Ireland: Time for the Celtic rebel
For a few weeks the crisis in the eurozone has faded from view. It has been eclipsed by other events but it never went away. It is now due for a return.
By the end of the month Europe's leaders have promised that a comprehensive deal will emerge to fix the problems with the single currency once and for all. Expect some late nights.
The curtain-raiser for these negotiations is a meeting in Helsinki today. It features Europe's conservative leaders who have gathered in the Finnish capital to talk, but not decide. That will come later.
Even as they float plans on how to prevent Europe's single currency from being buffeted in the future the fact remains that the current debt crisis has not been settled.
Greece and the Republic of Ireland were bailed out and put on a life-support machine. Their debt mountains, however, edge only higher. The day of reckoning may have been delayed, but it hovers on the horizon.
In Ireland the view is that the medicine prescribed by Brussels risks bankrupting the economy.
Among those turning up in Helsinki will be a mild-mannered 59-year-old former teacher. Enda Kenny now has the European stage. He is Ireland's prime minister-in-waiting. He rode to power promising Irish voters that he would renegotiate the Irish bail-out deal. The people found it humiliating. Mr Kenny wants to see the interest rate on the EU part of the deal - currently 5.8% - lowered. He wants the repayment terms lengthened. He also wants some investors (senior bondholders) in the banks to share in the losses.
Now before the election Enda Kenny was regarded as uninspiring, bland, charisma-free. In a way that Napoleon would have valued he is, however, a "lucky" man. The voters were out to take revenge on his predecessors, who had presided over the wrecking of the Irish economy and then had bent the knee to the European Central Bank. Mr Kenny was handed power.
So even while he is still coalition-building he has now to deliver on his promises. In Helsinki he hopes for an audience with the high priest of the European economy, Angela Merkel.
His trip was not off to a robust start. "I'll certainly get a few minutes," he said before leaving Ireland, sounding like a man who was waiting to doorstep Chancellor Merkel. The Germans were not encouraging, briefing that a one-on-one meeting might not be possible because of a tight schedule.
But Mr Kenny may be underestimating the strength of his hand. He has a mandate from the voters. The people of Ireland want the terms of the deal changed. He can say that Ireland is not prepared to go along with what was signed last November. Governments play hard ball all the time.
Angela Merkel has already fired some warning shots. Europe, she said, can't "artificially reduce interest rates". In her view there should be no easy money for the reckless.
Maybe, but Ireland unilaterally could force some investors to take a haircut. The voters would like that.
The Europeans may insist that, in exchange for a loosening of the bail-out terms, Ireland abandon its low corporate tax rate. That, however, is part of the Irish brand and Mr Kenny can afford to say "no deal".
The crunch is that Ireland is under huge pressure to begin de-leveraging its banks. There are real fears in Ireland that this would end up as a fire-sale, selling assets into a distressed market. As one prominent businessman said, "fire-sales don't just stop in banks; they jump to every other kind of business".
That pressure will grow in the weeks ahead with a fresh stress test pending. Ireland could end up yet again having to put more capital into its banks.
Ireland would like a European solution to deal with its banks. It needs help, but it need not be muscled. Its bank debts are somewhere between 150 and 200bn euros (£128bn-£170bn) and the largest amount of capital is from German banks.
The Irish prime minister (Taoiseach) carries a grenade in his pocket. It is marked "default". The Irish bank governor says that Ireland defaulting on its loans was not an option that was "attractive to any part of Irish society". That may be true. But the EU fears an Irish default. It believes it would destabilise the entire currency zone. It would demonstrate that the current medicine of austerity and deficit-cutting has not worked.
But Ireland with a robust real economy might decide that the pain of a default would be relatively short-term and preferable to a bail-out that imposes austerity for a generation.
Danny McCoy of the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation was in Brussels this week and made an impressive case that the real Irish economy - away from the banking system - was surging. Exports are booming. The Irish balance of payments is in surplus. Unit labour costs have improved dramatically. Companies are expanding, although that has not led to a sharp pick-up in employment. Ireland remains an attractive country to invest in. It has flexible labour practices, it is business-friendly, with a well-educated workforce.
The question is whether those early green shoots will be allowed to grow or whether they'll be strangled by the terms of the bail-out and the debt that remains in the banking system.
So Mr Kenny should not hope for his few minutes with Chancellor Merkel. He can demand time. He can play the Irish rebel. He holds the cards. During the election he said the bail-out was "bad for Ireland, bad for Europe". During the Irish campaign he presented himself as a fighter for Irish independence. His moment has come.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The next few week’s will show if Irish elections can change policy, or if they merely decide who is the Frontman to implement what the EU decides in the ‘fax democracy’ province of the super-state that Ireland has been reduced to.
I see the EU Commission and some (sham-liberal) MEPs are objecting to Merkel competiveness pact, not on the grounds that it is anti-competitive (which it is), but because it does not empower the supranational institutions themselves. Merkel and the previous Irish government had argued, erroneously in my view, that a referendum in Ireland on the change to the Lisbon treaty to enforce the so-called competitivess pact are not necessary if the changes were only of an inter-governmental nature. However i fail to see why the Irish should be denied a referendum on losing their democratic powers to either intergovernmental (EU Council) or supranational EU institutions (Commission & EU sham Parliament). What matters is if the Irish people consent to the power to set corporation tax, pensions ages, industrial wages policy, etc. moving from the national institutions their votes can touch to Brussels, and not which type of EU institution they are lost to.
Complain about this comment
If Chancellor Merkel wants to make changes to the Lisbon Treaty which will need member signatures, then she will need Ireland.
The EU and the IMF have humiliated the Irish people. OK not necessarily their problem but a fact after all.
Does the EU really think that the Irish people will be in the mood for more EU pressure to tow the line.
I think not.
Complain about this comment
Kenny wants ! He has no chance ; Merkel and her minions will decide what Kenny gets. Going on Ireland's previous record, it will be whatever the EU demands and or decrees , not what Kenny wants. One thing is certain, they will take any action and destroy anything, to preserve the Euro in the hope of holding the useless institution the EU has become, together.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I can understand the anger in Eire at the harsh terms of the bail-out, the problem has its roots in their decision to sign up to the Euro, even though its largest trading partner - the UK - did not. The pigeons have come home to roost, as they always inevitably would, and it seems more than a little petulant for the Irish to say that they should not have to alter their corporation tax levels (designed purely to attract inward investment to their shores and away from their European partners within the Eurozone, as well as the UK) even though they now rely upon those same partners to supply the credit which Eire so obviously and badly needs.
I find myself torn on this, because whilst I object to the way that the EU bullies member states into surrendering more and more national sovereignty , I don't agree with nations being allowed to escape the consequences of their financial decision making either. If the terms of the bail out are loosened for Ireland, we can expect uproar in the German heartland, something which I am sure Ms Merkel is very well aware of. If the ECB does raise interest rates as predicted, Spain may be next in line for financial support, and the uproar in Germany will become a crescendo.
The problem is not the bail out terms, it is membership of the Euro.
Complain about this comment
Labour says its plan will set Ireland on course.
This may be a referebce to the current development (successful at that) of Irish wind-power, but I don;t really thing so.
THE LABOUR Party has worked out a 100-step plan which it hopes will set the direction for Ireland over the next twenty years.
Party Leader, Eamon Gilmore has contended that renegotiation of the austerity deal with the IMF (great privitizers that they are!) and the EU could save the State €1.3B from lower interest rates and a substantial share of €2B through burden-sharing with bondholders.
He also said the plan, if implemented, could deliver employment, political reform and fairness in society.
Wow, this seems like a lot, but...
Ireland is an undustrious country, a smart country with smart, caring politiions; so I tend to believe that Labour might just have something going here.
The 89-page manifesto (not easy reading, but then finances & propositions never are) laid the emphasis on the banking and financial crises. The commitments are for the most part in the public domain, but the key policy objectives have been sliced into real detail.
The manifesto calls for
1. renegotiation of the EU-IMF deal;
2. burden-sharing by bank bondholders;
3. a lowering of the interest rate on the EU loans; as well as
4. a longer time period to bring the national deficit down to 3%.
What's wrong with this 4-point plan? Nothing that I can see.
For instance, the EU-IMF is far too stiff; the IMF is always far too stiff, like its job is to punish countries rather than really assist. The EU-IMF cannot work. It must be renogotiated with far more commonsense.
Labour has already stated that it wants the timeframe extended to 2016 and a €2B reduction in the savings required by 2014. Why not give an honourable country timeframes which it can handle?
Yesterday, Labour’s position on renegotiation was for a decrease of 3% in the interest rate charged by the two EU stability funds, a reduction that could yield €1.3B over three years. Why not give an honourable country an interest rate that it can handle?
(The IMF interest rate willnever change because it's always, perpetually non-negotiable, except for up.)
Mr Gilmore contended that Ireland could save in excess of €2B by way of renegotiation. Why not give an honourable country renotiation rates and rules that it can handle?
It was also detailed how Ireland intends to create a €500M jobs' fund; the appointment of a trade Minister to bring expertise and flexibility in finding new markets; and the abolition of Fás to be replaced by a national employment service.
The party promised a constitutional convention to draw up a new constitution, as well as the abolition of the Seanad. The document also commits the party to establishing universal health insurance for primary care by 2014 and for hospital care by the end of the decade.
Then Mr. Gilmore said something little reported but outstanding in its quiet merit: He said our party stands for a “basic threshold of decency".
Good luck to Ireland: It's time for your Celtic rebellion. The Celtic Tiger crouches.
Complain about this comment
If the real Irish economy is doing quite well, then Kenny should default and do so sooner rather than later.
The pain from default would be less than going bankrupt under the weight of debt and interest payments imposed by the EU. He, and Ireland, would then get the added considerable pleasure of watching the effect of default on Germany's banking system and the Euro.
Complain about this comment
Ireland only has itself (or more correctly its last government) to blame.
It was the Irish government who blithely took on the role of guaranteeing the Irish banking system (believing their cronies who said the problems were only minor!).
It was then the Irish government who allowed the Irish banks to repay creditors in full, to the tune of tens of billions of euros over two years, including around 50 Billion in one go last Autumn. This was done by running up borrowing of c.180 billion Euros from the ECB.
Finally it was the Irish government who allowed the ECB to buy up Irish government debt to try to stop a run on it.
What has now transpired is that rather than the bulk of Irish public and bank debt being owed to other banks and private investors as it was two years ago, vast amounts of it is now owed via the ECB to Eurozone governments and hence to Eurozone taxpayers!
If Ireland was going to default, the time is LONG past. Ireland is no longer in hock to the banks, it is now in hock to Eurozone taxpayers. They are NOT going to be forgiving as the vast majority of them are far worse off than the Irish are. The short answer is that the Irish will not be allowed to default on these debts and remain in the EU.
It is simple, if you owe money to a bank you can simply refuse to pay, but if you owe money to another Government they won't take no for an answer. Just look at how the UK and Netherlands are treating Iceland over a rather trivial amount in the low billions.
Basically the Irish are screwed for the next decade. They have no room for manoeuvre and that has been the case ever since Cohen (not knowing what he was doing) wrote a blank cheque to cover the ever expanding debts of his cronies in the Irish banks over two years ago and then turned to the ECB for 'help'.
Complain about this comment
doesent this just highlight the central problem with the fiscal and polititical union that whats good for one european can not allways be good for the other, if the intrests of irish citizens was upheld then they would have withdrawn from the euro and devalued there currency but instead there made to stay as it benefits europeans on a different part of the continent,
Complain about this comment
Good to read the real Irish economy seems to be picking up. In the end, real economic growth is the only solution, as long as banks are properly regulated again, and casino-banking is separated from real banking.
Merkel should be careful what she wishes for. It is counterproductive to try to have economic policy dictated by one or two member-states, even when they are called Germany and France. That is not how the EU can function - it is not a German-run organization. The Germans have a lot of power today (and their current economic strength reinforces their hand), but they can (and often are) be outvoted.
But they would be wise to adopt the community approach - it is the only way the others will accept German leadership. Otherwise it's just a diktat - and it won't work.
This whole episode shows, hopefully not too painfully, the superiority of the community (aka federal) approach over the intergovernmental approach.
You can of course, like some eurosceptics do, proclaim it's all bad and doomed and corrupt. Doesn't help one bit to get out of the current bad situation. It is now clear that monetary integration has shielded the members of the eurozone. Without the Euro, Ireland, Greece, probably Portugal, Belgium, Spain would have defaulted or had huge problems and lost enormous amounts of money. That in turn would have threatened the internal market to which Germany, the economic engine, exports so much.
The next challenge, as the article rightly states, is to avoid that the price of being in the Euro becomes prohibitive.
In the end, that starts to look like a political debate, rather than an economic. Will Merkel understand she needs to look after the interest of Irish non-voters as well, for the indirect but important benefit of her own voters?
Complain about this comment
Helsinki is witnessing the sight & sound of the Maastricht political-construct EUropean Union's 'non-Democracy' in action.
Ireland, a sovereign Nation, has sent to Finland a totally legitimately elected Prime Minister armed with a significant Majority of Public support & approval for his Party's policies.
EU-Brussels does not like & does not want to hear never mind act upon Irish Voters' Democratically expressed Ballot box views.
Thus, yet again, the EU-Brussels will demonstrate its contempt for Citizen Voters and even more clearly reveal EU-Brussels complete lack of Democratic accountability.
For the 'pro-EU' who fail time-and-again to appreciate the basic Political-Democratic deficit in Brussels:
27 Nations & 500+ million Citizens cannot be represented by 3 unelected unknown Presidents, an unelected jobsworth Commission & 760+ hopelessly inept & unrepresentative EU Parliamentarians.
The legitimate role of Citizen Voters in an EU Democracy is impossible - - their views are either ignored (as in Ireland & Greece's case) or dismissed as irrelevant/inconvenient by the massive vested interests of 'big-Government/big-Business' running the whole EU concept.
Helsinki will be just another taster for ordinary EU Citizens of just how impotent their 'political' situation has become post-Maastricht.
One wonders how those Citizens could ever recover their Voting Rights & Responsibilities under the present EU political framework?
This decade will be crucial for safe-guarding or entirely losing those Democratic Freedoms that took centuries of struggle to be attained.
