parliament/Assembly etc. and they can trace their Mandate to the Citizens of a cohesive National identity such as G.B over 800 years or Finland less than 100.
As the supra-National EU does not have any Democratic legitimacy it therefore follows that none of its institutions have any right to act for European Citizens.
I do not have the "..problem.." with liking or disliking that Yiou try to imply: That is Your problem - - You wish to supplant the Democratic National identity & traditions with a supra-National entity - - because it is You that does not 'like' and opposes National Parliament, National Judiciary, National Cultural-Social Identity etc.
Your supra-National EU Parliament cannot point to 1 election in the last 4 where it managed to attain even 50% Voter Turnout: You cannot point to 1 National General Election where such low Citizen participation occurs.
I do not "..postulate.." the Nation & the supra-National body are "..different..": They self-evidently are in every aspect of the normal measures of a State's existence or there would be no need to call it a EUropean Union!
It is not mine, but Your "..problem.." to "..prove.." the EU is merely a larger form of the State with all its institutions simple extensions of those at National level: I don't have to claim or prove anything about the UK's institutions being valid. History, Heritage, Culture & Society amply demonstrate the UK is a legitimate, verified, Citizen approved entity that evolves as the pages of time turn.
Nothing of the sort is presently available from the EU-Brussels political-construct: By no stretch of the 'political' imagination does it have Citizen approval or consent; I'm afraid for so long as supra-National Treaties such as Maastricht & Lisbon amply demonstrate the lack of Citizen consent. It therefore follows, the EU does not have institutions recognised by the public-at-large. Neither do those key institutions the Commission, EP, and ECJ display that concern & interest in the Citizen that all Democratic States do by their Representation, Accountability & Consultation of their Citizenry.
Pact sunt servanda is meaningless and almost a robald joke! Since when did it apply to France & Germany when they realised they had to bail-out Greece or risk the EUro-zone collapsing: JeanLuc the 'Bailout' was illegal under EU rules - - it didn't make a blind bit of difference the moment the big2 decided they needed soemthing different! Then there's the recent EU moves to official oversight of the Financial sector of every member State: Pact sun srvanda!? What does that mean in terms of Lisbon that gave no authority for Brussels to introduce such measures (never mind a complete lack of consultastion of the Citizen Tax-payers for the bailout or the new reguolations!)? JeanLuc, the EU simply ignored all protocol, all procedure, all National Rights to impose its own rules.
Please, next time You tell me about the value of International Treaty obligations do include an example of the EU-Brussels sticking to it in the manner it requires of the Nations!
Complain about this comment
Re #202
Lost bet!
Try to research ownership of Germany's coastline before You spout off yet again without a clue as to the factual reality!
Complain about this comment
#208
"I offered my hand --and a Gauntlet was the reply !"
It doesnt take much for you to revert to type though does it?.
Ok then:
That website is from the Scottish National Party, the same people who wanted Crown Estates matters left out of the Scotland Act 1998(devolution) and the same people who intend to retain the English monarch following independence. They may or may not be right about Scottish oil - but I'd find a more impartial source if I was you. Just thought you should know.
I dont know about Germany's coastline but I'm bloody well going to find out now, if Germany will let me. I wonder how many aristocrats I dig up who own coastline and sea rights? But in the meantime, some more blurb about the great Republic that you are no doubt totally uninformed about:
"Germany’s 88 million acres contain 46 million acres of farmland. Of 550,000 farms, 24,000 are greater than 250 acres and consolidation is ongoing. Most farmland is rented. The following are the German princes, families and ‘Houses’ owning between 100,000 and 300,000 acres each: Prince of Thurn and Taxis, Prince Hohenzollern, Hohenloe family, Bismarck family, the Bavarian Wittlesbachs, House of Hanover, House of Saxony, Wurtternburgs, House of Castell, House of Wittgenstein, Hohenloe-Langenburgs, House of Hesse, Prince Biron von Curland and the Tettau family. Protestant churches own between 25,000 and 50,000 German acres."
Additionally:
On one of his sprawling Bavarian estates, multi-billionaire Prince Thurn and Taxis is constructing a 475-acre solar farm capable of supplying 18,000 homes with electricity. German renewable energy subsidies guarantee the Prince $25 million a year in net income for this project. "
There must be a lot of this going on. So, a Prince in a country that has no monarchy is earning subsidies to guarantee him $25 million per year from leasing some of his 200 year old inherited aristocratic land to an energy company, despite him being one of the richest aristocrats in Europe. Sounds IDENTICAL to all the complaints you make about subsidies paid to British aristocrats.
Complain about this comment
#209 CBW
If it is NOT known ´Who owns Britain ´
--Aren´t you defending a virtual world ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/who-owns-britain-biggest-landowners-agree-to-reveal-scale-of-holdings-443956.html
Complain about this comment
#211 C_C
How do you get the impression I defend Feudal or any other thievery ?????
--- you have not changed spots -- or am I mistaken ?
Complain about this comment
#202 - margaret howard
#204 - quietoaktree
Here we go again. You throw selectively gathered data around as those it represents the whole picture and draw inferences which show a terrible lack of insight into the reality on the ground (or in this case, the water).
First things first. Let us get the facts right. The nation (in the person of the Crown) owns the seabed - but not the water above it - to a distance of 3 miles from high water mark, which makes something of a nonsense of the 12 mile theory. Even this is disputable since it appears to have come about by convention arising from the ownership of reclaimed land in the Thames Estuary in the 15th century. It has never been challenged in court and the convention has therefore stuck. I am sure the Scottish Assembly could mount a legal challenge if it was minded to do so.
Secondly, this is far from unique. The United States, for example, has seen a number of legal challenges over the years but the rule that has generally been upheld is that states with a coastline own the seabed for a distance of 3 nautical miles and the federal government to 12 miles. This therefore means that the law is broadly the same. The only distinction is that the UK, as a monarchy, has the ownership as being in the person of the Crown. I know you both have a problem with the concept of monarchy but that is an entirely different issue.
" . . . but I bet there a none in your country who own the foreshore as well as the seabeds up to 12 miles from the shore". Ask anyone who has been involved in offshore drilling in West Africa or routing the North Stream pipeline and you will discover that it is a more or less international norm. How much was that bet for?
It may also have escaped your attention that wind is air in motion. Unlike oil or gas fields, which can be geographically located, wind can come from anywhere. It is not Scottish wind (and heaven knows there is enough of that, usually packeted in bags). It is not English wind. It is wind. All we are talking about is where the hardware to intercept it might be located and whether a rental can be justified.
Next, the Crown Estate is an office of government. The agreement with the Treasury to which you refer is a quid pro quo arising from negotiations with the Blair government under which the monarchy became tax payers. This is nothing more than a trade off. The Queen is, of course, head of state of the United Kingdom, not England. There are no Scottish and English territorial waters, only British ones.
If you want to turn this into a debate about Scottish independence, you will hear no opposition from me. If you wish to complain that a large slice of the proceeds will find its way into the Treasury in London and will not be recycled into the Scottish economy, again you will hear no argument from me - although it is only fair to say that onshore and tidal schemes, hydro-electric systems and so on mean that Scotland is close to being a net exporter of energy and will derive considerable benefit from selling into the national grid anyway.
What I don't think you are entitled to do is use this as another stick with which to beat the south British - at least not until you have examined the facts in better detail. QOT, there can't be many Scots amongst us who are unaware of the oilofscotland website and certainly no one of any nationality who would not immediately spot it as a site with a very specific agenda. That's fine with me but please do not seek to promote it as a reliable source of impartial information.
#206 - champagne_charlie
"The land of the TOTALLY uninformed -and proud of it"
I treated that one with the contempt it deserved.
"I see a leopard will never change its spots". No, but it does has an irritating habit of picking them in public.
Complain about this comment
#213
"How do you get the impression I defend Feudal or any other thievery"
By refusing to acknowledge Germany's ongoing feudalism whilst attacking Britain and its nationals on a daily basis about the same thing? Whats good for the goose....
I dont have any "spots" QOT, just a desire to see a little equity on these blogs.
Complain about this comment
C_C
I can only offer my hand to INDIVIDUALS like yourself !
-- A blanket treaty also to those who have not accepted is unreasonable.
--Or did you expect my offer to include those who threw the Gauntlet ?
Do not blame me if I write things you find unpleasant --if you cannot keep your friends-in-Armor under control. I can only keep personal promises.
--And what if I am not German ????
woof, woof, woof, woof ????
Complain about this comment
#216
quietoaktree;
Dont put me on the target list , I've made it quite clear that I have no interest in playing United Nations in the quietoaktree vs the Brits stand-off. I'm not responsible for any of them, I'm not British, nor do i care if you are German or not. I am interested in the facts. You say British people are uniquely uninformed about the interests of their aristocracy and related issues like subsidies. I say thats nonsense and that you should try and look at the matter with a little more equity. That requires you to look right across Europe at the still-existing aristocratic systems and the generous subsidies they get, even in countries that claim to be model Republics.
Complain about this comment
#212 - quietoaktree
Oh well that's all right then. A three and a half year old piece from the Indie telling us that the landowning establishment has agreed (agreed - you know? No compulsion, entirely voluntary? Ring any bells?) is proof in 2010 that Britain is a nation of corrupt money grabbing aristos. I am glad we got that sorted. And you want me to agree to do what again?
Complain about this comment
#215 C-C
We are better because we are not so bad ?
--you are barking up the wrong tree (with me) with that standpoint !
Complain about this comment
#197. At 1:52pm on 14 Nov 2010, Jean Luc
"You have a very wrong view about the seperation of powers. Judges are there to uphold the law, not to be concerned with the electorate. This is so in every modern national state, and likewise for the ECJ."
Please learn a bit about justice, first it doesn't exist and secondly the judges are there to INTERPRET the law, not uphold, if the law is badly written and full of holes then the interpretation is open to question. In the case of most laws they are written by legal professionals whose interests are to make them as confusing and incomprehensible as possible, then the judges interpret the flawed laws. If their political affiliations are strong then their interpretation will not be reasoned at all, and considering all ECJ justices are political appointees the result is a foregone conclusion.
Complain about this comment
Re #212
No comment.
Complain about this comment
#219
quietoaktree;
No, we are BOTH bad!! This is not about Britain or Germany, its about failed redistribution systems rewarding the wrong people. Giving money to the British monarchy is just as bad as giving it to German billionaires and it is as bad as giving it to Spanish aristocrats. If you think you can carry on with vitriolic attacks solely targetting Britain, whilst turning a blind eye to the rest of the continent, you are sorely mistaken. This notion that the British are required by you to only look at their own system, when the people doing the criticism live in societies that dont practice what they preach is palpable nonsense and hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
#218 Threnodio
Proud of tradition and proud of change ?
--something seems schizophrenic don´t you think ???
--where is the change ?
---and don´t use the war-cry of sovereignty as the example !
Complain about this comment
#223 - quietoaktree
Schizophrenic? Well, maybe once upon a time but now I am in two minds about it.
Did I say anything about pride in tradition and pride in change? I don't think so. And don't tell me what I may or may not cite in my replies.
Complain about this comment
#222. At 6:16pm on 14 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie
Quite so in many areas across the EU, as the double standards of most EU states is why I have disliked the EU despite being pro-European. It has long been easy to use the UK as a fall-guy for the faults and failings of anything and everything, France have used this for years by spouting off about the anti-EU English whilst never implementing the EU laws they sign up to, Germany the same I might add. At least with the UK we have implemented what was signed up to and negotiated opt outs to those which were disliked, that's called honesty which is different from the duplicity of many EU member states.
Complain about this comment
#222 C_C
If ANY country attempts to ´practice what it preaches ´ then it is Germany.
--- thats the reason for the open hands.
--as some on this blog have derogatorily noted.
Jump over your own shadow !
Complain about this comment
#224 Threnodio
No, but I agree that 3.5 years is an infinity, compared with British tradition ?
Complain about this comment
champagne_charlie
Re #215, 217, 222
"..see a little equity on these blogs.." & "...don't put me on the target list.."
Give it time: You'll learn.
Complain about this comment
#226
"If ANY country attempts to ´practice what it preaches ´ then it is Germany."
But i've shown you several times that it doesnt...by being the last nation to publish its CAP recipients, by publishing sketchy and incomplete data, by giving energy subsidies (domestic, not EU) to rich aristocrats and by maintaining feudal traditions right across the country in which aristocratic families control vast swathes of the country. At the same time the German population have the lowest number of homeowners in the western world, with the UK having 75% more. All of which are arguments you have used to attack the UK. Take the log out of your own eye....I havent even begun to scratch the surface.
Complain about this comment
214 threnodio wrote:
"Here we go again. You throw selectively gathered data around as those it represents the whole picture...The nation (in the person of the Crown) owns the seabed - but not the water above it - "
Does that mean that, for instance, the Duke of Norfolk, one of biggest landowners in my neighbouring county, owns the land but not the air above it? I suppose if that is so we could in theory stop him from having any access to it. If the crown doesn't own the water above, which we all agree produces the wind that drives the turbines, then they shouldn't reap any benefit from it either. Has anyone ever tried to uphold this theory in a court of law?
"Secondly, this is far from unique. The United States, for example, has seen a number of legal challenges over the years...."
But we are discussing an article solely concerned with the British Isles and the Crown and Queen yet again reaping huge benefits from something you say she doesn't really own at all.
"Ask anyone who has been involved in offshore drilling in West Africa..."
Here again threnodio, we are not discussing West Africa.
"Next, the Crown Estate is an office of government. The agreement with the Treasury to which you refer is a quid pro quo arising from negotiations with the Blair government under which the monarchy became tax payers."
So, if the queen is getting an annual income of £37.5m from something which according to you she doesn't even own, how much are my family going to get annually? (We could do with some after Brown's savage onslaught on our pension funds. Strangely enough he never negotiated with my husband before he did that).
At 218 you tell QOT:
"Oh well that's all right then. A three and a half year old piece from the Indie telling us that the landowning establishment has agreed..."
Has the situation changed since then or does it still stand?
Complain about this comment
#226. At 6:36pm on 14 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
Really, have you overlooked your glasses, Germany has practised protectionism throughout its membership of the EU, especially when it concerned core industries like the motor trade. There have been several repelled by the state attempts to buy such companies as Volkswagen. I also recall a certain law that banks were not allowed to print their statements outside Germany and that they had to have their IT centres in Germany. At least one bank took the German state to the ECJ over that example of German EU duplicity. But then if you look at ECJ court cases you will see how many there are concerning Germany.
Their latest trick for pensioners who worked in Germany is to keep sending realms of paperwork asking for the same information every year, in German of course. A mate of mine is getting very fed up about how 'integrated' Germany is within the EU, but then us British are spoiled since the UK accommodates the native language of people, aren't we nasty.
Complain about this comment
@CLIVE HILL
Re "The European Communities Act 1972 makes clear that the UK Parliament is supreme in all UK law, especially vis a vis the EU. This law was the basis on which the UK entered the EEC."
And this is quite irrelevant under international law.
What is relevant under international law and to the other parties to an agreement is that the UK has BOUND ITSELF to respect the Treaty.
It is hard to grasp the arrogance behind your statement. There is no legal certainty for other Member States vis a vis the commitment of the UK, because even when the UK ratifies treaties it still can set its own terms and conditions on the respect for such a treaty in a national law?
Re "EU law has been broken many, many times by EU member states without penalty. Most recently by the French over the Roma. The French have made some face-saving publicity for the Commission and that will be that."
Quite clear than that you have not really folowed this issue.
The french government framed its policy in a zero tolerance discourse, which gave the impression that Romas were expelled in a zero tolerance policy (sarkozy had to appease the people between his UMP and the FN). Legally this was not the case however. This means that there wasn't really a problem with the policy. There was however a problem with the implementation of the citizens directive: people threatened with expulsion have the right to ask a judge to quash the expulsion decision, which was not written in the French law implementing the directive. The Commission informed France that it had until 15 october to present an implementation schedule to properly implement the citizens directive. France presented such a schedule and the Commission has suspended proceedings (conditionally of course!).
This is what really happened with the Roma problem and France. But I can understand it is much more appealing to present the problem as France getting its way and the Commission just giving in. After all Brussels is dominated by Paris and Berlin right? ;)
Re "This was because the core of the EEC was the Coal and Steel community and it was feared many UK jobs would be lost."
1. The ECSC was something different from the EEC.
2. All this does not change the fact that it was not Brussels stealing sovereignty, but sovereignty being given away voluntarily.
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "The EU is NOT a Country: It is supra-National and has none of the in-built qualifications of centuries or even mere decades as a recognised singular, political entity."
Well yes. But this does not change anything about my assertion that your criticism of the EU is not based on objective considerations.
So what are you saying? Before a political entity can be democratic it has to have been a political entity for a century/several decades?
Therefore Kosovo cannot be a democracy? Or What about Slovenia? The break up of Yougoslavia was only a decade or so ago.
Re "None of those are present in the political-construct called the EUropean Union: It of course has ante-cedents, but it is not a Nation, not a State and is not in any way representative of the 500+million Citizens inhabiting it."
How very funny you mention a nation. As far as I know, their isn't a single nation in the UK either. The fact that it is a State is because of violence by the English against other 'nations'. And what does your claim mean for our debate? The EU has to become a proper state before it can be democratic?
So you are pleading here to make the EU a genuine state, otherwise it can never be democratic? If you don't want it to become a state, how can it ever be democratic? If it can't why do you keep insisting on a below 50% turnout?
Re "Each State within the EU has a National 'sovereign' Parliament/Assembly etc. and they can trace their Mandate to the Citizens of a cohesive National identity such as G.B over 800 years or Finland less than 100."
Slovenia as a state is no more than 20 years old. The same goes for Czech Rep and Slovakia. And again your claims are based on very subjective factors. Without an identity there can be no democracy? Therefore if a majority of Scots first identify themselves as Scots before they do as UK citizens, UK rule in Scotland is undemocratic? What if people identify mainly with their city?
Re "
I do not have the "..problem.." with liking or disliking that Yiou try to imply: That is Your problem - - You wish to supplant the Democratic National identity & traditions with a supra-National entity - - because it is You that does not 'like' and opposes National Parliament, National Judiciary, National Cultural-Social Identity etc."
Not really. Your 'problem' is you think democracy is an "or or" question. But it is perfectly possible to have democracy as several levels: local regional national and supranational.
Re "Your supra-National EU Parliament cannot point to 1 election in the last 4 where it managed to attain even 50% Voter Turnout: You cannot point to 1 National General Election where such low Citizen participation occurs."
I think I just did point to 1: US general elections. Aside from that I have in the past pointed to different consituencies in the UK which historically have always had below 50% turnout. Obviously you ignored this, but its quite baffling to read now I cannot point to them.
Re "I do not "..postulate.." the Nation & the supra-National body are "..different..": They self-evidently are in every aspect of the normal measures of a State's existence or there would be no need to call it a EUropean Union! "
You postulate they are different and therefore cannot be compared. But you do not show why they are so different they cannot be compared. The UK and France are different as well but you can compare those. And aside from that there is a logical phallacy in your 'argument' (not really an argument, just postulations): if the EU is different from the national state, why do you keep referring to how national identity means national states can be democratic.
I think by now its quite obvious you have no idea what makes a polity democratic, you just want to qualify the EU as undemocratic and every means will do, even if they are in contradiction with each other.
Re "I don't have to claim or prove anything about the UK's institutions being valid. History, Heritage, Culture & Society amply demonstrate the UK is a legitimate, verified, Citizen approved entity that evolves as the pages of time turn."
Aah, another new argument 'UK has been around for some time and residents of the UK have grown accustomed to it, so it is legitimate'. Again we could ask: how much time? And then the problem of the EU is simple, we just wait until time gives legitimacy to the EU. Afterall, the EU itself is older than some of its Member States! Tell me, are these Member States democratic?
Re "JeanLuc the 'Bailout' was illegal under EU rules - - it didn't make a blind bit of difference the moment the big2 decided they needed soemthing different! Then there's the recent EU moves to official oversight of the Financial sector of every member State"
You confuse the bail out with the new system of financial supervision. They are something completely different and even unrelated. But by all means, let it not bother you when you are bashing the EU :)
I have to read more on the bailout before making claims about it. But obviously you have made (or read) a complete legal analysis of the bail out. Please share it with us!
Re "JeanLuc, the EU simply ignored all protocol, all procedure, all National Rights to impose its own rules"
This is too funny. Tell me please, if it is indeed illegal, who decided on it? Not simply 'the EU', but the national leaders in the framework of the EU. You really can't fathom the simple idea that when 'the EU' decides on these big issues it is not some far away unknown politicians, but our own national politicians (which are accountable before their own parliaments)
Re "Please, next time You tell me about the value of International Treaty obligations do include an example of the EU-Brussels sticking to it in the manner it requires of the Nations!"
This remark of your tops it all. The rule under international law I invoked (pacta sunt servanda) applies to the parties to an agreement under international law. The EU treaties are agreements between the Member States themselves, obviously the EU is not a party to it itself (just like the UN is not a party to the treaty establishing the UN). Pacta sunt servanda therefore does not apply to 'the EU' (who do you actually mean here when you say 'the EU', do you know yourself who you mean?) concerning the EU treaties.
But please, let this legal impossibility not keep you from spouting blind anti-EU rhetorics.
@BUZET
Re "Please learn a bit about justice, first it doesn't exist and secondly the judges are there to INTERPRET the law, not uphold, if the law is badly written and full of holes then the interpretation is open to question. In the case of most laws they are written by legal professionals whose interests are to make them as confusing and incomprehensible as possible, then the judges interpret the flawed laws. If their political affiliations are strong then their interpretation will not be reasoned at all, and considering all ECJ justices are political appointees the result is a foregone conclusion."
Please learn a bit about justice. 'The law' I mentioned was obviously the law in general, not a specific law. If a specific law is full of holes therefore, the judge will uphold the law by interpreting the specific law by using general principles of law, and other laws.
Complain about this comment
#230. At 6:53pm on 14 Nov 2010, margaret howard
"(We could do with some after Brown's savage onslaught on our pension funds. Strangely enough he never negotiated with my husband before he did that).
"
That's what you get when Scots run something, he couldn't even run the fabled piss up in a brewery, but then neither could his Scottish mates that he and Bliar (another with Scottish ancestry) employed in the UK government and ministries for 13 years. If there is one thing that amuses me it is that they stitched their own countrymen as well as us, just proves who can't be trusted.
Complain about this comment
#232. At 7:08pm on 14 Nov 2010, Jean Luc
"And this is quite irrelevant under international law."
EU treaties are NOT international law, they are pertinent only to the EU, there is no international law since there is no world government or world state. The UN is simply yet another expensive talking shop that reaches agreements and treaties.
#Please learn a bit about justice."
Just what does someone like you think justice is, have you still to realise that for the vast majority of citizens it took a holiday years ago and that it is only available for those who have bottomless pots of money. You mention the law in general, so was I, the law in general has become the fabled ass, supposedly for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. Unfortunately ever confusing laws that overlap has made them fatally flawed and ripe for misinterpretation, especially by the politically motivated, EU is great, brigade.
Complain about this comment
229 champagne writes:
"At the same time the German population have the lowest number of homeowners in the western world, with the UK having 75% more. All of which are arguments you have used to attack the UK. Take the log out of your own eye....I havent even begun to scratch the surface."
"Bulgaria is the Europe's leader in terms of number of private homes. This is the conclusion of a survey conducted by the National Statistical Institute on the basis of a nation-wide census.
Almost 97 percent of Bulgarian homes are private-owned. The owners inhabit 94 percent of them while 5 percent are rented out. The runner-ups among EU aspirants are Romania and Lithuania with 92 percent of private ownership."
So what are you trying to prove? Are you trying to portray these countries as shining examples to the rest of Europe? The Swiss own just 28% of their own homes as opposed to Germany with 43 %, so it is not the lowest in Europe as you claim. Maybe that is why those countries have avoided the mortgage collapse and the terrible debts and dangers that go with it.
Complain about this comment
#230 - margaret howard
"Does that mean that, for instance, the Duke of Norfolk - owns the land but not the air above it?" - Yes.
"Has anyone ever tried to uphold this theory in a court of law?" - Not to my knowledge.
"But we are discussing an article solely concerned with the British Isles - we are not discussing West Africa". You issued a bet that no other country had domestic ownership of the seabed for 12 miles. How on earth can I challenge that without reference to other countries?
"So, if the queen is getting an annual income of £37.5m from something which according to you she doesn't even own . . ." - she might get as much as 37.5m in rental income for something she most assuredly does own - the seabed. Having said that, this will be income paid by commercial enterprises - power generators - for an opportunity to make profits. It is a perfectly normal business arrangement.
"Has the situation changed since then or does it still stand?" - I imagine it will have progressed. The Duke of Norfolk's Estates are certainly registered - read all about it (http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/register_ex2dukenorfolk.pdf)
Complain about this comment
234 Buzet writes:
"Just what does someone like you think justice is, have you still to realise that for the vast majority of citizens it took a holiday years ago and that it is only available for those who have bottomless pots of money."
And that applies especially to England! Have you ever tried to go to law in this country? The greedy lawyers with their ludicrous 18th century horse hair wigs and bows will clean you out and leave you a pauper. Nothing much has changed since Dicken's 'Bleak House' and it's got nothing to do with the EU.
Complain about this comment
#235
margarethoward;
I'm not trying to prove anything to you. QOT has said in the past that the fact that aristocrats own large amounts of the UK keeps land prices high and restricts home ownership, whilst ignoring the fact that the UK has much higher home ownership than Germany. That suggests that a vast array of other factors are at play. I dont include Switzerland, they voluntarily withdrew from the human race a long time ago. But congratulations on finding the one nation that i forgot about.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
"#137 - Jukka Rohila
If only you were right. The reality is very different. I do not work within the corporate environment but work with several large ones and I never cease to be bewildered by the extravagantly complicated network of corporate identities, subsidiaries, associated companies, offshore holding companies and other mechanisms they use with the deliberate intention of tax avoidance. Given the astronomical fees that their corporate lawyers, accountants, auditors derive from this, I am beginning to think that the money saved is far outweighed by the expenditure lavished on this pretense. These businesses are not consolidating. They are fragmenting into individual entities each requiring management systems, executive structures and so on the whole purpose of which is push money around until it gets lost."
I often noted the same thing, threnodio. It is certainly a curious phenomenon.
The thing is, I don't think it is fair to describe the aim as being "tax avoidance". Tax minimization is perhaps a better description of what is occurring.
Now if that distinction seems trite to any reader, I would suggest that you need to stop and consider that your understanding of business and government is incomplete.
Taxation is not static, and nor is it certain in its magnitude. A worker sometimes gets the impression that both these things are so: the worker is certain to have tax taken from their wage, and that amount stays more or less static from year to year, only fluctuating a few basis points.
The taxation of large business, however, is a very different beast indeed. Here you encounter the deep paradox of all national governments: they seek foreign investment and foreign trade, and yet at the same time they seek to tax business as much as possible.