The EU's 'political-will' for internal Reform seems stagnant; all Brussels' signs resist acknowledging the Citizens Right to have their viewpoint acted upon and throughout the 2nd half of the last decade Brussels discouraged Citizen Representation. Unless the EU-Brussels entity relents in these high-handed, dangerously anti-Democratic attitudes & methods as demonstrated today in Helsinki it may ultimately come down to civil strife and there is no foretelling to what such events may lead.
Complain about this comment
#7 Ex-Engineer wrote
If Ireland was going to default, the time is LONG past. Ireland is no longer in hock to the banks, it is now in hock to Eurozone taxpayers. They are NOT going to be forgiving as the vast majority of them are far worse off than the Irish are. The short answer is that the Irish will not be allowed to default on these debts and remain in the EU.
Ireland is in hock to the ECB. If they cannot afford to repay the billions they borrowed, and they cannot, it is the ECB which will be in trouble and therefore the entire Euro system and the EU project of "an ever closer union". That is why any attempt by the Irish to default will be resisted but how can default be avoided if the Irish cannot afford to repay the amount owed?
There is, by the way, no mechanism to expel Ireland from the EU. Even if a country wanted to leave, it would take years to negotiate it.
Complain about this comment
Dishonest bankers and investors facilitated by governments is difficult to fix. No real punishments or responsibility for such actions so it will all happen again. As the governments continue to avoid the reasons that caused the collapse it is unlikely that they will come up with any real solutions. The banks and investors own the elected and that is the problem.
Countries have yet to be able to legislate honesty.
A big truck rolls down the street and creates holes in the pavement. The government decides to tax the residential car owners for the repairs.
Complain about this comment
#4 PickledPete
I agree with you that membership of the Euro is the problem .
Low interest rates have made borrowing too easy .
#6 Busby2
I think Ireland should default , return to her own Punt .
It would more easily enable Ireland to rebuild her economy without that huge debt burdon strangling her . If there will be a little hardship for a year or two they would have the support of the people . If the country goes bankrupt , as well it may , with the present ECB/IMF loan , the effect on the Euro would be the same , but infinitely worse for Ireland .
I believe that Irish and Greek governments have a first duty to look after their own country and people and never mind the EU .
Never mind ," Kenny and the Irish people having considerable pleasure in watching the effect of default on the German Banking system and the Euro ", I should have enormous pleasure .
Complain about this comment
Mannken (9): The bailout in Ireland is a direct consequence of the euro. A decade of too-low euro interest rates encouraged people to over-borrow (that is what low interest rates signal people should do). This fuelled the asset price bubble, especially in property. This led directly to the 50% negaitive equity when the bust did arrive. And that negative equity now takes the form of NAMA and the EU/IMF bailout. That is the financial cost of euro-federalism in monetary policy and it cannot be fixed by more euro-federalism in other areas. The time for listening to euro-federalists who created these problems is over. There will be no real fix to the problems of magnified boom and bust in the euro-zone periphery and very slow growth in the eurozone core until Ireland, Spain and other countries with high-domestic inflation leave the single currency. Fixing the problems means less supranationalism.
The long-term record (see link to IMF data below) shows that the UK outgrows both the eurozone periphery and the core. It has a more stable economy than the Celtic Boom to Bailout eurozone periphery. And stronger growth than eurozone core members like germany and France especially during the upswing of economic cycles. This shows that in the real-world “less Europe” is good for the economy.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=1992&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=88&pr1.y=14&c=132%2C112%2C134%2C136&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=
Complain about this comment
#9. Manneken and #14. Freeborn John wrote:
"The bailout in Ireland is a direct consequence of the Euro. A decade of too-low Euro interest rates encouraged people to over-borrow"
But why did not the similar low rates induce similar housing bubbles in most other European countries? May I suggest that the Irish history of being close to British banking and the attitudes of British banks also contributed to the borrowing madness (as it did in the UK).
In countries where banks kept a rational cap on lending the bubbles did not occur even though lending was equally (and erroneously) inexpensive. I am of the opinion that your answer is too glib and requires further thinking and analysis!
You know that my view is that we all need the strength of the single currency and the single market devoid of interfering money lenders and money changers for Europe (incl. the UK) to prosper again.
Complain about this comment
@13. Huaimek wrote:
"I think Ireland should default , return to her own Punt ."
right, so that all the international companies which set their European headquarters up in Ireland leave. that would really help the Irish economy..
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, The ECB plans to increase unemployment to offset world commodity price rises:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/the-madness-of-jean-claude-trichet/
Complain about this comment
John-from-Hendon wrote "You know that my view is that we all need the strength of the single currency and the single market devoid of interfering money lenders and money changers for Europe (incl. the UK) to prosper again."
Yes we know your views as you have stated them many times with some elegance
Unfortunately I do not agree with them - but that is my opinion.
What is needed throughout the EU is for trade to pick up in all countries not just Germany. Improvements in living standards ultimately can only be financed through improvements in trade (whether of goods or services).
As for Ireland, if they are going to threaten to default they must be willing to carry out that threat. I have never understood why they did not require all bond holders to take a haircut. Once they have got the terms to their liking then they need to take a long hard look at themselves and their govt. It is always easy to blame the bankers for everything but to do so is foolish. Banks cannot lend unless someone is willing to borrow. The people and govt need to admit their own failings and mend their over spending.
Finally for me the elephant in the room which no European politician wishes to discuss is whether the European social model where govt spending is 40%+ of GDP remain viable in modern world where the big BRIC ecomonies spend so much less (although in China it is difficult to get any proper handle on the right figures). My gut feel is that the current Euro model is now severly stressed but I do not have enough data to decide whether it is broken - I think it is, but cannot show this. If I am right then all European countries will need to embark on severe public spending diets over the next 10 years such that public spending is no more than 33% of GDP compared to the 40%+ currently
Complain about this comment
I wish I could peer into an Alternate Universe where the EU did not exist, I assume it would be a magical wonderland of untold riches and wonders.
Complain about this comment
"But Ireland with a robust real economy might decide that the pain of a default would be relatively short-term and preferable to a bail-out that imposes austerity for a generation."
True, especially if Ireland combines full default with a withdrawal from the Euro.
("And with one bound he was free")
Complain about this comment
As ever we can all rely on the EU-Brussels entity for an empathic & sympathetic stance towards its 500+ millio0n Citizens' current Economic & Fiscal difficulties:
BBC NEWS - - 4 March 2011 Last updated at 10:59 GMT - - Headline:
'Euro MP allowances boosted again'.
"Euro MPs have awarded themselves a 1,500-euro (£1,278; $2,083) increase in their monthly office allowance.
The decision adds 13.2m euros to the European Parliament's 2011 budget.
The extra cash will enable MEPs to hire more, or better qualified, assistants, a parliament statement said.
Last year the 27 EU member states' governments limited the total EU budget rise for 2011 to 2.9% - not the 6% that MEPs wanted. MEPs' pre-tax monthly salary is set at 7,956.87 euros.
MEPs also received a 1,500-euro increase in their office allowance last year. They defended the budget rise by arguing that the Lisbon Treaty - which greatly boosted the parliament's powers - had increased their workload.
On top of their salary, the latest increase will raise MEPs' monthly 4,299-euro office allowance to 5,799 euros."
Now, I'm quite sure the whole of the Irish Electorate will be reassured by this further example of the EU-Brussels' Political Memberships' considered, thoughtful, compassionate display of fellow-feeling for them in their hours-of-need!
Is there any 'pro-EU' with the guts/temerity to come on this Blog & attempt to justify this latest demonstration of the corrupt, greed-driven, snout in-the-trough despicable nature oif those allegedly Reprresenting the Citizens of EUrope!?
Come to that: Is there an Irish supporter of Ireland's EU membership satisfied by this latest slap-in-the-face by Brussels?
Complain about this comment
#14 - FBJ
No, the Irish meltdown is not the result of the Euro.
Ireland had pro-cyclical fiscal policies (using your famous "sovereignty") to blow up the bubble, which they perfectly knew was there. Mainly for local, "national-democratic" reasons (i.e. for politicians to get brown envelopes and get re-elected). Irelands problem is that of a very big property bubble and banks that are too big for a small country. The Irish problems are due to the Irish, not the Euro. They know it (I think they are less dogmatic than you are), so they pummeled FF.
Two countries in the Eurozone have similar problems: Spain and Ireland. If the problem was due to the Euro, why is it that property prices in Germany declined for such a long time?
If anything there was not enough Euro, because regulation of casino banks was still in national hands, and with all due respect to Dublin, they just couldn't handle it (similar story in Belgium, which did not have a property bubble, and therefore escaped the Irish fate).
Put that regulation in Frankfurt - where it belongs. If the whole of the EU/Eurozone is necessary to bail out the banks, the rules should be made at that level. That's real democracy in action.
If anything, this whole thing clearly demonstrates the totally circular and artificial argument that democracy can only function at the level of currently existing nation-states. Ireland proves you wrong.
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work (10):
Actually Helsinki is witnessing one of the first steps of European wide party politics. Do remember that this is the meeting of the leaders of the national member parties of the European People's Party. 15 of the leaders of the member parties are Prime Ministers of their countries, including Enda Kenny. The host, Jyrki Katainen, who called on this meeting, isn't a Prime Minister, he is the minister of finance. Many of the leaders of the EPP member parties are in the opposition in their respective parliaments.
In my honest opinion, this meeting is very interesting. While many of the EPP member party leaders are national leaders like Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi, this still is meeting of the party leaders. What I really would hope is that the party leaders would discuss on what is their idea and view to Europe, what is the logic behind, what is the shared ideology, etc... Based on that, how they are going to solve current European problems.
Now while I don't know what is the answer to the European financial crisis, what I do know is that when there is honest will to solve problems, the answer will come sooner or later. Now what goes to Ireland and Greece, if dropping interest rate on their emergency loans and lengthening of their payback time solves problems, then we should just do it. Solve the problems now, and then concentrate on preventing the next crisis and creating tools to handle these kind of situations in the future.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
19. At 6:04pm on 04 Mar 2011, Benefactor wrote:
"I wish I could peer into an Alternate Universe where the EU did not exist, I assume it would be a magical wonderland of untold riches and wonders."
Of course it won't You ardent EU-fan!
However, 27 Nations in an EEC concentrating on freeing up Trade, reducing Tariffs & easing Communication/Travel with minimal Political intervention in the legitimate sovereign interests of Independent States is an alternative to an 'EU' Politicval-construct forcing 27 Nations to endure anti-Democratic practises, stagnating one-size-fits-all blanket Economic-Fiscal-Social-Judicial policies from Valletta to Helsinki & widespread supra-national Corruption organised & managed from the axis-of-ill-intent at Paris-Brussels-Berlin.
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work (21):
You got to pay an honest wage for taking responsibility of the welfare of the 500 millions EU citizens. You also have to allow them necessary funds to do their work.
Besides that, we still pay a lot less to our MEPs and the federal gover.. excuse me the European Union, than the Americans pay for theirs.
Complain about this comment
#21. At 6:21pm on 04 Mar 2011, cool_brush_work,
You made a slight spelling mistake in this post.
"Is there any 'pro-EU' with the guts/temerity to come on this Blog & attempt to justify this latest demonstration of the corrupt, greed-driven, snout in-the-trough despicable nature oif those allegedly Reprresenting the Citizens of EUrope!?"
The OIF should have read "oink oink of". They should have reduced their expenses by voting to stop using Strasbourg, oops, but then that is France and heaven forbid we upset their ego's.
Complain about this comment
The good news is that Irish voters have reduced the previously most successful vote-getting machine in Europe, the Fianna Fail(FF) party, to an isolated rump. The bad news is that they are directly responsible for the gaping hole in the public finances faced by the incoming government.
However, the real economy is powering ahead. What is now needed, domestically, to make sure that the private sector is not hobbled with taxes/charges, is to change or scrap the Croke Park agreement made with the mainly public-sector unions. The cost of that deal is utterly unsustainable.
The country will remain in the Euro. The costs associated with leaving would be collossal, an
Complain about this comment
#22. At 6:30pm on 04 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
"If anything there was not enough Euro, because regulation of casino banks was still in national hands, and with all due respect to Dublin, they just couldn't handle it (similar story in Belgium, which did not have a property bubble, and therefore escaped the Irish fate)."
You really have never understood what happened in Belgium have you, you should look at its wealth some years before the Euro and where their debt was, internally or externally, then Reynders came along with his Flemish friends and the wealth vanished (yes he is Liegeoise). The gold went to Frankfort and now the cupboard is bare, but for you all it needed was more regulation. Unbelievable!
Complain about this comment
To cool_brush_work wrote
''Besides that, we still pay a lot less to our MEPs and the federal gover.. excuse me the European Union, than the Americans pay for theirs''
yes that may be true, but they get a great deal more for their money, such as a shared military defense,
also they are one nation with a clear structure of leadership which are accountable to the electorate, how is mr barroso or mr rumpey or miss ashton accountable to the electorate or the commisssioners for that matter,also whilst somethings are better done at an eu level are you seriously trying to say that a national government cant give out aid for example or cant have its own foreign policy,
it makes no sense to equate the eu with the us as we are capable of working together without having to share the same head of state,
Complain about this comment
Manneken (22): I am afraid your argument is economically illiterate. The effect of the one-size-fits-all eurozone interest is the opposite in the low-inflation core and the high inflation periphery. In the low-inflation core, interest rates are too high for domestic conditions, so obviously there will not be the same house price bubble and bust in the core. The core loses investment which is poured into the raginf booms in the periphery; this suppressed growth in Germany and other core eurozone economies which grew more slowly than the UK throughout the last decade.
The UK and the Scandinavian countries outside the euro all did better than the eurozone and none suffered a boom and bust due to interest rates they could not control. The EU institutions controlled those interest rates and those supranational institutions are fully responsible for the problems.
The time for listening to economically illiterate euro-federalists who cannot explain the problems in the eurozone that they created (but still seek more powers!) is long gone. Suboridnating a stable economy and long-term growth to euro-federalism has been the problem and that must be reversed by taking back powers from Brussels.
Complain about this comment
26. At 6:52pm on 04 Mar 2011, Jukka Rohila wrote:
"You got to pay an honest wage for taking responsibility of the welfare of the 500 millions EU citizens. You also have to allow them necessary funds to do their work.
Besides that, we still pay a lot less to our MEPs and the federal gover.. excuse me the European Union, than the Americans pay for theirs."
Usually admire Your plucky defence of the indefensible J_R: IMO on this occasion it is a poor effort (& I suspect You too at heart feel this is one more belittling of the beleaguered ordinary EU Citizen).
Now, if You would care to actually 'justify' paying MEPs an increase whilst millions upon millions of Citizen Voter is required to face 'cuts' I might believe You're not totally blind to the factual reality of the Brussels' corrupt gravy-train!?
Also, when are You 'pro-EU' going to stop flogging this wholly unjustified comparison of the USA to the EU: They're not the same in any way, shape or form?
The idea Americans paying their Political leadership excuses Brussels grossly extravagant largesse is an insult to EUropeans.
Complain about this comment
26 Jukka wrote:
"Besides that, we still pay a lot less to our MEPs and the federal gover.. excuse me the European Union, than the Americans pay for theirs."
And I bet they don't charge us for their spouses' porno films through their expenses claims! Or duck houses!
Complain about this comment
23. At 6:45pm on 04 Mar 2011, Jukka Rohila wrote:
"...What I really would hope is that the party leaders would discuss on what is their idea and view to Europe, what is the logic behind, what is the shared ideology, etc... Based on that, how they are going to solve current European problems..."
So, You just ignore the Irish Citizens' Vote for 'renegotiation', and the Irish Citizens' Vote for a 'change' to the terms & conditions of the Bail-out agreed by an Irish Political Party hugely to blame for the Irish Crisis?
So, what, if any was the point of a General Election in Ireland?
So, what, if any, is the point of a change of Irish Government?
So, what, if any is the point of any attempt at Democratic Representation if the EU-Brussels' Leadership does not even have to consider the Democratic Result as expressed via the Ballot box?
Complain about this comment
#22 manneken;
"Two countries in the Eurozone have similar problems: Spain and Ireland. If the problem was due to the Euro, why is it that property prices in Germany declined for such a long time?"
(Throw in the British property bubble for good measure)
HOME OWNERSHIP:
Spain:78%
Ireland:77%
UK: 70%
But Germany: 42%
Cheap money, strong culture of home ownership and deregulated mortgage sector = property bubble. None of that happened in Germany.
Complain about this comment
Ireland can not & will not play the rebel!! The part that is missing from that kind of logic, i.e. play the rebel is, that in a union one gets help from the Union only if they act like they belong to a Union! One can not on the one hand say "guys we are in union, help me out here" and on the other hand say "I do not care one bit what you think, I will do whatever I feel like", the logic described by Gavin, i.e. "I am going down, I will take as many as I can with me" belongs to a dictator in Libya.
Complain about this comment
The cost of simply organizing the collection and exchange of Euros with a putative "Punt Nua"(PN) would be bad enough, but then there is the issue of paying debts previously denominated in Euros, now denominated in presumably devalued PN. There is the minor issue, pointed out by Eddie(no 16) who wrote "right, so that all the international companies which set their European headquarters up in Ireland leave. that would really help the Irish economy".
The Euro did not, as Manneken(no 22) pointed out,cause the crisis. It was effectively a self-inflicted wound, caused by the policies(if a word implying some connection with intelligence can be used here) of the previous government, particularly the utter refusal of the various Ministers of Finance to listen to their own civil servants. They were warned repeatedly after 2000 that the economy was overheating, that wage/salaries and pension in the public sector were out of control, and neither Charles McCreevy nor Brian Cowan took a blind bit of notice. The result, just in the public sector finances, is a gaping hole of some 6 Billion Euros. To check this, google "Wright Report". He was a deputy-Minister of Finance in Canada, and was asked to investigate thenconduct of the Department between 1999 and 2009.
The banking sector was encouraged to lend, egged on by both the ruling party and the then-governor of the Irish Financial Regulator. This process reached its apotheosis in the blanket bank guarantee. Another investigation is ongoing there.
Re the comment by cool_brush_work(no 21), I do not have to defend the stupidity of this move by the Members of the European Parliament. I could refer him to the expenses scandals a bit closer to home, involving both the British Parliament and the Irish Dail. The basic point is that while possibly not the best move, in terms of PR, the increase in allowances in Brussels/Strasbourg is utterly irrelevant to our problems, and Irish people know this.
We also know that we are better off in than out, and this applies both to the EU and the Euro. We are not going to commit economic suicide to satisfy the atavistic urges of the British Euro-sceptics. National interests first, and last. We cannot afford pointless, empty gestures.
Complain about this comment
#33. At 7:26pm on 04 Mar 2011, margaret howard
As always you seem to have missed the obvious.
"And I bet they don't charge us for their spouses' porno films through their expenses claims! Or duck houses!"
We would all like to know what they charge for, attendance allowance for ducking into the lobby, signing in and then leaving just for instance as was exposed some while back. But then of course being totally transparent they voted to deny any disclosure of their expense claims, unlike the UK you hate so much. Oink, Oink, where's the even bigger trough as I'm still hungry for more, is their modus operandi.
Complain about this comment
#37. At 7:51pm on 04 Mar 2011, MacTurk
You say the Euro did not cause the crisis and in a technical sense you are correct as it was the introduction of the Euro with most of the members unable to meet the convergence criteria that actually created the circumstances for the crisis. If the politicians had kept to the letter of the agreement for the introduction of the Euro it might have had a chance but they did not, even Germany and France did not technically meet the convergence criteria. It only had a chance in a level playing field with similar economies, but as we know so well that never happened and the Euro simply gave imbecile politicians the chance to spend like mad in the hope that they would increase their popularity.
Complain about this comment
MacTurk(37): Ireland ran a balanced public budget throughout the 1999-2007 period and Spain ran a surplus. So it ridiculous to suggest the problem was government over-spending. You say banks lent ‘too much’ but they cannot lend what people and businesses will not borrow. The problem was the negative real interest rates (i.e. eurozone interest – the higher domestic inflation) which signalled to all that it was a money loser not to borrow to the maximum. And nothing that the EU is now proposing would stop that repeating itself again in the next economic cycle. The so-called ‘competitiveness pact’ is purely for German domestic consumption and would not fix any of the problems that European Monetary Union and its one-size-fits-all interest rate creates in the eurozone periphery.
Complain about this comment
37. At 7:51pm on 04 Mar 2011, MacTurk wrote:
"..Re the comment by cool_brush_work(no 21), I do not have to defend the stupidity of this move by the Members of the European Parliament. I could refer him to the expenses scandals a bit closer to home, involving both the British Parliament and the Irish Dail. The basic point is that while possibly not the best move, in terms of PR, the increase in allowances in Brussels/Strasbourg is utterly irrelevant to our problems, and Irish people know this..."
You're right You don't have to remind me about the despicable lack of probity amongs UK MPS.
Quite what that has to do with the EU-Brussels' 'snout-in-trough' I'm unsure?
For sure I do not agree at all MEPs increasing their Allowances "..in Brussels/Strasbourg is utterly irrelevant.." at a time of severe Fiscal cut-backs across almost all of EUrope's Public Services.
Frankly, it staggers me that You or any Citizen could suggest an Elected Political Leadership of EU should perpetrate the "..stupidity of this move.." in their normal greed-driven practise at a time their Constituents suffer all sorts of shortfalls of lifestyle!
"..while possibly not the best move, in terms of PR.." is I believe more than a tad of understatement on how such Public Officials should conduct their affairs.
Still, I'm not all that surprised: The complacent disregard for 'Democratic' procedures, the negligible concern for the legitimate expression of Citizens' views via the Ballot box, and the patently corrupt self-serving attitudes of Brussels-Strasbourg will never change for so long as there are as many willing dupes as Yourself still spouting the 'pro-EU' line whilst those running the whole ediface take every advantage of Your carelessness with centuries of hard won Rights & Responsibilities.
If, as You claim, the Irish people "..know this.." to be irrelevant to their "..problems.." then there is no hope at all for a recovery of those fundamental freedoms & privileges Your & my forefathers/mothers fought to attain (ironically in Your case, I presume against British overlords!).
Complain about this comment
33. At 7:26pm on 04 Mar 2011, margaret howard wrote:
"..And I bet they don't charge us for their spouses' porno films through their expenses claims! Or duck houses!"
How many times dare the fragrant lady put up this impoverisghed level of understanding!?
OMG Margaret!
The point being NO ONE DOES KNOW what MEPs spend their Allowances on!
Complain about this comment
#39 & 40
So, there is only one set of economic and financial policy, which is interest rate? Fiscal policy does not exist or has no influence? In that case, why are you opposing such policy being brought fully to federal level?
How can anyone take this seriously? I have challenged the lot of you eurosceptics to give intelligent arguments - but the ranting goes on and on. The only logical conclusion is that you don't care about facts or arguments, but are dogmatic fundamentalists. There is actually a good cause in laying bare the incoherence, danger and stupidity of that kind of approach.
40: the problem was not government over-spending. It was fiscal policy contributing to the bubble. The actual deficit (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. What Ireland should have done is reduce other taxes, and increase taxes on property. Simple. No effect on budget deficit, but counter-cyclical, rather than pro-cyclical. Go back to 1st year of economics, please.
#33
Actually, I wouldn't bet on that. We get the politicians we deserve, also at the level of EP.
Judging from some posts on this blog, we fully deserve the stupidity and incoherence of our politicians. After all, the essence of democracy is that the ranters get to vote too. It's still better than the alternative, hard as it may be to believe.
#36 Good point & well put.
There is a EU-wide polity (that's why we are all EU-citizens). It's just a bit more complex than the simplistic nation-state. Tough, but there it is.
#29
I've seen you mention Reynders before as a friend of the Flemish. You really dislike the Flemish do you, wishing such a friend upon them.
It's not true. Reynders' image in Flemish public opinion is half-way between totally incompetent and mad-dog-francophone (FDF...).
When you mention Belgium's wealth, do you mean the devaluation (wealth-cut of close to 10% of the 80's), or the debt of 130% of GDP before they started to cut to meet Maastricht criteria (which brought debt down to 80% before Fortis collapsed)? Another show of total ignorance, I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
If Ireland has enough money to pay for a Royal visit -- then it obviously has enough money to pay its bills !
Complain about this comment
#43. At 9:42pm on 04 Mar 2011, Manneken
What a shame you did not even make first year economics, you bleat on about facts and principles yet you ignore the well know fact I mentioned in post #39. Most of the members of the Eurozone did not meet the convergence criteria that was supposedly an obligation for entry, they put prestige and personal ambition above economics. Now is that too hard for you to understand or is your inability to understand even housewife level economics showing itself.
Complain about this comment
30. At 7:22pm on 04 Mar 2011, jedlo wrote:
To cool_brush_work wrote
''Besides that, we still pay a lot less to our MEPs and the federal gover.. excuse me the European Union, than the Americans pay for theirs''
Sorry mate, no I didn't write that quote.
Complain about this comment
43. At 9:42pm on 04 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
"..Judging from some posts on this blog, we fully deserve the stupidity and incoherence of our politicians. After all, the essence of democracy is that the ranters get to vote too..."
You of course being someone above the "..rant.." level You attribute to other contributors: Presumably, as in Your past condescending notion of what goes toward reasoned debate, Your & those who agree with You present only reason & logic!?
At least You got this right: "..We get the politicians we deserve, also at the level of EP..."
No doubt of that because for the past 4 EP Elections less than 50% of Citizens participated & presumably they're mostly 'pro-EU' like Yourself...
Wow, what a great 760+ MEPs Your non-ranters have at present!
Complain about this comment
#45
Really? Care to give actual facts? Names, criteria? Or just the usual spam?
Any consideration for the fact that the Euro is a political project? You dislike it, but that doesn't change its nature.
Complain about this comment
As usual I'm confused.
How can Ireland dictate the terms of its debt repayment? If a private individual defaults on their debt then they face punative interest rates on future lending. Is not the same true for countries?
If Ireland leaves the Euro am I wrong in expecting a significant fall in the value of its currency? If a Eurozone investor has money in Ireland giving a 10% return and the currency loses 20% of its value against the Euro then the Eurozone investor loses 12% of their money. If Ireland leaves the Euro it therefore makes sense for foreign investors to get their money out of Ireland. I don't think that tjis would be good for the Irish economy.
So if I'm right then Ireland has no good options. Being in the Euro is painfull, leaving would not be painless. Yet the Irish seem to believe that they can dictate terms to their creditors, what am I missing?
Complain about this comment
#43 - Manneken
"I have challenged the lot of you eurosceptics to give intelligent arguments - but the ranting goes on and on".
OK so take on a euro enthusiast who believes that the standard of management, the quality of decision making and the ability of the collective leadership of the union is so grotesquely inadequate that they invite failure.
Take on somebody who believes in the basic concept so completely that slavish adherence to the rulebook is simply not good enough. Take on somebody who believes that the EU has no chance of progressing until we are rid of backward looking people such as Merkel, Sarkozy et al.
You are the one who demands a constructive debate. You are the one who consistently retreats into the ideological rule book when one is offered.
The EU is potentially a magnificent ideal which represents the best way forward for the development of a civilised, unified entity representing the last surviving ancient culture on the planet but, under the present management and applying the present rule book is doomed to failure.
Discuss.
Complain about this comment
Let's pray and hope that Ireland defaults to start the ball rolling to get rid of the euro and the eu. Let's pray and hope that Greece does the same. The more the merrier.
Complain about this comment
Manneken (43): people have to take the Eu-sceptic critique (the Walters critique) of the euro seriously because it was made as far back as 1990, and predicted exactly what has happened in Ireland.
Federalists on the other hand predicted things that did not come to pass. They predicted the UK economy would fall off a cliff if the country did not join the euro. Instead the Uk has comfortably outperformed all major eurozone economies over the last economic cycle. One side in this argument has been fully vindicated in it's predictions; the other side shown up for economic illiterates. In your case you regard the economic damage the euro is doing as a price worth paying for your the euro-federalist power lust. Probably not one person in 1000 in Ireland who has lost their job or half the value of their house would agree with your power-crazed clouded-judgement.
Complain about this comment
#44 - quietoaktree
It is not a Royal visit, it is a State visit. If you don't know the difference, look it up before commenting. And while you are at it, check who foots the bills.