The more you consider these twin aims, the more you begin to understand that most governments are trying to do two opposite things at the same time: they want to create a free market and the wealth it brings, and at the very same time they want to choke the free market to death by grabatizing everything people work for in the form of taxation.
This schizophrenia of the state is profound, and it afflicts all parties at all times. At exactly the same time as the conservatives are spending time and real effort trying to boost exports by lowering corporate tax rates, they are driving away investors who would create those exports by going after private accounts in low tax jurisdictions.
Just so, the labour party was genuinely in favour of boosting foreign investment and trade, and gave numerous foreign companies incentives to build and take part in the british market. At precisely the same time, other members of the same party were gnashing their teeth about the evil of capitalism and planning strikes that would cripple foreign companies. And the party went along with both plans. At once.
Why? Because government is not sane. It is not rational. At its heart, government is not sentient. It is not an individual, and it doesn't think and reach firm conclusions. A government is a collection of squabbling power brokers, each with an variety of agendas to keep in order to please a variety of supporters. What government does from time to time is largely the random outcome of the impossibly complex interplay between all these competing and very selfish motivations. There is no cohesive policy, and indeed the aim of cabinet is to hide this truth, and convince the public that there is one. This is why leadership coups are always unexpected and unexplained, and why the preselection procedure that determines who shall be the next leaders of the country (who shall sit for safe seats) is far less well understood than particle physics. If the public knew the truth about just how chaotic and selfish the government players were, they would lose all respect for the mad parade. Hence it is hidden, and the party is strongest when loyalty to the party outweighs loyalty to truth, and the public are given a cohesive fiction in which they may place their trust and hide their fears.
Now in government there are always those who gather taxes, and within this central core of money gatherers there is always a perpetual debate about how to get more money.
It is generally understood that if you tax an industry too hard, it dies. You bleed it dry. You squeeze it too hard. Now this doesn't stop governments doing so. But there are usually some forlorn voices shouting away in the background, yelling "Stop squeezing us or we'll die." And when industries collapse, those voices are often listened too, and tax incentives are often adopted. A tax incentive is a relaxing of the death grip that killed the industry in the first place. It is an invitation to come back and a promise that the death squeeze will not be re-applied.
And of course, that is ALWAYS a lie. Or, rather, it is a promise no party member can make and keep. Because even if that promise is kept for ten years, sooner or later the raging tax collecting wing of the party is going to look at a healthy industry with lots of profits and scream "SQUEEZE IT!!!! EVIL RICH EVIL RICH!!! GET THE MONEY!!!!! SQUEEZE THE LIFE OUT OF IT!!!! REGULATE THOSE EVIL RICH FOLKS!!!"
And if the forlorn voice from somewhere sing out that this will drive away investment and kill the industry, they will be ignored, just like last time. Because that is how party based systems of government operate.
Some of you may be familiar with the game "Whack-a-mole!" In this game, moles randomly appear from holes in a box, and the object of the game is to be swift with your club and to whack them on the head. Hence "Whack a mole." It is the name and singular purpose of the game, all at once.
There has never been a better analogy for party based government and economic policy, and indeed I suspect the creators may have intended to create the amusing parallel. If not, one is forced to suspect that the divine creator of human political organization was itself a keen aficionado of the sport.
The point is, you gather around the variety of holes, and when a mole pops up its head, you scream "Whack a mole!" and whack at its head. It you get it before it pops its head down, and before your competitors beat you to the strike, you win points.
Well, that is taxation of industry, in a nutshell.
Party members sit around the economy, the market, and they search for profits. When they see profits, they Scream "Whack a profit!", and they strike. And they get the money! Of course, the mole gets whacked. But like the moles in the game of whack-a-mole, market operators learn to pop up and down with speed. They pop up, grab profits, and then disappear into the safety of their box. Such is the lot of the market based mole.
And here, threnodio, I feel that perhaps you may come to understand just why these large corporate organizations structure themselves the way they do.
In order to glean profits from an industrial sector, it is no longer sufficient to merely have a static organization that uses static mechanisms to reduce taxation. Governments and party members are too cunning, and they know the tricks. Indeed, party members are nearly always members of industrial families, and are thus mole and whacker-of-moles all at once. So they learn the tricks. They know the signs. Static tax minimization strategies just do not work anymore. One cannot simply use transfer pricing OR insurance OR phoney lending OR any other simple trick to minimize taxation. The whackers will get you, in the end.
The modern day corporate mole who seeks to avoid a good whacking from the tax goons in the party needs a broad variety of strategies, and needs to keep both cash flow and profits moving around from place to place, from entity to entity and even, in some cases I have seen, from industrial sector to industrial sector.
If you think all this complexity in corporate structuring is a waste of money, well that is correct. It is. But compared to the amount of money wasted by the state, it is a mere pittance. Indeed, it is not even a question of taxation, but rather of business viability.
You must appreciate the perspective of the international trader, threnodio. It is very much the mole's eye view of the market. Every day, every single day, you see other moles getting whacked. Business's fail every single day, and they all have tax bills. So how does that look, from the mole's eye view?
The mole doesn't see market failure. Because a business that is surviving with a small margin is already paying a huge amount in VAT and fuel tax and payroll tax on its workers. When such a business is driven under, the mole sees the tax burden as the reason the business could not endure. The mole sees another mole getting whacked.
And that is not unreasonable. It is a bare fact that if business's did not have to pay tax, they would survive longer than with the burden of taxation. That says nothing about whether taxation is ultimately a good thing. You'd need to ask a socialist about that. It is just how a mole sees the game of whack-a-mole.
But anyway, I am also amazed and enthralled by the complexity of corporate structuring with regard to keeping the moles from being whacked into oblivion. You must understand, I earn a very considerable amount of money assisting moles to stop from being whacked, but at the same time I am hardly a mole myself. But nor am I a party member. You might say I am a mole protector, one who fears for the safety of all moles in the world.
Because if all the moles are whacked by the party members, there will be no more moles to whack, and the game will be over, for everyone. And given that the whackers are inevitably also moles, for it is the perverse strategy of god to delude moles into the whacking of one another, the end of moles to be whcked also means the grim end of the whackers themselves.
Personally I think the whacking stick ought to be taken from the hands of the party member moles and entrusted to the mass of moles, but that is just me.
Complain about this comment
231 Buzet writes:
"Their latest trick for pensioners who worked in Germany is to keep sending realms of paperwork asking for the same information every year, in German of course"
How awful! Have they thought of reporting them to the Europen Commission for Human Rights? The GERMAN government sending out paperwork for pensioners who worked in GERMANY in GERMAN!!!!!!UNFORGIVABLE!!!! No government in the world would have done that. Typical German.
Complain about this comment
237. At 7:46pm on 14 Nov 2010, margaret howard
"And that applies especially to England! Have you ever tried to go to law in this country?" Yes. I thought you were in Scotland. I should view your loathing of the English with more gravity if you have been exiled to hell.
"The greedy lawyers with their ludicrous 18th century horse hair wigs and bows . . .". What do they wear in Scotland then - T-shirt and jeans?
'. . . will clean you out and leave you a pauper" . - unless you win.
Complain about this comment
JeanLuc
Re #232
Ditto!
All that You write does not 'change anything about my assertion' that Your defence of the EU & its institutions is not based on reality of the political expedience EU entity, but on a supposed pre-destined order of how the 'political' ever closer union should be functioning.
Thus, I don't believe in the "or or" as You try to suggest because for me there is no way that Democracy is possible at the supra-National level as You imply. At least not with this EUropean Union framework: It simply is not a Constitutional system equipped or intended for accessibility by the Citizen and nor is it responsive to the Citizen. The EU, as I've described a number of times, is designed for the purpose of 'big-Government/big-Business': Citizens' Rights & Responsibilities hardly figure on the future agenda of this centralising monstrosity. The EU is about the Political elite joining forces with the Commercial power-brokers to press the cause of Greater EUrope throughout the World. So far as those 2 'leadership' are concerned the less heard from the general Citizens the better as the EU jockeys with other presumed Global giants.
By all means JeanLuc continue to press the cause of the EU-Flag of convenience, but IMO it will be a lonely salute - - Kosovo had more of the political-cultural-economic-historic State about it even before it was recognised as such than the post-Maastricht EU has after 20 years!
And, yes You did indeed 'top it all' with Your last observation: "..the EU Treaties are agreements between member States, obviously the EU is not party to them itself.."
For the very straightforward reason the EU is not a Nation and therefore the postulation by You that it has institutions that can replace the supremacy of the State institutions is contrary to Democratic process. How can the EU have a Parliament that is not 'party' to the Treaties between the States? If it is not in on the deals then it is because it has no place in the rule of any State - - it seems You are really agreeing with my view 'pact sunt servanda' is applicable only to Democratically Elected Governments of States (who ignore it at their pleasure) - - which negates the whole purpose of an EU Parliament which previously is supposedly the Citizen EU memberships' Democratic element of the EU in action! Now there is an extraordinary "contradiction": A Parliament You claim is elected by the Citizens to represent them at the EU HQ in Brussels, but when it comes to Treaties negotiated & confirmed by the member States that EU Parliament is rendered politically & legally impotent!? And You wonder why 57% didn't vote in 2009!
I thought before and have long since understood that You have no idea of the requirements of a functioning Democratic Parliament: You couldn't have put forward the pact sunt servanda argument to excuse the EU if You really understood the purpose of Parliament.
I'm not confused by 'Bail-out' and 'Financial oversight': Two issues on which the EU-Brussels entity totally failed to consult the Citizens. In the former Brussels was sidelined by the Paris-Berlin axis and in the latter Brussels has taken on vast Fiscal authority for which not 1 MEP never mind a supra-National mandate of any sort was ever sought or considered!
Don't let me put You off Your 'pro-EU' rhetoric because each time we cross paths like this You usually expose the flaws of the EU even as You imagine You are promoting its supposed strong-points!
Complain about this comment
By the way, it is ten years almost to the day since I first had fixed line internet and was able to join the wonderful world of blogging. I am about to embark on my second decade of being "a new member who is pre-moderated initially." Could this be some kind of record?
Complain about this comment
236 threnodio writes:
"You issued a bet that no other country had domestic ownership of the seabed for 12 miles. How on earth can I challenge that without reference to other countries?"
This is what I actually wrote to QOT at 202:
"I know you have had some arguments with a few contributers as to German aristocrats benefitting from CAP but I bet there are none IN YOUR COUNTRY who own the foreshore as well as the seabeds up to 12 miles from the shore!"
Complain about this comment
#239 - democracythreat
"And here, threnodio, I feel that perhaps you may come to understand just why these large corporate organizations structure themselves the way they do".
I understand it well enough, DT and I certainly don't begrudge you your slice of the cake. Nice work if you can get it. I was simply bemused by J-R's astonishingly simplistic view of the real world.
"The thing is, I don't think it is fair to describe the aim as being "tax avoidance". Well I was careful not to say evasion.
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
""So, if the queen is getting an annual income of £37.5m from something which according to you she doesn't even own . . ." - she might get as much as 37.5m in rental income for something she most assuredly does own - the seabed. Having said that, this will be income paid by commercial enterprises - power generators - for an opportunity to make profits. It is a perfectly normal business arrangement."
I suppose this is a british cultural thing.
You see, to me and my way of thinking, receiving 40 million a year as rent for the bottom of the not-so-deep blue sea would not constitute a "perfectly normal business arrangement".
Incidentally, if anyone is interested in the reason why the swiss own so few of their own homes, it is largely because of the weird and wonderful laws in force here, regarding income tax. It involves direct democracy, too, so I shall tell you all a bedtime story and you can sleep enriched with the knowledge of rare things in far away lands. What, with my extrapolations on the nature of whack-a-mole and now this, I imagine CBW may almost stop grinding his teeth as he dreams.
Anyways, a long time, in the Swiss confederation, a popular movement was started against landlords. It was considered unfair that some people owned houses and earned money simply by owning them, whereas other folks were born with no houses and had to pay rent to live in them. So the swiss who felt so aggrieved passed around a petition, which is the custom of dealing with grievances in that happy land, and they set out a proposal for public vote. A lot of old farmers shook their heads upon reading the proposal, and wondered where it would end, and who would pay for the free lunch proposed. This is also a prevalent custom in Switzerland.
So the proposal said that everyone who owned a house they didn't live in should give it for free to those who didn't have houses. Now this didn't work out as a sensible idea. All the people who owned houses they didn't live in said that if the matter went to vote, they would simply burn down the houses and use the land to grow potatoes, because that way they would not lose the value of their possession completely. Other who rented but who had jobs made the observation that if houses were to be given out for free, they should also be allowed to stop paying rent, because otherwise they would be treated unfairly. And then the owners of the expensive rented houses said that before they would burn down their houses, they would strip out all the glass windows and fire furnaces and sell them to the stinking french, so that those folks could take a bath every now and again.
The proposal did not gain the required signatures, and it became known as a "bad idea". Switzerland has lots of these, and has come to recognize them almost as fast as it generates them.
After some time, a new proposal was dreamed up. This was more reasonably thought out.
So the new proposal said that people who owned houses should be forced to pay income tax on their rent EVEN IF the houses was empty. This idea said that the evil rich folk were keeping property idle and speculating on its value, and that this pushed up the price of rent for the renters in society. The new proposal said that if folks owned houses, even if they lived in it themselves, then they must pay income tax on the rent income of the property. EVEN IF that property did not earn any rent, and EVEN IF they lived in it themselves and so didn't pay any rent. The wealth of owning a house would be taxed as if it earned income, thus creating an incentive for those who did own property to deploy it in the market and thus lower rent prices.
Curiously, this law DID pass a popular vote, and so that has been the law of Switzerland ever since.
There have been a whole bunch of other laws passed, as well. One says that if you owe money on a mortgage, you can deduct that from the deemed rental income of your own home. So you have the choice of paying a bank or paying tax, in the end. This law PASSED. People liked the idea of paying banks rather than paying tax. Indeed, most swiss who own their own homes keep at least half of it perpetually mortgaged, so that they can reduce their tax debt and pay the money to their local bank instead. This is probably because local banks are accountable to the local community who owns them, and not subject to the spurious machinations of far away party members in valleys in far away (60 kms or more!) kantons. But who knows?
There have been other local and federal laws passed by popular vote which make being a landlord subject to a great many duties and obligations, and which grant renters exceedingly favourable terms. The consequence is that being a landlord in switzerland is such a challenging proposition that only professional landlord companies even try their hand at the task. The end result is low rents, very highly maintained properties, and tenants who do not seek to own land, but rather to make sure their local bank gets a better deal than the far away political party full of liars who are out of reach, beyond comfortable choking distance.
Good night, sweet dreams, and don't forget to vote!
Complain about this comment
#244 - margaret howard
Unless you are psychic or have some other connection with QOT, you no idea where his country is and he certainly has no intention of telling me. However, if it has a coastline, it is a pretty safe bet that someone or something owns the first 12 miles - probably the government.
Complain about this comment
238 champagne wrote:
"I dont include Switzerland, they voluntarily withdrew from the human race a long time ago. But congratulations on finding the one nation that i forgot about."
No, they weren't the one nation you forgot about - you only mentioned two countries - Germany and the UK. And I love Switzerland and all it stands for - the only true democracy in the world. Pity there aren't more like it!
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
"I was simply bemused by J-R's astonishingly simplistic view of the real world."
Well, he is an economist.
then:
""The thing is, I don't think it is fair to describe the aim as being "tax avoidance". Well I was careful not to say evasion."
Yes, but my point is that it is more "STAYING VIABLE" than avoiding tax. Or evading it.
My point here is that governments don't just tax businesses: they actually destroy them.
I reached that conclusion after doing income tax returns for small businesses whilst at law school in the UK, as a means of earning my bread. Learned that EVERY small business "cheats" on tax, because if you don't then you go under. And often it isn't even the rate of taxation, but rather the burden of it, in terms of filling out paperwork and reporting to goons from the HMRC.
And if it isn't the cost of taxation itself, nor the burden of the goons paperwork, then the competition who do "cheat" their tax will be able to undercut you and steal your trade with lower prices.
That is what I saw, and it sobered me. The other thing I saw, which was incredibly instructive, was that the HMRC folks were incredibly dim and unsophisticated in a general sense. I mean, they were not very bright, nor did they bother to make difficult cases. They had the hunting strategy of drag net fisherman. They would not check individual tax returns, but would instead target industries and regions. They would wait for everyone to cheat on their tax for ten years or so, then swoop in and accuse everyone indiscriminately of tax cheating, without even reading the books or making legitimate cases. Most often, the accountants would give up their customers to save their own skin, and their customers would simply receive large bills to pay. And then they paid them.
So the tax game seemed an incredibly dishonest and "illegal" enterprise, from all sides. The government made criminals out of ordinary people trying to get by, and then justified its treatment of them as criminals when it came time to grabatize their property to pay for the party affair.
I have since worked my way up the law and tax food chain, in terms of who I have as clients, and have come to the conclusion that in order to get a square deal from the HMRC, one needs to be pretty well organized OR well connected politically. But even being connected politically doesn't save you from the tax collection orgy of fear and loathing. It simply allows one to recoup some of those loses by obtaining government contracts for services.
So that is why I truly believe the British system is feudal in character. Certain people are not just above others in terms of their political rights. The class system in the UK is real. If you can afford to hire someone like me to combat the tax goons, you have economic freedoms others just don't have. If you are born into the wrong class in the UK, it is literally ILLEGAL for you to become rich. In order to run a business and make money "honestly", you must run the gauntlet of HMRC legislation. And you will either lie and cheat, or be crushed under it's leviathan bulk.
But if you come from a different class, and your family are wealthy party members or own multinational firms, or have access to city lawyers, then all of sudden business opportunities abound in the UK.
I must admit, I think i would be richer now if I had stayed in the UK. The city of london is a fantastic place to do business, for someone with my skill set. Compared to Switzerland, I mean. But it is a shamefully class based society, and I find the poverty and the filth distressing. Nobody sees it, of course, nor mentions it.
Anyway, I'm off to bed to sleep and then work. gotta help those moles.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
"237. At 7:46pm on 14 Nov 2010, margaret howard
"And that applies especially to England! Have you ever tried to go to law in this country?" Yes. I thought you were in Scotland. I should view your loathing of the English with more gravity if you have been exiled to hell."
Ah, very droll. I admit, I did laugh at this.
"The greedy lawyers with their ludicrous 18th century horse hair wigs and bows . . .". What do they wear in Scotland then - T-shirt and jeans? "
Curiously enough, the lawyers in Swiss tribunals often wear jeans and polo necked shirts. I had to attend proceedings last year (CIVIL case, incidentally, and i won), and was surprised to find the attire of lawyers here is very causal indeed. I was massively overdressed in a suit, and got a few stares.
Even more curious is that in Switzerland one can be elected as a judge without being a lawyer. Apparently normal folks are considered able to understand the laws and apply them with the help of government staff, so there is no stranglehold racket on the administration of justice, as there is in the UK. And in Germany, I might add. In Germany, one studies to become a judge, rather than simply to become a lawyer. Imagine how that works out!
'. . . will clean you out and leave you a pauper" . - unless you win."
Well, litigation in the UK is properly described as the process of relinquishing your skin in order to save your bones. I don't think anyone wins in the british courts except the lawyers.
Seriously, if you are a commercial lawyer and you want a career, you learn to keep your folks OUT of court. That is the supreme rule. Nobody makes money in court.
And if you are a party member hack lawyer you learn how to charge the government vast sums of money in order to oversee pointless squabbles between those who can't afford lawyers but who enjoy public fighting nevertheless.
Now THOSE guys and girls are a class of parasite the world has never seen the equal of. Even the similar hack fiends of the NHS occasionally cure sick folks. I mean, I guess they do. They must. I've never actually seen an NHS doctor cure anything except a lack of government money into their own account, but I'm sure it must happen from time to time. The law of averages and all that.
But government paid lawyers?
My god, if people knew just how much those parasites cost them in tax revenue, and for little purpose.....
Complain about this comment
Boy only a couple of hours gone and all hell breaks loose !
C-C #238 I never said that --but a British newspaper did !
--and if you want ammunition against Germany-- EVERYTHING is in ´Der Spiegel´
Which CRITICAL British magazine or newspaper could you recommend ?
---that is, that you would accept as as truthful ????
--this is becoming more like a chameleon changing colors --than only changing spots !
Complain about this comment
#248
"No, they weren't the one nation you forgot about - you only mentioned two countries - Germany and the UK"
We have a psychic in our midst! Where do you think I got the figures from? A LIST. Switzerland was omitted, I guess they regard it with the same irrelevancy as I do.
"And I love Switzerland and all it stands for - the only true democracy in the world."
Dont tell me, tell that to the 51% of the Swiss population who cant even be arsed to vote in "the only true democracy in the world".
Complain about this comment
#251
quiteoaktree;
I didnt say it wasnt truthful. I accept newspaper articles from Britain as readily as I do from Germany, only with further study and in context. The day I take a newspaper hacks view as Gospel, under pressure and with limited time and space will be the day I become..well....you.
Complain about this comment
#231 Buzet 23
As far as I am aware pensioners get sent papers every year for their yearly tax purposes. Does Britain send such papers in all the EU languages plus Arabic, Urdu, Hindi etc ?
Probably Germany believes that a Brit who has lived and worked in Germany would have learned some German ?
-- or did your friend live in a Brit Ghetto unwilling to assimilate and learn the language ???
Complain about this comment
#253 C_C
You accused me of saying it --- and from 2007 is hardly rushing to conclusions !
Complain about this comment
#250 - democracythreat
"Seriously, if you are a commercial lawyer and you want a career, you learn to keep your folks OUT of court. That is the supreme rule. Nobody makes money in court".
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I do tend to think that commercial lawyers more than earn their keep. It's those ghastly posers in litigation that scare me. My one brush with English civil law saw me come out a clear winner but my guy could have gone fifteen rounds with Tyson. He scared me so God knows how the other side felt. And I never went near a court. Buckled at the knees, they did.
On the offshore waters thing, anyone would have thought 13.5m was a Queens ransom. Actually, if you can be bothered to do the maths, that works out at fractionally over 1.01 pence a square foot per annum of available seabed. Not exactly daylight robbery is it, especially when you weigh up what the power companies will make out of it.
Complain about this comment
DT,
I like the tax illustrations, but still need more information about feudalistic societies in Europa.
I'm going to go research..I hope...primitive (b4 Europe) (and America) societies of 120,000 years ago..
I just don't know the why, but I will find out the what and the how:))))
It is interesting as is this blog. Can you suggest sources? Maybe online ones?
Complain about this comment
#243 Threnodio
RE: pre-moderated
No, it happens to every Brit from birth to death.
---all they way from -Hatched, Matched to despatched !
Complain about this comment
#257 Stevenson
Could you dig up Marcus on the way ?
I´m getting worried !
Complain about this comment
"Being locked into the euro, Ireland does not have the freedom to lower its exchange rate and so boost its exports. There are only two alternatives left: fierce austerity and/or a bail-out."
The UK does have the freedom (in fact, it was forced by the markets) to lower its exchange rate, but its exports don't seem to be picking up. In fact, it also seems to have the same two alternatives that Ireland has.
What was your point?
Complain about this comment
AT Least you ARE worried--Im oldish and I do worry about the
Older ..people here, today gone,
tomorrow?
Complain about this comment
Don't drink champagne, yet, Champagnon Charlie!
Complain about this comment
#258 - quietoaktree
Now you are just being daft. Anyway, you are hopelessly out of date.
Hatched, mismatched, detached, re-matched, dispatched
#257 Stevenson
You leave him where he is David. I have my share of fruit cakes for one day.
Complain about this comment
#252 champagne_charlie
Don't tell me, tell that to the 51% of the Swiss population who can't even be arsed to vote in "the only true democracy in the world".
Hmm, their referendum on banning minarets in november last year had a voter turnout of 53%. Please be accurate in the statements you make.
#259 quietoaktree
Marcus could make his appearance tomorrow? If he does, will it strengthen your arguments somehow?
Complain about this comment
@BUZET
Re "EU treaties are NOT international law, they are pertinent only to the EU, there is no international law since there is no world government or world state. The UN is simply yet another expensive talking shop that reaches agreements and treaties."
So what did you actually study?
International law exists, just like national law. And EU treaties are international law.
These really are the basics.
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "It simply is not a Constitutional system equipped or intended for accessibility by the Citizen and nor is it responsive to the Citizen. The EU, as I've described a number of times, is designed for the purpose of 'big-Government/big-Business': Citizens' Rights & Responsibilities hardly figure on the future agenda of this centralising monstrosity. The EU is about the Political elite joining forces with the Commercial power-brokers to press the cause of Greater EUrope throughout the World. So far as those 2 'leadership' are concerned the less heard from the general Citizens the better as the EU jockeys with other presumed Global giants."
Still endlessly repeating the same mantra right?
Please explain us what the fundamental difference is between a supra national entity like the EU and a federal union like the US is, that makes them so different that the former can impossible be a democracy while the latter can.
And ponder a bit on how it is possible that you think national citizenship is not only so natural to you, but that you cannot even imagine another kind of citizenship.
Perhaps you have been too long in the army, bit indoctrinated by serving 'the nation'. And as we know, having a critical mind is not exactly what the army requires of its recruits :)
Re "Kosovo had more of the political-cultural-economic-historic State about it even before it was recognised as such than the post-Maastricht EU has after 20 years!"
I think some Serbs would strongly disagree with you on that :)
But that doesn't even matter, as you said it will just take time before people get so accustomed to the EU that it becomes as natural to them as the national state. A bit like it took the US a century before the federal level was firmly established (even though some crazy tea party people still hate 'washington', just like some europeans hate 'Brussels'). Let's just hope our local tea party people will stick to non violent political opposition ;)
Re "How can the EU have a Parliament that is not 'party' to the Treaties between the States? If it is not in on the deals then it is because it has no place in the rule of any State - - it seems You are really agreeing with my view 'pact sunt servanda' is applicable only to Democratically Elected Governments of States "
Read a "law for dummies" before commenting on international law ;)
1.When several independent states form a confederation (like the US and Switzerland were), they conclude an agreement between themselves, obviously the to be established confderation is not party to that agreement because it doesn't exist untill that agreement enters into force. A bit like it is not possible for a child to be present at its own impregnation.
2.Pacta sunt servanda does not apply to governments. That is the whole point behind that rule. If it applied only to governments, a first government could enter intro agreement with other governments, but if gets succeeded by a different party or coalition in government, the latter could ignore or denounce all of the formers commitments. That is why pacta sunt servanda applies to parties to an agreement (most often states), so that there is stability in international relations, even when a new government takes power in a state.
3.Pacta sunt servanda has nothing to do with democratic states either. As said it applies to parties to an agreement. IN 1948 the International Court of Justice ruled that international legal personality was not something only States can posses. This means that non-state entities may also be parties to agreements, they are then bound by the pacta sunt servanda rule.
Re "A Parliament You claim is elected by the Citizens to represent them at the EU HQ in Brussels, but when it comes to Treaties negotiated & confirmed by the member States that EU Parliament is rendered politically & legally impotent!? And You wonder why 57% didn't vote in 2009!"
No idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps your statement becomes irrelevant when you read my above comments. But a nice contradiction on your part here: the EP is now powerless, although it has more or less the same powers as the Council as legislators of the EU. So Council and Parliament are powerless? As the legislator of the EU is powerless, so must the EU right?
Fact of the matter is that the EP is very powerful as it decides together with the council on EU legislation which is supreme over national legislation. I think that's worth voting for, don't you? :)
Re "I thought before and have long since understood that You have no idea of the requirements of a functioning Democratic Parliament: You couldn't have put forward the pact sunt servanda argument to excuse the EU if You really understood the purpose of Parliament. "
I haven't put it forward to excuse the EU. You should properly read what I write. I put it forward to show that the UK has an obligation to respect the Treaties (and EU law in general).
Re "I'm not confused by 'Bail-out' and 'Financial oversight': Two issues on which the EU-Brussels entity totally failed to consult the Citizens. In the former Brussels was sidelined by the Paris-Berlin axis and in the latter Brussels has taken on vast Fiscal authority for which not 1 MEP never mind a supra-National mandate of any sort was ever sought or considered! "
So please, say again why this bail out is illegal? And the financial supervision was decided by the EP (directly elected body by EU citizens) and the council (ministers accountable before national directly elected bodies).
Also you forgot to clarify how the supreme judges of the ECJ function in any different way from national supreme judges.
And you forgot to mention how below 50% turnout in national elections does not make national governments or parliament undemocratic. Be reminded that 'that's just how I feel about it' won't do :)
And when you answer, please read what i wrote carefully. I never mentioned pacta sunt servanda in relation to the democracy problem.
Complain about this comment
Re 31. At 5:39pm on 12 Nov 2010, vstrad
Ever heard of Yugoslavia?
Complain about this comment
Re #239, 246, 249 & 250
OMG! No comment.
Complain about this comment
#254. At 9:19pm on 14 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
"Probably Germany believes that a Brit who has lived and worked in Germany would have learned some German ?
-- or did your friend live in a Brit Ghetto unwilling to assimilate and learn the language ???"
No, your usual rubbish and badly aimed to boot, he's a Belgian and speaks four languages including German, his complaint is that they keep asking for his complete history even though he cannot get his German pension for a few years. The form is like a book and costs a fortune to post back. His opinion is that's it's an attempt to create a scenario whereby the pension department can pick up errors in transcription and say ah but you said that last year. If is clear you know very little about legal documents and how difficult it is even for a national to correctly understand them, let alone a non national.
"As far as I am aware pensioners get sent papers every year for their yearly tax purposes. Does Britain send such papers in all the EU languages plus Arabic, Urdu, Hindi etc ?"
As far as I know only Welsh is sent out by HMRC as an alternative, but there are translators in councils, citizens advice etc who are free and will help translate, HMRC as well (see below). That I've yet to see on the mainland as translators are for you to pay.
E.G. "IHTM02174 - Communications: Taxpayers with disabilities/special needs: services for non-English speaking taxpayers
The Product and Process Team (PPT) in Nottingham holds a Language Register that contains details of staff who are able to speak a language other than English, and you should contact them if a taxpayer asks to speak to someone in another language.
Alternatively you can ask International Translations to provide an interpreter. The latest information on the translation services available can be found on the intranet at: Language Register"
DT and MH
Yes I have seen English courts and the fancy dress of the overpaid legal robbers, I've also seen Belgian courts on Belgian television and there is no difference, likewise France I believe. They all like dressing up to give an illusion of justice and authority. As for there being no non-lawyers as justices, just what are magistrates, did you two 'experts' forget the lowest tier of the English justice system.
Complain about this comment
#263 Threnodio
--don´t forget to chew the currants !
Complain about this comment
#264 Smroet
No, but this could be day one of a new Remembrance Sunday.
Complain about this comment
You overlook as always the basic fact that your so called International law only applies to those who have signed and ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for criminal matters or have agreed to Article 93 of the UN Charter for other matters. In both cases there are countries outside of the scope of these and others who do not recognise parts, the USA, China, Russia, India are amongst those. Now just what were you saying about International law?
Just what were you thinking? That the EU could take the UK to the International Court of Justice for withdrawing from the EU, rofl.
Complain about this comment
"ooooooo
going to go into the far past
and dig up Marcus?"
You are saying Threnodio?
he'll be doubly pissed,
ooooooooo
Complain about this comment
#268 Buzet23
It is very difficult to comment about your friends problem without seeing the papers --especially if he receives them EVERY year. It could be that he receives a list of ALL his pension contributions and they are giving him the opportunity to change any mistakes --if he finds any.
Its probably computerized.
As he speaks German why does´t he call them ????
---or is that too much to ask from a Belgian who may love to hate Germans ???
Complain about this comment
And fruit cakes
MMMMMMMM tasty :)
I have this place you can buy them already, (fresh bread store)
(yes real fruit cakes, not..)
and they are so good ...dried fruit, nuts and very very American
Oh they were invented elsewhere, awwwwww
Complain about this comment
@BUZET
Re "You overlook as always the basic fact that your so called International law only applies to those who have signed and ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for criminal matters or have agreed to Article 93 of the UN Charter for other matters. In both cases there are countries outside of the scope of these and others who do not recognise parts, the USA, China, Russia, India are amongst those. Now just what were you saying about International law?"
Seriously, what planet do you live on?
International law has existed ever since there were 'international' relations. That goes back to the greek city states and even beyond.
That rome statute is just one example of a possible international agreement and has nothing to do with what I have written.
As regards article 93 of the UN Charter: you can only be a member of the UN if you are a party to the charter. Being a party means you have agreed to the entire charter, including article 93.
I have no idea however why you are mentioning all this. But by coming up with these irrelevant remarks answers my question you did not address directly. Obviously you have had no legal education.
Re "Just what were you thinking? That the EU could take the UK to the International Court of Justice for withdrawing from the EU, rofl."
Rofl indeed, and an lmao aswell! If you had taken the time to read my previous comments you would have known I never even implied the EU would go to the ICJ.
I mentioned pacta sunt servanda to demonstrate the UK has to respect EU law (primary and secondary) and that this sovereignty bill won't change anything to that, precisely because of the principle of pacta sunt servanda (from international law perspective) and the primacy principle (from EU law perspective).
The only way to get out of the pacta sunt servanda rule (apart from the Rebus sic stantibus, as recognized by the vienna convention on the law of treaties) is the option provided in EU law itself: withdrawing from the EU.
Now if this is too hard for you to understand, perhaps you should refrain from making silly comments such as the above. ROFL
Complain about this comment
Re #265
Just who do You think You are!?
Quote, "..perhaps you have been too long in the army, bit indoctrinated by serving 'the nation.' And as we know having a critical mind is not exactly what the army requires of its recruits.."
How dare You, You jumped up piece of...
What on earth has my military service which ended 29 years ago to do with ANYTHING we have been writing on this Blog?
Typical 'pro-EU': Can't prove Your debating view so You start snidely suggesting the other fellow isn't quite upto the mark!
You need to take a long, hard, critical look in the mirror.
Complain about this comment
Did you B. Obama is loved in India,
by Sikhs, Muslims And Hindus,
They said he should be the ruler of the globe,
If there should be one,
ooooooo "one world government" -- can you hear the Republicans now????
tho the S. Koreans weren't that impressed,
Huaimek and Buzet, is that what you are afraid of? Very Centralized govt.????
Complain about this comment
35. At 6:23pm on 12 Nov 2010, mosta wrote:
Hmm, the case of Greece has little to do with the cases of Spain and Portufal. In the case of Greece, a country that since the 1950s was rising to be a fairly OK little country with a plausible little economy based on local particularities and local social structures, with a certain protectionist internal market prohibiting the population to overconsume foreign imports all while giving emphasis in local production and the development of a healthy middle class with considerable average private ownership (including a record rate of house ownership for European standards), was then taken by a series of post-1970s governments that broke each of the columns. They transformed it consciously from a state whose citizens produced some basics and whom got by this way or another without much need of the centralised state into a state whose citizens did not produce but whom had to become overdependent in an ever inreasing state.
The equation was blatantly obvious : there was a deficit, you cannot have an overly large state when your production is fading away and that gap was filled by borrowing money. What else! So as Thoycidides discussed somewhere: "When political leadership borrows in the name of the state and spends the money in a way that the state can hope no future profit, then one has to directly question the initial motives of those leaders and the level of their wish to improve or deteriorate cosciously the economic as well as political situation of the state".
No secret, no magic. The country has been and is still being ruled by a "sold" class of people. Not to mention that a large number of them are not even of Greek origin so one wonders wether we can call eg. current PM who is not at all Greek, a traitor. Can he be? I think not, I think he is a patriot, only that his mothercountry is a different one from the one he rules.
Complain about this comment
#274 Stevenson
---probably Scotland --or the colony to the South.!
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Just who do You think You are!?
How dare You, You jumped up piece of...
What on earth has my military service which ended 29 years ago to do with ANYTHING we have been writing on this Blog?
Typical 'pro-EU': Can't prove Your debating view so You start snidely suggesting the other fellow isn't quite upto the mark!
You need to take a long, hard, critical look in the mirror."
Nothing to do with my debating view old chap. Just giving you another reason to NOT ANSWER YET AGAIN to my comments.
But let's get on with 'the show', I'll answer you again (btw I DID substantiate (not necessarily prove) my view, but you might have missed that):
I wrote:
"Re "It simply is not a Constitutional system equipped or intended for accessibility by the Citizen and nor is it responsive to the Citizen. The EU, as I've described a number of times, is designed for the purpose of 'big-Government/big-Business': Citizens' Rights & Responsibilities hardly figure on the future agenda of this centralising monstrosity. The EU is about the Political elite joining forces with the Commercial power-brokers to press the cause of Greater EUrope throughout the World. So far as those 2 'leadership' are concerned the less heard from the general Citizens the better as the EU jockeys with other presumed Global giants."
Still endlessly repeating the same mantra right?
Please explain us what the fundamental difference is between a supra national entity like the EU and a federal union like the US is, that makes them so different that the former can impossible be a democracy while the latter can.
And ponder a bit on how it is possible that you think national citizenship is not only so natural to you, but that you cannot even imagine another kind of citizenship.
Re "Kosovo had more of the political-cultural-economic-historic State about it even before it was recognised as such than the post-Maastricht EU has after 20 years!"
I think some Serbs would strongly disagree with you on that :)
But that doesn't even matter, as you said it will just take time before people get so accustomed to the EU that it becomes as natural to them as the national state. A bit like it took the US a century before the federal level was firmly established (even though some crazy tea party people still hate 'washington', just like some europeans hate 'Brussels'). Let's just hope our local tea party people will stick to non violent political opposition ;)
Re "How can the EU have a Parliament that is not 'party' to the Treaties between the States? If it is not in on the deals then it is because it has no place in the rule of any State - - it seems You are really agreeing with my view 'pact sunt servanda' is applicable only to Democratically Elected Governments of States "
Read a "law for dummies" before commenting on international law ;)
1.When several independent states form a confederation (like the US and Switzerland were), they conclude an agreement between themselves, obviously the to be established confderation is not party to that agreement because it doesn't exist untill that agreement enters into force. A bit like it is not possible for a child to be present at its own impregnation.
2.Pacta sunt servanda does not apply to governments. That is the whole point behind that rule. If it applied only to governments, a first government could enter intro agreement with other governments, but if gets succeeded by a different party or coalition in government, the latter could ignore or denounce all of the formers commitments. That is why pacta sunt servanda applies to parties to an agreement (most often states), so that there is stability in international relations, even when a new government takes power in a state.
3.Pacta sunt servanda has nothing to do with democratic states either. As said it applies to parties to an agreement. IN 1948 the International Court of Justice ruled that international legal personality was not something only States can posses. This means that non-state entities may also be parties to agreements, they are then bound by the pacta sunt servanda rule.
Re "A Parliament You claim is elected by the Citizens to represent them at the EU HQ in Brussels, but when it comes to Treaties negotiated & confirmed by the member States that EU Parliament is rendered politically & legally impotent!? And You wonder why 57% didn't vote in 2009!"
No idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps your statement becomes irrelevant when you read my above comments. But a nice contradiction on your part here: the EP is now powerless, although it has more or less the same powers as the Council as legislators of the EU. So Council and Parliament are powerless? As the legislator of the EU is powerless, so must the EU right?
Fact of the matter is that the EP is very powerful as it decides together with the council on EU legislation which is supreme over national legislation. I think that's worth voting for, don't you? :)
Re "I thought before and have long since understood that You have no idea of the requirements of a functioning Democratic Parliament: You couldn't have put forward the pact sunt servanda argument to excuse the EU if You really understood the purpose of Parliament. "
I haven't put it forward to excuse the EU. You should properly read what I write. I put it forward to show that the UK has an obligation to respect the Treaties (and EU law in general).
Re "I'm not confused by 'Bail-out' and 'Financial oversight': Two issues on which the EU-Brussels entity totally failed to consult the Citizens. In the former Brussels was sidelined by the Paris-Berlin axis and in the latter Brussels has taken on vast Fiscal authority for which not 1 MEP never mind a supra-National mandate of any sort was ever sought or considered! "
So please, say again why this bail out is illegal? And the financial supervision was decided by the EP (directly elected body by EU citizens) and the council (ministers accountable before national directly elected bodies).
Also you forgot to clarify how the supreme judges of the ECJ function in any different way from national supreme judges.
And you forgot to mention how below 50% turnout in national elections does not make national governments or parliament undemocratic. Be reminded that 'that's just how I feel about it' won't do :)
And when you answer, please read what i wrote carefully. I never mentioned pacta sunt servanda in relation to the democracy problem."
Complain about this comment
#275 Jean luc
--I´d just pull the plug and watch if the water goes clockwise or anti-clockwise down the drain !
Complain about this comment
By the way, we had the 2nd round of the regional and municipality elections in Greece. Normally these elections gathered participation rates that ranged in the shere of 75-90% more than national elections as regional matters are directly involving Greeks - you know, the usual local mafia business and as such it moves around interest. However, in these elections things were vastly different:
In the places were participation was the highest (places of high regional interests), it was below 60% while in a huge number of places participation was around 30 to 40%. Average participation was well below 50%. Only in the second largest city, Thessaloniki, the actual participation was a bit lesss than 35% which of course sets the question of the legitimacy of the elections themselves!!!
What is even more funny is that in the previous elections, the average perentage of the addition of white (blank) and non-valid votes (i.e. votes where people deliberately wrote things on the papers to cancel their vote) was at a % of 1-1,5%. In these elections, the number of white & invalid ones this percentage rose to a near 10%. 10% blank & invalid voted added to a less than 50% participation (mostly around 40%), gives quite the bleak picture of where the Greek democratic system lies.
It seems the 30% who went there to vote for a certain party are what we discussed earlier, the good-old faithfuls of the established political parties, people that profit by them and people that profit from people who profit by them and so on.
But 70% of them said no to elections. Who can blame people? How can you drag someone to vote when his anyway very low salary is anyway cut at the real rate of 30%? Imagine that he might as well have to take the bus or the car to go to vote, and that costs money, and money is expensive in our days... hehe! So, nearly the 70% of the Greek society simply voted by its absence, refusing to play in the comedy. I do not blame them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#282 Nik
´--sets the question of the legitimacy of the elections themselves !!!´
--or of Greece itself ?
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc,
Oh... (this for CBW)
Phfffffffft!
Complain about this comment
Re #280
I will deal with some of the points raised at another time.
For now what concerns me: "..nothing to do with my debating view old chap": Except, when it comes to smugness and unpleasantness You have form, don't You (merijn)?
You are the 'chap' who compared those who disagreed to those unfortunates with 'Downs Syndrome' (and I'm writing the polite version of Your words).
The 'chap' who wrote about how 'superior' he is to those who disagreed.
I did think You had got over that trait of belief in Your personal infallibility, but clearly I was mistaken.
No more comment is needed.
Complain about this comment
Re #283
No comment.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "I will deal with some of the points raised at another time."
Please do. Because you have not addressed them, although I asked you several times already.
Re "You are the 'chap' who compared those who disagreed to those unfortunates with 'Downs Syndrome' (and I'm writing the polite version of Your words)."
You misrecall that, wilfully or not I do not know.
You said the EU is dominated by Paris and Berlin (they supposedly decide on everything), to which I replied (sarcastically): 'why if paris and berlin decide on everything, the british politicians must really 'have down syndrome' that they let paris and berlin decide on everything, without having a say themselves and accept all this like meek lambs.
Of course you are at complete liberty to keep spreading this falsity (me comparing people who have different opinions with people who have down syndrome). Or you can debate on substance. (I have my original post in email from bbc moderators btw, I can still read what I wrote).
Re "The 'chap' who wrote about how 'superior' he is to those who disagreed."
I'll buy you a drink if you can give me the postnumber + blog article in which I wrote I am superior to those who disagree with me.
Long way of saying I have never said anything like this. But by all means, if you can't play ball, play man. And if you can't find anything that is damaging enough on the man, make something up. :)
Complain about this comment
265. At 10:06pm on 14 Nov 2010, Jean Luc wrote:
" ...
International law exists, just like national law. And EU treaties are international law.
These really are the basics."
EUpris: We were promised a referendum and didn't get it.
That is THE basics.
Complain about this comment
@275, Jean Luc wrote “The only way to get out of the pacta sunt servanda rule (apart from the Rebus sic stantibus, as recognized by the vienna convention on the law of treaties) is the option provided in EU law itself: withdrawing from the EU”
I have seen and felt this; I have a personal animosity towards dictators, having personally learned history lessons about one, Sukarno, and having personal historical experience with another, Suharto. For me then, the only way to go is either I go away or they forced me to go away in their way. EU sounds similar to my old dictatorship Indonesia. Whilst in the USA, there is no way for a state to go away neither can a state be forced to go away. So we have the Tea Party-goers in each state, knowing darn well that they can raise all the ruckus they could possibly managed, just to change the Federal Government.
This should sort out your request @ 280 for explanation as to why a Federal Union like USA is more democratic than a supranational entity. A democratic entity has immovable citizens to mollify, whilst an immovable supranational entity has no citizens to mollify.
Complain about this comment
265. At 10:06pm on 14 Nov 2010, Jean Luc wrote:
" ...
Also you forgot to clarify how the supreme judges of the ECJ function in any different way from national supreme judges. ..."
EUpris:
1) They come from countries which have a far greater tendency to corruption and fascism than the Brits.
2) They make decisions on the basis of morally illegitimate treaties. We were promised a referendum and then didn't get it. So the existence "EU" is morally illegitimate.
3) They are reputed to have a political job of furthering "EU"-integration.
4) They are claimed to make it up as they go along, deciding without really sticking to the law.
5) There are plausible claims that there is deliberate discrimination against the UK in the "EU"-apparatus because of people like me.
My main points are 1 & 2. I have less evidence for 3,4 and 5. I don't really need them to be against the "ECJ."
Complain about this comment
76. At 11:47am on 13 Nov 2010, Jean Luc wrote:
" ...
@EUPRISONER
...
If the lisbon treaty was 'imposed' on you, you should complain to your national government. ...."
EUpris: I can complain wherever and whenever I like.
Complain about this comment
We know all you EU lovers LOVE the USA sooo much
that is why you are trying to become More like us by
being the EU:)))
(joke..no offense)
Complain about this comment
The above is how to get everyone, not just one group, to dislike one
in one lil comment:))
Cheers!
Funny--strange==and I DO like France--they don't like me..you say..hmm
Darn
Complain about this comment
I DO like Gavin Hewitt--as host and writer--he's thinking.. ewwwwwwwww!
(Now I'll get moderated!)
Complain about this comment
I miss Marcus!..if youre out there, Marcus..
Check in!
I'm Seri ewwwwwwws!
Ck in!
See? I care bout these here peoples..am concerned, Marcus,
someone has to be
:)))))
Are you in hospital?
Complain about this comment
Re #293
There were (still are) Britons (including even a Scott -Sean Connery) who liked a lot of things (although not all) about America. :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9183100.stm
Complain about this comment
Re #205
The link would explain that some Scottish fismongers are so bitter not because of shortage of fish oil due to oil drilling.
Complain about this comment
tII" . . . but I bet there a none in your country who own the foreshore as well as the seabeds up to 12 miles from the shore". Ask anyone who has been involved in offshore drilling in West Africa or routing the North Stream pipeline and you will discover that it is a more or less international norm. How much was that bet for?"
There are major countries which claim signficantly more that 12 miles from the shores as their economic zones or even territorial waters.
China and Russia come readily to mind.
[and I am not even talking about North Pole]
Complain about this comment
Re #233
Buzet, you're entering dangerous waters (beyond 12 miles from shore) by poing out Scottish roots of both, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
You can get pummeled here, or even hit with a tree trunk.
Complain about this comment
Re: "Even more curious is that in Switzerland one can be elected as a judge without being a lawyer."
In the U.S. one does not have be lawyer or even ever having been a law student to be nominated to the Supreme Court and becoming its judge.
Complain about this comment
True, look at Bush nominees, lolol
Wasn't one a clerical type secretary?
Sorry, PMK, just joshin' you
:))))
Complain about this comment
Re' "Kosovo had more of the political-cultural-economic-historic State about it even before it was recognised as such than the post-Maastricht EU has after 20 years!"
I think some Serbs would strongly disagree with you on that :)'
Obviously not those who desperately want to get into EUSSR. :)
Complain about this comment
#268
buzet;
"As for there being no non-lawyers as justices, just what are magistrates, did you two 'experts' forget the lowest tier of the English justice system."
Sshhhh, stop confusing them with facts. You know they dont like it, it tends to interfere with the racist hyperbole.
Complain about this comment
Of course, the EU system is not really democratic. You only have to look to the "1 man - 1 vote" rule. Obviously, the weight of a Luxemburgers vote is around 300 times as high as a Germans in the EU elections.
But, I do not see this as part of a secret dictatorship pressing it's will on poor Englanders.
Just the opposite is the case, IMHO.
There is a power struggle between national concerns and common european. And we are just on a current point on a historical timeline to ever more european integration.
All the questionable points that could be made about the current state of democracy in the EU legislation are a result of nation states not wanting to give too much power to the EU.
If you want to put more democracy into the european institutions, you at least have to take in mind, that you have to out balance the differences between bigger and smaller countries.
The classic solution for such a federation would be a federal constitution, where common law is made by an assembly of evenly elected people, but controlled by an upper house with members who are sent in by the different countries.
In such a federal system, one man, one vote at least is true for the 1st chamber of law making, while the weighted votes are reduced to the 2nd chamber. That is the historical compromise to integrate the rights of the smaller states into a democratic union of states.
What I do not find very consistend from the eurosceptics, is to fight against any kind of more power transfer to the EU, to fight against a constitution, to fight against genaral elections with one man, one vote, to fight against hypernational law making, to fight against a political union, to fight against a federation - and then cry about lacking democracy in the EU.
It's not the EU, that wants to have less democracy, it's the nation states that do not want to share power and influence to a general elected european parliament.
Complain about this comment
Re #302
Stevenson: check some Supreme Court judges more than merely 20 years back. :)
Complain about this comment
Congratulations to all Greek posters on a victory of Socialists in Athens area.
Things start to look up.
Complain about this comment
#273. At 10:55pm on 14 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
Now just why did you have to spoil that post by trying an insinuation at the end, he certainly does not dislike Germans, it's simply the annoyance and craziness of asking for the full history every year rather than just an update of any changes, such as the previous year. Germany, like the UK has a complete computerised record of career within the country but only needs the rest of the details when the age of retirement imminently approaches. In my friends case he has just negotiated the Belgian and French parts but cannot touch the German part until he's 65.
This highlights another area where the EU is not working to purpose, the procedure for claiming your pension is to contact the pension authority of your country of domiciliation before your pension is due, they then contact the other countries pension authorities where you have worked to both claim your pension there and get your history there. That's the theory but you need to be on the ball and verify everything yourself, in Germany's case they should not even be interested yet as it's too early. But to send a very large document asking for the complete history (and proof) every year is excessive and an abuse.
Complain about this comment
#275. At 11:11pm on 14 Nov 2010, Jean Luc
"I mentioned pacta sunt servanda to demonstrate the UK has to respect EU law (primary and secondary) and that this sovereignty bill won't change anything to that, precisely because of the principle of pacta sunt servanda (from international law perspective) and the primacy principle (from EU law perspective)."
It's you that is on a Walter Mitty world as you place everything you've been saying on the brocard 'pacta sunt servand' as if it was sacrosanct, but this is not sacrocanct. This brocard means simply "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.". The key words being 'good faith', there is no means of enforcement of your laws other than by good faith, and if the UK parliament decides to withdraw from the EU it can. The EU treaties are simply an agreement between several entities in good faith, that's all.
The UK's sovereignty bill in effect qualifies the good faith and for that it is important. I don't expect you to either understand or accept this since you have a very closed perspective.
Complain about this comment
Re #280
I have explained the difference between the 'democracy' of the USA and the EU, however, in typical 'pro-EU' style JL thinks repeatedly asking for an answer he will eventually get the only 1 he is prepared to accept.
As those of us with knowledge & understanding know only too well disappointment is a painful but necessary experience in any democratic tradition.
The Legislature: USA & EU systems.
To compare the 'Democracy' of the Federal USA with that of the post-Maastricht EUropean Union is the equivalent of considering the NASA 'Mir Satellite' Scientists and the Bicycle-makers of Kittyhawk had the same purpose in mind: Namely, a heavier-than-air machine to make a flight.
Thus, whilst there is no denying the reliable fact of the intention and achievement, so there is no comparison of the 'orbit' and in the 'political' sense of the democratic 'deed'.
In mature 'democracy' terms this is where the USA & the EU are at 2010:
The US has a President Elected by Citizen vote.
The EU has 4 Presidents: None elected by Citizen vote.
The US has 2 Chambers of a Congress: All elected by Citizen vote.
Senate = 100 (2 per State) for 6yr term & one-third elected every 2yrs.
House of Reps = 435 (apportioned by Population) for 2yr term representing 50 States (plus Districts).
The US Congress reflects the Citizens' Democratic Ballot box expression of opinion on the Legislature (& indirectly the Executive) every 2yrs.
The EU has 1 Parliament elected by Citizen vote across 27 States (post-Lisbon Treaty, MEPs = 736 rising to 754 MEPs for 5yr term - apportioned by population). There are no mid-term elections. There is no Citizen electoral involvement at any level during the EU's 5yr Parliament term.
The EU Parliament sits without any requirement to go to the people (consult) on any Legislative policy-making etc.
When any State of the 50 US States' Citizens by Election change their Political Government (i.e. from Democrat to Republican & vice versa) that is reflected in the Representatives seated at the US Congress.