Complain about this comment
38 Buzet writes:
"We would all like to know what they charge for, attendance allowance for ducking into the lobby, signing in and then leaving just for instance as was exposed some while back."
Are you referring to the House of Lords?
Complain about this comment
40. At 8:58pm on 04 Mar 2011, Freeborn John wrote:
MacTurk(37): Ireland ran a balanced public budget throughout the 1999-2007 period and Spain ran a surplus. So it ridiculous to suggest the problem was government over-spending. You say banks lent ‘too much’ but they cannot lend what people and businesses will not borrow. The problem was the negative real interest rates (i.e. eurozone interest – the higher domestic inflation) which signalled to all that it was a money loser not to borrow to the maximum. And nothing that the EU is now proposing would stop that repeating itself again in the next economic cycle. The so-called ‘competitiveness pact’ is purely for German domestic consumption and would not fix any of the problems that European Monetary Union and its one-size-fits-all interest rate creates in the eurozone periphery.
You're right, Freeborn John.
Ireland's economy was doing very nicely before they joined the Euro and interest rates were far higher than in Germany. On joining the Euro and the "one size fits all interest rate", interest rates in Ireland fell to the German levels and then the boom in Ireland really took off for the reasons you stated.
The low Euro zone interest rate allowed the boom to continue unchecked and for it grow to unprecedented heights before the the crash came.
However if Ireland had not joined the Euro and had kept the punt, the boom in Ireland would have been choked off by rising domestic interest rates in Ireland and Ireland would NOT therefore be in the huge mess they are in today.
Complain about this comment
#53 Threnodio
BBC published comment --
"Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams
There are still a lot of legacy issues that need to be resolved.
I don't think this is the right time for the English queen to come here. I don't think we can afford it, apart from anything else.
As we continue to build a new dispensation, then all of those things are possible, but not now."
Complain about this comment
#54
margarethoward;
"Are you referring to the House of Lords?"
This, I would imagine:
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/41033
Complain about this comment
There does seem to be some confusion in this thread between the EU and the Euro project. Imagine two high speed power boats heading towards the rocks. The possibility that one can swerve to avoid catastrophe remains on the cards until the last moment. In the end, it is all down to the driver.
Complain about this comment
43. At 9:42pm on 04 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
40: the problem was not government over-spending. It was fiscal policy contributing to the bubble. The actual deficit (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. What Ireland should have done is reduce other taxes, and increase taxes on property. Simple. No effect on budget deficit, but counter-cyclical, rather than pro-cyclical. Go back to 1st year of economics, please.
Nonsense. If Ireland had taken your advice and cut other taxes and increased taxes on property, the ready supply of credit at negative interest rates in real terms would have meant money would have simply poured into other investments like stocks and shares, racehorses, collectables and antiques etc, etc. It would have simply been a different bubble that would have inflated all sorts of other asset prices, and that would have been just as damaging!!!
In any case, it was the revenue from property taxes that enabled Ireland to maintain a balanced or surplus budget during the boom. What levels would Ireland have had to increase them to in order to choke off the property boom? And how would this have impacted on the wider economy, for example, the ability of a family to sell their home to take up a new job if they had to pay penal levels of property taxes everytime they had to move?
Your fiscal solution as to how Ireland might have avoided the boom and bust therefore does not work. The unintended consequences of that policy would have been just as disasterous.
Monetary and fiscal policy should work together to achieve the same objectives and should NOT be made to work to counter one another, which is what you proposed in your post.
I think it is you who has to go back to first year of economics!
Complain about this comment
Firstly the outgoing Irish government has stupidly, and without the will of the people, taken on the private debt of the Irish banking system as sovereign debt. This has brought up the costs of borrowing for the nation to unsustainable levels, therefore the nation either will have to default on it's debts or get help from the IMF etc.
Secondly it is not only the Irish (and Spanish) banks that lent recklessly during the recent property bubbles of Europe, but also the UK, German French and Swiss banks among others who lent to the Irish (and other) banks without always asking for any assets to back up their loans. This is really the highest form of gambling and should not be rewarded if it fails (and it has failed). What this boils down to is that the banks/insurance companies/pension funds in the major European countries are extremely exposed to the property bubbles in Ireland/Spain etc. This means that if the Irish people do not pump money into the black hole that is the banking system and burn the bondholders of these banks while handing back the £7 bn loaned by England along with the rest of the "bailout" money that in all likelihood that £7 bn will have to be put in to plug the UK banks and this money will never be seen again.
Ireland and the Irish taxpayer are essentially plugging the hole in the European banking system, and are paying a premium on any loans they are getting to do so. It will be much worse for England to have to plug the hole in it’s banking system than to loan Ireland money to plug the hole in it instead.
Taking the bailout is not in the interest of Ireland as burning the bondholders would allow Ireland to give the "bailout" money back. It is actually in the interest of the rest of the EU countries lending the money as they are ensuring that their own banking systems remain safe for the time being, and that if Ireland eventually has to default that they can blame Ireland for what is essentially a Europe wide problem.
Complain about this comment
#58 threnodio
“--Imagine two high speed power boats heading towards the rocks"
--Northern Rock required neither the EU nor the Euro and neither did it avoid catastrophe --the British driver was qualified ?
Complain about this comment
#56 - quietoaktree
"Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams - I don't think this is the right time for the English queen to come here"
The English Queen? There has not been one of those for over 500 years
Complain about this comment
#50 Threnodio
Thank you for a new approach.
I don't think I'll accept your "discuss" approach (it comes across as a bit condescending), but I'll answer as follows.
"OK so take on a euro enthusiast who believes that the standard of management, the quality of decision making and the ability of the collective leadership of the union is so grotesquely inadequate that they invite failure."
I understand anyone who would vent anger at the quality of our leaders. On the other hand, those leaders are elected. We get the politicians we deserve. Does that invite failure? Not necessarily. Does it invite ugly compromise? Yes, definitely.
But ugly compromise is the best offer at hand, historically. If you know a better way, you should be out there.
The institutional structure is far from perfect. But it does aim at the right goals: peace, prosperity and democracy. The way to get there should be a lot better, and I fully agree there. But what's the alternative?
"Take on somebody who believes in the basic concept so completely that slavish adherence to the rulebook is simply not good enough. Take on somebody who believes that the EU has no chance of progressing until we are rid of backward looking people such as Merkel, Sarkozy et al."
I agree they are looking backward. I think Merkel is a provincial geek, and Sarkozy is a bit of a joke. However, they managed to get to their jobs and positions of power, and there was no lack of competition. We get the politicians we deserve.
If anything, we need a more transparent selection process - which, at EU level, demands more, not less integration in terms of political action. That's not specifically my preference, it's an observation of fact.
"The EU is potentially a magnificent ideal which represents the best way forward for the development of a civilised, unified entity representing the last surviving ancient culture on the planet but, under the present management and applying the present rule book is doomed to failure."
Looks like you're more of an idealist/optimist than I am, which may be why you take a more deterministic look. Nothing is doomed.
Also, I don't think European civilization is very special. "Sounds like a good idea", I think someone said. The rulebook is not good enough, I totally agree with you on that.
But that observation is just the start of the debate, not the end. Where to go from there? Which way provides better opportunities for all the citizens of Europe?
How do we unleash the potential of those 500 million people? By dividing them? I don't think so.
At the end of the day, it's a debate about values AND about process. Let's engage.
Complain about this comment
M Howard,
It is not your anger that hurts me. It is your perceived misinformedness that feeds your anger that hurts me...Also, your onesided approach is hurtful and it is anger expressed in misunderstanding...I'm not basically in pain, but I'm like what an opportunist for angry expression!
Look at all your posts ..mine aren't perfect...but yours mainly are reactions in anger...so hmmm why do people think youre one of those
"oops never mind" but on the verge of exploding into someones innocent face, for simple misunderstanding of reading and comprehension????
Complain about this comment
#48 Manneken
In your several posts , you pose a lot of questions . It is my belief that if you had the reasoning power you could answer them yourself .
Your dogged belief that the EU and Euro are good beyond question , stands in the way of your confronting reality ,even in a thought process .
#49 Ulkomaalainen
Perhaps you have not considered that Ireland might not be able to fund the repayments of the bailout at the current percentage ; by continuing to try to do so will become bankrupt . To default now would probably be the better option for Ireland and the Irish people . The new government will have a mandate from the people to renegotiate the terms of the loan . I think Ireland is in a stronger position than you think . If she goes bankrupt , what will investors do then ? The Euro and EU are fighting for their continued existence . If Ireland defaults , the greater the shindig with the EU , the worse it will be for the EU .
Ireland is down , at the bottom , there isn't any farther down to go , so they have nothing to lose . Argentina defaulted and so did Iceland and both countries economies are on the up again .
#15 John_of_Hendon
I believe you live in Spain , are you unaware of the huge housing bubble there too . In rural Italy , agricultural land has been compulsorily purchased for secondary industrial estates that were never needed , half built factory buildings almost lost in weeds .
As things stand , it is just a matter of time before both Greece and Ireland go bankrupt or are forced to default . The new Irish government has to successfully renegotiate the bail out term , because the people will not accept the present terms . No deal , then default is the answer .
Complain about this comment
#54 Margaret Howard
" Are you refering to the House of Lords "?
NO , The European Parliament !!!
Complain about this comment
#63 Manneken
" How do we unleash the potential of those 500 million people "?
The EU has been created without regard to the people ; it would be presumtuous and wrong to assume that the EU now has the support of 500 million people . 40% of the people vote in the EP elections , so we are down to 200 million . Just as British voters voted for UKIP and BNP , so I suspect that a good proportion of the votes were cast by people who do not support the EU .
When we are talking of Democracy in the EU ; the people should have been considered at the beginning , today the EU does not want to hear what the people think , hence NO referendums .
To unleash the potential of 500 million people , you need to have them on your side to start with . When so many are indifferent or against you , it presents an insumountable task to unleash the potential of so many people .
Complain about this comment
#65
Thank you for conceding defeat.
#67
Where do I say that the EU has the support of 500 million people? You twist my words - an old, but not very honest, trick of debate. It's simply not true that you need the support of 100% of the population to have good policies and good process.
The EP elections are not about "are ye in favor or against the EU", but about the issues decided at EU level. It's not my fault the media don't properly report that.
And there are the referendums again - the hobby-horse of eurosceptics. The EU has not organized a single referendum. Ever. Until the Lisbon treaty, it didn't have the legal power to do so. Moaning about them only shows ignorance. Referendums are a (very inefficient and sometimes rather undemocratic) political instrument at national level.
Complain about this comment
#54. At 11:08pm on 04 Mar 2011, margaret howard wrote:
"38 Buzet writes:
"We would all like to know what they charge for, attendance allowance for ducking into the lobby, signing in and then leaving just for instance as was exposed some while back."
Are you referring to the House of Lords?"
As usual your blinkered eyes did not see or hear of the investigative journalism and tv program a couple of years ago that filmed MEP's entering their building, signing in and then leaving. Several of the journalists were almost attacked as they tried to confront the MEP's and several MEP's went to extraordinary lengths to try and hide. The MEP's then voted to forbid disclosure of their expense claims and deny transparency. This all happened at around the time both the UK parliament and house of lords were being examined, the difference being that both houses in the UK were open to disclosure, the EP is not. Now is that too hard for you to swallow?
Complain about this comment
#48. At 10:35pm on 04 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
"#45
Really? Care to give actual facts? Names, criteria? Or just the usual spam?
Any consideration for the fact that the Euro is a political project? You dislike it, but that doesn't change its nature."
Well at least you admit the Euro is a political project, that is a quantum leap for you, now all you have to admit is that if the EU's best economists and financial experts deemed that certain criteria had to be met by entrant members for it to have a chance to succeed, then they had a good reason. The next thing you have to admit is that as a political project the politicians decided to ignore the economists and financial experts and let member states into the Eurozone whose economies were not meeting the convergence criteria. There was also a fair amount of creative accounting going on by certain countries and Greece was one that has had that creative accounting exposed, they should never have been in the Euro.
As for the figures there are plenty of analyses on the web of the convergence criteria for Euro entry and which countries met and did not meet it (look them up yourself). There are also plenty of analyses about which counties used creative accounting to make it appear that they sort of met the criteria. At the end of the day the politicians put national pride and prestige above logic and common sense and condemned their peoples to the mess we see now.
The Euro is not responsible for the mess, but it created the first step for a crisis by having a one size fits all interest rate with member states having dissimilar economies, some strong some very weak. It was always a disaster waiting to happen, not IF but WHEN.
Complain about this comment
I'm not trying to insult M Howard ..just wanting to know she uses comparisons to demean others opinions..instead of simply defending the self identified bias (with reasoning) towards her own preferred nationality.
Complain about this comment
Gavin, since your previous thread was devoted to a non-intervention in Libya, this one should be about non-intervention in Ireland.
[as well as in Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.]
Complain about this comment
#68 Manneken
Before replying to peoples posts , it is adviseable to read them carefully first .
" Thank you for conceding defeat ". How so ? I have no idea what you are refering to .
#63 Manneken
" How do we unleash the potential of those 500 million people "?
Iam not twisting your words , I quoted your precise statement as here above .
Perhaps you do not remember the EU wide referendums on the Constitution that every country was going to have . France and the Netherlands voted against it ; hence NO referendums on the Lisbon treaty , because that would have been voted down too .
Forgive me if I have wrong footed your well intentioned post .
Complain about this comment
#68 Manneken
"Referendums are a (very inefficient and sometimes rather undemocratic) political instrument at national level."
Rather perplexed by this comment. Please elaborate. Also noticed you failed to reply to #59 Busby2's pretty compelling rebuttal to your #43. Many of us may like the Eurozone project but not if internally and hopelessly flawed as has been explained quite rationally by such contributors as Freeborn John, busby2, buzet23, CC, others. I have yet to see arguments from the europhile side that can rebut the objections of these skeptics in detail and with persuasion. Just more scotch tape and feathers.
Complain about this comment
@ FBJ
"This shows that in the real-world "less Europe" is good for the economy."
You call European integration "more Europe" because you support Anglo-Saxon supremacism. You only want integration with the 'English speaking world' and be forever joined at the coattails of Uncle Sam as a midget-partner.