When any 1 of the 27 EU States' Citizens by Election change their Political Government (e.g. from Labour to Conservative & vice versa) there is no change in the Representatives in the EU Parliament.
The US through Direct Election by Citizens selects over 1,000,000 Federal Public Office-holders every Electoral cycle.
The EU does not have any EU Office-holder elected by the Citizens (except MEPs).
The US 'Executive' is appointed by and is responsible to the President; Congress holds hearings to assess their suitability; their term of Office is determined by the President.
The EU 'Commission' is appointed by 27 State Governments negotiating compromise candidates in order for each Nation to be represented; a Commissioner is independent of any State, but is accountable to the unelected EU Commission President and to the elected EU Parliament; they are interviewed by the EU Parliament for their suitability; their term of office is determined by varied National & supra-National factors.
In terms of Constitutional longevity and Political maturity:
The US is a 250 year old 'Democracy' tried and attested to by Historic levels of involvement by its Citizens at Political-Judicial-Military-Social level. It has a Supreme Court of Justices whose membership is drawn from various Presidential appointments backed by 11 other Federal Courts; once appointed all Judges are independent of the Executive & the Legislature in their Judgements. This Legal mechanism ensures the US Constitution is interpreted & upheld on behalf of the Citizens. The US Supreme Court is the 3rd equal branch of the US Constitution. Combining with Elections every 2yrs the US Citizens are regularly consulted and able to participate in the US Constitutional process and via the Electoral system can express their consent/approval or otherwise for the direction of their Federal Government's policies.
The EU is a 20 year old political construct: Post-inception at Maastricht it has never received Citizens' Consent or Approval by any recognised democratic Electoral system. The Citizens of 26 of the 27 EU States have been excluded from Electoral consultation & participation in the evolving constitutional framework of the EU. Several States' Citizens have by election consented to their Nation becoming a member of the EU which proponents claim is indicative of the EU's popularity. Those same 'pro-EU' then deny Citizen Votes opposing the 'constitution' & opposed to Lisbon were indications of dissatisfaction with the EU. The EU Court of Justice also has an independent Judiciary. However, its role is to interpret & uphold an EU Constitution never approved or consented to by the EU Citizens. Combining with the 5yr Parliament and the compromise & compromised Commission membership it is clear the level of EU Citizen democratic participation in the EU is minimal.
Complain about this comment
#307. At 08:21am on 15 Nov 2010, powermeerkat
Socialists? Me thinks thou doth postulate too much.
Complain about this comment
@ 310. At 09:28am on 15 Nov 2010, cool_brush_work
Of course, as I desribed a few potings above: The Eu lacks of democracy and the historical aproved kind of democracy for a union of states would be a federal republic, like the USA or Germany.
One man, one vote for the lower house, controlled by an upper house of state representants, to out balance the rights and duties of bigger and smaller federal states.
But, reason that it is not this way in the EU is not an dictatorship of EU institutions, but european nation states that don't want to give to much power to an european parliament.
We could have more democracy in the EU, but not without some kind of fedceral constitution. And that would mean, that european nation states would have to transfer many legislative duties to the EU, much more than nowadays. And at least some countries, especially on some islands, simply don't want such a transfer, while at the same times howling the loudest about a lack of democracy in the EU.
Complain about this comment
Re #280
I have often explained the '50%' Voter turnout test for the EU, however, JL also chooses to forget those replies.
4 successive EU Parliament Elections have not achieved 50% Citizen Voter participation. The last in June 2009 only achieved a derisory 43.3%. In 5 of the EU States less than 25% voters participated (not UK) and in 3 it was under 20%. Some MEPs are in Brussels with less than 15% of the eligible Voters having taken part in their EU Constituency.
These are the voting numbers approaching the level of a banana republic!
With less than 1 in 3 of the eligible Citizens voting for the MEPs it is ridiculous for anyone to claim the EP has a Mandate from Citizens to enact any Legislation.
By comparison all EU27 States at National Elections achieve a Citizen Voter turnout considerably in excess of 50%. Even if 50% is not to be regarded as a significant number in Voting terms it is surely an indication of the importance EU Citizens attach to their National Elections & National Government concerning National sovereign issues that the voting figures consistently over the post-Maastricht period far excede those for the EP.
Bye-Elections across all 27 EP States often attract far less Voter participation, but it does depend on the local circumstance: In contrast the fixed-term 5 year EP Elections should surely be attracting widespread participation as they are supposedly key to the EU 'democracy' system!? The actual repeatedly falling, low Voting figures clearly demonstrate Citizens are disillusioned & distrustful of the whole EU democratic system.
It is worth noting that during the last 6 years the Voting figures for 19 of the 27 EU States increased for their National Elections and yet for the EU they fell in 2004 and again in 2009 to a new record low!
In traditional Democratic terms the EU-Brussels entity has no Mandate to act on behalf of the 500+million.
Complain about this comment
#312. At 09:57am on 15 Nov 2010, starofthesouth
There is simply too much history within Europe for a federal EU ever to work, national sentiments, historical sentiments, national interests etc outweigh all forms of democracy that could be implemented. This is why so many are in favour of loose trade agreements and freedom of movement treaties etc but do not want a formal supra-national federation at any cost. Countries and peoples that have distrusted each other for centuries can cooperate in loose treaties, but when it comes to say Germans running a country they overran, that is a recipe for disaster. Likewise asking the British to accept being controlled by France is a distinct no-no. There is simply too much history in Europe.
Complain about this comment
@ Buzet
My interpretation of history sees a very common ground for a federal european state, as alomost all the countries have large historical ties to the roman empire and the holy roman empire.
I'm rather shure, that the french and the germans nowadays were able to form a rather close union, founding on the common history since Charlemagne.
I'm shure too, that Spain and Italy could be convinced in tradition of Rome. Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire of Charles V, Roman treaties.
Also I'm shure, that Benelux would join.
Well, and then we would be at the level of the core founders of the EC, plus Spain which would have been already a natural partner in the 1950ies, if it wasn't a dictatorship then.
These countries, plus Scandinavia and Austria could be able, IMHO, to found a federal European State.
And if that would happen, most of the peripheral states would like to join, sooner or later.
Almost all, but one, as we know.
As you might have found out by my mistakes using the english language, I'm german.
All I try to make clear is, that I understand, that many british people, better say english, see it as an advantage to stay half a food in and half a food out, to remain some power to be used in national interest. Playing this card and that card every now and then.
But I think, that only works until several central european countries think a point has come, where their need for ever closer union could not wait for the UK anymore.
And, this need does really exist, it is not an utopia for many continental europeans, but the future they want.
Complain about this comment
Re #280
Despite the pleas from JL (& doubtless to the relief of You all) I don't propose to go into a dissertation on the increasing dangers from the ever-Judicially encroaching EUropean Court of Justice.
This topic has ben argued over by JL & I fairly often: If, well really, 'as' JL doesn't ever get the point there's no more ways to rehearse the argument.
The inherent contradiction between a supposedly benign, balanced ECJ according to its 'competences' and the reality with each Judgement asserting its supremacy over National Parliaments & Justices the ECJ becomes increasingly the 'ruler' of the entire EUropean Union.
Thus, an allegedly 'democratic' supra-National EU and 500+million Citizens are in effect controlled by 27 Judges.
Complain about this comment
starofthesouth
Re #310
Thanks for the response.
I get Your 'howling' allusion.
However, perhaps a better term would be 'considering': In that there are 'some countries, especially on some islands' whose Citizens have yet to be convinced there is any virtue in acceding more authority and power to a centralised EUrocracy that has never demonstrated any inclination to Reform itself or to allow Citizen participation.
I also do not agree it is largely an 'island' peoples opposition: The much vaunted EU 'Constitution' was rejected by founding members Netherlands & France; the Lisbon Treaty was Ratified only at the 2nd Referendum attempt by Ireland, but that was still 2 more Referendum than any of the other 26 States' Citizens were permitted.
Complain about this comment
@ 316
In Germany, the European Justice is not allowed to over rule german constitution or german constitutional court.
Maybe the lack of a constitution is a problem for the UK, I don't know.
Complain about this comment
@EUPRIS
RE "1) They come from countries which have a far greater tendency to corruption and fascism than the Brits.
2) They make decisions on the basis of morally illegitimate treaties. We were promised a referendum and then didn't get it. So the existence "EU" is morally illegitimate.
3) They are reputed to have a political job of furthering "EU"-integration.
4) They are claimed to make it up as they go along, deciding without really sticking to the law.
5) There are plausible claims that there is deliberate discrimination against the UK in the "EU"-apparatus because of people like me.
My main points are 1 & 2. I have less evidence for 3,4 and 5. I don't really need them to be against the "ECJ.""
1) If this is so, the UK should have blocked their entrance into the EU because being a democracy is a prerequisite to being eligble for EU membership. Apart from that it is quite funny to read an Englishman who got betrayed not only by his Labour government but also by the Tory party (promising referendums they didn't organize) accuse other countries of having greater tendency to corruption. Perhaps you should first sort out your own political elite before accusing that of other countries of tendency to corruption and fascism :)
2) Again this is something purely internal to the UK. You know yourself because you NEVER specify WHO promised you a referendum: it was not the EP, nor the Commission or Council, it was your own (corrupt? :)) politicians betraying you.
3) 'they are REPUTED' ? lol seriously..
4) 'they are CLAIMED' ?
5) 'there are PLAUSIBLE CLAIMS ?
And obviously you don't need objective reasons to be against the ECJ. Who hadn't figured that out by now.
@BUZET
Re "The key words being 'good faith', there is no means of enforcement of your laws other than by good faith"
From an International Law perspective yes. But it can be enforced by EU law itself, not simply good faith there.
Re "and if the UK parliament decides to withdraw from the EU it can. The EU treaties are simply an agreement between several entities in good faith, that's all. "
That is exactly what I am saying all along. So if you had bothered to actually read what I wrote you needn't have filled this blog with nonsense on international law (international law does not exist?).
In case you still do not get it: I was making clear the UK should be clear towards its partners and choose: in or out of the EU (both options equally valid). But if they decide to remain in the EU they should honour EU obligations in good faith instead of moaning about their lost sovereignty.
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "To compare the 'Democracy' of the Federal USA with that of the post-Maastricht EUropean Union is the equivalent of considering the NASA 'Mir Satellite' Scientists and the Bicycle-makers of Kittyhawk had the same purpose in mind: Namely, a heavier-than-air machine to make a flight."
You do spend an awful amount of words on irrelevant comparisons.
Re "The US has a President Elected by Citizen vote.
The EU has 4 Presidents: None elected by Citizen vote."
You have a maths problem. If the EU has 4 presidents, the US has more than one aswell. Because the US has a president of the Senate and Hous of Representatives aswell. These latter presidents are not directly elected either.
Furthermore you should not be content with such a superficial analysis. Only politicians with far reaching competences are directly elected. The US president has a lot of power, the question is whether the 'presidents' you refere to of the EU have comparable powers that they merit to be directly elected. Only Barosso comes close, but the Commission is a collegiate body, Barosso's voice weighs as much as that of the other 26 commissioners, hard to compare this to President Obama.
So please comment further on this.
On the legislator:
There are more feedback moments in the US than in the EU yes. At the same time, voter turnout (which was so pivotal in your earlier contribution) is the same. Comparing the EU system with European national systems reveals that the feedback moments are the same. So again you do not really show how the EU parliament substantially differs from national systems.
Re "When any State of the 50 US States' Citizens by Election change their Political Government (i.e. from Democrat to Republican & vice versa) that is reflected in the Representatives seated at the US Congress.
When any 1 of the 27 EU States' Citizens by Election change their Political Government (e.g. from Labour to Conservative & vice versa) there is no change in the Representatives in the EU Parliament."
I am not an expert of American politics, but I think you are wrong here. The state representatives at the federal level have fixed terms. If the government changes at state level this has no consequences for the representatives in washington (e.g. California historically votes democratic in state and federal elections, when Schwarzenegger was elected as governor (republicans) this did not mean the representatives of California in Washington couldn't be democrat anymore).
What IS the case is that the state and federal elections often coincide. Which means there is greater chance that the same party will win both elections. But by no means is this 'more democratic', it even blurs the distinction between state and federal level.
Re "The US through Direct Election by Citizens selects over 1,000,000 Federal Public Office-holders every Electoral cycle.
The EU does not have any EU Office-holder elected by the Citizens (except MEPs)."
Indeed, the EU doesn't do this, because it is a european organization and this system is unknown to european states. Again you do not show how the EU is different in this regard from the member states it is composed of, member states which according to you are democratic, but the EU is not (again according to you).
On the accountability of the executive; again no difference from national european systems. The executive is accountable and can be dismissed by Parliament. Where is the difference?
Re "The EU is a 20 year old political construct: Post-inception at Maastricht it has never received Citizens' Consent or Approval by any recognised democratic Electoral system. The Citizens of 26 of the 27 EU States have been excluded from Electoral consultation & participation in the evolving constitutional framework of the EU. Several States' Citizens have by election consented to their Nation becoming a member of the EU which proponents claim is indicative of the EU's popularity. Those same 'pro-EU' then deny Citizen Votes opposing the 'constitution' & opposed to Lisbon were indications of dissatisfaction with the EU. The EU Court of Justice also has an independent Judiciary. However, its role is to interpret & uphold an EU Constitution never approved or consented to by the EU Citizens. Combining with the 5yr Parliament and the compromise & compromised Commission membership it is clear the level of EU Citizen democratic participation in the EU is minimal."
You keep going on about post maastricht, but maastricht is no breaking point. The EU (EEC) is 50 years old and just like the US will need time to settle.
The consent of citizens is presumed because national states have ratified the EU treaties according to their own constitutional requirements. So if these citizens do not consent they should address their national governement. I know you don't like to hear this, but this is how it is.
Re "In traditional Democratic terms the EU-Brussels entity has no Mandate to act on behalf of the 500+million."
Your whole argument rests on your personal conviction that this low turnout means there is no mandate. And you try to give your personal opinion some weight by saying 'in traditional democratic terms'. If these terms are so traditional, please point to us a legal, political or political philosophical work that describes how low voter turnout in a polity where all our free to vote (but choose not to make use of this right) means there is no mandate. This work should also address ofcourse the resulting problem that society might be taken hostage by 'the apathic'.
Surely this cannot be a problem if the terms you refer to are so traditional. If you can't find a reference, explain to us yourself this fundamental problem.
Re "The inherent contradiction between a supposedly benign, balanced ECJ according to its 'competences' and the reality with each Judgement asserting its supremacy over National Parliaments & Justices the ECJ becomes increasingly the 'ruler' of the entire EUropean Union. "
Well well. I asked you and you refused again. I did mention it could be interesting to you to actually read some judgments of the ECJ, because obviously you have never actually read one.
Let me give you some examples of the ECJ curtailing the power of the EU in favour of the national member states (all of them are major landmark cases):
Keck and Mithouard (free movement of goods)
Schmidberger (free movement of goods may be restricted by the exercise of citizen's fundamental rights)
Omega spielhallen (free movement of goods may be restricted by a fundamental right, not recognized by EU law but only by national law)
Tobacco case (EU has no general competence to regulate the internal market, this competence remains at national level)
By these simple four cases I have refuted your claim (which you obviously never bothered to substantiate) that the ECJ asserts its (general?) supremacy over national jurisdictions.
Oh and I am also waiting for a legal analysis of the bailout.
Complain about this comment
and,
316. At 11:08am on 15 Nov 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
##############
The inherent contradiction between a supposedly benign, balanced ECJ according to its 'competences' and the reality with each Judgement asserting its supremacy over National Parliaments & Justices the ECJ becomes increasingly the 'ruler' of the entire EUropean Union.
Thus, an allegedly 'democratic' supra-National EU and 500+million Citizens are in effect controlled by 27 Judges.
###############
In fact, the really big decisions are maid in the European Council only.
By the elected heads of states. And not against the vote of their respective national parliaments.
If you want to, you can add the european parliament in some cases, but for it's democratic problems, this is more or less a test parliament.
All other levels of european policy making, especially the commission are more part of the executive not the legislative.
Complain about this comment
Apologies and correction to my #313:
I wrote in '5' of the nations less than 25% voted.
The fact is: in '6' of the nations less than '30%' voted with '2' of those below 25%.
Complain about this comment
284. At 11:53pm on 14 Nov 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"""#282 Nik
´--sets the question of the legitimacy of the elections themselves !!!´
--or of Greece itself ?"""
What do you mean? Do you have any aspirations to see this country dissapear? Perhaps do you dream of genociding it or something?
Let me tell you mate. The fact that this country is governed by a non-Greek overclass of people serving other peoples' interests does not tell anything about the country and does not permit you to say whatever about it, it is just a small country operated by others: it has to be this or annihilation and genocide, that is its choice (and things might as well move to the latter as things go). If there is ever any legitimate state, that is Greece it is not countries like for example Britain - what is Britain? a legitimate country? With all those Nothern Irelands Scotlands and Wales and random islands around the world including protectorates? Perhaps France that passed 300 years to teach its people speak French to call it a nation? Or Germany, be it a nation but in reality united by bankers to make use of it in the following pre-designed wars - used effective more than 2 times in that way? And I won't even mention the legitimacy of states like (random pick)... US, Australia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Korea, Bosnia etc. etc. etc.
So do not say whatever and do not open your own can of worms.
Do not open your own can of worms mate.
Complain about this comment
#315. At 10:59am on 15 Nov 2010, starofthesouth
I take your point, and don't worry about the language, that has never been important to English people as it's the conversation that counts. I recall my English only speaking children somehow communicating with French only speaking Belgian children many years back, they managed. Now my two are fluent in French as well as English.
As for the Federal EU, I see where you're coming from, especially as you are German and used to a federal state, however here in Belgium I'm sure you're aware the federal state is self destructing as the North wants to split from the South. I've heard that is also being considered in other countries as you have Northern Ireland, the Basques, the Catalans, the Northern Italians and maybe others I don't know of. Not so many years back Czech and Slovakia split. My point is that since all these regions and many others wish to be masters of their own destiny, placing a supra-national federal master above them would be like a red rag to a bull as once again they will be controlled by others.
I think your views are therefore a bit too idealistic and require a perfect world, unfortunately Europe and Europeans are far from perfect and European politicians have a habit of being both intolerant of dissent and self-obsessed, let alone being often corrupt. I think this is why the UK (in general) prefer a loose association for mutual benefit to a supra-national federal superpower that could easily get out of control. Remember that the UK has been a major net contributor to the EU, like Germany has, since entering and has therefore shown willingness to be part of Europe, even if many on the mainland dismiss that as meaning nothing.
Complain about this comment
Re #319
Sorry JL, but I'm simply not going to keep setting out well established viewpoints just because You find they don't suit You.
You twist and You turn as much as You feel the need: I have made my views clear and the background to how those perspectives are arrived at.
Nothing 'military', no name-calling of You and certainly no denigration of Your ideas: Just straightforward 'postulation' & 'commentary' on how the EU-Brussels entity functions (or doesn't) IMO.
Unfortunately for You and all the 'pro-EU' lobbyists You don't have the monopoly on authoritative conclusions though I daresay if Your EU continues in its present aggrandizing, centralising, 'one-size-fits-all' mode of operation Free Speech will also go the way of the 'deficit-democratic' Brussels' bin-liner!
Complain about this comment
307. At 08:21am on 15 Nov 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""Congratulations to all Greek posters on a victory of Socialists in Athens area.
Things start to look up."""
You have already gotten your answer on the previous thread on that, no need to repeat. WIth 35% of voters voting and a bit more than 10% of them actually going there to put blank or invalid (most of them the latter - including their personal notes...) all while there is going on an unconstitutional citizenshipisation of illegal immigrants who all go as voters to PASOK socialist party led by US man Jeffrey (not to forget where we are eh?) and who number in the 100,000s (and who as "first timers" might have been more motivated to go vote), then there is no wonder PASOK gets to survive fairly "well" in these regional elections.
However there is absolutely no legitimacy in all that, the county is unofficially under a US-imposed dictatorship. You can argue that people could go to vote against the party if they wanted but to do so they would have to pick something else and the choice is:
ND - previous government (if they do so, forests will become to burn again, people will get killed in the streets and cities will be smashed by the usual known-unknowns who unsurprisingly cirrently under socialist government are rather absent - everything goes fine for them under IMF you see
KKE, SYN - communist and leftish parties... we are talking about the absolute political decadence
LAOS - populist as-if extra right wing party that has served as an aiding tool too often to the socialist party playing the same role certain smaller leftish parties play against the PASOK party (these the parties of balance between 2 major parties)
i.e. the whole election system is rigged at its basis. So such an argument "Greeks should go vote" falls empty. There is nothing there to do about it, the country is anyway governed in a dictatorial manner. Parties are rather for the shake of it, for giving it a democratic flavour, a ... legitimisation which for people simply does not exist.
Complain about this comment
#319. At 11:28am on 15 Nov 2010, Jean Luc
Well done you were almost there until you said "From an International Law perspective yes. But it can be enforced by EU law itself, not simply good faith there.". The EU law is again by treaty and 'good faith' only, if any EU member state decides to enact a domestic law contrary to the treaty it can, even if that goes against the grain of 'pacta sunt servanda'. Look at #318 for example as domestic constitutions and parliaments are who rule those member states. Until such time as a federal state exists that can actively enforce a law, it is only 'in good faith', and I personally have a horror of that changing.
Complain about this comment
321. At 11:35am on 15 Nov 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"""Apologies and correction to my #313:
I wrote in '5' of the nations less than 25% voted.
The fact is: in '6' of the nations less than '30%' voted with '2' of those below 25%."""
And in this CBW you should add that even in the countries were participation was a bit higher, the real motives behind was that the EU elections were internally posed as an internal clash ahead of oncoming national/regional elections where parties had to show off so as to ensure better results.
The sad reality is that elections of near-total-illegitimate nature send unknown people to the EU parliement where they mostly earn a salary and pretend to take decisions. Through a certain network of an acquaintance I have happened to meet in person Eu-parliamentarians at Brussels (of my country and other) and cannot say I am overly impressed by their overall standing. They do work, I do not refuse that, but they do not know how they are working and for whom they are working. It is a very complex environment and at the end, the decision making "comes from above".
Complain about this comment
starofthe south
Re #320
Admire Your optimism.
Unfortunately, the facts are very different in Legal terms.
It is the EUropean Court of Justice that has the 'supremacy' to over-rule, strike-out, dismiss any Law passed by a Democratically Elected National Parliament.
A Political Party or group of Parties Elected to form a Government by a Majority of Citizens on the strength of the content of its Manifesto can have any part of its subsequent Legislation programme denied by the Judgement of the ECJ. That is a denial of the Democratic process and negates the Vote of every Citizen.
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat, sorry I forgot to add the "Ecologists". Yes, Greeks can vote the "Ecologists" to get them out of the crisis. It is party funded indirectly by George. No, not Clooney, but another clown, George Soros. We are talking about a guarantee of political action eh*?
* Eg. Ecologists were fiercely against the Russian natural gas pipelines on the basis of ecologic questions. But they were totally silent to the replacement project initiated by Jeffrey, the LPG pipeline. So we learnt out of them that burning LPG is more ecological than LNG and that LNG pipelines pose more ecological problems than LPG pipelines! We are talking about some Soros-ecology there! Super choice for the elections!
Complain about this comment
Re #322
Still woofing and its not even a full moon!
Complain about this comment
@ 323. At 11:41am on 15 Nov 2010, Buzet23 wrote
Buzet, especially for the problems of Belgium, or the Basks, the Scottish, the South Tyrolians etc. pp. a federal european union would have big advantages. The so called Europe of the Regions could be a great solution.
Under a big european helmet and with declining influence of the common national states, it would get much easier for the french speaking part of Belgium to aliance with there regional french neighbours, as for the Flames to join in with the dutch.
The Basques could cooporate on both sides of the Pyrenees.
Even in Germany I can tell you, that the catholic Bavarians have much more in common with the Austrians, than with the potestant north of Germany. While this part has much more in common with the the Netherlands or Scandinavia.
Under an European roof, the Poles may easier join the Baltic countries and the baltic parts of Germany for some cooperation.
In Spain the Catalons and Andalusians may find it easier to life side by side, in the UK the Scots and the English, if they feel themselves equally under the european helmet, and not somewhat occupie by their neighbours.
I think, as I said, especially national minorities could find living easier under the european roof and artificial borders between neighbours of common culture, build by history and wars, could be overcome.
Complain about this comment
331. At 12:03pm on 15 Nov 2010, starofthesouth wrote:
"""I think, as I said, especially national minorities could find living easier under the european roof and artificial borders between neighbours of common culture, build by history and wars, could be overcome."""
All that is alright but the main problem is that for it to happen, EU has to develop an overall defense & military, space, energy & materials overall strategy which right now is absent. Till then, what you mention is actually letting regions get more and more fragile to other risks which are much higher than say Basques living together with the Castillans.
Complain about this comment
As such, the whole idea is that if we have to maintain the EU as it is and if we have to continue with the EU taking more and more of the responsibilities of the national governments, then, on the one hand the EU representatives have to represent the people in a more direct way as well as national parliaments having less of responsibilities will have to be essentially smaller - no need to maintain 100s of 100s of MPs. Thus EU elections have to be cancelled and the EU parliamentarians will have to be actually people voted through the national elections - i.e. each country giving say some 30% of its MPs to form the EU parliament. At the same time the power of the Commision will have to be reduced to simple co-ordination role rather than to decision making which will have to be left mostly to the council of Europe (PMs/presidents/chancellors & ministers of external affairs) and the EU parliement formed out of national MPs. In that way you half the expenses not only on the EU level but essentially on the national level, you simplify things and you increase the "democraticality" (there is no such word I know but you got the point...) of the EU. I doubt though that this was ever the point since the beginning.
Complain about this comment
330. At 12:00pm on 15 Nov 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"""Re #322
Still woofing and its not even a full moon!"""
Did not know you are occupied with astrology! Perhaps with alchemy too? Spin doctor?
Complain about this comment
@ 328. At 11:58am on 15 Nov 2010, cool_brush_work
To my knowledge, that is simply not true.
European Court cannot over rule any legislation of any EU country. Only if the legislation is not congruent with european treaties.
There is simply no european legislation, as every european "law" is only a agreement between the memberstates, that has to be injected in any national law book, by any parliament, in any member state.
Another part of european justice could be cases about human rights. But even here, European Court cannot overrule national constitutions or national constitutional courts. There are only problems in these cases with those few countries that have no written constitution.
So, the way is: EU decides about a new directive (sic: not law). EU Parliament and Council give their ok.
Every member State brings this ldirecticve into their domestic parliament. Normally parliament agrees and integrates the european directive into national law.
Only then the European Court can rule about the correct implementation of this directive into national law.
Complain about this comment
Re #319
JL, as stated I'm not about to go into all of it again.
However, just to point out to You again a couple of things:
First, what I meant yesterday when I wrote You expose 'flaws' even as You try to reveal 'EU strengths':
You give 4 'Cases' of the ECJ findings that do not assert EU & ECJ 'authority' over National Courts. Now, let us run through that again. The EUropean Court of Justice held meetings to decide who had authority. I think You will find if You just step back and look in a clear manner at that Legal decision-making process You have just written agreeing it is the ECJ that has the ultimate power to consider & make a Judgement.
If the National Courts had the authority then the 'cases' would never have been considered at ECJ level, would they!? I.e. the ECJ is the supreme arbiter across the EU27 Legal system.
Well, well JL, You gave the example, not me: Please do argue against Yourself if You feel the need.
Second: Re 'Voter turnout', as I've asked before, please point out to all of us which European State commonly held as being 'democratic' in its constitutional format has an Elected National Assembly/Parliament for which a significant Majority of Citizens chose not to participate in the Election of the Representatives to it?
I'm not fixated on 'Mandate', but on the idea anyone 'pro-EU' should think it is proper for a Government to procede to enact Law when it does not have even the semblance of a 'majority' Citizen consent to do so. It is of course difficult for the 'pro-EU' to conceive of a 'Mandate' ever being a requirement because they do not see Democracy as essential to Brussels ruling without let or hindrance. Please do point out which Nations are governed better because their National Government does not have a 'Mandate' to rule, might I suggest You consider Sudan, Iraq, Zimbabwhe... Better still, point out to us all the political benefits of having Policy & Legislation enacted by Representatives elected by a Minority - - I believe that lets out EUrope - - You may like to try Burma, Libya, Uzbekistan etc.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Unfortunately for You and all the 'pro-EU' lobbyists You don't have the monopoly on authoritative conclusions though I daresay if Your EU continues in its present aggrandizing, centralising, 'one-size-fits-all' mode of operation Free Speech will also go the way of the 'deficit-democratic' Brussels' bin-liner!"
I take note of the fact you are unable to provide us with those characteristics of the EU polity than so fundamentally differ from the characteristics of national states (US, European and other modern states) that it makes the EU undemocratic whilst national states remain democratic.
I take note of the fact you are unable to tell us why below 50% turnout in EU elections is problematic but not so for national elections. As you claim this is evident from tradtional terms of democracy, this cannot be too hard.
I take note of your refusal to point to us a legal analysis of the bailout, whilst you yourself said it was blatantly illegal.
I take note of the fact you have no answer to my remarks on your EU-US comparison:
1. the multiple presidents in BOTH EU and US,
2. the difference between state and federal elections in US and
3. the general observation that when the EU differs from the US it is mainly because European politics differ from American and not because the EU itself is so fundamentally different from what we now .
In short: you refuse to elaborate your superficial analysis and get to the core of the issue where you should be able to demonstrate where that fundamental difference of the EU lays that makes it undemocratic.
Now I can perfectly understand if as a citizen you feel more comfortable being ruled by London or Helsinki than by Brussels and you have all right to these feelings. But If you take this feeling further (which you do) and start making claims on the functioning of the EU, you will have to accept that others (such as me) question the claims you postulate and will ask for clarification. Clarification which you can not give, so until you have 'a better case' perhaps you should not present your negative feelings towards the EU as objective facts :)
@BUZET
Re "Well done you were almost there until you said "From an International Law perspective yes. But it can be enforced by EU law itself, not simply good faith there.". The EU law is again by treaty and 'good faith' only, if any EU member state decides to enact a domestic law contrary to the treaty it can, even if that goes against the grain of 'pacta sunt servanda'. Look at #318 for example as domestic constitutions and parliaments are who rule those member states. Until such time as a federal state exists that can actively enforce a law, it is only 'in good faith', and I personally have a horror of that changing."
You mean I was ALMOST there maitre buzet? I will never learn will I?
The ECJ has already enforced the law by fining Member States, which then paid the amount imposed on them. The ECJ even imposed both a penalty payment AND lump sum on France (while the treaty specified penalty payment OR lump sum; what ensued before the court was a discussion on the meaning of the word 'or' is it inclusive or exclusive) despite this, France paid both.
So you can go on and say France paid 'in good faith' but then the whole discussion gets reduced to semantics. As I am a free human being, possible prison sentences are not 'enforced' on me but I accept them because I honour the rules of the society I live in 'in good faith'. Afterall I could try to flee and live elsewhere.
But please maitre Buzet, correct me and while you are at it, give us another interesting exposé on how international law does not exist or when it exists, the application of the vast whole body of international law depends on the acceptance of a statute of an international criminal court. ROFL
Complain about this comment
@ 332. At 12:14pm on 15 Nov 2010, Nik
I agree with you.
But I was coming from discussing with some eurosceptics about the lack of democracy in the EU, where my argument was, that just the sceptics and nationalist are the main reason for not implementing more democracy into the EU.
As you mentionend, we could not give more democracy to the EU, if we are not willing to transfer more power to the EU.
We cannot get a more democratic european parliament, if we don't want, that, for example Luxemburg, gets much, much lesser mmbers.
We cannot have more democracy in the EU parliament, if we don't allow them to elect an european prime minister.
We cannot have more democracy in the EU, if we not allow the parliament to make european laws, and especially laws about important things like taxes, welfare and defense.
My opinion is, that eurosceptics do not want any transfer of power, so it's bigott of them, to lament about lacking democracy.
As it's simply them, who are responsible for this lack of democracy.
Complain about this comment
@ 336. At 12:32pm on 15 Nov 2010, cool_brush_work wrote
We both know, that the real big european decisions are maid every halv a year in the Coucil by the heads of the national governments.
I think, you would agree, that much more people would care about the european elections, if the vote would be general and equal over all european people and if the parliament which we would bring together that way, would have something really meaningfull to decide.
But you don't want to transfer national power to the EU parliament, so what are you lamenting over voter turnout?
Complain about this comment
#331. At 12:03pm on 15 Nov 2010, starofthesouth
Sorry to disillusion you but in Belgium it is fairly frequently said that Wallonia does not want to be part of France, that Luxembourg would only want the Belgian regions of Luxembourg and Namur and that Holland does not want Flanders. Whether the peoples in those other regions you've mention feel differently I don't know. As for Northern Ireland and Wales, it is by no means sure they want to leave the UK as their is little enthusiasm for that, likewise the Scots as the Scottish Nationalists are not a majority in Scotland by head of population.
re "I think, as I said, especially national minorities could find living easier under the european roof and artificial borders between neighbours of common culture, build by history and wars, could be overcome."
The deciding factor is the 'federal' roof, the moment it becomes too powerful the same problems that caused these regions to split reoccur, mutual cooperation is fine, dominance is not.
Complain about this comment
starofthesouth
Re #355
You wrote the proof in Your reply: "..only if the legislation is not congruent with EU Treaties.."
The EU Treaties determine what is acceptable content for the Political Parties' Manifesto presented to their Citizen Constituents: Any Political Party that includes in its manifesto (whether deliberate or by error; whether by popular demand or by sleight of politicking) items which the Citizens have supported via the Ballot box and then becomes Government 'Policy', but do not comply with the EU can and will be taken to the ECJ. The ECJ has the supreme authority to hear and Judge such issues.
If any National Government enacts legislation not within the parameters of the EU Treaties then the ECJ has the supreme authority & power to over-rule that legislation. Thus, Legislation enacted by elected Government resulting from its approval by Citizens at the Ballot box is liable to ECJ Judgement disposing of the Citizens' Right & Responsibility to determine their Governments' policies.
There are no semantics or legal niceties to explain it away: The fact of the matter is post-Maastricht the ECJ has set about accruing an ever-increasing width of competence & a remit to hold to account any National Government. Thus, as time has passed without shade of any sort it is the ECJ that can and will rule the EU27.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSWORK
Re "You give 4 'Cases' of the ECJ findings that do not assert EU & ECJ 'authority' over National Courts. Now, let us run through that again. The EUropean Court of Justice held meetings to decide who had authority. I think You will find if You just step back and look in a clear manner at that Legal decision-making process You have just written agreeing it is the ECJ that has the ultimate power to consider & make a Judgement.
If the National Courts had the authority then the 'cases' would never have been considered at ECJ level, would they!? I.e. the ECJ is the supreme arbiter across the EU27 Legal system."
I think you have a hard time 'understanding' the relation between EU and national law. Perhaps you should just read a book on it.
EU law is supreme over national law (established by the ECJ in 1964). The ECJ is the sole interpretor of EU law (established in the Treaty). So the ECJ is the supreme judge. But being the supreme judge does not mean you are omnipotent. Even the supreme judge is bound by its supreme text (in our case the EU treaties which are written by the national states). So in those four cases the ECJ actually had to rule over how far this text goes. If it falls outside the text the ECJ is not supreme anymore.
And you can tell how relative being supreme is. The EU is supreme over its member states in areas described by the Treaties, there the ECJ is supreme over states, but it is those states who decide what goes into the treaty. Fascinating right?
In those four cases the national courts themselves asked the legal questions because there was interplay between EU and national law and the national judge wanted to know how far EU law extends. If EU law were all pervasive as you claim it is, they needn't have asked the question because they would have already known the answer.
So if you understood all this correctly, you would see I am not arguing against myself ;)
But as you keep ignoring the question I must presume you have never actually read an ECJ judgment. Quite cheap than to accuse the ECJ of all things evil :)
Re "Second: Re 'Voter turnout', as I've asked before, please point out to all of us which European State commonly held as being 'democratic' in its constitutional format has an Elected National Assembly/Parliament for which a significant Majority of Citizens chose not to participate in the Election of the Representatives to it? "
I have given you several constituencies in the UK that historically have below 50% turnout. Of course you can argue that these are constituencies and not the whole territory, but if you have more than a superficial understanding of democracy you should be able to address that issue as well. What does below 50% turnout in these constituencies mean for the legitimacy of UK policy in those constituencies? You CANNOT ignore this question if you state at the same time that EU policy is illegitimate because of below 50% turnout at EP elections.
And I have given the example of US elections. As we are talking about a democracy issue I can refer to non european democracies aswell. If you want I can look up turnout figures (current and historic) of european countries, but when we are talking about 'democracy' this shouldn't be necessary as the US is considederd a democracy (unless you disagree).
Re "I'm not fixated on 'Mandate', but on the idea anyone 'pro-EU' should think it is proper for a Government to procede to enact Law when it does not have even the semblance of a 'majority' Citizen consent to do so. "
I can also point to different Swiss policies being enforced after referndums on them, where the turnout of the referendum was below 50%. As there wasn't even a majority present to vote, there also wasn't a majority in favour of the proposal.
I can also point to your own country (UK) which because of the 'first past the post' system generally does not have a government which received a majority of popular vote (of the votes cast! I am not even taking account of the people that didn't show up)
For the 2005 general elections in the UK:
The resulting government was a Labour government with 55% of the seats in parliament, but ONLY 35% of the votes. If we add the voter turnout of 61% we see that Labour with 20% of citizen support (35% of the votes of 61% of all citizens) has enacted law for 5 years.
So tell me, how does this make the UK a democracy by your standard? (and if we repeat this exercise for other elections we are bound to get the same results).
I really am very curious
Complain about this comment
Re #334
Astronomy actually.
Still, 'astrology' - 'astronomy': For You the difference is on the margins of reality.
Complain about this comment
#315 Starofthesouth
I think you are mistaken regarding the UK/England . The British government tries to have one foot in the EU and one foot out , to try to be in , but appeasing the people , making them think that they are not fully committed . I believe that the majority of British/English people would rather be out of the EU . The dilemma is that at a general election , people are voting for who runs the country internally .
Although which MPs are for or against the EU is taken into consideration . Some Conservative political constituencies will not accept a potential candidate who is not eurosceptic . The British government is playing a one foot in and one foot out . I believe , given an IN or OUT referendum the British people would vote to be out .
Complain about this comment
Re #342
Sorry JL, but on neither point do You make any advacne on Your previous assertions.
In fact as I read the first bit I found Yu adding yet more detail to my point of view the EJC has the 'supreme' last word because of course it is making/determining its Judgements based on the 'supreme text' which it alone will be asked to consider as to its meaning.
The UK General Election was a farcical choice!
You admit Yourself 61% of all the eligible Citizens participated: Thus the UK Government is drawn from across that section of the enfranchised. Only 39% chose not to cast a Vote. 3 in every 5 of the Electorate voted.
There is just no comparison with the derisory Ballot box showing of the EP Election.
Furthermore, I've not claimed it has to be 50% for a Government: I've only ever argued it must be 50% or more participation for 'legitimacy' and a 'mandate'.
Blair's Government in a FPTP system most certainly had that Electoral Mandate by all the 'tradition' of the UK Democratic system.
Luckioly for You no one does apply Your yardstick for Blair & Labour to the 2009 EP Political groupings: If it were, the whole EP ediface really does come unglued! The EP ruling group hasn't even got a minimum 'mandate' among those that did Vote. The 2009 Ballot box result is appalling as it is: There are upwards of 80 MEPs whose electoral support does not equate to 10% of the votes cast in their Constituency - - only the process of Transferable Vote gives them any legitimacy at all!
JL, don't give Yourself so much grief: Take it on the chin like a democrat would and come back when You've a creditable EP to write about.
Complain about this comment
#331 Starofthesouth
I am not sure that your historical/political understandings are quite right . Though in the past there have been enmities between England and Scotland , that is not so today . England and Scotland will not get on any better under a European helmet , they are fine as they are . Many British/English people simply do not want to be members of the EU at any price . There are enmities between the British and the French . Many English people believe that France dumps large quantities of cheap , milk , eggs , tasteless Golden Delicious apple on the British market .
There are many British people who read labels carefully to see the country of origin and won't buy anything French .
Complain about this comment
starofthesouth
My day for apologies.
In my #341 I was of course referring to Your #335 (not future #355... now that would be astrology-clairvoyance!).
Complain about this comment
Don't people understand that it is not relationships between European countries and their peoples that is the barrier to a United Europe ?
Peoples right across Europe get on fine together , the British incuded with everyone else . The structure of the EU Brussels is the stopping point , a single Commission and European government telling everybody what to do , taking a stranglehold , destroying the individuality of states to govern themselves how they want and make their own laws .
The EU has no recepy that is acceptible to British citizens .
Complain about this comment
@COOLRBUSHWORK
Perhaps you should read what you wrote again:
""I'm not fixated on 'Mandate', but on the idea anyone 'pro-EU' should think it is proper for a Government to procede to enact Law when it does not have even the semblance of a 'majority' Citizen consent to do so. ""
The MAJORITY CITIZEN CONSENT is important
Labour government had no majority citizen consent (only 20% of citizens consented). And only 35% of the votes.
Because your 'theory of democracy' is unbelievable narrow and superficial you are in the impossibility to explain to us why below 50% turnout is a major problem for the EP, but below 50% of votes cast for a UK government isn't, and why below 25% of citizens support isn't problematic either for a UK government.
Furthermore I note
1. you refuse to comment on below 50% turnout in specific constituencies at UK general elections.
2. you refuse to comment on below 50% turnout at US general elections
3. you refuse to comment on below 50% turnout at Swiss referenda which form the basic decision of certain policies.
Concerning your EU US comparison:
I take note of the fact you have no answer to my remarks on your EU-US comparison:
1. the multiple presidents in BOTH EU and US,
2. the difference between state and federal elections in US and
3. the general observation that when the EU differs from the US it is mainly because European politics differ from American and not because the EU itself is so fundamentally different from what we now .
Concerning your critique on the ECJ:
I take note:
1. you refuse to comment on the basic fact that the EU treaties themselvs are written by the national states, not by some other european power or the ECJ itself.
2. you have not shown in anyway how the powers of the ECJ are different from national supreme judges (the Bundesverfassungsgericht can also declare a german law unconstitutional, even if for instance 80% of citizens support such a law).
3. that you generally don't really understand how the relationship is between EU and national law. I don't think I can explain it better than I have done. So perhaps you should read a text book on it, I am sure you haven't yet and you probably won't either. Much easier to give criticism in an unfounded way than to put some efforts in it and first read up on a subject!
And we are still waiting for your (personal or other) legal analysis of the bail out. Should not be too hard since you have claimed this bail out is blatantly illegal.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #349
You are mistaken.
Complain about this comment
Re #429
Nik, so sorry.
I genuinly thought that considering Greece's leftist politics tradition, a victory by Socialists would be considered a good news be its populus.
Obviously I was wrong.
P.S. How 'bout them Greek anarchists sending those warning letter bombs to Merkel, Sarkozy, etc..
Would they be a better choice?
Complain about this comment
A writing on the wall for all concerned?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1108/1224282865400.html
Complain about this comment
A move to the right in a view of the current crisis is unmistakable:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-11-14-france-fillon-government_N.htm
Complain about this comment
Re Shanghai inferno: "All of my relatives and friends have been driving to different hospitals! As a family member, what can I do in this situation? How can I calm down?
"I have only one thing to say - I ask the Communist Party to come and help quickly."
That's the country many European posters point to as a future superpower.
As long as its Communist Party comes and helps quickly.
Complain about this comment
#348 Hauimek
--Thank goodness !
---Europe it trying to free itself from serfdom --Britain is wallowing in it !
Complain about this comment
#283 CBW
--So you got my #283 mod questioned -- after answering it ?
Complain about this comment
#289 EUpris
The new batch of lollipops has arrived !
Your promise is a national problem --- have you tried calling Buckingham Palace or only your local Bingo Hall ?
Complain about this comment
Yukka,
That's your favourtite country you want admitted to EU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9179684.stm
Complain about this comment
#308 buzet 23
I was of the impression that Belgium had telephones.
--- and intelligent inhabitants who new how to use them !
I won´t bore you with British efficiency stories !
Complain about this comment
CBW
#287 no comment !
So what´s the ?- ?
Complain about this comment
I have made no complaint or referral of any kind about any comments on this Blog.
In 3 years I've only referred 2 comments (1 concerning the Soham child murderer & another a repeated Holocaust denier): Each time the Mods refused my complaint.
Complain about this comment
358. At 6:17pm on 15 Nov 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""Yukka,
That's your favourtite country you want admitted to EU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9179684.stm"""
You country actually kills for less than that. So I guess it would be far less eligible. Thanks for caring though for EU's quality in entries...
Complain about this comment
288 Jean Luc wrote:
Re CBW who claimed: "You are the 'chap' who compared those who disagreed to those unfortunates with 'Downs Syndrome' (and I'm writing the polite version of Your words)."
"You misrecall that, wilfully or not I do not know."
--------------------------------------------------------------
An old trick of his. Everytime I write something he disapproves of he claims and I quote:
"You are remembered for writing in support of denigrating jews in Israel, the Poppy Appeal, Remembrance Sunday etc"
Complete poppycock and an old trick that has seen better days. btw I have enjoyed your cool andintelligent contributions - keep it going as you are sorely needed with all the rubbish that is spouted here about the iniquity of the EU
Complain about this comment
348 Haimek wrote:
"Don't people understand that it is not relationships between European countries and their peoples that is the barrier to a United Europe?
Peoples right across Europe get on fine together ... The structure of the EU Brussels is the stopping point , a single Commission and European government telling everybody what to do , taking a stranglehold , destroying the individuality of states to govern themselves how they want and make their own laws."
So what about the 2 world wars in the 20th century and all the wars before that - all the fault of the EU structure and without it there would now be sweetness and light all round! Where do you live, Planet Fairyland?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
CBW
You gave the impression that ´Old soldiers never die ---they only fade away ´
---you must admit that 29 years is rather long for the process ?
Complain about this comment
Re, Contributions at #364 & #365
And still it goes on: Neither above contributor referred to in any way during an exchange of some 30 Comments between 'anti-EU' CBW and 'pro-EU' Jean Luc expressing/debating views on the respective merits of EU institutions.
Reference: "..anti-English motivational pattern.." and totally gratuitous, offensive, prejudice against the England.
No further comment needed.
Complain about this comment
351. At 4:36pm on 15 Nov 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""Re #429
Nik, so sorry.
I genuinly thought that considering Greece's leftist politics tradition, a victory by Socialists would be considered a good news be its populus.
Obviously I was wrong."""
Powermeerkat, I do like our discussion-confrontation cos it adds interest in the discussion (if everyone agreed with everyone it would be boring afteral) but then in such occasions I do tend to take your sayings more on the funny-ironic side (not that I mind you doing so, I do it also and often I am misjudged on it but be it so). Hence, in this occasion I do not understand what would you personally consider a "good scenario" for Greece.
Look I might resemble to you as "yet one right-winger" bashing the socialists but then in reality I am not at all. What right wing? Right wing in Greece ranged from the pro-British to the pro-royalists to the pro-US-dictatorworshipers ones, so since you know me as a self-described patriot I could never ascribe to any of these right wing fractions. In fact some of my views have some common ground with socialism but I would never place them in the socialist wrapping.
Now as I have repeatedly discussed here, while communism and socialism was developed in various countries in various ways, in Greece it has a particular "history".
ALL socialist and communist parties in Greece were created by non-Greek people funded by external international funds so as to formulate a political fraction that could potentially influence Greek politics. Since their arrival from outside in the Greek scene and despite leaving totally indifferent the mass of the Greek people they managed to create trouble mainly in destibilising the embryonic then local industry and that not so much protect any workers' rights which were in fact much more protected by the kind of laws the hated among their ranks Metaxas regime passed (establishment of social protection, health system, social insurance and security system etc.). So up to 1940 socialists and communists had remained a marginal political force of no hope of doing anything. In 1940 they preached the surendering to Italians and in 1941 they preached the surrendering to Germans. When Germans came in, first thing they did was to open the prisons of the communist prisoners knowing that letting them out would potentially be a useful tool in dividing the Greeks. So it is ironic, Germans who hated the communists, in Greece they kept a love affair with them letting them go out in the wild all while they had them concentrated there already. But what is most funny is that while the Greeks were always organising resistance groups all over the place, most of them led by experienced military people and fighters of the North Epirus Metaxas fortress line fronts (the latter being possibly the first resistance group in occupied Europe), the British finally preferred to collaborate with the communists pushing them to infiltrate EAM (supposed to be a union of forces of all, to the measure of possible, regional groups) and aiding them with provisions and money to get to control it. This is of course the start of the Greek civil war for communists were not interested in making resistance to Germans but rather killing out all internal Greek resistance to them so as to have hopes of rising on power. In all that affair there was no USSR and no other communist regime - it had been the British all the way.
So communists and in general leftish have been treacherous since the times of the occupation and the civil war where communists went to the extend of collaborating with all enemies of the Greeks to achieve their goals being responsible for horrible attrocities but equally provoking in turn attrocities of the right wingers (within whom had infiltrated - again under the instruction of the British in 1944 during the British invasion in Greece where they strived to protect the Nazi troops from the vegence of Greek armed fighters so as to ensure that Greeks kept their vegence for each other...).
And the leftish treason that directly served the interests of Britain and since the 1960s the interests of US that inherited the geopolitical control of the region as NATO continued throughout the 60s, 70s to culminate in the 80s & 90s - what can we say about the PASOK party? Where to start? From its US leading family Papandreous? From being the most destructive leadership that Greece had perhaps since 1830? Words are few. Unfrotunately, an important part of the Greek society, say around a 30% who are leftish not out of any reasonable analytical effort but simply because their parents were so - it is all a family tradition thingie, which side the family was, which house your family had during the vendetta... making them unable to realise that voting PASOK to avoid voting for right wing is simply the most catastrophic thing that they can do - same for right wingers - while all of them should vote for blank and annulate all elections until the system stucks and something new out of it jumps out. Then it is the social need - when you are unemployed for 3-4 years and you are down on your knees you will go beg for a job, and you will vote - absolute shame, but you will do it, at least it is psychologically less harmful for your pshyche than any other form of prostitution to which are subject other lower classes around Europe. But that had to change. Blank! Stuck system. Citizens have to refuse the system altogether. If anything with a stuck system there would be less nerve and courage among the overruling class (of no more than 15-20 families) to pass the legislations that currently the PASOK dictatorship passes.
"""P.S. How 'bout them Greek anarchists sending those warning letter bombs to Merkel, Sarkozy, etc.."""
ALL leftish organisations including extremists and terrorist ones are organised by state secret services but are not under the direct control of anyone else but the US services themselves. Leftish were used to bring down the one dictator fallen out of favour with the US and give rise to the other, the US-doggie. They were used in the manipulation of the internal politics. They were used to de-legitimise fully legitimate action of workers. They were used to legitimise totally illegitimate action of syndicates. The more extremist ones (like 17 November), were used to get rid of US agents fallen out of favour with their own employers. They were also used to kill British agents responsible for the marketing of British weapons (Saunders? Remember?) in a weird local US-British rivalry (at least in the defense sales - Greece is a good buyer you see...).
You have to delve into the question deeper to understand what is going on. But note this, this is not anything radically different to what happens in other countries too, including France, Germany, Italy, Britain or US.
"""Would they be a better choice?"""
You do not understand. There is no choice.
There is no poltical fraction out there you can trust they are not funded by the very same origins as the rest. You can be sure that if you vote for the one who was not supposed to win, you will have 10 times more of your forests burnt and half of your cities' shops broken till you will... "come to your senses" and vote consciously for the prescribed party...
Get the point?
Complain about this comment
cool_brush_work wrote:
"No further comment needed."
Let it be your epitaph.
Complain about this comment
Re #369 & 'Let it be your epitaph.'
DemocThreat also wrote in his #365, "..How dare you talk about law, incidentally? Seriously, who are you to engage in debates about the law? Your arrogance is a disgrace."
Alas, alack, I must confess I was led astray by one far more noble and perceptive than myself when they wrote to me, CBW, the following,
"..I enjoyed reading your post (CBW #43) just now. I found it interesting and engaging. I think you have neatly isolated one of the most profound challenges facing the Legal community in enlightened countries, that of correctly identifying the boundary between the rights of the individual and the rights of the majority in a raw democracy.."
Oh damn my eyes for having been taken in by such sweet pleasantries!
The author of those admiring words?
DemocracyThreat at 7.37pm on 3rd September, 2010.
Complain about this comment
@369 democracythreat “Let it be your epitaph” to cool_brush_work.
You are too harsh.
Come on, after all, the English after presenting their king, the Magna Carta. Went on to improved by leaps and bounds to show how political-democracy can work, until the EU was encountered. Then, they voted for servitude (not total though) to a supranational entity, to counter malnutrition.
At least the UK folks can claim consistent feistiness in fighting for individual rights. Unlike others who went from a monarch to public safety committee to emperor to a monarch to a republic to an emperor and so on so forth. This lot even had a leader who surrendered and got paid with a Lander Vichy. Then, there is the other lot who wanted to practice lebensraum and blah, blah, blah.
Why are pro-EU posters sounding so legalistic? Could their political DNA have a proclivity towards ‘Napoleonic Codism’. Definitely different from the English Common Law. CBW is just simply being ‘English Common Lawish’, it’s his heritage.
Anyway as I made an observation earlier, EU is not a democratic entity because it has no citizens to placate.
Complain about this comment
Re #363
Margaret Howard is another unable restrain her outrage at CBW.