Well, if we look at your favourite subject it would appear that more European integration (as opposed to "more Europe" as you describe in your forever self-righteous pomposity) is the flavour of the month, for example with the Chinese:
There are costs to glorious isolation:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2010/08/britain_and_eu
Why the Chinese prefer Schengen visas
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/100aa53a-4377-11e0-8f0d-00144feabdc0.html
Even the Torygraph is wondering whether the 'keep-our-borders-fundamentalism' is so clever after all:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8323318/Complicated-Chinese-visa-rules-cost-UK-hundreds-of-millions.html
Regional integration is catching up in other regions:
http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/schengen-style-gcc-visa-closer-to-reality-2011-02-09-1.354043
Complain about this comment
#73
You say that I ask a lot of questions, but that "if I look around", I will see the answers for myself. Put differently, you can't even come up with a single answer; that's conceding defeat.
#74
No, post #59 does not establish that the Eurozone project is hopelessly flawed. The economic reasoning in post 59 is simplistic, but as always, does not reply to the point I made earlier.
The point I made is that the Irish boom was home-made, not Euro-made. It is true that the Eurozone provided a necessary (but far from sufficient) condition, but it was not the Euro that caused the Irish boom and bust, it was Irish fiscal and other policies. That point was clearly made, but avoided in post 59. Post 59 says nothing, other than a circular reasoning that "the Euro is bad".
I like your qualification of buzet23 as "in detail and with persuasion". Buzet23 only throws ridiculous insults. That's why I stopped replying to those posts - no facts, only emotion and rant.
FBJ avoids argument, and changes tack whenever I put facts that contradict his position. FBJ uses circular reasoning and has a dogmatic position. He postulates that democracy can only exist at the level of today's nation-states, and then goes looking for justification.
As to why referendums are potentially undemocratic, I suggest you look up my earlier posts. I've written quite a bit about it. The essential flaws are: 1) who asks the questions 2) the answers given by the electorate are typically not about the question 3) there is no protection of minorities (an essential characteristic of democracy) 4) most issues cannot be reduced to a yes/no answer. I'm sure you can give counter-examples on each, but they would not invalidate the general point. Referendums are OK for the location of a parking lot in a city (and even then...). They negate the complexity of our society, and hark for a simple life, where decisions are black or white. Wake up: it doesn't exist anymore.
As to referendums and the EU (post 73): get your facts straight. The EU does not organize referendums, it never has. Four member states decided to submit the constitutional treaty to a referendum - that was their internal decision, the EU had nothing to do with that. Two said yes, two said no.
Lisbon treaty was put to referendum in one country (Rep. Ireland). Overall, the score on referendums is 50/50.
There has never been an EU wide referendum, and there was no duty or decision to submit the constitutional treaty to a referendum in each member-state.
Jeez, basic political explanations.
Complain about this comment
#75
jorgeg1;
I recall seeing that exact same post a month ago. Spamtastic.
Complain about this comment
__________________________________
Ireland: Time for the Celtic rebel
__________________________________
CELTIC AND NORDIC UNITY
_______________________
Time for Celtic and Nordic unity with British Racial Democracy.
We don't want a British Civil War 2012 do we?
Complain about this comment
There is a common thread through all the comments so far, namely its the euro and the one size fits all straight jacket which means in practice unless you have a German style economy then you will not win as a member state.
I have never seen argued coherently whether each member state could in stead have their own currency running alongside the euro. Certain transactions e.g. foreign exchange would be in euros but other transactions in the member state's own currency. Or there would be two euros, A for the core members and say P for soft members with interchangeability between the two. Any takers please?
Complain about this comment
@ huamek
"The EU has been created without regard to the people" ;
That's interesting. The EEC was created before the UK joined. A democratically elected UK government decided to join the EEC and then put the issue to a referendum. Also, as far as I am aware all countries joining the EU, at least for the past 30 years, have asked their peoples in referendum. Even more, any democratically elected British government (assuming you consider the FPTP as democratic, but that's another matter) can hold a vote in Westminster to derogate British membership of the EU, at which point the UK would be free to leave.
"it would be presumtuous and wrong to assume that the EU now has the support of 500 million people . "
By your own logic it would presumptuous and wrong to assume it has not.
"40% of the people vote in the EP elections , so we are down to 200 million "
I know from a (supposedly) reliable source, i.e. this source, that the other day there was a by-election in Barnsley Central and the turnout was 36.5%: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12643639
I am still waiting to hear from the usual self-righteous europhobes denouncing this by-election as undemocratic. I will continue waiting in vain until my last gasp.
Hypocrisy rules, long live hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
#76. At 10:22am on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken
"I like your qualification of buzet23 as "in detail and with persuasion". Buzet23 only throws ridiculous insults. That's why I stopped replying to those posts - no facts, only emotion and rant."
So that is your somewhat whacky reason for not replying to #70, and not because I put facts to you that you can't accept since they contradict your beloved illusion about the Euro. A very poor excuse, you demand logical reasoning and when its given you ignore it because you can't reply, how supremely unintelligent you are.
Here are some facts, Greece was not accepted into the Euro at the beginning, it came in two years later when for political reasons it was allowed to, even though it's economy had been falsified in order to come close to the convergence criteria. The crisis in the Euro with Greece could therefore have been avoided if the economic conditions had been enforced, but then both France and Germany did not meet the budget deficit of less than 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) rule for many years. If a big stick was shown to one member then it would have had to be shown to France and Germany, and that was not politically correct. I will list below some extracts from 2001 about the entry of Greece into the Eurozone. The result is now history.
**************
Some investors have said they are worried the decision to allow Greece to join the euro will send out the wrong signal to financial markets - suggesting that in future other, weaker economies may be allowed in without complying fully with membership conditions.
Greece has one of the highest inflation rates in Europe. Public sector borrowing is also much higher than would be permitted normally under the EU rules governing entry to the project.
Greece had hoped to join the euro with the first wave of member countries in January 1999, but failed to meet the economic tests of low inflation and government debt and deficits - the so-called Maastricht criteria.
Politically, though, it sends an important signal to the 12 countries queuing to join the EU.
They have seen the tough decisions they have to make in order to qualify for EU and euro membership. At the same time, it shows that the EU decision makers can be somewhat lenient towards aspiring euro countries.
Complain about this comment
#80
jorgeg1;
"I am still waiting to hear from the usual self-righteous europhobes denouncing this by-election as undemocratic. I will continue waiting in vain until my last gasp. "
It IS undemocratic. As was that Welsh referendum the other day. That is a matter for the UK to try and resolve, not Brussels, hence why alternative voting systems are being looked at , to at least try and avoid the malaise that comes from elections in "safe" seats. But I'm still waiting, and will be waiting till hell freezes over, to hear why the EU is any better and why the UK should surrender its sovereignty to it. The endless waffle and fluffy rhetoric of manneken and others doesn't advance that cause one iota. England as a unified state is nearly 1100 years old - if you and your ilk want us to surrender that independence to a European superstate, the onus is on you to convince us NOT the other way round. And on that subject, you and your ilk do a remarkably BAD JOB!
I'm also still waiting and will be waiting till hell freezes over to hear why, if turnout is the benchmark for democracy, how come Switzerland is regarded as a true democracy when its local referenda are as low as any UK by-election and its national election turnout is so low, that if it happened in the UK it would trigger a constitutional crisis?
Your problem mate is that you tar all Euro-sceptics with the same brush - many of us WANT to be convinced that the EU is the best option for the future, and remain thoroughly unconvinced.
Complain about this comment
#33 margaret howard
And I bet they don't charge us for their spouses' porno films through their expenses claims! Or duck houses!
Oh yes they do (from 2008) - they beat our MPs to it:
A secret internal inquiry by the European Parliament has found widespread abuse of expenses by MEPs employing ficticious staff or unqualified family members, it was revealed last night....
...but we didn't get told much about it
...the audit which was kept under wraps by the parliament and only shown to MEPs on request at a secret location — and even then they were not allowed to make notes, only read the damning report. ...
Complain about this comment
#80. At 11:23am on 05 Mar 2011, JorgeG1
36.5% is indeed not very democratic and I have long been amazed by the low turnout at council, county and by-elections in the UK. For council elections 30% odd is normal even though a council determines the council tax a person pays, people just have the opinion that council elections are unimportant even though the evidence is to the contrary.
However that has nothing to do with EU elections for one and only one of its institutions, only Belgium where voting is compulsory is there a 90% turnout, in the rest it sinks even as low as the tens and twenties in some cases, whereas for the UK a parliamentary election is normally in the sixties. Just why JorgeG1 do you think EU citizens are so disillusioned about the European Parliamentary elections, there has to be a reason.
Do people consider the EU to be an unimportant nuisance and therefore ignore the elections? If the EU was popular, surely citizens would be keen to vote don't you agree?
Complain about this comment
ONE (1) SIZE FITS ALL
___________________________________________________
79. At 11:18am on 05 Mar 2011, Chris Chittenden wrote:
There is a common thread through all the comments so far, namely its the euro and the one size fits all straight jacket which means in practice unless you have a German style economy then you will not win as a member state.
___________________________________________________
SIX (6) SIZES
_____________
Britain can help Europe if we bring into existence and establish a British Racial Democratic Party (BRDP).
A choice of six (6) sizes should allow for a more comfortable fitting "straight jacket".
What say ye? (What say you all?)
Complain about this comment
Buzet23(no 39) and Freeborn John(no 40), please read the report. There is a hole in Irish public finances, which is 6 billion and growing, whiile the tax returns, up to now, are stagnant or declining. This is one major issue for the bond markets. I never said anything about balanced budgets, simply that the previous government behaved like a sailor on shore leave. The farce of a fiscal policy, allied to the so-called "Light touch regulation" of the financial sector all contributed to the nasty situation we find ourselves in.
The government, along with the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator, had an array of tools available which could have been used to steer the economy in the right direction. The choice was made, instead, to boost the construction sector, and to favour their builder friends and their banker friends, and to buy off the public sector unions with vastly increased pay and pensions. This was eagerly aided and abetted by Fianna Fail's local councilors, who rezoned land for building with abandon. And the foreign banks were in there too. There is a court case ongoing, involving Zurich Bank. They lent Euro 32 MILLION to a shop keeper in CastleBlayney. The money was to build a shopping centre. Castleblayney has a population of 3,000. The guy owned a small shop, and had ZERO experience in developing property.
I should also point out that a previous Fianna Fail administration led by Jack Lynch managed to screw up the economy way back in 1977, and that was achieved without the Euro. The point is that people in Ireland did NOT vote for re-negotiation. They did vote to humble/destroy a party which has a history of economic destruction.
cool_brush_work(no 41). The issue you have with European Parliament is one I do not share. First, focusing on the figure for increased allowances, without supplying either context(number of MEP's, MEP's salaries) or any comparatives(say expenses/allowances for Irish or British politicians?) renders it essentially meaningless.
Also, in the context of the issue being discussed here, the Irish crisis, it is utterly irrelevant. It happened after the crisis, and made no contribution to it. And yes, most Irish people with an IQ above room temperature do understand this. As for calling me "a wiling dupe", personal insults are so likely to convert me to your silly point of view, don't you think? Do mind your blood pressure.
I remember Ireland before we joined, and life is better now, due largely to our joining. So, no, we will not be leaving, because it is not in our national interest to do so.
My sympathies on the Irish team winning the cricket match against England. It does seem like a perversion of the natural order. I would also like to express my warm approval of your Queen's forthcoming visit to my country. She should be made welcome.
Complain about this comment
@ Champaigne
"I'm still waiting, and will be waiting till hell freezes over, to hear why the EU is any better and why the UK should surrender its sovereignty to it. The endless waffle and fluffy rhetoric of manneken and others doesn't advance that cause one iota. England as a unified state is nearly 1100 years old - if you and your ilk want us to surrender that independence to a European superstate, the onus is on you to convince us NOT the other way round. And on that subject, you and your ilk do a remarkably BAD JOB!"
You won't hear that from me. I support European integration but I as am not British I couldn't give a fig's leaf as to whether the UK 'surrenders' its sovereignty to Uncle Sam, NATO, the EU or planet mars. Who the UK surrenders its sovereignty to is a matter of no interest to me, it is a matter for you and your oligarchic-style democracy. It has nothing to do with the EU as the EU is not forcing you to surrender your sovereignty to anybody. You are free to leave.
It is your political parties, me thinks, who stand in the way of you becoming 'free', whatever that means. For example, here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12643639 it is reported that UKIP got 2,953 Votes in a recent by-election, apparently 12% of the total. It is not a bad result but, unfortunately, according to YOUR own rules (i.e. not the EU rules), they were still short of 11772 votes to reach a SINGLE seat in the so marvellously democratic British parliament for them to argue their case of leaving the EU.
This is what democracy means. Endless waffle and fluffly megalomaniac rethoric about surrendering sovereignty doesn't mean anything without those 11772 votes.
Complain about this comment
#86 McTurk
Interesting post but kind of stunned by your comment "I remember Ireland before we joined, and life is better now, due largely to our joining. " as it flies in the face of all that I am reading about the current situation there regarding emigration, unemployment, foreclosures and such.
Complain about this comment
#86 MacTurk
...My sympathies on the Irish team winning the cricket match against England. It does seem like a perversion of the natural order. I would also like to express my warm approval of your Queen's forthcoming visit to my country. She should be made welcome...
Well thank you. No sympathy necessary. Kevin O'Brien batted an absolute blinder and Ireland thoroughly deserved to win. The Ireland cricket team - like the Rugby Union team - represents all of Ireland, as a matter of interest.
I remember Ireland before we joined, and life is better now, due largely to our joining. So, no, we will not be leaving, because it is not in our national interest to do so.
I'm sure life is better but I'm not sure it will stay that way. I'm sure you've seen this article by Morgan Kelly from Nov. 2010 just before the bailout. It's long but part of what he says is this:
...With a sufficiently low interest rate on what we owe to Europe, a combination of economic growth and inflation will eventually erode away the debt, just as it did in the 1980s: we get to survive.
How low is sufficiently low? Economists have a simple rule to calculate this. If the interest rate on a country’s debt is lower than the sum of its growth rate and inflation rate, the ratio of debt to national income will shrink through time. After a massive credit bubble and with a shaky international economy, our growth prospects for the next decade are poor, and prices are likely to be static or falling. An interest rate beyond 2 per cent is likely to sink us.