Margaret indignantly wrote, "..Every time I write something he (CBW) disapproves of he (CBW) claims and I quote: '..You (MargaretH) are remembered for denigrating the jews in Israel, the Poppy Appeal, Remembrance Sunday etc..'."
Margaret proclaimed, "Complete poppycock.." (is that a play on words Margaret, or like Your memory, not above a convenient memory lapse?).
Well Margaret, this is a Quote from You published 11th September 2010:
"..Yet another 'celebration' of the Blitz this week (and by the way, not Britain celebrating, just England as we Scots, and no doubt the Irish & Welsh are normally quite indifferent to all these celebrations) you know the different ones just about every week, the Blitz, Dunkirk, VE-Day, VJ-Day, D-Day, Veterans at war day, Poppy Day, Women of WW2 Day, National Commemoration Day ad nauseum - - lest we forget - - not very likely with this lot going on.."
Admitted 'jews' isn't in that quote, but in any case anyone reading the above is very unlikely to 'forget' its content or who its from.
To be clear: They are Margaret Howard's exact words.
Complain about this comment
Nik: " Look I might resemble to you as "yet one right-winger" bashing the socialists but then in reality I am not at all."
I'd like to make it perfectly clear to all and sundry that I've never considered Nik a "rightwinger", or a socialist for that matter.
Although I'd bet he is not a lawyer, for otherwise he'd me much more disturbed by what happened to Sergey Magnitsky.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9179684.stm
Merely out of professional solidarity.
[not that he ever expressed any concern, let alone outrage about what was done with total impunity to investigative reporters and human rights activists such as Estemirova, Politkovskaya, Sadulayeva and many like them]
Complain about this comment
Not that it's a crucial issue, but just for the record:
Neither U.S. Senate nor House of Represenatives has any president, as some poster claimed earlier.
The House has only a Speaker.
And the Senate does not even have a boss/chairman of any kind: merely a Majority Leader and a Minority Leader.
Also: a fact that a state governor is of certain party does not mean that the legislature of that state is controlled/run by his party.
In fact, quite often the opposite is true.
Giving a state chief executive quite a grief.
Complain about this comment
if what 'starofthesouth' wrote about Basques, Catatans, Walloons, etc., was to be followed quite a few borders would have to be redrawn openining a veritable Pandora's Box.
Imagine what would happen if Iranian Azeris (plenty of them) decided to link with their brothers in Azerbaijan and Iraqi and Turkish Kurds decided to join ranks rather than answer to Baghdad and Ankara respectively.
And seeing what happens with Pashtuns cooperating on Afghan and Pakistani sides of the border I don't even want to think what would happen in sub-Saharan Africa if borders (artificial in many cases, grant you) were drawn anew, this time along tribal lines.
So I hope that's not what the poster had in mind.
Complain about this comment
PM "How 'bout them Greek anarchists sending those warning letter bombs to Merkel, Sarkozy, etc.. wold they be a better choice?"
mk replies : "ALL leftish organisations including extremists and terrorist ones are organised by state secret services but are not under the direct control of anyone else but the US services themselves"
PM: So are you implying that it was CIA which organized this terror/bomb campaign conducted by Greek anarchists?
If so, why?
Complain about this comment
#374
And the Senate does not even have a boss/chairman of any kind: merely a Majority Leader and a Minority Leader.
The Vice-President is ex officio President of the Senate. Since he does not show up much, there is a "president pro tempore", which is usually the Senate Majority Leader. He can delegate the role of presiding over the Senate to another senator. All this is well described on the Web, and was discussed extensively when Ronald Reagan was shot, and Al Haig claimed he was "in control here".
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat & smroet
Re #374 & #377
The claim to US 'presidents' was by Jean Luc: One of a number of errors he makes in relation to comparing the USA & EU as if they were like-for-like 'democracies'.
I, Buzet, & others tried a number of times to point out the 'pro-EU' fiction of pleading the EU is only a budding Federal USA, but as we are all aware the EU lobby only hears what it wants to hear on any issue.
Re #376
The mad greek will support or allege any extreme act that portrays the USA & UK in a bad light: Only Turkey gets a worse commentary by him.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "The claim to US 'presidents' was by Jean Luc: One of a number of errors he makes in relation to comparing the USA & EU as if they were like-for-like 'democracies'.
I, Buzet, & others tried a number of times to point out the 'pro-EU' fiction of pleading the EU is only a budding Federal USA,"
Here you are again misrepresenting the statement of your opponents in a debate. I did not ask to compare the EU with the US per se. I just asked you to prove how the EU is fundamentally different in its functioning from national democracies. I refered to the US and to european states.
Concerning the word 'president', the speaker of the house may be called as such in the US (and also the UK and probably other countries) that does not alter the fact that they perform the same function as the president of a parliamentary assembly, whether they are addressed as President or not.
Re " but as we are all aware the EU lobby only hears what it wants to hear on any issue."
No not really. In fact 'the EU lobby' has already asked you a dozen times to comment further on observations you have made. And each time you have refused. Your most recent refusal dates from comment #350 on this article, where you refuse to elaborate on the issues I raised.
Aside from that you have accused me in #286 of having written certain things. Your claims were false, so I invited you in #288 to back them up, which you haven't because I did not write these things. Now if I would stoop to your level I would say "these unfounded allegations are typical of EU-sceptics" but unlike you I do not make such unfounded and irrelevant (since they do not contribute one yota to the debate) generalizations.
So let me invite you again to reply to these comments (on substance):
""I'm not fixated on 'Mandate', but on the idea anyone 'pro-EU' should think it is proper for a Government to procede to enact Law when it does not have even the semblance of a 'majority' Citizen consent to do so. ""
The MAJORITY CITIZEN CONSENT is important
Labour government had no majority citizen consent (only 20% of citizens consented). And only 35% of the votes.
Because your 'theory of democracy' is unbelievable narrow and superficial you are in the impossibility to explain to us why below 50% turnout is a major problem for the EP, but below 50% of votes cast for a UK government isn't, and why below 25% of citizens support isn't problematic either for a UK government.
Furthermore I note
1. you refuse to comment on below 50% turnout in specific constituencies at UK general elections.
2. you refuse to comment on below 50% turnout at US general elections
3. you refuse to comment on below 50% turnout at Swiss referenda which form the basic decision of certain policies.
Concerning your EU US comparison:
I take note of the fact you have no answer to my remarks on your EU-US comparison:
1. the multiple presidents in BOTH EU and US,
2. the difference between state and federal elections in US and
3. the general observation that when the EU differs from the US it is mainly because European politics differ from American and not because the EU itself is so fundamentally different from what we now .
Concerning your critique on the ECJ:
I take note:
1. you refuse to comment on the basic fact that the EU treaties themselvs are written by the national states, not by some other european power or the ECJ itself.
2. you have not shown in anyway how the powers of the ECJ are different from national supreme judges (the Bundesverfassungsgericht can also declare a german law unconstitutional, even if for instance 80% of citizens support such a law).
3. that you generally don't really understand how the relationship is between EU and national law. I don't think I can explain it better than I have done. So perhaps you should read a text book on it, I am sure you haven't yet and you probably won't either. Much easier to give criticism in an unfounded way than to put some efforts in it and first read up on a subject!
And we are still waiting for your (personal or other) legal analysis of the bail out. Should not be too hard since you have claimed this bail out is blatantly illegal.
Complain about this comment
' All this is well described on the Web, and was discussed extensively when Ronald Reagan was shot, and Al Haig claimed he was "in control here".'
And Haig was correct since his comment was often (and intentionally) clipped.
What Haig actually said was "I'm in control here PENDING ARRIVAL of vice-president Bush". [the full A.H.'s comment is available on video]
Complain about this comment
Re #376 Correction of a typo
it was not 'mk' but Nik (the Greek) who wrote:
"ALL leftish organisations including extremists and terrorist ones [in Greece] are organised by state secret services but are not under the direct control of anyone else but the US services themselves"
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #379
There is no deliberate misrepresentation: At least no more than You attempt against mine & other 'anti-EU' views.
Here we are again with You altering Your defences of the EU-Brussels entity as each fresh point is raised. It is a debate & we both employ our range of skills; that is a fair technique: Compared to coarse, crude negativity of some contributors who don't even refer to the EU debate and just attack the person IMO, You for the most part debate in a reasonable manner.
I'm not concerned too much with how often You 'take note' of things and infer I've avoided the points You raised: So far as I'm aware on this 1 blog we've now had an exchange 32 times - - I'm fairly confident somewhere in all that You'll find I've dealt with most issues as indeed have You - - I'm just not willing to pick up each No. point as You try unsuccessfully to claim (A) 'democracy' is at the core of the EU, and is not threatened by powerful agencies such as the ECJ, and, (B) EU institutions are only responsible for the good things and the moment anything untoward occurs then its the States.
What I and I suspect others do find difficult to comprehend & less acceptable is Your constant assertion You alone have interpreted, understood, explained the genuine purposes functions of the various EU institutions and as we don't agree we are simpletons.
To repeat: You are mistaken.
Complain about this comment
JL
Re #379
Sorry, just read my last dirge and realise I forgot to thank You for returning to debate in a pleasant manner: It is much appreciated.
Also, on the '4' Presidents bit: My point all along is that the 'US' ones are Citizen elected members of their respective Chambers and then (s)elected to 'chair'/'preside' by their elected peers.
Purely for info: Similar in the UK where the 'speaker' of the House of Commons is an MP elected by the Citizens of a Constituency and is then elected by fellow MPs to 'chair'/'preside' - - UK being a Monarchial Constitution there is no question or circumstance of the 'Speaker' ever being addressed as 'President' - - though the 'Speaker' is the supreme authority in the House of Commons and any MP unwise enough to cross him/her (Mr Bercow, at this sitting) is unlikely to risk it twice!
That said, the last Commons' 'Speaker' Mr Martin was obliged to step down having been adjudged by fellow MPs to have mishandled the MP Expenses fiasco.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
CBW wrote: Buzet, & others tried a number of times to point out the 'pro-EU' fiction of pleading the EU is only a budding Federal USA, but as we are all aware the EU lobby only hears what it wants to hear on any issue.
A fact that U.S. is not a democracy but a republic aside (no, it's not merely a question of semantics) I think that a major problem in EU has been started by certain European political leaders (Giscard and consortes) with mania grandiosa, who wanted to change a economic cooperation and trading block (which made sense) into United States of Europe as a "counterbalance" (their words, not mine) to United States of America.
And have miserably failed not because USA was so much better, but simply because realities were different: with Albanian, Bulgarian, French, German, Hungarian, Jewish, Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Swedish, etc., immigrants wanting to become Americans ASAP to a point where they prohibited their children from speaking their native languages even at home, so that they would learn better American English they themselves commanded, and thus become completely naturalized.
I travel a lot, and out of sheer boredom often talk to fellow passengers.
At same point passengers from Eurepe say: "BTW, I'm English, Estonian, French, German, Polish, Spanish, Swede.."
I have yet to meet a person who would identify himself/herself as 'European'.
That's why I recalled much earlier that "Soviet" or "Yugoslav" indentity has turned out to be a fiction in the end, as well.
Complain about this comment
"Concerning the word 'president', the speaker of the house may be called as such in the US (and also the UK and probably other countries) that does not alter the fact that they perform the same function as the president of a parliamentary assembly, whether they are addressed as President or not."
Sorry Jean-Luc- but they don't.
Their functions are mostly purely procedural.
Of course they may cause their opponents (even in their own party) grief by delying a vote, stifling a debate, or refusing to end (filibustering) a discussion on a subject.
But they often cannot discipline even their own cohorts into voting along party lines.
[because those cohorts are ultimately answerable to "We the People"]
As the lame-duck Democrat-controlled Congress has demonstrated more than on one occasion to Nancy Pelosi's, Harry Reid's and of course, Barack Hussein Obama's chagrin.
Complain about this comment
CBW: Also, on the '4' Presidents bit: My point all along is that the 'US' ones are Citizen elected members of their respective Chambers and then (s)elected to 'chair'/'preside' by their elected peers.
It may be worth pointing out that US voters in general elections are aware who will be elected a speaker of the House, a Majority Speaker in the Senate, etc., if they vote for their party's candidates, since those posts are typically manned on the basis of seniority.
I know for a fact that quite a few Americans voted in November the way they have not because thay hated BHO (there's not much hate towards Mr. Obama even now; more like deep disappointment) but because thay hated Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other extremist incumbents of their ilk.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@CBW
Re "I'm not concerned too much with how often You 'take note' of things and infer I've avoided the points You raised: So far as I'm aware on this 1 blog we've now had an exchange 32 times - - I'm fairly confident somewhere in all that You'll find I've dealt with most issues as indeed have You - - I'm just not willing to pick up each No. point as You try unsuccessfully to claim (A) 'democracy' is at the core of the EU, and is not threatened by powerful agencies such as the ECJ, and, (B) EU institutions are only responsible for the good things and the moment anything untoward occurs then its the States."
We might have had exchanges, but you never really replied to the critical issues I raised. And you have not dealt with them, because you haven't even answered the simplest of questions I raised. I invited you five times already to give us an analysis of the bailout and you ignored it five times.
What's more I never claimed the EU are only responsible for the good things. The EU is not perfect by a large margin, but as democracy threat rightly noted, the only thing I have to do is to show how the EU doesn't function in a fundamentally different way as national states. Whereas Democracythreat dissaproves of both EU and national practice, I see no problem in both and you only see a problem at the EU level but no problem at national level. That is why I keep asking the same questions which you keep ignoring, because answering them would show how the fundamental difference you claim there is between the EU and the national state doesn't really exist.
Re "What I and I suspect others do find difficult to comprehend & less acceptable is Your constant assertion You alone have interpreted, understood, explained the genuine purposes functions of the various EU institutions and as we don't agree we are simpletons. "
I never even asserted this, the only thing I ever do is clarifying how parts of the EU function, because I have caught you several times at making 100% false claims about the EU. Sorry if you dislike being corrected.
Now to help you on the way of answering my questions, let me mention the following interesting judgment by the UK High Court (you know, another supreme court which has comparable powers to other supreme courts, be they national or supranational):
Mr Wheeler (UK citizen) felt betrayed after he didn't get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as he (thought he?) was promised by his government. Mr wheeler claimed that because this promise was not upheld, a decision by the Uk government ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would be flawed and therefore illegal.
Now what did the judges reply to this? Remember, we are not talking about those evil power hungry ECJ judges, but about UK supreme judges who, unlike the ECJ judges ARE concerned with the electorate citizenship, right?
If you want to know, read the judgment here
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1409.html
Complain about this comment
376. At 10:35am on 16 Nov 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
PM "How 'bout them Greek anarchists sending those warning letter bombs to Merkel, Sarkozy, etc.. wold they be a better choice?"
mk replies : "ALL leftish organisations including extremists and terrorist ones are organised by state secret services but are not under the direct control of anyone else but the US services themselves"
PM: So are you implying that it was CIA which organized this terror/bomb campaign conducted by Greek anarchists?
If so, why?
--------------------------------------------------
Powermeerkat, what I say is not common conspirationology, neither any effort to yet once again put it on the "US finger". It is not only the logical deduction out of real events in Greece (but then elsewhere too), but also it is the first-angle witnesses who also say so (eg. ex-members of extremist groups etc.).
The organisation of extremist groups is done in most cases either by the state itself, or an opposite political party (but a mainstream one!), either organised by a foreign country so as to accuse and point the finger.
Say for example you are a western power and you want to pass via the Libanese to import in Middle East and as such you want to cancel a huge deal of Israel for imports to Middle East. What you do? You attack militarily Israel or something? No. You provoke a heated clash between Israelis and Palestinians. How do you do it? Either you find a couple of Israeli hotheads, or you dress up yourself and your own mates as Israeli (kind of saying), and you go into a Palestinian neighbourhood and kill 10-20 innocent people. Palestinians rise up in a huge outcry and their organisations (also at least partially manipulated too) swear revenge and chaos begins, the Israelis' commercial deal is annulated.
You get the point? Now not that this applies to the 100% of cases but for many cases - and up to the majority of cases, extremist groups and terrorist organisations are actually organised by the states themselves. 17 November in Greece were blatantly obviously organised by the state secret services but where operating for the account of Americans no matter the organisation having an extremist leftish appearence. Not only their action was out of phase with the Greek society but mid-ranking police officers of the anti-terrorist section more or less openly claimed "we know all of them, names, addresses" but each time we want to do something out of it then an "order comes from above". When Americans enter to collaborate in anti-terrorist matters, files dissapear, traces are lost, new faces are added and a new hit soon arrives... So when November 17 members were arrested, they found out that 1 of them was an ex-academic living in Paris - yet I knew from a family acquaintance this information since 10 years old... imagine... just picture that! I knew at 10 years old an info about a member of one of the most secretive and most long-lived European terrorist groups! Whom am I? James Bond or something?
Then for another member journalists were coming out saying "Hey! We have seen his face in past years repeatedly inside the EYP (Greek state intelligence agency...whatever of course...)!!! What was he doing there? Selling secrets of November 17? Or just doing other jobs? Double agent?
Now, while tight groups like 17 November can be directly controlled by intelligent agencies (and in this case, behind were clearly the Americans as the action of November 17 had nothing to do with the Greek reality but more to do with the US one!), other more loose groups of extremists (i.e. not exactly terrorist groups, just groups of anarchists or fascists going out the streets smashing) can be also loosely controlled by secret services.
Speaking again of Greece, during the early 1970s there appeared various little groups of extra-left wing which fought as-if against the junta, yet all the did was to provoke the downfall of Papadopoulos (who lost the favour of US) and give rise to Ioannidis: then all these groups remained pathetically silent as if they were 100% ok with Ioannidis!!! Which is kind of weird since Ioannidis dictatorship was harsher than Papadopoulos one! Strange isn't it? Well what if the role of these groups was just about that: create trouble to enable the change of leadership! In the post-dictatorial times, these leftish groups continues to act while at the same time fascist groups were created - note this, fascist groups in Greece which fought fascism and nazism (i.e. even the most extremist Greek nationalist would never be attracted by anything remotedly fascist and nazi since these were enemies of the motherland, yet these are attracted). Why? Because as an ex high-profile member who left such an organisation revealed in his book, ALL of these right wing organisations such as ALL of these left wing organisations are actually organised by the state's secret services. Clashes in the streets are ALL pre-arranged between the opposing fractions and in accordance with police. To provoke the chaotic results we often see in the streets undercover policemen dress as either leftish or right wing extremists and provoke the violence of the opposite fraction. When members within groups (of any political colour) start to understand or they wish to create their own independent fractions then they enter a list of becoming "dangers" and as such they are trepped - usually by means of organising the murder of somebody during such a clash and putting the blame on the one who has to be got ridden.
So just like back in the dictatorship days just look today what happened:
During 2004-2009 in Greece there were tremendous street protests that smashed city-centers and stopped all efforts of the ND government to do anything while ND wished to pass the 1/10th of harsh measures that PASOK currently passes!!!! Yet today under PASOK there is the 1/10th of street protests. We had so far only the death of 3 bank employees yet if you study this action better you will find out that the only one who benefited from that was Jeffrey and his government since people were terrorised so as NOT to go out in the streets and protest taking part in "murderous protests, protests that kill innocent people" but sit and pathetically accept all measures. Got it?
Now, where Americans enter into picture?
Americans do not micro-manage. They won't come down to that level apart if it is absolutely necessary (and back in the 1970s they had actually done it). Most of times they will pass by local intermediates, i.e. local secret services, double agents, mainstream political parties etc. Since the late 1970s, US main touch in Greece had been the Greek Socialist Party, PASOK with its US leadership, the Papandreous setting aside the till then traditional pro-western ND right wing party which today is seen by Americans as... almost-pro-Russian! (how things change eh?).
So why Americans would had an interest to provoke chaotic environment in Greece in 2004-2009? Well, in 2005, the ND government approached the Russians and in early 2006 they held discussions for the gas pipelines and the ports. Then they signed. And beginning 2007 there were strikes, 10 times more fires - ND however played it smart and held elections a bit earlier so as to avoid more friction-losses and marginally won elections of 2007 but then there appeared "new huge scandals" (in reality real scandals but of much lesses magnitude than other scandals silenced), then 10 times more fires and then in 2008 we had the dubious murder of the kid and all the naif young ones led by the extremist left wingers were out in the streets to do their "revolution thingie". By 2009, the ND found it impossible to govern (bad tongues say that the wife of the PM Karamanlis got some form of cancer as she was seen being treated "for something" - note that while you find it unbelievable cancer is often used by secret services as form of political warning since it is not a murder or a car accident that raises suspicions and since it passes the right message - though in this case nothing is proven). Karamanlis said "I am tired" and left, then elections and PASOK wins easily after having done an immense propaganda and having the 80% of the media on its side (currently the 90% of media are controlled by PASOK-affiliated businessmen, worse than Berlusconi's Italy!). And then, crisis, deficit at 13, now at 15%, the IMF, extremely harsh measures... and the reaction of the people is... lukewarm. People initially tried to protest, then some extremists got out, clashed with the police, killed 3 people and delegitimised the protests, so no more major protests for the time being. If people will go out again, then something else will happen. Please note that in all that I do not consider Karamanlis as any lesser corrupted man. He is nephew of the big traitor Karamanlis, child of the British, who inherited a prime position after the murder (guess by whom) of PM Papagos who died of something fast, effective and "impossible for doctors to be names"... you got the idea.
So you see the role of the extremist groups is a multi-task one. I.e. they serve as a method of filing down "dangerous for the social order" people who else would not be controlled by the state (and the state is not alone in that, but there is another bigger state behind). Then they serve to start a protest against an unwanted (by the US or theoretically any other major power - but in Greece it is mainly US and previously Britain that had a touch, Russia had already lost it since 19th century) government or to delegitimise the protests against a US-friendly government. That is the way it goes.
You have to start thinking deeply the whys and the how. When you hear anything going on, first think again the above and then see how it fits.
Complain about this comment
Re #389
"..imagine...just picture that! I knew at 10 years old an info about a member of one of the most secretive, and most long-lived European terrorist groups!"
Yeah, right.
Imagine!
Complain about this comment
Re #388
JL, "...only thing I ever do is clarify how parts of the EU function.."
No JL! That's the whole point, You don't. You are 'pro-EU': What You do is write Your version, Your interpretation of how You claim the EU 'functions'.
Your version is just that: It isn't the correct or only one or there would be no debate.
As for the 'bail-out' package: It has been dealt with on previous blogs, so I will just reiterate a few portions of the opposition to its use.
In May 2010 at yet another crisis Brussels summit a 750Billion EUro package was agreed by 'zone' members.
According to Brussels & Berlin (Frankfurt - ECB) the legal basis for the Bailout Fund is Article 122 of the EU Treaties: However, that is primarily about providing inter-State aid in the event of 'Natural Disasters', 'Energy Blackouts' beyond a member Nation's individual control
This Bailout agreement is illegal on a number of grounds:
Article 122 is primarily about providing inter-State aid in the event of a 'Natural Disaster, 'Energy Crisis' etc. beyond a member Nation's individual capacity to control - - even the EUropean Council demanded the 'Bailout package' must comply with Article 122 - - the Financial Stability pact is nothing of the sort.
It is in violation of the 'no bailout' clause in the EU Treaties, it violates the ECB's own rules (through the ECB decision to buy bonds).
Paraphrasing Paragraph 103 of the EU Treaty it specifically states each State is responsible for its own finances and no State has a legitimate claim on others to bail it out.
The EUropean Parliament was not consulted (but I won't again recite in detail the toothless, stooge status of this Un-Democratic institution).
Under Lisbon any decision that involves the EU Budget require 'Unanimity' of acceptance - - clearly the Stabilisation Fund involves the EU Budget as it backs the Loans in the Bailout - - yet the package was passed by QMV.
Also, this 'bailout' package is a direct move away from a Federation of States to a singular Federal State for which there has been no consent and for which there is no provision in the current EU Treaty.
An objection based on the Financial logistics of it all: Its 'too-big-to-fail'.
This issue is also another of those clear indicators of National Legal system folding up under EU-Brussels' pressure: The German Constitutional Court refused to grant an 'injunction' to prevent the Bailout package going ahead even though it accepted it had a duty to Hear the full Case put by Prof Hankel & others on the legitimacy of the whole EUro-zone Bailout. The Court gave as its primary reason, a temporary injunction on the German Credit portion would cause chaos on the 'markets' and have far reaching consequences for the EUropean Currency mechanism.
In other words though the Law is supposed to uphold the Rights of Citizen Tax-payers those normal procedures of a National legal body are put aside, and the Responsibility Citizens' Political Representatives have to attend to the Legality of their actions is ignored in the face of pressure from Brussels!
As was said when news of the Bailout first came, 'EUropean politicians have now lost any sense for the rights, concerns and expectations of their Citizens.'
Anyway, whilst holding-our-noses against the anti-Democratic stench of hypocritical Judgement we all await the Legal Ruling from Germany: It will as it has at every previous challenge concede defeat and supremacy to Brussels - - afterall, if it found itself unable to grant a 'temporary injunction' due to financial & political pressures before the 'Bailout' was even properly underway - - what chance the Constitutional Court will have the nerve to rule against a 750Billion package already in operation!?
So, yet another EU-Brussels encroachment on the authority & power of sovereign States with total disregard for the Treaties & Citizens goes unchecked: Basically, another example of Your EU Legal documents being very useful - - as something for Brussels' elite to wipe their hands and... whatever - - whenever it is convenient and expedient for them to do so.
Complain about this comment
390. At 5:09pm on 16 Nov 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"""Re #389
"..imagine...just picture that! I knew at 10 years old an info about a member of one of the most secretive, and most long-lived European terrorist groups!"
Yeah, right.
Imagine!"""
Heheh CBW if Gavin Hewitt was working for he MI5 he would archive this text of mine along with my "profile" for filing purposes... haha... well honestly I do not expect you to believe me but really I am not kidding. The info came from a distant-relative who back in the 1980s, still quite young, was a lower-middle officer in the anti-terrorist police. Back then he had made talk about someone who moves between France and Greece, living mostly in France and who is a previous academic. Well, such a profile existed among those arrested. Coincidence maybe...hehe...
But if you do not believe me find out for yourself - it was pretty much widespread among people that 17 November was an artificial organisation and the talk was mostly "who it serves". Foreigners marvelled at how cool were Greeks towards terrorism and mostly thought that it was those leftish Greeks attracted by it but in reality right wingers were equally relaxed towards it, in fact all of the people simply did not care about November 17 since they knew it was a political tool and as such it was used and because of that common people had nothing to fear out of it (well that was the perception). November 17 became a social threat only when - out of a terrible coincidence and a slight mistake of the terroriritst - a bystander died. But it was only in that incident. On the death of the CIA station man, the death of British agent Saunders, why would the Greek society ever care? For them it was all about secret agencies solving their inbetween differences and clearing unwanted agents using a hypothetic terrorist group.
Complain about this comment
Re #392
Another 'Lancaster bomber' on moon phase.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "No JL! That's the whole point, You don't. You are 'pro-EU': What You do is write Your version, Your interpretation of how You claim the EU 'functions'."
True, one can never be 'objective'. But my 'interpretations' of how the EU functions start from the actual texts of treaties, legislation and documented political practice.
You on the other hand have not shown any proof of ever having read the Treaties, legislation or academic contributions on EU polity.
Re "According to Brussels & Berlin (Frankfurt - ECB) the legal basis for the Bailout Fund is Article 122 of the EU Treaties: However, that is primarily about providing inter-State aid in the event of 'Natural Disasters', 'Energy Blackouts' beyond a member Nation's individual control"
Thank you for mentioning the correct treaty article. I can recall that in the past you didn't even bother to this.
However, let's read up on this article 122, more precisely paragraph 2 (which is the legal base for Regulation 407/2010 (the EU part of the bailout):
"2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."
In this case the Council relied on 'exceptional occurences' (not natural disasters or energy black outs as you suggested), which seems prima facie legal.
But this is just for the 60 billion of the bailout. The largest part (440 billion) is based on an international agreement (signed on 7/06/10).
Re "Paraphrasing Paragraph 103 of the EU Treaty it specifically states each State is responsible for its own finances and no State has a legitimate claim on others to bail it out. "
The Treaties are not made up of parapgraphs but articles. Article 103 is on competition policy, so I have no idea to which clause in the treaty you are actually referring.
Re "Also, this 'bailout' package is a direct move away from a Federation of States to a singular Federal State for which there has been no consent and for which there is no provision in the current EU Treaty."
Granted, a special treaty article for such a bail out would have been more elegant (legally speaking). But saying the bail out is illegal is a serious claim.
And although this decision has implications for the budget, it is not a budget decision needing unanimity. Since every policy decision has budgettary implications, but not every policy decision is passed by unanimity.
Re "In other words though the Law is supposed to uphold the Rights of Citizen Tax-payers those normal procedures of a National legal body are put aside, and the Responsibility Citizens' Political Representatives have to attend to the Legality of their actions is ignored in the face of pressure from Brussels!"
'pressure from Brussels'. Stop and think for a minute, who is 'brussels' do you think? Is it the commission? Partly yes, but I have a sneeking suspicion it was also national leaders of the countries using the EURO who needed to prevent a total crisis at all costs. So instead of shouting 'brussels' each and every time you are faced with an unpopular decision, you should delve deeper and see how is actually behind that decision. The Commission can never take these decisions alone.
Re "what chance the Constitutional Court will have the nerve to rule against a 750Billion package already in operation!?"
Well unless they too are power hungry undemocratic and unaccountable judges, they will give an impartial ruling unfethered by any possible pressure exercised on them.
Re "So, yet another EU-Brussels encroachment on the authority & power of sovereign States with total disregard for the Treaties & Citizens goes unchecked: Basically, another example of Your EU Legal documents being very useful - - as something for Brussels' elite to wipe their hands and... whatever - - whenever it is convenient and expedient for them to do so. "
As I have shown, article 122 2 speaks of exceptional circumstances and I think we at least agree that the crisis in may was quite exceptional. And as I have also indicated the largest part of the bailout is based on an international agreement not on the EU treaties.
The whole thing was done amateuristically yes, but not necessarily illegal.
But thanks for giving a reply on the bailout. Feel free to cite the real article instead of 'paragraph 103'.
If you could answer the other questions I raised as well, that would be interesting.
I hope you found that judgment of your UK supreme judges an interesting read as well!
Complain about this comment
JL
"..objective.."! You? No, I don't think so, at least no more than those of us who find Your faith in the EU an inexhaustible mine of interpretations that in our interpretation mean the end of 'democracy'.
The argument is clear, points of difference stated and no meeting of minds.
I suggest we leave it for now.
Until next time.
Bon chance!
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
Not gonna get involved
Not gonna get involved
Not gonna get involved
hhehehehehehehehe
I like All concerned here...
NOT "wanting to be liked" as some ..people ...might....think...
See Nik?
I AM nice ...sort of/kind of (I resemble word "nice")
:))))
And I DO like differing viewpoints, so I'll know what "the fuss"
is TRULY about:))))
(I was a genius before my stroke--at age 35--true story, too)
I even have friends at work...REALLY TRULY..I ..think ..I do...(have friends at work)...maybe...I think that...
Hmmmm...lets see now...(thinking hard)
Complain about this comment
Nik,
I truly did have a stroke at age 35 and the doctors kept saying "you must have AIDS." That is when I found out doctors are NOT as intelligent as I had thought. (even doctors can be prejudiced and/or dumb.) I DIDN'T have AIDS, it turned out. Whew! Though, now, I know what they must go through--AIDS patients (from A to B, instead of from A to Z, daily)
That was in January of 1992.
They did 2 spinal taps ("stay very still, don't move" and afterwards, "don't move for 8 hours")and I had two eye surgeries to correct my vision
2 years after my stroke--so, they could be sure my vision would not improve any more--and...they DO keep you awake during the eye operations WITH local anethesia)
***And in June of 2001, (2001: A Space Oddysey?) I graduated from Park University with a Bachelor's Degree. I'm just remembering, and recording it here--NOT looking for sympathy OR honors OR attention! YUK!
It was 20 years ago and I wore--after the stroke--an eyepatch and this one person said "you look good with an eyepatch" (I thought he was old, because he was 50..something.
Now, I realize he wasn't so old.
:))))
Complain about this comment
Stevenson: " Not gonna get involved
Not gonna get involved
Not gonna get involved
hhehehehehehehehe"
Ain't matter.
They'll come to take you away, haha, anyway. :)
[to quote Napoleon XIV]
Complain about this comment
How many Napoleons WERE there????
Complain about this comment
So, the Big unknown person is still un-found?
I had a fleeting thought about 4-5 days ago, type is he missing or does it seem to me; rather, had a quite realistic immediate impression -"now he is unhappy dissatisfied with the blog decided not to continue"
Haven't thought lately I will live to the day to start looking for.... :o))))))))
Get well in case it involves it at all, get found.. will keep those eh
swords :o))))) crossed
__________________
Read the thread but not fully yet; was busy moving last days from dacha to the city, plus work.
quiet and oak and etc, was it thought healthy, at some point, to chew currants? or is it an allusion to some specific eh, like a quote from some place?
The rest in the thread seem to have understood :o)
__________________
powermeer see powermeering again. ? what nice to say. ? ah. Powermeer, how come it happens you lose your 4G fighter planes in air. and send nuclear defence rockets un-controlled skulking around your forgot which shore - and then wonder is it yours gone astray or what :o))))))))
Did you steal the design of our Bulava then? Enquiring minds :o)))))become nearly sure at this point of your defenSe development you did! :o)))))))))))
___________________
The only people truly proud of Catherine the Great in Russia are Hermitage guides :o))))))) as she bought hell of a lot for the collection. And these never forget to mention she was a German princess.
Contemporaries were less happy as 99% :o)))))) simply sat in villages and did't care a fig who the tsar is :o)))))), acc. to the old Russian saying "to God is high to tsar is far" (like, don't hope for neither)
the main thing there is a tsar :o))))) so all is well then :o)))))) and be it German alien or a Marsian is less of importance
What they did notice though was she was quite intense and stressfull :o))))) as we made wars non-stop during here rule like crazy here and there, an energetic tsar edition
But kept winning , luckily, back then, so she was excused ;o))))))
Except al the wars where she put her nose in were won for her my Generalissimus Alex Suvorov who never lost a battle in his life and won 3 of them worthy Guinness book of records ;o))))))))
Otherwise hell knows how she would manage all her under-takings and adventures.
Overall Catherine yes is viewed positively as she behaved correctly.
Russia felt she is our protege and is feeling so to this day, we picked up a church mice poor German princess and "gave her all". "She arrived with 2 spare dresses in the trunk" - is the main thing all remember about her :o))))) She played up to the tune and said she is Russian and wants to be Russian and never anything ese but truth :o)))) - like this.
That's how the match proceeded.
By the way all those land-owning folks in modern Germany the name-list mentioned above are well known in Russia, as we had a period of total German feeding here around Catherine as Germans simply flocked in during her rule after posts and positions and took a lot. The whole historical period here in school text-books is caled "Bironschina" - rule of all-mighty Biron.
While peasants sat in the villages and didn't care or knew nil, all the ones competing for power knew pretty well Catherine is German as Russian and German clans competed for power in the country - she arrived with just 2 dresses, correct, but then drtagged in a whole tail of all things German, we don't blame her that she was actively inviting people from home, rather, those Germans arrived by themselves :o))))) during her rule and Catherine, in the new role of an all-mighty and all-posessing Russian empress must be found it un-becoming to refuse the requests.
It's an old Russian belief that once you get as close to the tsar that you can ask directly - the tsar can't refuse :o)))))) that's why it's a FRussian tsar or what is it? Even Putin spent a hell of a lot of wrist-watches giving it right and left as souvenirs to anyone asking, when visiting provinces. A pea-nuts standard expense of a Russian ruler.
The last clever chap at some god-forgotten blasted out factory ;o))))) Putin was visiting became 50,000 dollars richer in 1 minute :o)))))))
We can't get of them much :o( Only a wrist-watch these days, corresponds to the "village or two with peasants" before.
Complain about this comment
For that matter, of all tsars cobined remembered recently, Russian favourite is Elizabeth (daughter of Peter the Ist/the Great); Elizabethan is the "golden time" rule here by all memoirs and standards, as she was ruling long and was an exteremely laid back and how to say a relaxed tsarine - no wars, she declared she is interested in arts and cultured time spending exclusive;y :o)))))))) theatre and poetry things, and she let people do what they want to not interferring and imposing herself, very un-stressful rule compared to the same intense Catherine. Besides, Elizabeth cancelled death penalty in Russia and torturing in przons like quartering into 4 pieces or other disasters, said like ugh, uncivilised practices. She ruled ? 1730? 1740? 1760? something. Peaceful quiet time nobody executed during her reign across the empire iternally or externally. Which is real something for 30-35 years' rule in those times. In modern times as well :o))))
Except I think her husband :o))))) for starters :o)))))) don't remember well? ? normally al Russian empresses get to rule by getting rid of husbands, no other acess to power it seems to be for females here. but some stop at that - and others continue to be blood-thirsty :o))))))
Complain about this comment
To conclude; when you see Putin, remember all he wears is for grabs :o))); of particular interest are wrist-watches, sports' and winter jackets (don't think his wife has a second chance to see a garment in his wardrobe twice:o))))), tie pins and pens and all that jazz. Survey with a careful eye; what can be good for your house-hold.
Keeping up the legend of the Russian tsars, he will understand.
Another thing with Medvedev, I real worry how does he plan to compete for presidency the next time. An interesting thought then is he doesn't :o)) For the guy is loaded with electronic toys and pieces, is known for it - and who ever saw him giving away any thing?
It's several months since he got his ipod or whatever in the states - and it is still with him! greedy monster; no other conclusions :o))))
He likes taking photos, carries his camera everywhere with him - wjo ever got his camera from him? Nobody.
He might think it is un-democratic :o))))), to un-dress and un-pack for the citizens :o))))) - but how does he plan to compete in the presidential elections, keeping on being greedy so - is beyond me.
Could it be he is secretely buiding up a pile of give-aways, to start keeping with the national custom, and how to say, standing up to the expectations - right before the campaign? Understanding full well that the very first ipod or photo-camera given away off will signal that he is in for the run, serious. ?
Hard to tell; but if he puts his stakes on promising reforms :o)))) - that's a sure no-go with Russians :o))))) thank you very much we've seen them those reforms enough :o))))))
Vladimir the Clear Sun (in year 980, was it? :o)))) - hair-raising absolutely
(christianity and out away with known old dear Still dear! to our heart! pagan gods! :o))))
That what's his name Jury-the-Long-Arms :o)) - blasting out real democracy! Novgorod! Direct open voting on all matters! Jesus Christ pure Switzerland, democracythreat would have re-located now :o)))) to Novgorod :o))))) if the system was still run and operated :o)
Ivan the dear Terrible reforms :o))))
? Peter the First another quiet darling :o))))))
Anna from Kurland - completely thick
Catherine the Great clever acquisition of the Caucasus and Poland two never-ending for Russia eh how to say you got it :o)))))
Nicolas the 1st - good bye republic and Russian constitution
Nicolas the 2nd - who simply managed ingeniously :o)))) to behave so that not only a handful of rare birds -revolutionaries hated him, but the whole country bottom and up to nobility - every singe person despised him - so he got nil support from no layers or circes when in trouble - for which his family paid dearly
Didn't even separate daughters from the son after abdication and did not send them away - though it was clear not a single acting force in that revolution (internal and external hello:o) will let the boy live - as a heir - and chance for putting Russia back together from the pieces it was planned to become
Dear Lenin "reforms", dear Stalin "reforms", dear Khrushev "reforms", dear Brezhnev "reforms", dear Gorbachyov "reforms", dear Yeltsin "reforms", dear Putin "reforms" (a police state) - at the very word "reforms" a Russian becomes suicidal in advance.
The only practical thing to be had of rulers is their wrist-watches, in short - realistically - and the one who by-passes even this trifle - is I don't know what thinking about.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, I think your reminders re how awful Russia is are lost on Jukka and mis-directed. He knows, no need to re-convince him. :o)))))
It's not that Jukks loves Russia dearly and that is why he wants to see us in the EU.
He wants to see us in the EU because he views Russia as a big annoying bug ;o))))))) lying physically and how to say geographically between Finland and Europe proper :o)) Standing in the way of the happy Finnish embrace and hug with the rest of EUSSRians.
Last year Jukks planned to blast Russia off away from the way by a nuclear bomb :o)))) This year he seems to have re-viewed his strategic planning of reunification with the rest of the EU countries, by joining us in and therefore becoming walkable, drivable through and? un-visa-ble :o)))))) He simply wants a steady safe route through us, that's all. A road - one way, or another :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Of the latest news on our side (since this thread seems to have arrived at its end) - there were 2.
One - the discovery over the last weekend that St. Petersburg city is a home now for 1. million. Muslims.
Two - a new Medvedev's reform announced :o))))))))))
The quantitative discovered was made a Kuiram Bairam - a major Muslim holiday was celebrated 2 days ago in St. Pete.
And for the first time our old city's Mosque (was always there, 200 yrs or so)(quite nice looking, blue tiles, intricately in-laid, very pleasant to the eye) - didn't hold in all the Muslims who are now St. Petersburgers! Neither the square in front of it. neither the square behind. Neither the embankment :o)))) In other words - it was a complete traffic collapse as the Mosque is down town (by revolutionary Aurora cruiser side :o)))), for that matter).
Kuiram Bairan (Kuiran Bairam? always mix it, sorry) anyway it's every year, the Mosque is huge, the squares around it are not little either - and still folks didn't squeeze in!
So, ahead of any census resuts' publication, it is clear Central Asia has moved in in the last year or so in enormous quantities (USSR ex).
With regards to Medvedev reform - this is really nasty news and plan, he practically said Kremlin does not plan anymore to keep the country afloat :o)))), they said us good-bye ;o))))), we won't have any more administrative regions 86 of them called republics, Autonomous republics, regions and Areas or whatever (awfull mixture indeed, with regards to what is the Federation is made up of) - but instead the new split will be focused around the list of 20 (just 20) left over big cities :o)))))), to which all around are advised to migrate :o)))))) of they want to live :o)))))), as the state has no plans and resoureces to finance population spread acfross the whole place - too little people are left over in the country, and like, what to bother :o)))))
Now, the big 20 moan they can't take in more people (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, etc.), ecology and traffic and pollution, and what for to grow monsters.
And what's this crazy idea anyway of abandoning finacing and development of the rest?
And it's a big talk here, in other words, as Republics and regions and their different rights, freedoms and areas of own control are in the Constitution - so there will be a Referendum, for you can't change the Constitution otherwise. We hope :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Real estate market is in tantrums... though it is just a 2 days' old news
- how much is what now in the country, to sell a house?
Medvedev said the state wil pay the expenses of re-location of whole small cities to the nearest big city area from the list of "the big 20".
We hope they won't have the money! :o))))))
Tiny towns moan they like it there. Given how affectionate bears we are, attached to the desolate places, that anyone else in hios right mind would have abandoned 3 centuries ago ;o)))))) - it is really a problem for Russians to re-locate. Normally all sit where there family was the previous 1000 years :o))))
First - because we had a thousand years' serfdom - one was not allowed to move away, was considered a geographical property :o)))
Part of the landscape ;o))))
Then - out of habit and "what's the point, anyway, where to?" :o))))
really, will be morally very heavy. I don't know.
I'm a St. Petersburger just in the 6th generation :o))))), fresh newcomer :o)))))) compared to others, - just try to re-locate me!
I knew it that all the crises in Russia are man-made. I wrote a thesis on crisis management one of those days bygone :o))))) 500 pages. could have expressed in - "man-made, full stop".
It's others who are blessed with other crisis origins, natural disasters ;o)))))), terrorist acts, PR crises and threat of reputation loss :o)))), technological failures etc etc. Not Russia. :o)))) We've got our share of other reasons, but how can you compare the effects of, say, this past summer fires to one good reform of a Russian ruler?
:o))))))
I mean, one thing is Chernobyl (pea-nuts) - another - a revolution or a perestroyka.
People so lucky with governments :o))))) as Russians traditionally are :o))))) - simply have got no right for other types of crises - by the book! No need to look for the "reasons" elsewhere!
Complain about this comment
An attempt on the sacred things. a right to die by the native coffins' side in the ground. the only one we've got :o)))))))0
Complain about this comment
400 webalice writes:
"While peasants sat in the villages and didn't care or knew nil, all the ones competing for power knew pretty well Catherine is German as Russian and German clans competed for power in the country - she arrived with just 2 dresses, correct, but then drtagged in a whole tail of all things German, we don't blame her that she was actively inviting people from home, rather, those Germans arrived by themselves :o))))) during her rule and Catherine, in the new role of an all-mighty and all-posessing Russian empress must be found it un-becoming to refuse the requests."
That sounds to me like a very unfair and ungrateful view of Catherine's reign which we learned at school was a golden age for Russia. She was regarded in Europe as the most enlightened ruler Russia had had in centuries and brought prosperity, a greatly expanded Empire and many reforms for the better. Considering the times she lived in and the fact she was a woman at a time when women were considered so inferior to men she was an outstanding leader who did much for your country compared to the tyrants you were so often plagued with. If Elizabeth was so much preferred, I wonder why she isn't know as 'Elizabeth the Great' instead of 'Catherine the Great'?
Complain about this comment
I think it's because only substantially nasty ones become "the Great" :o)))))
Europe might have liked Catherine because it is said she "turned the ship of Russian politics West and South". Before that, we were not interested in those directions, looked North and East. She part-took in European wars sending Russian soldiers as cannon meat to support one or the other local European oligarch :o)))))) sorry, monarch, part-took in tricky games, and overal, as a result, yes I think Russia became more understandable for Europeans as it appeared as a player at the card table. Is it a virtue? Impossible to say looking from present times backward Crimea acquisition in those times surely a great Catherine's plus, Caucasus in general - no-no :o))))), neither headache of Poland, so, how to say, it depends. These two last ones became Russia's un-healing wounds ,dragging in effort strength finance and nerves and reserves.
Overall I think it was the call of the times, simply in the air back then; who knows the reasons for those waves, when a nation is on the up or on the downhill, just happens. catherine matched with the call of the time perfectly, right person in the right place in the right time, a lucky shape-up of coincidences and events, congruency case.
By herself, until arrival, she was not a very accomplished 15 year old :o))))) how to say, dragged out of an absolutely lost and forgotten desolate hole, into Russia - but was a quick learner, able to focus, and her marrying Russia she used 350%.
Different characters, with Elizabeth. yes, by mould-up we prefer Elizabeth rule - how can you question? you don't feel a Russian to know what we like. Elizabeth was our enlightment age, and Catherine - empire building age, different agenda-s.
PS For that matter - where is Crimea, Georgia, Armenia and Poland?
Hermitage museum - started by Elizabeth - I think is still here :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Rulers who came after great rulers?..ie, the Rulers after Elizabeth I of England and Catherine the Great of Russia --- were they any good?
Remember the ruler who came after the "Sun King" of France? He basically wasted(?) all the "achievements" coming before him from Louis XIV--in France...I remember...Or
Were they--Louis XIV actions "in office"--big achievements?
Because, if you look at the next 100 yrs after "Louis Quatourze," the French Revolution was predictable. Maybe, one cannot tell about the size of achievements until afterwards..long afterwards in these cases.
A civil war occurred in England and Scotland after Elizabeth I.
I must read about Catherine the Great--its been....if ever...:))
I know that a Russian Tsar did free the Serfs in the 1800s. Around the same date as Our Civil War.
(Was our American civil war just one of the "revolutions of 1948" (in Europe?) (was Russia just doing a last minute attempt at avoidance of the later Revolution--an ill-fated attempt????
Maybe Nik knows or can be of help..ie, speaking of Nickalaus....
:)
I, myself, must read more..
Complain about this comment
David, first thing you shouldn't mix up Russian empress Elizabeth (un-numebred, we have only had one) and Britain's empress Elizabeth no 1.
(They have two.)
Russian Elizabeth un-numbered ruled in about the same old time as British Elizabeth the First - but much later :o))))))
English Elizabeth ruled in Shakespeare times. 1600 eh? 1590-1604. She began earlier than Shakespeare, and I think in 1604 it was already Shakespeare and Jacob combination.
In Russia in parallel in that period went Ivan the Terrible :o))))) who vowed for English Elizabeth hand :o)))))) by the way (one of the applicants).
So that's that time.
Then I have no idea what it was in England the next century except the Great London fire where there are lots of figures 6. I've got a school wooden ruler somehwre where all Britain's Kings and Queens are listed can go find it in the desk drawer have a look.
Russian un-numbered Eizabeth starts from about ? 1730? 1725? I wish I knew :o)))))) (have got no school ruler equivalent for the Russian ones :o)))) and ends about 1762-1764 roughly, in Hermitage foundation time :o)
I must have confused you writing about Russian Elizabeth un-numbered "Elizabethan" times. This was wrong, "Elizabethan", of the three of them Elizabeths, refers strictly to the times of English Elizabeth the First.
_________
Now, having sorted out them, there is another mistake, you wrote a Russian tsar cancelled serfdom in 1800, no. In 1860 only ;o))))
1862?
Roughly, 40 years before revolutions started here, all in Russia were still serfs.
That was Alexandre No 2 a great tsar by all parameters (more or less :o), and for being so sweet and wonderful letting all serfs free by a decree he was immediately blown up by a terrorist bomb in gratitude ;o))))) Combined, he was attempted at 3 times I think, couldn't go in has carriage anywhere :o)))) in St. Petersburg - bombs simply were flying around :o)))
Can't explain what those terrorists wanted or were unhappy with it's always hard to tell with them. Serfdom back? No. Well, simply unhappy. With something. But that's when the very word "terrorist" appears - it is a Russian invention have to confess. The phenomenon was not observed before Alexandre II cancelled serfdom and was blown up in the crowd on the street by a unassuming chap quietly coming close with a bomb in hand hidden in clothes to throw it at the tsar. Later the group advertsied their political demands and promised many happy returns of the day if they won't have it their way (to this day unknown which way ;o)))))
Well at least we haven't figured out may be others are more brainy.
________________
Russian Elizabeth the First and the Last , as daughter of Peter the First, naturally ruled after him, but not at once, but after a succession of small negligable ones for a short time period. Distant cousins multiple times removed from Peter the First or something of the kind.
Practically, between Peter the 1st and Elizabeth the 1st in Russia ruled Biron, as an appointee and an all powerful eh? minister?
(see those German chaps' list).
Then we became fed up with this German organisation :o))))), there was a coup, and Peter's daughter Elizabeth was installed on the throne to great hurray and relief of absolutely everybody - from serfs to nobility, like, back from things German to things Russian.
Nobility was fed up with German barons taking all good positions :o)))
and serfs were fed up with strict Biron rules, for run-aways from masters and minor violations in master's housekeeping there were installed at Biron times very strict punishments, walking through a row of soldiers and every one beats you, soldiers were countered like a punishment size "a walk through 100", "a walk through 150", "a walk through 250" the last one in the range simply unnecessary because hardly anyone survived the first 50 strikes and fell in blood dead down in the middle of the walk. Army was provided for masters eager to punish their slaves. The punishment is called going through "schpitsrutens" don't know how it is called in Germany but it is something "schpits and something "routens" I think means a walk through those strikes, "schpits".
I think that Biron was not a normal German from Germany but something from the tiny Baltic states, betweexie and between, therefore such eh? extravagances, because Baltic states were always nervous and how to say less advanced :o)))) than Germany itself proper. Mimicking "German ways" in the most idiotic manner.
____________________
Tsar Peter died suddenly, being just fiftiesh? - he got a cold, a flu, in my dacha :o))))) - honest, 2 km away from my house, took a forced swim in the Gulf of Finland on a nasty cold windy day. A boat thing, either saving some boatmen fishermen as the legend goes or simply his boat turned over, a stormy day yachting adventure, in short.
That's why there were no preparations or things ready and his daughter Elizabeth couldn't take the throne normally and in time, but only after this Biron rule mess.
Then Elizabeth exported young Catherine out of Germany as a potential bride, trained and taught and terrorised her for years here :o)))), cultivated so to say the new Empress in view, and died, and it became Catherine (as an empress not as a wife :o) as was planned, because the prep years at the Russian court taught Catherine a thing or two and she first thing disposed of her Russian husband as a matter of emergency :o))))) decided to rule 100% not as a wife).
Complain about this comment
Is it possible to create a giant government for the whole world? That would eliminate wars and promote cooperation in policies.
Complain about this comment
Wow, thank you, much better than reading a book--a post is more human and nice :)
Complain about this comment
Here I have a book of kings and queens of England...And did you know they imported a Dutch one at one time (after Elizabeth and the civil war, I think)
But, I'd have to list them all for you, and you could probably check a book out at the library. All I know is that one was bad, (John) and one was sinister (???) and the latest is the best queen to me -- all job no power.
But She is so rich, who cares (lol)
:))
Complain about this comment
David, you are very welcome.
I also think I explain it much better :o)))))
Shakespeare and Elizabeth the First / Ivan the Terrible on this side /
Great London Fire
Peter the First - (Biron rule nasty interruption) - Russian Elizabeth the First - Catherine the First and the last and the Great imported and ruled - Hermitage museum 55% done :o))))))))
The next historical thing I know is the favourite grandad's apple tree that I tried to keep afloat :o)))))) (in our wet and windy marshes /dacha/ where tsar peter naturallly caught pneumonia (who doesn't! ;o)))) in this swamp! :o)
so I tried to keep it afloat and successfully, until ab 2 years ago, must say.