This means that if we are forced to repay the ECB at the 5 per cent interest rate imposed on Greece, our debt will rise faster than our means of servicing it, and we will inevitably face a State bankruptcy that will destroy what few shreds of our international reputation still remain...
The bailout debt interest rate is 5.8%. There is no realistic prospect of inflation + growth reaching that figure. The ESRI says The forecasts in this Commentary see Irish GDP growing by 1 ½ per cent in real terms in 2011 and by 2 ¼ per cent in 2012. The corresponding figures for GNP are ¼ per cent in 2011 and 1 ½ per cent in 2012....
As Sasha Clarkson #17 pointed out, the ECB looks likely to raise interest rates to choke off (non-existent, if you accept Paul Krugman's view) EU domestic inflation. That may reduce the Irish growth figure, even if it does little or nothing for inflation. The inflation Morgan Kelly is referring to is, I believe, wage inflation. I don't believe inflating foreign oil and food prices will do anything for Irish debt.
Gavin Hewitt says '...The Irish prime minister (Taoiseach) carries a grenade in his pocket. It is marked "default"...'. I think Gavin Hewitt underestimates the efficacy of the explosive.
In 3 weeks and a day on March 27th, Angela Merkel's CDU faces a state election in Baden-Württemberg. It is the most important in a series of state elections. In Hamburg two weeks ago, the CDU were hammered. If that happens in Baden-Württemberg - despite Ole von Beust and Stuttgart 21 providing local excuses for these elections - it will have national implications.
I believe that for those three weeks Enda Kenny has a nuclear weapon to use on Angela Merkel. If Ireland makes a serious public threat to default which leads to public discussion in Germany of more money going into the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) then the CDU will go round the U-bend with spectacular speed.
Let's hope Enda has the same spirit as Kevin O'Brien. Whoever it is, you can bend them to your will with skillful play.
Complain about this comment
#86
macturk;
"My sympathies on the Irish team winning the cricket match against England. It does seem like a perversion of the natural order. I would also like to express my warm approval of your Queen's forthcoming visit to my country. She should be made welcome."
Stuff the natural order, Ireland fully deserved to win that game - no arguments. There will undoubtedly be protests against the Queen's visit but I truly hope that it is just another successful chapter in the remarkable improvement in relations between the two countries in the past decade.
Complain about this comment
Gavin
The Irish borrowed, spent and splurged like it was going out of fashion.
While the Germans grafted, saved and balanced their government spending with taxes.
Why do you think the Germans will want to do anything other than renegotiate to TIGHTEN the terms with Ireland?
Complain about this comment
87. At 1:11pm on 05 Mar 2011, JorgeG1 wrote:
"..I support European integration but I as am not British I couldn't give a fig's leaf as to whether the UK 'surrenders' its sovereignty to Uncle Sam, NATO, the EU or planet mars. Who the UK surrenders its sovereignty to is a matter of no interest to me, it is a matter for you and your oligarchic-style democracy..."
Always good to know You are coming at this from the neutral's stance.
Oh wait!
You are the JorgeG1 who in a previous Blog compared all the 'anti-EU' of the UK to Le Penn's extremist National Front, aren't You?
You are the same chap who in a previous Blog alleged that all the 'anti-EU' of the UK were closet 'little Englanders', aren't You?
You are the fellow who in a previous Blog criticised all the 'anti-EU' of the UK as small-minded & mostly ignorant of Europe... that was You, wasn't it?
There is a 'pro-EU' strain of argument that promotes the benefits of supra-National 'ever closer union' with careful attention to what the EU could bring to UK's progress and what the UK might bring to the EU.
Then, there's another strand who dress up their 'pro' arguments in all sorts of ways: However, their underlying view is utter contempt for any & every Briton whatever the level of 'anti-EU' argument they bring to the debate if the UK who will not fall into line with the 'pro-EU' viewpoint.
Thus, when You so typically dismissively write, "..it is reported that UKIP got 2,953 Votes in a recent by-election, apparently 12% of the total. It is not a bad result but, unfortunately, according to YOUR own rules (i.e. not the EU rules), they were still short of 11772 votes to reach a SINGLE seat in the so marvellously democratic British parliament for them to argue their case of leaving the EU.
This is what democracy means. Endless waffle and fluffly megalomaniac rethoric about surrendering sovereignty doesn't mean anything without those 11772 votes..."
What You display is the contempt You have always held for British Political system because at core it does not fit with Your & other 'pro-EU' attitudes to what an obedient Electorate must be confined to expressing.
After all, in Your analysis of the Barnsley bye-Election to the UK Parliament You neglect to mention it was the totally 'pro-EU' Liberal Democrats who were trounced and even lost their deposit!
Whereas, in the supra-National EP Electoral system despite the British Citizens of Barnsley clearly choosing via the Ballot box to "give the LibDems a kicking" that is the viewpoint You would foist upon the UK Public.
"...what democracy means. Endless waffle and fluffly megalomaniac rethoric about surrendering sovereignty..."
What You meant by the above is all too patently clear: You try to dress it up as an attack upon the UK's political system, but in factual reality, You are no supporter of 'Democracy' at all! You actually do mean, "..Endless waffle and fluffly megalomaniac rethoric.." is how You see the function of 'Democracy' among the people whilst the really important, life-changing policy decisions are made by those clever people at the top who know so much more!
The "..surrendering sovereignty.." is a redundant debate in Your 'pro-EU' (& so many of Your kind of politics) because You don't actually believe ordinary Britons should be allowed to debate & make those life-changing policy decisions. It is anathema to You: You have the nerve to write on these Blogs alleging 'anti-EU' Britons are akin to Le Penn's/Wilders' Far Right politics when all along it is the 'pro-EU' who would subsume the Rights & Responsibilities of the Individual Citizen to those of a supra-Natioonal, all-powerful, supremacist State based in Brussels.
Well I & I dare say millions don't go give a 'flying fig' for Your version of 'Democracy' and if Brussels & the 'big-Governments/big-Business' were not all running so scared from their Citizens so Britons and EUropeans were given the chance to display their feelings on Your & Brussels' 'democracy' I've no doubt at all the fig would be well & truly stuffed somewhere very painful in the 'pro-EU' supremacist anatomy.
Complain about this comment
"I have challenged the lot of you eurosceptics to give intelligent arguments - but the ranting goes on and on." (Manneken, 43)
Indeed it does - and largely from your good self.
I challenged you in another section of this blog to provide a structured argument in favour of the EU, and you conspicuously failed to do so. First of all you came up with a ramble of words that, had they been presented by a 16-year-old in an exam paper, would have earned the student a Fail (even in today's educational climate!). When pressed for something more coherent, you did come up with something about prosperity and preventing a Franco-German war, but neither aspect was presented to any level of detail.
I can't necessarily speak for other eurosceptics, but from my point of view it's largely this apparent absence of a complete, coherent, structured, assumption-free argument in favour of the EU that causes me to have so many concerns about it. Maybe Monet and Shuman did indeed produce such an argument - I haven't read their work. But if they did, why are today's defenders of the EU apparently incapable of articulating it?
My euroscepticism is derived from my politics in general. My vision for world politics is that all nations are peaceful democracies with free market economies and self-determination. (Not that I'm likely to see that in my lifetime!)
In some respects the EU does fairly well compared with that vision. The EU seems to be a reasonably free market (if rather over-regulated), and a single currency (notwithstanding its disadvantages - see below) does assist with that.
But it scores very badly on democracy and self-determination. The EU seems to have an innate contempt for the democratic process - as exemplified by its decision to prevent the British people having their promised referendum on the European Constitution, and the refusal to accept the Irish "No" vote on the Lisbon Treaty. And self-determination - the right of countries to govern themselves if they wish to do so - is completely negated by the pressure put on the countries of Europe to join a centralized European superstate, and the structural disincentives to leaving (such as the single currency).
Returning to the lack of a convincing pro-EU case: if I had to choose just one point to illustrate this, it would be the question: why Europe? Peace and prosperity are sought after by people the world over. So why just focus on Europe? And even if we accept the idea (which I don't) that the world needs another superpower, for example as a counterweight to China, why do pro-EU people seek to distance themselves from the USA? A more effective counterweight to China, if such a thing is needed, would be a single USA-Europe bloc, perhaps with the countries of Europe becoming states of the USAE. As far as I'm aware, the question "why Europe?" hasn't even been mentioned by the pro-EU side, never mind answered to any level of rigour.
Complain about this comment
#86 MacTurk
...I would also like to express my warm approval of your Queen's forthcoming visit to my country. She should be made welcome...
Thus proving - if Enda Kenny manages to improve the terms - that you haven't just got it in for old German women.
Complain about this comment
86. At 12:44pm on 05 Mar 2011, MacTurk wrote:
"..cool_brush_work(no 41). The issue you have with European Parliament is one I do not share. First, focusing on the figure for increased allowances, without supplying either context(number of MEP's, MEP's salaries) or any comparatives(say expenses/allowances for Irish or British politicians?) renders it essentially meaningless.
Also, in the context of the issue being discussed here, the Irish crisis, it is utterly irrelevant. It happened after the crisis, and made no contribution to it. And yes, most Irish people with an IQ above room temperature do understand this. As for calling me "a wiling dupe", personal insults are so likely to convert me to your silly point of view, don't you think? Do mind your blood pressure..."
Being the senior age I am ( a year older yesterday... no wiser I hear Your rejoinder!) I always take note of my 'blood pressure', thanks.
Being 'no wiser' I merely quoted a BBC News article which I believe reflects the yawning divide in factual reality between the Ordinary Citizens of the EU and their Political masters.
If You don't see such an article as relevant to any & every debate on the EU then I can't help it!
It was not meant as a 'personal insult': There are millions upon millions of 'pro-EU' & to my mind every one is a 'willing dupe' to some extent. How else could such a moribund, stifling, reactionery, anti-Democratic entity as the EU have ever got leverage!?
Elsewhere on here some 'pro-EU' (JorgeG1, "..waiting til hell freezes over" etc.) are waxing on about Barnsley's bye-Election as if it were one & the same thing as a supra-National 27 State Election to a ruling Parliament of 500+ millions!
I need look no further for the duplicity of the Political elite & the incredible duping of some 43% of the Electorate participation in the EP election of 2009. The only pleasing point being it was the 4th all-time low Voter Turnout in a row and a significant 57% of EUropean Citizens were not fooled into casting a Vote for an MEP: To imagine for a moment an MEP will have any seriously informed impact on any aspect of the supra-National EU Political decision-making process is the IMO the equivalent of believing Russian Citizens of the Soviet era affected Kremlin Politbureau policies in any meaning ful manner.
To compare the Barnsley bye-Election and the EUropean Parliament Election process & Voter Turnout is IMO akin to arguing the Barnsley MP will form the next Government of the UK!
Yes, I too think the Irish cricket team deserved their victory & agree the Queen as UK Head of State should be warmly welcomed to the Irish Republic.
That ninnies such as QOT mistake QEII for an 'english queen' & even more absurdly quote Gerry Adams' (newly elected to the Dail!) opposition to the State visit just gives us all cause for another laugh at QOT's ill-informed expense.
Complain about this comment
#93 CornwallCoastPath
I hope you don't mind me adding my fourpenceworth.
...The EU seems to have an innate contempt for the democratic process - as exemplified by its decision to prevent the British people having their promised referendum on the European Constitution, and the refusal to accept the Irish "No" vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
..and the refusal to accept the Danish 'No' to Maastricht - they had to go to a second referendum to get the 'right' result as did the Republic of Ireland on Lisbon - and the referenda in France and Holland on the EU Constitution circumambulated by the Lisbon Treaty.
...why Europe? Peace and prosperity are sought after by people the world over. So why just focus on Europe? And even if we accept the idea (which I don't) that the world needs another superpower, for example as a counterweight to China, why do pro-EU people seek to distance themselves from the USA...
A question I used to ask was - why could Japan not belong to the EU ? Of course the answer I got was "Duh they're not in Europe". So what ? Is geography so important these days ? I agree that a NAFTA-EU relationship would be good but how many American nations would accept 'ever closer union' ?
Just to chuck in another question of my own for Manneken - Where does 'ever closer union' stop ? Are you trying to create another nation state like the USA ? I ask this because in several other posts you have affected a certain derision for the nation state, indeed I believe you have declared that the day of the nation state is gone.
If nation state governments in the EU are relegated to the status of, say, Länder governments in Germany - If the EU becomes a political entity with a single president and ruling body in the Commission - call it - I don't know - a cabinet, say - then what is its political status ?
Complain about this comment
#96
clivehill;
"Just to chuck in another question of my own for Manneken - Where does 'ever closer union' stop ? Are you trying to create another nation state like the USA ? I ask this because in several other posts you have affected a certain derision for the nation state, indeed I believe you have declared that the day of the nation state is gone"
That is of course the paradox that they just cant answer. Total derision directed towards 27 distinct nation states with thousands of years of history and culture between them, and yet slavish devotion to the concept of creating a superpower with its own constitution, military and flag (which , quietoaktree, they will all wave with gusto!). It just doesn't add up, it never did. I just wish they would admit that what this is all about is their power hungry desire to create a new nation capable of challenging the US.
Complain about this comment
#76 Manneken
Re #73 What I'm saying is that you pose such silly naive questions , that if you had any reasoning power you could answer them without asking . The only problem is that reasoning might not come up with your predetermined opinion .
When you ask silly questions , you're likely to get silly answers .
You should be flattered that I even respond to your posts . There are some (one ) with fixed " Bees in their Bonnet ", who are not worth reasoning with , because they have no sensible reason .
Regarding referendums on the EU Constitution ; I have not said that the EU organised any referendums , but never the less a number of countries decided to hold referendums . After France and The Netherlands voted against the Constitution there was no further point in continued ratification , as from that point it was a non starter . Seven countries that had planned to have referendums , cancelled them .
Of course the British People were going to vote against and were expecting to be the bogeymen in Europe for causing the whole project to fail . We had to laugh when France and Holland beat us to it .
Europhiles like you think that Eurosceptics like me are against Europe . We are not . What we are against is the form the EU has taken , the corruption , wastefulness , incompetence ,lack of foresight , trying to force vastly varying peoples and cultures into the one size fits all . France and Germany may be pledged to merge their identity into one federal state ; but I have my doubt of that ever becoming a reality . I am not convinced that any of the 27 European States ever want to lose their sovereignty . The imposition of Laws and regulations on all member states , as in anticipation of a single federal state , causes offence among the people . You may accept an EU " Warts and all " but not everyone does .
I am British and have lived a number of years in Italy and am fluent in Italian language . My children are Anglo/American , my sons live in the USA , my daughter is married to a charming , very humourous German and lives in Berlin , I now live in Thailand . I am not a little Englander .
The EU forced a bailout on Ireland , not in the interest of saving Ireland ; but solely in the interest of saving the Euro and the EU .
I think ,as things stand , Bankruptcy awaits both Greece and Ireland , in the not too distant future . What is the EU going to do then ? At that point those countries will be less able to recover themselves than if they defaulted now . The EU is frightened of a domino effect and a complete colapse of the Euro and subsequently the EU . In my opinion the EU is at a dead halt and at present there is little prospect of a way forward .
Complain about this comment
C_C, CCP & CH
Now, now You 3!
Cut that out!
Confronting Manneken, JorgeG1 etc. with doses of the 'serious' debating points they claim to aspire to is guaranteed to cause indigestible bites on factual reality.
You'll do no end of harm to their 'one-size-fits-all' dietary needs.
Complain about this comment
#81 Buzet23
Thank you! My technique seems to work. This is the most content you've written in a long time.
It's true that Greece scraped through. As we now know (but did not at the time), it was on the basis of made-up numbers. Another trick of our brilliant casino bankers.
I have always stated that the Euro is a political project. That's why it exists. It was the price Germany paid for unification - and they paid for a whole generation, until very recently. Seems like they made the right choice, though, wouldn't you agree?
However, your earlier point (and that of others) is that the Euro cannot possibly work, because many countries did not meet the criteria.
Two points to reply to: "many countries did not meet the criteria". This statement is patently untrue. Of the 12 founders, 9 were in-line. Italy and Belgium got in, because, although their debt was higher than 60% of GDP, it was going in the right direction (thank you Prodi and Dehaene). Greece, as you point out, was the real exception. That does not invalidate the other 9 countries. All countries that joined since fulfill the criteria.
Why is it that, when presented with evidence, you ignore the 90% that contradicts you and focus on the 10% that is not a total whammy against you, but only qualified?
I state that it is the weakness of your overall argument.
Complain about this comment
And finally...
4 March 2011 Last updated at 00:49
Headline - - 'Brussels revises transparency rules for EU schmoozing'
New rules are being drafted to improve transparency in EU institutions, but the intensity of lobbying in the internet age makes the "Brussels gravy train" image hard to shake off.
The anti-corruption organisation Transparency International says about 3,000 lobbying groups have offices in Brussels. It is among a number of watchdog bodies and Euro MPs arguing that tougher EU rules are needed to address conflicts of interest and the influence of powerful lobbyists over European legislation.
At a time of budget cuts and economic austerity across Europe the millions of euros oiling the wheels of EU negotiations are coming under closer scrutiny.
A revised code of conduct for EU commissioners and a joint EU Commission-European Parliament register of lobbyists are likely to be launched this year.
The effort goes some way towards answering the many critics who say Brussels is too remote from ordinary citizens.
The Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations, Maros Sefcovic, says he wants the code of conduct to be "one of the best in the world".
"We're beefing up the role of the ethics committee," he said, referring to the small EU panel that vets appointments of ex-commissioners to new jobs.
'Revolving doors'
Many ex-commissioners quickly land lucrative jobs in industry or consultancy after their stint in Brussels - a phenomenon known as "revolving doors".
The ethics panel's "opinions and reasons for their actions" will be published, he told the BBC's Democracy Live website.But the European Parliament's budgetary control committee has criticised the Commission's plan, saying it does not go far enough.
An influential centre-right MEP on the committee, Ingeborg Graessle from Germany, said the new draft code would still not prevent conflicts of interest - cases where ex-commissioners could earn consultancy fees based on their specialist inside knowledge.
A key element of the code is the "cooling off" period for ex-commissioners - a period during which they are banned from working as lobbyists in their area of EU expertise.
The Commission wants the period to be 18 months. Too short, say the critics. Transparency International and the environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe say it should be three years; the Greens/European Free Alliance MEPs call for two years.
Ms Graessle told the BBC that many EU policy areas overlap - but the new code does not reflect that. "Lobbying elsewhere is still allowed, when it is not in the commissioner's domain. But the Commission is a collegiate institution - they decide everything together," she said.
It is doubtful whether MEPs, whose job it is to scrutinise the Commission's work, will have a full vote on the new code before it takes effect. Ms Graessle voiced frustration at how this "hot potato" was being handled in Brussels, saying her committee had worked hard on it "but they don't rely on our competence - and that's not fair".
“..I think the Commission takes this review seriously... it's slowly moving in the right direction ”
Mats Persson
Director, Open Europe
Generous allowances
The code does not address the controversy surrounding "transitional allowances" - the system whereby ex-commissioners carry on receiving up to 60% of their salary for three years after leaving the Commission.
Commissioners have a basic annual salary of about 248,000 euros (£210,000; $342,000) pre-tax, plus numerous allowances and a generous pension scheme. EU staff - funded by European taxpayers - also enjoy a special income tax rate, lower than the rate in most member states.
Last year former commissioners Lord Mandelson of the UK and Germany's Guenter Verheugen came under media scrutiny over their transitional allowances - paid despite their lucrative new jobs.
According to the think-tank Open Europe, their payments have stopped now, but other ex-commissioners are getting the allowances, including some national politicians - Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite and Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.
The amount ex-commissioners earn in their new jobs affects the level of the allowance. But Open Europe says they can earn more than 100,000 euros annually while still getting the full allowance.
Despite these "golden parachutes" Open Europe's director Mats Persson said the Commission was at least "slowly moving in the right direction" with the new code of conduct.
Transitional allowances - which also apply to former European Court of Justice judges - are the responsibility of the EU Council, the 27 member states' governments. The Commission could ask the Council to reduce the allowances or simply scrap them, but it does not have to.
Transitional allowances - which also apply to former European Court of Justice judges - are the responsibility of the EU Council, the 27 member states' governments. The Commission could ask the Council to reduce the allowances or simply scrap them, but it does not have to.
“..Often the register's data is inaccurate, misleading or out-of-date”
Paul de Clerck
Friends of the Earth Europe
As the register is voluntary, only peer pressure can make lobbyists disclose data, and the financial reporting does not have to meet international accounting standards.
Moreover, the Commission itself has complained that many law firms and think-tanks have not registered.
Mr de Clerck did however welcome a plan to link registration with the issuing of access badges to the European Parliament, so "de facto it will mean the main lobby groups will register".
Badge holders can come and go in the parliament without needing formal invitations for each visit, making their lobbying activities easier.
Powerful experts
One of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Brussels, Businesseurope, says it backs the drive for greater transparency.
"It's a good idea to bring in some light," Businesseurope spokesman Christian Feustel told the BBC.
"But don't make it too bureaucratic. Financial data is always sensitive, and you need to define what exactly is meant by 'direct lobbying'," he said.
Businesseurope gives a figure of 550,000-600,000 euros for its lobbying in Brussels in 2010 - a figure that might seem small. But Businesseurope is also an EU "social partner", meaning that it is often invited to represent company bosses at EU meetings and events. The "social partner" activities do not count as lobbying.
Advisory groups - panels of outside experts - have considerable influence over EU legislation, and confidentiality rules generally apply to them.
Mr de Clerck says hundreds of these groups advise the Commission at the early stage of policymaking and he sees a definite bias towards big business.
That complaint was echoed recently by a French liberal MEP, Corinne Lepage, who said "we have highly unbalanced expert groups - lots of big companies, very few SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], and the industrial sector but not civil society".
All very informative & on the face of it highly encouraging of the idea of more "transparency" in Policy-making at Brussels.
Of course, this is a BBC News article giving the pros & cons fairly even-handedly: There is NOTHING AT ALL to suggest the EU-Brussels entity has anymore actual intention of opening-up its activities anymore than it has done over the last 20 post-Maastricht years when it has for all vital policy-making operated a CLOSED-SHOP approach with as little reference to the Tax-Paying EU Citizens as is possible in an alleged 'democratic' institution!
Complain about this comment
#98
Thank you as well - now at least you're saying something.
You did actually say that the referendums were EU-organized. They were not.
While I understand that Eurosceptics are against the current EU form, what they never, ever do, is propose a real, workable alternative.
What is the project of the Euorosceptics? How will they promote peace, prosperity and democracy?
We know the EU exists. It is far from perfect. That does not make it
"the corruption , wastefulness , incompetence ,lack of foresight , trying to force vastly varying peoples and cultures into the one size fits all"
You, and other eurosceptics, repeat these things as a mantra, but they are not substantiated.
The EU does not force peoples and cultures into one size fits all. There is one currency in the Eurozone, but how does that affect culture or peoples?
The constitutional treaty said that the EU would be "unity in diversity". the diversity bit is as essential as the unity bit. The EU cannot exist without national diversity - it is one of the reasons of its very existence.
I don't think the EU is the answer to all problems, or even that it is necessarily the right way forward. It can be a lot better. But why is it so hard, when I've asked over and over again to hear what the alternative would be, to actually say something?
Complain about this comment
#93
I think you're being very unfair. I've asked many times what the project of the Eurosceptics is. I never get an answer.
I will, one more time, try to provide you with an answer, though. Why the EU?
As I've said many times before, the short answer is peace, prosperity and democracy.
Until 1957, Europe has been very inefficient in obtaining these goals. Let me explain why the EU is important for those three goals.
Peace. Since, essentially, the fall of the Roman Empire, Europeans have waged war amongst themselves.
The emergence of nation-states did not bring peace, but, in conjunction with the industrial revolution, brought industrial warfare. WWI and WWII.
The EU was set up in 1957 to ensure that the economic integration would be so deep (starting with coal and steel, the traditional war industries) that no war could start between, essentially, Germany and France. That has been a resounding success. It is still necessary today. Yugoslavia clearly proves the point.
Anyone who says "ah, we would never go to war in Europe again", makes the same mistake as in 1900. It's not a risk I would want to run, anyway.
Prosperity. The internal market and its four fundamental freedoms are a key part of the economic integration of the EU. Without the supranational legal revolution exemplified by Cassis de Dijon, there would be no internal market. Without internal market, most european economies would collapse, and it would be the 1930s all over again.
The Euro provides additional substantial benefits of deeper integration and substantial progress to a real internal market (if only services were properly integrated!). It is true that this comes at a cost to certain periphery countries. That is true for any monetary union (the UK, the US, India, etc...). I still need to see an argument that the cost to periphery outweighs the benefit to the core market.
Democracy. European democracy is not deeply rooted in history. In 1939, only France, UK, Benelux, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Scandinavia were democracies. There are strong arguments to state that without the EU, Spain, Portugal and Greece may not have become democracies back in the 70s/80s, and Hungary and Italy may be at risk today.
The supranational defense of human rights and democratic values clearly strengthens them. You can argue over the extent (say voting rights for prisoners) - but those are the details that deserve our attention.
Don't take it for granted, though. It's a continuous fight, as our Arab friends show.
Finally, there is raw political power.
Europe is in relative decline, both militarily and politically. Only an organisation like the EU can stem or reverse that trend. I'm happy to discuss alternatives, but where are they?
I've done my bit.
Up to you Eurosceptics to provide your vision (for the umpteenth time).
Complain about this comment
93 CornwallCP writes:
"The EU seems to have an innate contempt for the democratic process - as exemplified by its decision to prevent the British people having their promised referendum on the European Constitution,.."
Sorry Cornwall, but this is a misconception that many here seem to labour under. The EU did NOT prevent Britain from having a referendum - it was up to the government to do so and they decided against it for whatever reasons.
You go on to ask: "Why Europe? .....A more effective counterweight to China, if such a thing is needed, would be a single USA-Europe bloc, perhaps with the countries of Europe becoming states of the USAE..."
My reply would be: "Why America? Why not China itself come to that. Or Russia? Because Europe has been an entity for centuries, long before America was even discovered. What started as tribal associations graduated into nation states and now hopefully a thriving EU coming together for the benefit of all. The nation states, like the tribal associations have had their day. I hope that eventually our eastern european neighbours, Russia and all people east of them will want to join such an exciting venture. The last thing any of us in Europe want is to become 'states of the USAE'!
Complain about this comment
94 Clive Hill writes:
"Thus proving - if Enda Kenny manages to improve the terms - that you haven't just got it in for old German women."
Which one do you mean - Angela Merkel or the Queen?
Complain about this comment
#102 - Manneken
Well we do, for once, appear to be heading towards a serious debate so let me just prepare the ground. Can we, to start with, get rid of this absurd notion that euroscepticism is a peculiarly British disease. It is widespread throughout the EU and growing in strength and it is coming about as a direct consequence of the way in which some European leaders have pinned their hopes on the twin mastheads of federalism and a single currency. You have probably realised that, although I am British, I have lived in eastern Europe for some time. I recently had a conversation with some German connections and their reaction to the present situations was informative and slightly surprising. Asked about the bailouts in euro land, the reaction was one of "don't ask - we are still trying to work out why we bailed out East Germany. They had a referendum, nobody asked us".
The second point made light heartedly but with a certain ring of truth to it was the regret at two attempts to conquer the rest of Europe in the last century when they have since learned how much cheaper and easier it is simply to buy it. The third and perhaps most surprising point on which they all agreed was that they admired Britain as a good European country because it had the guts to stand up to Brussels once in a while. Now I am not saying that this is a representative sample or a universally held view but it is symptomatic of a swing in mainstream opinion against the EU and, if it is replicated across Europe, bodes very badly for the electoral chances of those Euro enthusiastic leaders at the next election. They all also agreed that they wanted the DM back and the end of the single currency. As I said before, euroscepticism is not a British disease.
My second point is there is nothing inherently wrong with the underlying objectives of the European project. On the contrary, it is in many ways laudable. However, it seems that many have lost sight of that objective. They point to the fact that intra-European wars are a thing of the past but fail to point out that this would probably have been the case anyway. Put in very simple terms, there has been no reason to go to war anyway. What people are finding increasingly objectionable is the tendency of Europe wide institutions to seek to impose their values on societies which do not necessarily welcome them. Generally speaking, the ECJ has a good track record but outlandish statements about them being the "supreme law making authority in Europe" seem to be almost calculated to cause offense.
The third point is the obsession with trivia which frequently leads to the EU being thought of as comical. The ridiculous fiascoes covering all sorts of nonsense from the meat content of British sausages to circus high wire acts being required to wear protective helmets to the virtues or otherwise of bent bananas and cucumbers simply add fuel to the fire of those who say that the EU is wasteful, costly and bureaucratic. Seen from that perspective, it is.
But the biggest single problem, it seems to me is the deliberate confusion of what are essentially three separate projects. The single currency only involves an inner circle of eurozone members and, before anyone jumps down my throat and points out that only Denmark and Britain have a specific opt out, they should look at the consummate which which Sweden quire deliberately avoids meeting the convergence criteria to understand the worthlessness of these treaty obligations. There is no doubt in my mind that, had the Irish had the ability to control the money supply through control of interest rates, it might well not be in the mess in which it finds itself. Recent political upheavals there seem to suggest that, while they are committed to the EU as a project, many would welcome not being part of the single currency. These are two separate projects and confusing them is simply an exercise in muddying the waters.
The third project is the pursuit of a common foreign and defense policy. The total inability of the EU to come up with a coherent response to the events in north Africa and the Middle East simply proves the point. Italy is heavily dependent on Libyan energy supplies. France is deeply involved in Chad to the south and will have a very different view. How will France react if this spreads over into her back garden in Algeria? We already have a perfectly good mechanism in NATO to perform these functions while still enabling France and Britain as nuclear powers to have permanent seats at the UNSC. I am confident that, in the medium term the EU, once it has sorted out internal matters will eventually find a common voice in world affairs. In the short term, it is an absurd ambition because there is simply not the common ground on which everyone feels comfortable.
There are exceptions - Germany being the obvious one - but generally those democracies which are durable and effective tend to be those which mature and adapt over time. In trying to rush Europe into institutional changes which may look fine on paper but are problematic in practice, the current brand of leadership seems increasingly to look desperate in seeking to secure the done deal before the tide of history turns against them.
After all, who cares about last year's Beaujolais Nouveau, especially if they have a cellar full of good vintages.
Complain about this comment
#103 - Manneken
"There are strong arguments to state that without the EU, Spain, Portugal and Greece may not have become democracies back in the 70s/80s, and Hungary and Italy may be at risk today".
I beg to differ on the first part of that. It was only when Spain, Portugal and Greece turned to democracy that they became eligible. In fact, in the case of Spain, you bring into play one of the great Europeans, King Juan Carlos who inherited a functioning dictatorship and proceeded to create from it an outstanding democracy. One of the great figures of our time.
I completely concur with the second point. As someone who has lived in Hungary for some time, I am very concerned about the durability of her democratic institutions.
Complain about this comment
#105 - margaret howard
The one that had good sense to realise that Balmoral is cold and drafty while Sandringham is gentle and pleasant. Relocating from Scotland to East Anglia seems quite the thing these days.
Complain about this comment
#106
Hey, thanks for excellent quality postings.
I'm not necessarily refuting that euroscepticism may be gaining ground, although elections do not seem to express this (e.g. UKIP results). Most of these discussions go on within parties, rather than between. Probably a pity. However, the interesting thing on this, I believe, is that for "more or less euro-integration" to become a political issue between parties, you actually need an EU-wide polity similar to the discussion in the US about States' rights and the Federal level (with the Republicans nominally on the side of the States, but often, like under Bush II, massively increasing the federal level).
That being said, the Eurosceptic project still eludes me. Where's the vision to make life of Europeans better?
I strongly disagree with your position that
"They point to the fact that intra-European wars are a thing of the past but fail to point out that this would probably have been the case anyway. Put in very simple terms, there has been no reason to go to war anyway."
My objection is mainly historic. It is exactly what most people would have said between 1900 and 1910, the only time in history before the present day when we had so much international integration of economies. And look what happened. In my opinion, good intentions aren't good enough. I have Monet and Schuman on my side on this: we need strong institutions to ensure, not that we don't want it to happen again (duh), but that it is impossible.
I take your point on the trivia, but I think it is misrepresented. If you look at the history of the common/internal market, it is true that the EU level deals with a lot of detail. However, when you scratch the surface, you will see that that detail very often comes from the national level, not the EU level. The goal of the internal market is to create a level playing field, but national governments are afraid of it (unlike real entrepreneurs).
I remember the days when the Belgian government introduced legislation, on grounds of public policy (health) that margarine could only be sold in square boxes, not rectangular. As it happens, only in Belgium did the manufacturers use that format. So, the EU (the ECJ actually) ruled that that was a non-starter.
Plenty of reason to deride the EU-level "dealing with the shape of margarine boxes". But the issue came from the national level. An enormous amount of EU decisions and legislations are about just that. The creativity of the member states to try to impede the internal market in order to defend "national champions" knows no limits. It makes sense in that those "national champions" will give money to politicians to run election campaigns. Actually, the UK is one of the best pupils at this level - I presume it is its free-trade background. This is also the reason why EU law must prevail over national law in the areas of pooled sovereignty (not in other areas, to be clear). Otherwise, the internal market is at the mercy of the first by-election.
Foreign and defense policy. I think I see a contradiction in your position between short-term and mid-term. Your mid-term approach is the same as mine, I think (EU speaks with one voice, otherwise no-one gets heard). Except I think we should get there faster, rather than let "that's just the way things are" stop us. I'm more of a naive ambitious person, I guess. My main drive there is that I cannot believe that the situation we have today is as good as it gets.
NATO? I just don't trust the Americans enough. In the end, they will go for their own interest - as anyone would reasonable expect.
A full cellar is fine, but what about our children's vintages?
Complain about this comment
108 threnodio writes:
"The one that had good sense to realise that Balmoral is cold and drafty while Sandringham is gentle and pleasant. Relocating from Scotland to East Anglia seems quite the thing these days."
You have obviously never spent a winter in East Anglia! I have survived over forty of them (less than an hour's drive from Sandringham) and the one thing they are not is gentle and pleasant - damp and miserable would be more appropriate. Never heard of the Fenland ague?
Complain about this comment
margaret howard, 104:
"Sorry Cornwall, but this is a misconception that many here seem to labour under. The EU did NOT prevent Britain from having a referendum - it was up to the government to do so and they decided against it for whatever reasons."
Really? My information on this comes from one of the EU supporters on this blog, Jean Luc, who stated that the decision to kill off the European Constitution had to be made, and was made, by unanimous decision of the European Council (the EU heads of government forum).
If that's true, that makes my point - the EU decided to prevent the implementation of a manifesto commitment.
If not, I'd like to know precisely how and when the European Constitution was killed off. The relevant Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe) isn't very clear - what's your information on this?
Whatever the precise details, we have a situation in which a manifesto commitment - one of the cornerstones of our democratic process - was betrayed by, or on behalf of, or with the tacit support of, the EU.
"My reply would be: "Why America? Why not China itself come to that. Or Russia? Because Europe has been an entity for centuries, long before America was even discovered. What started as tribal associations graduated into nation states and now hopefully a thriving EU coming together for the benefit of all. The nation states, like the tribal associations have had their day. I hope that eventually our eastern european neighbours, Russia and all people east of them will want to join such an exciting venture. The last thing any of us in Europe want is to become 'states of the USAE'!"
Can you not see how full of contradictions that is? You say that the nation states have had their day, and yet you're proposing the creation of a new nation state, the EU! You're in favour of a vast project covering much of the earth's geography and population, and yet you want to exclude America! Can you really not see how full of contradictions that is?
Complain about this comment
#109 - Manneken
"A full cellar is fine, but what about our children's vintages?"
Precisely why we have to be very careful about what we lay down now - yes?
Complain about this comment
#100. At 5:49pm on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken,
"Two points to reply to: "many countries did not meet the criteria". This statement is patently untrue. Of the 12 founders, 9 were in-line. Italy and Belgium got in, because, although their debt was higher than 60% of GDP, it was going in the right direction (thank you Prodi and Dehaene). Greece, as you point out, was the real exception. That does not invalidate the other 9 countries. All countries that joined since fulfill the criteria. "
Incredible, Prodi was an Italian and as for DeHaene well' His second government was also composed of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. Despite the fact that the government was flooded with crises - notably the Dutroux scandal - it managed to serve the entire legislature. During this period, for his work toward a unified Europe, Dehaene received the Vision for Europe Award in 1996. Some weeks before the 1999 elections a food scandal erupted, and both governing parties lost much of their support.'
You may not remember the Dutroux scandal but I do, yet he got an European award, as for the food scandal that was Flemish Chicken farmers feeding Dioxin to the birds, and his government solved the crisis in six weeks, rofl.
As for the Belgian economy you show a remarkable lack of knowledge as do you of its politicians. When Reynders took over as Finance minister in 1999 it took some years for him to destroy the efforts of Van Rompuy
"Van Rompuy was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget from September 1993 to July 1999 in the two governments led by Jean-Luc Dehaene. As budget minister, together with finance minister Philippe Maystadt, he helped drive down Belgium’s debt from a peak of 135 percent of gross domestic product in 1993. It fell to below 100 percent of GDP in 2003."
However Reynders who became Finance minister with support of the majority Flemish partners has managed to destroy that, the fact that he is equally detested in both Wallonia and Flanders is by the way, his Flemish political friends supported him until now. As for the famed Belgian wealth based on the high internal savings of its citizens, where has it gone as now the public debt is external. Oops, I saw the convoys of gold going to the ECB.
Complain about this comment
For the sake of a stable Europe, I hope that Kenny's proposals are rejected out of hand - Ireland can not be let off teh hook for the damage it has caused. Unfortunately, the EU is not a place where reason prevails.
Complain about this comment
102. At 5:56pm on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote: "..While I understand that Eurosceptics are against the current EU form, what they never, ever do, is propose a real, workable alternative.
What is the project of the Euorosceptics? How will they promote peace, prosperity and democracy?"
PLUS,
103. At 6:13pm on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
"Europe is in relative decline, both militarily and politically. Only an organisation like the EU can stem or reverse that trend. I'm happy to discuss alternatives, but where are they?
I've done my bit.
Up to you Eurosceptics to provide your vision (for the umpteenth time)."
Now here is a curiosity!
This Manneken demands that 'EU-sceptics' provide an alternative to the EU he supports.
And yet in Comment after Comment alleged EU-sceptics point out the present EU is not a satisfactory system.
To quote from the "..alternatives..":
1)Freeborn John wrote: The next few week’s will show if Irish elections can change policy, or if they merely decide who is the Frontman to implement what the EU decides in the ‘fax democracy’ province of the super-state that Ireland has been reduced to.
2) PickledPete wrote: I find myself torn on this, because whilst I object to the way that the EU bullies member states into surrendering more and more national sovereignty ,
3) I (cbw) wrote: For the 'pro-EU' who fail time-and-again to appreciate the basic Political-Democratic deficit in Brussels:
27 Nations & 500+ million Citizens cannot be represented by 3 unelected unknown Presidents, an unelected jobsworth Commission & 760+ hopelessly inept & unrepresentative EU Parliamentarians.
The legitimate role of Citizen Voters in an EU Democracy is impossible - - their views are either ignored (as in Ireland & Greece's case) or dismissed as irrelevant/inconvenient by the massive vested interests of 'big-Government/big-Business' running the whole EU concept.
4)I (cbw) wrote: However, 27 Nations in an EEC concentrating on freeing up Trade, reducing Tariffs & easing Communication/Travel with minimal Political intervention in the legitimate sovereign interests of Independent States is an alternative to an 'EU' Politicval-construct forcing 27 Nations to endure anti-Democratic practises, stagnating one-size-fits-all blanket Economic-Fiscal-Social-Judicial policies from Valletta to Helsinki & widespread supra-national Corruption organised & managed from the axis-of-ill-intent at Paris-Brussels-Berlin.
5) Freeborn John wrote: The EU institutions controlled those interest rates and those supranational institutions are fully responsible for the problems.
The time for listening to economically illiterate euro-federalists who cannot explain the problems in the eurozone that they created (but still seek more powers!) is long gone. Suboridnating a stable economy and long-term growth to euro-federalism has been the problem and that must be reversed by taking back powers from Brussels.
6)Buzet23 wrote: "We would all like to know what they charge for, attendance allowance for ducking into the lobby, signing in and then leaving just for instance as was exposed some while back. But then of course being totally transparent they voted to deny any disclosure of their expense claims..."
and,
"The MEP's then voted to forbid disclosure of their expense claims and deny transparency. This all happened at around the time both the UK parliament and house of lords were being examined, the difference being that both houses in the UK were open to disclosure, the EP is not."
7)Huaimek wrote: "..When we are talking of Democracy in the EU ; the people should have been considered at the beginning , today the EU does not want to hear what the people think , hence NO referendums .
To unleash the potential of 500 million people , you need to have them on your side to start with . When so many are indifferent or against you , it presents an insumountable task to unleash the potential of so many people ."
8)phillipwest wrote:"#68 Manneken
"Referendums are a (very inefficient and sometimes rather undemocratic) political instrument at national level."
Rather perplexed by this comment. Please elaborate."
9) And again, Buzet23 wrote: "#76. At 10:22am on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken
"I like your qualification of buzet23 as "in detail and with persuasion". Buzet23 only throws ridiculous insults. That's why I stopped replying to those posts - no facts, only emotion and rant."
So that is your somewhat whacky reason for not replying to #70, and not because I put facts to you that you can't accept since they contradict your beloved illusion about the Euro. A very poor excuse, you demand logical reasoning and when its given you ignore it because you can't reply, how supremely unintelligent you are.
Here are some facts, Greece was not accepted into the Euro at the beginning, it came in two years later when for political reasons it was allowed to, even though it's economy had been falsified in order to come close to the convergence criteria. The crisis in the Euro with Greece could therefore have been avoided if the economic conditions had been enforced, but then both France and Germany did not meet the budget deficit of less than 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) rule for many years. If a big stick was shown to one member then it would have had to be shown to France and Germany, and that was not politically correct. I will list below some extracts from 2001 about the entry of Greece into the Eurozone. The result is now history..."
10)Huaimek wrote:
#76 Manneken Regarding referendums on the EU Constitution ; I have not said that the EU organised any