The apple tree is called "Elizaveta Vtoraya" / Elizabeth the Second - a very rare brand here and excellent tiny crispy sweet apples. A bit vanilla flavoured may be. Brown sides. I think grandad planted it post-war which may be the same time when the Empress ascended the throne.
Which apple tree very existence in the garden gives me an upper hand compared to you in historical European matters greatly ;o)))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
For import, German princesses have always been, how to say, available :o)))))) The thing is the area now Germany (approximately) is very fragmented, that is, it was normally very fragmented, and I believe some old habits must have stayed in this respect. federative something.
In the result "Germany" had a tsar every two kilometres :o)))))) OK, I'm joking, say, every hundred miles. ;o))))))))))))
Many, naturally, had daughters - tiny tsardoms - but with full paperwork! :o))))) those daughters, all, how to say, royal marrying brand (very well documented stamped ;o) certificates and all :o)
Plus - believed to be very sensible and un-spoilt.
Who ever heard of the 'exuberances of the German court" :o))))))))
And it was believed that when a girl comes from an un-spoilt place to a spoilt place :o))))) she gets happier :o))))) how to say, more positively minded, inclined to stand the future unknown husband, since he'll be accompanied with different perks :o)))) and bonuses :o)))))
And when the wife is happy the husband might also be ;o)))) how to say, more chance for a happy family and all.
Now, Russia imported heaps, not Catherine only. Keeping in mind it's not the first son only who needs to be wed somehow, but the second and the third and what about the fourth :o))))), and first cousins and uncles and what's with this and that :o))))))
It's not that we shunned other European families but Germany had a reputation to be a reliable source of daughters neverending springs :o)))) while imagine a coup, sudden need for a new wife or someone killed another emergency :o)))) (of which Russia was so rich :o)))), plus heaps of boys, and it so happened that in other tsardoms a girl would be already wed or engaged or older or younger basically the princes didn't even have a choice of 2-3, with other countries.
Elizabeth chose Catherine very wisely; minimum relatives ;o)))), she arrived with Mum; that Mum was sent off away at once, not to confuse Catherine with German language and un-needed advice and recommendation :o)))); what Elizabeth wanted was a teenager orphan basically, with good papers, to mould up here.
Complain about this comment
Isnt it funny what a long tangled relationship you have with Germans?
At last Europe With Russia is coming into some kind of resumption of normal trade/brotherly relations (all evolving last the 30 plus years--glasnost, Yeltsin, new Germany, new capitalist Russia--new friendly relations (mixed with misunderstandings and growth).
Not a moment too soon, but historically, to me, Russia is a jumble, first strong, then vastly weakened, then vastly recovered. Always, change.
We have change, but its within, and traumatic (I remember much--Vietnam, I remember it on TV--Reagan, Clinton (good times) Bush (bad), Obama (reality hits)
But wow, you live in Peter the Great's summer dacha, that is a national history site:)
And you must feel so grateful or have you gotten used to it. But, wow, a dacha--it must feel great, hopefully.
And your animals, I hope they are grateful.
Complain about this comment
BTW, my big thing in my life, these days is my job. I loved it at first...my first job after college that was truly good.
then I started to hate it, and felt desperate, but now I feel peaceful (next week desperate--but cooling down hopefully,...I'm feeling better about it) and now I think of the future again. :)
So, its all better now. Hope your Holiday season (Christian holiday season-- Thanksgiving/Harvest time, Christmas, New Years)
And Nik, M. Howard, QOT, Marcus (I'm thinking he is laid up or...away) and PowerMeerKat, Maud Dib, CBW, Threnodio II, EU Pris. Gen. Franco, DemocracyThreat et al--I like all the people here--
(isnt it funny how these people become important--never met in person)
All of you, have a wonderful fall/winter and holiday time this year--this is My favorite time of year!
Complain about this comment
415 WebAlice
Now I know why few people in Europe want to have anything much to do with you - talk about ingratitude. Catherine the Great who helped drag you out of the Middle Ages (although it seems not quite yet) and all you can do is moan and denigrate her and other German princesses who must have missed the comfort and luxury of living in Europe compared to the intrique and misery of the Russian court of the times .
Tell me, what has Russia done for Germany over the centuries or for anyone else in Europe or the rest of the world come to think of it? Or indeed for the poor weaker countries surrounding it which were ruthlessly taken over and subjugated and treated in the most inhuman way.
Complain about this comment
'Isnt it funny what a long tangled relationship you have with Germans?'
Yes. At different times, for different reasons, there has always been in-fluxes of Germans into Russia, like high tide low tide, high tide low tide, but many were always here, in the result. Currently the areas are St. Petersburg and Volga bassin Germans. In the family history Russia's society German section is the largest I think. English section, for that matter ;o)) is 5 people I swear ;o))))))), while German counts in hundreds; they are always rich in meetings and events.
Gynealogical director ;o)))))) (of the society) adores them I think :o)))))) for the very quanitity, annual membership fees' collection.
(American plain does not exist :o)
French is alright, and Polish is alright, and the rest of sub-sections are industry based or peculiar phenomenon's based ;o)))).
like Navy families and all - rich one as well and good events, on board a ship gatherings etc.
Complain about this comment
1. Now I know why few people in Europe want to have anything much to do with you - talk about ingratitude. C
2. Catherine the Great who helped drag you out of the Middle Ages (although it seems not quite yet) and all you can do is moan and denigrate her and other German princesses who must have missed the comfort and luxury of living in Europe compared to the intrique and misery of the Russian court of the times .
3. Tell me, what has Russia done for Germany over the centuries or for anyone else in Europe or the rest of the world come to think of it?
4. Or indeed for the poor weaker countries surrounding it which were ruthlessly taken over and subjugated and treated in the most inhuman way.
Four sentences - four mistakes. And what am I to do? :o))))))
Margaret, I think on the general level you sound alright; one here discovers how eh slightly distorted your view is , only when it concerns one's particular area of expertise only ;o)))))
Complain about this comment
420 Webalice writes:
"Four sentences - four mistakes.
Margaret, I think on the general level you sound alright; one here discovers how eh slightly distorted your view is , only when it concerns one's particular area of expertise only ;o)))))"
Maybe you would like to put me right on those four mistakes and also tell me where my view on your history is slightly distorted. Quite frankly I thought your description of Catherine the Great when you write:
"Elizabeth chose Catherine very wisely; minimum relatives ;o)))), she arrived with Mum; that Mum was sent off away at once, not to confuse Catherine with German language and un-needed advice and recommendation :o)))); what Elizabeth wanted was a teenager orphan basically, with good papers, to mould up here."
was cynical and more than somewhat distorted and hardly worthy of a women who did much for Russia, at least to western eyes.
Quite frankly you have reaffirmed the view we have of Russia in the West of being indoctrinated and ill-informed. Having recently read a few articles in the Times about the persecution your dissidents still suffer from even when they have managed to escape the country, I am surprised you call yourself a democracy.
I thought you had free elections now in Russia? If that is so why don't you throw them out? Or does your Press still not dare tell you what goes on in the country?
Complain about this comment
Correction. On the first sentence - won't dispute, it's for others to decide what they will or will not do, not Russia's business to tell others how to feel about Russia.
We do not look for short-term gains, rightly or wrongly.
Overall, think Russia's detachment from my main-stream European affairs - it's a fact - lasts for centuries - is more explained by incongruency in our targets and things we are busy with, and agenda-s. Plus the time' lap - we live in different times - 3 centuries behind the first iron fence, when Russia was part of mongol-tatar word order, put us back behind the rest of Europe who wasn't occupied. We never really caught up with the rest, even having all the time given for minimising the gap.
In the effect, we live in different stages still. Plus the geography and internal contents are different, the fillings of the pies. Which dictated different worries and 'wanted' things.
There is a time and task difference.
I think that has more to do with two worlds' formed than Russian "ingratitude" for any foreign eh? presents.
Complain about this comment
2.
intrigues are part of every court life, and get bigger with the size of it and the various country's regional or functional how to say, complexity, standing behind different lobby groups.
Catherine, in particular, is hardly an example of a sufferer and victim ;o))))))))) of Russian court "intrigues"; her long rule during which she was feeling happy ;o))))))) 99% of her time - as good a proof of it as one might ? require.
She was a very scribbling empress ;o) - there are diaries. heaps of essays, philosophical observations about this and that ;o), "compositions on the theme of....' and what not.
How do you dare to term her as "German" is beyond me; if she considered herself Russian and Russians consider her own Russian. Only snobby eh someone willing to look at all things Russian condescendingly, type "only a foreigner could have "dragged them" out of "middle ages" would term her German.
You do not understand a core thing - how we view nationalities - easy - "Russian of German origin", "Russian of tatar origin", Russian of etc. origin. We never forget and omit the "origin' bit, always nationality aware. I think this is in fact a form of gratitude to others, who gave us their off-spring, that we do not forget the ties, thin as they are, just in case, who knows. That's our networking links, the "of the origin" tip, never omitted.
Unlike, for example, the USA approach, where you become an American and the "nationality bit" is encouraged to be omitted.
Nationality makes a difference only when a ready person, shaped up to perfection at home, arrives to Russia and becomes Russian. Then it casts ... a shadow ;o)))))) Influences things, his/her previous perceptions and habits.
In case of empress Catherine, as I said, that wasn't the case at all. She arrived very young and was shaped up here. As "foreign" as would be any child you adopt from another country and in your family in a short while.
On the "comfort" she had at home, as you compare it with the hardships at the Russian court - i'm particularly offended ;o)))))) For we like to live what's called here "on a wide foot" :o))) and surely, of all houses, the Winter palace house was run so. Catherine's memoirs say at home they went for days without food! and were constantly shivering and even had to be economical with candles. it happens so with families, the quantity of middle names is no protection from cold weather and holes in the walls. in case you do not know.
Russian tsars life style is simply silly to go about at length ;o)))))))
nothing economical was ever observed about it, for one thing ;o)))))0, granted ;o))))))
As one feature, Hermitage branch established recently in Amsterdam ran on display the prev. summer either Catherine's or Elizabeth's - forgot whose - for they had similar appetites in that respect ;o)))) - of ball-dresses. Two thousand of them, with silk slippers and fans and full gear ;o)))), in either case, one of my personal Hermitage stocks' favourites. You can stare for hours and hand copy the interesting eh? solutions.
I think if Elizabeth had 2,000 - Catherine would have had 2000 and one, as minimum. For they were competing a bit in the late Elizabeth/mature Catherine stages ;o), esp. one a step-mother to the other.
Once again, we are laid back with regards to Romanov's "end bits" (of origins) entirely, as it's a hopeless case ;o))))))0, the whole dynasty.
The "low end" represented by Catherine and several others - imported in full integrity how to say , entirely initially foreign, 100%.
The "high end" is Alexander the Second, "the most Russian of all Russian tsars" (his phrase. he was proud of it , seriously ;o)))))), a naive chap ;o))))), stressing it constantly) - well he was 1/32 Russian Russian.
You would agree the difference between the "low end" and the "high end" is really miniscule, so, like, simply nothing to compare tsars blood combination for, no point - all run low in being "Russian Russian'.
Still, neither Romanov ever displayed signs of playing to the hand of the "blood group' country, or "country of origin" in politics, they pursued Russia's interests entirely and viewed themselves absolutely Russian, so what more to be desired?
Complain about this comment
If Catherine complained of anything here, it was the mess and the idea of travelling by the whole court non-stop :o)))))))), like crazy, from winter palace to summer dacha-s :o))))))), and commuting between Moscow and St. Petersburg, old capital and new capital both requiring attention.
She hated it the whole expense and jazz, of trains and carriages, with ladies in waiting and up to the chimney designated sweeper, and everyone's lap dogs and all, to take on the wing and get re-located the whole palace packing several times a year like gypsy.
Complain about this comment
as to dragging out of the Middle Ages, that task was performed by Peter the First, a century earlier than Catherine's rule.
And God how we hate him for that! :o)))))))))))))))
Catherine was not about internal reforms, her focus was external, to own folks she gave hell only in terms of high demands for soldiers and 25-year soldier service imposed, for foreign camapigns. The structure of the country inside she wisely left alone ;o))))))) because you can't stress people on all fronts at once, even all-bearing Russians. Well, at least she opted not to.
Complain about this comment
No 3 I will skip, if you will allow. I feel modest tonight.
________________
:o)
"Don't ask what Motherland has done for you - ask yourself what you have done for the Motherland!'
;o))))))))))
Complain about this comment
No 4. "poor" weaker" subjugated", treated in the most inhuman way.
Poor weaker ruled Russia and rule. In the most inhuman way ;o))))))))
I don't know where Russia ends and poor weaker start, and we never knew ;o))))
Given 1.5 million Azerbajanee in Moscow in 2009, 2.5 million Georgians in Russia currently, half Armenia, 1 million Muslims from USSR ex- muslim states in St. Petersburg last weekend for Kuiram Bairam festivities - the poor weaker don't know either where they end and where Russia starts :o))))))
No one here so far complained of un-equal opportunities of getting to power based on whether you are poor weaker adjoining neighbour grabatised into the Russian orbit or a central area local.
Neither now or during whole Empire time.
Our foreign affairs is Armenian, our Economy minister is Tatarstan product 100%, our everyone Cabinet of Ministers is "poor weaker" and have been.
Have you ever heard we are called now "A corporation of three "ch" /Tch" ?
Ruled by "Tcheka", Chechnya, and "Chinovniki" (state functionaries).
Two of these you will understand; Chechnya was bought out of war by positions lavishly awarded across all power ministries.
Upon my word, in career making it has always been easier in Russia to be a "poor weaker' product than the central plains or North product. Because Russians don't group in groupings at work and don't promote "one's kin" - having no illusions about abilities of each other! ;o)))))
while the rest seemingly aways seem less critical to "own nationality" folk and promote above the ranks on this pure one basis.
which is not sufficient - as you can see by the results of it :o))))))
can be that poor weaker are less interested in the final result of the business, one might think? that is that Russia survives, in all its beauty.
I would hire and promote anybody, for that reason, give me a green spidery able Marsian over a stupid Russian Russian any minute.
Complain about this comment
imagine how nice it woud be if powermeer or the sigh big lost unknown engineer worked in Russia now for a term.
All with totally mis-placed brains! :o))))) But brainy!
Or old Jukks. With limitations. ;o)))))))
No access to nuclear facilities in his electronic office access card codes :o))))))
Complain about this comment
422-428 webalice:
Thank you for attempting to answer the following four 'mistakes'. However I don't think anyone needs to know so much about Russian history to see that you avoided the answers. Let's be brief and examine the 'mistakes' one by one.
1. Now I know why few people in Europe want to have anything much to do with you - talk about ingratitude.
Basically you reply that because of various disadvantages like mongol-tartar world order hundreds of years ago, time difference, geography etc, in fact anything other than your own failings. Funnily enough the Americans achieved democracy, freedom and all these things in a far shorter time and managed to overcome an even greater isolation from Europe and more than caught up with it.
2. Catherine the Great who helped drag you out of the Middle Ages (although it seems not quite yet) and all you can do is moan and denigrate her and other German princesses who must have missed the comfort and luxury of living in Europe compared to the intrique and misery of the Russian court of the times.
Catherine the Great suddenly wasn't really German at all, at least not in Russian eyes. Well, I have to believe you there, I don't know Russia but from what you tell me of the 'intricacies' of being Russian-Tartar etc too long to be more specific, it nevertheless seems like an awfully racist society to me.I take your word for it that life in Russia was in Catherine's time far more comfortable than in Europe, although this is indeed news to me.
3. Tell me, what has Russia done for Germany over the centuries or for anyone else in Europe or the rest of the world come to think of it?
Your reply was: "I will skip, if you will allow. I feel modest tonight."
Yes, I thought you might say this. I don't want to add too much myself only to remind you that in Germany's case mass rape of their women in post war times springs to mind. No doubt you will excuse that and relate what Germans did during the war in Russia. But I thought that was why you fought the war, to end barbarity inflicted in the name of conquest by another nation.
4. Or indeed for the poor weaker countries surrounding it which were ruthlessly taken over and subjugated and treated in the most inhuman way.
You come out with statistics of formerly subjugated people and their successes in present day Russia. Well, I can't argue with that although I can't say that this will compensate for centuries of misery. Still, let bygones be bygones. It just seems odd that when it suits some people they bring up old grievances from centuries ago and use them to justify present hardships as you yourself do in question 1.
Four sentences - four mistakes? I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
I did not avoid answering, but explained my view as deep as I can.
I think you understood, but as it disagrees with your point of view, you say I avoided. Or may be you did not understand.
I can only write, at the point "post comment" I mean, from there it's up to you in the discussion.
So what is unclear ab my answer to no 1? I wrote it's not Russian business to tell others how to feel about it. I gave one possible reason, in my view, why Russia stands separately in Europe, and always did.
I disagree with you that there is one common drive across the "people of Europe" (on whose behalf - you somehow think - you can speak combined)and that it is some particular "Russian ungratefullness". Sounds funny to me, never heard of. May be it's a common place for you.
I think different European countries have different attitudes to Russia, and that they don't stand united behind the concept of "Russian ungratefullness" ;o))) Can think of many different reasons, but not this one across.
2. "it nevertheless seems like an awfully racist society to me.
I take your word for it that life in Russia was in Catherine's time far more comfortable than in Europe, although this is indeed news to me."
To remember the origins is not necessarily racist, because it is in a way a fact of life, don't you think? Some can't allow themselves to remember the origins of all constituencies because the society fabric is then in danger of falling apart. Russia could allow herself this luxury before; what will be in the future I don't know.
Haven't compared life levels in Catherine times between Europe and Russia; no point as we spoke of "German princesses" and of one Catherine, in particular. Royal life is kind of different to the rest of the population :o)))). Yes, think "comfort levels" here for "German princesses" were higher than at home. At any time.
No 3 will skip again. And for the same reason.
re "mass rape of German women" I also wish we entered Europe with the army in white gloves, but by the end of the war we had the army we had, as its content changed many times over, because of loss.
Sense of proportion you have not, I will dare to add at this point.
No 4
"Well, I can't argue with that although I can't say that this will compensate for centuries of misery. Still, let bygones be bygones."
No, why bygones be bygones? We are kind of proud of our bygones, just imagine. I don't need "bygones" as an excuse, thank you.
Centuries of misery - who, of the "poor ones"?
What misery - compared to how they will manage on their own in those centuries - not better standing on their own I think.
Compared to Russian Russians, in those centuries bygone? - once again, it's all across here, alike, same life levels and opportunities and hardships.
When "inflicted" - inflicted by the same mixture of people Russia is, including own folk.
You try to tear apart people looking backwards from here, when in the past they were one, it's recent news most are formed up as independent entities.
Russia , FYI, is only called so as an entity since 1991 something. Soviet people, before. "Rossijskaya Imperia" - before. Not "Russkaya", mind it, Russian Russian nationality has never been put upfront until recently.
I think the recent naming is wrong, because "Russia" supposes "Russian Russian" - which it is not at all. Thank God at least for the "Federation" added :o))) But this "Federation" is a cunning term, a cover up, tricky, because in reality it is no Federation but the same thing all across, call it whatever.
But one thing it isn't either is "Russian Russian" - have never been since small size times immemorial, since when the thing went out of hands entirely :o)))))) and lives own life which is any thing but "Russian Russian".
Yes, I wish to step up for "Russian Russian", protect.
Why everyone has the right, seemingly, to have own interests, have any thing own - but Russian Russians? You are thinking of us in British terms known to you - while Russian Russians don't even have, and haven't had, an area they could call their own. There is no "Russia" inside the "Russian Federation", type there is 'England' inside the UK.
Russian Russians are everywhere - and nowhere.
They don't even are! ;o))))))0 Given the mixtures in breeds we passed through! :o))))))
In USSR times, I know such a complaint will sound funny to you, but it was important back then in regional power-making - Russian Republic haven't had a Communist Party.
Honest. What a grief! :o))))))
But, serious.
USSR was ruled by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR. The gathering was comprised of 14 Republics' Communist party heads' doing decision making. 14, note not 15. All but "Russian Federative Republic" - no voice.
It is funny for you, but back then it mattered - whether you have a power party of the Republic or you don't.
That that power was communist didn't change things much, a power is always a power, either you can lobby your republic interests in the union or you can't. General Secretaries type Khruschev Brezhnev surely were not elected via a type of a parliament voting, but "appointed" (by who? :o) - as a result of the under-carpet fractions' pulling of communists, bull-doggie fight under the carpet.
No doubt all General Secretaries were all proper and full of concern about everybody's interests :o))))) - including that of the Russian Federative Republic", but the fact remains - if you don't have a party you can't lobby.
Damn, only now I noted - were were 'federative" already then! ;o))))
never happiness. always something phony :o)))))
You don't find it strange, come to think of it, that Russian Russians the very people with who land eh expanding and grabatisation is widely associated, and with who communism is widely associated - did not have a land they can call own or even a communist party?
Tricky things. And you want to understand 'Russia" at once.
I think we were by-passed with communists and own borders. with communists honestly don't know why. so that wouldn't pull the blanket onto ourselves?
with land I think I know. So that , in every "Russia" ruler's opinion, wjoever that be tsar a communist or modern ones - there will always be people in the country who in case of any thing will protect the whole entity - the whole borderline - as having none else they can call home.
Which I am doing, exactly ;o))))) like a total idiot :o)))))
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
429. At 7:11pm on 21 Nov 2010, margaret howard wrote:
I don't want to add too much myself only to remind you that in Germany's case mass rape of their women in post war times springs to mind.
+++++
Well I think I only need to remind you that far more rapes were committed by the Alies. The D-Day wasn't over, yet they were already raping French women in Normandy. I think you need to read Anthony Beaver's D-Day, a little of the truth is revealed there.
Also about 500 French women reported being raped on the first night after the "liberation" of Paris by the Anglo-Americans. It is estimated that many more were raped (thousands) but were too scared to report it.
Needless to say none of that happened when the German army entered Paris in 1940.
Many German women were raped after the war in the British, American and French sectors of occupation or were forced to prostitute for cigarettes, food etc. which is really the same or may be even worse.
Complain about this comment
432 Norman Conquest writes:
No, I'm afraid I didn't know about the rapes by allies in Paris. I do know that contrary to the constant propaganda in the press here it is never mentioned that the German soldiers were in fact very popular with the French ladies during their years in Paris.
However, I mentioned the Russian outrages as I recently read some extracts from a book by a lady from Berlin (I have forgotten her name or the title of her book) in which she describes in some detail what happened to her (she was barely a teenager then) and the other women hiding in the cellar and that she had still not recovered from the horror after all these years. What really moved me was their humanity in that so many of them decided to keep the babies that resulted despite the horror of their conception.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone seen Dangerous Liasons?
Its a great British (sorry old word and addicted) about French aristocratic women "without power" whom are powerful, nonetheless,
(the Russian people remind me of French people)
But, the main important scripted line that I like is
"Its beyond my control"
Says it all :)
Complain about this comment
@ 433
Margaret,
the book you are referring to has been proven to be a fake written by a Nazi propagandist.
Complain about this comment
Yes, David :o))
I wish we are called? "The Green Zebra-s Eurasian" !
;o))
or something.
If it's Russia presuming Russian Russians - I want to have it my Russian Russian way! ;o))))))))) Because everyone damn presumes!
Finns do, only Finns and nothing but Finns. Baltic states do well... baltics are not an awful successful example ;o)
Japan does!
Norway may be. There are mono-places!
can't think of bigger ones though :o(
Well America does it American way. Which is noone's in particular, though, kind of Soviet blank cover name ;o(
Anyone who does it one nationality way, while being big?
?
?
Well, as minimum no one choses one nationality as a coverup name ;o))))))for a multi-country and does all under their name!
Give me the corporate identity the change the Green Zebra-s then and do whatever under the Green Zebra-s banner anyone who happens to ramble around but leave Russian Russians alone!
Complain about this comment
Margaret, those immigrants into Russia, fresh multi-million arrivals from the 'ex-USRR" places - they are not exactly enjoying themselves being particularly happy here or anything. They live like everyone else.
the reason for coming is not that in Russia it's so wonderful, it is that at their new respective homes it is worse ;o))))))))
Upon separation they were feeling nationalistic (like me in the above posts :o), and in the zeal kicked all Russian Russians out. Drove away from work places, treated like 2nd rate citizens and all.
Well then they discovered that Russian Russians were not exactly wrong un-needed extra-s in their work places ;o)))))
Another reason is it is difficult for a separate country, while they thought it is easy, that's why left us. To worsen things, many were never countries before, even in long forgotten times, don't know how to manage as a country, and nothing from the past hints - they were at best , regions. Someone's.
Well anyway all who could find sponsors post-perestroyka (options are Russia, the EU, the USA) manage, and the rest simply ran to Russia as the only known place and the only accepting place. The EU hasn't seen a run on it by Central Asia post-perestroyka, did you? No, you wouldn't have missed that ;o))))))
The three Baltics are not here they are working in the EU elsewhere :o))))
Armenia is here and Georgia is and Azerbajan, in approx. half-country quantities. Second passports.
Georgia though tries well to manage on their own, as apart from Russia for work and second passport, they've got the USA for money.
Azerbajan manages the best of all, they are on good terms simultaneously with Russia, Iran and the USA, so 3 sponsors. A flexible approach they've got a future :o)))))))
Overall, with the ex, we don't have strategic things to quarrel about with, so relations are alright. Since they all got their own partitions :o)))))) and sovereignity - they even began to miss us!, kind of :o))))) - otherwise what are they all doing here?
Having brand new own countries to develop and to be busy with, one would think?
Out of habit, may be. That we are seen as the local geography "centre", to be in.
Either way - no one wants more land from us, already something, so I don't see serious reasons to quarrel about. On departure the borders were defined by the leaving ones ;o))))), every one took as much as they wanted, Ukraine won't forget left with half Ukraine extra, Kazakhstan with about 30% wrongly grabatised, so apart from a Russian passport there isn't any thing that can be wanted of us, theoretically.
The USSR state debt, accummulated by 15 republics, Russia took on herself, nobly (and very stupidly ;o))))) i would add ;o)))))0 i miss the money!)
so the new countries entered their grown-up lives debt-free.
Complain about this comment
Is a Green Zebra a person of 5 different bloods? Or are they hostile outsiders? But, when its your own family that is attacked you must defend them..but if you don't know whom your family is? But, Hitler is an example of someone who loved his own-new-family too much
But, I sometimes wonder if all the wars started or which involved America are because America is/was ..New. Power it may be that is involved but newness maybe makes us perhaps easily swayed..and so our identity is involved with all this newness?
Americans are now fighting because we are dumb not threatened. Bush thought we were free to fight now but he was wrong we are only free to fight weak peoples under bad governments and we are free to spend all our hard earned cash and free to bankrupt ourselves in having this free fun fighting--killing and nothing to show for it--that is futility.
Wait til the MOB--I mean the tea party--finds this out. These kinds of people are always 50 years late and in debt before they realize it..Monday mornong mood here.
Complain about this comment
Just keep your dacha..Alice...think of the legacy--your ace in the hole.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS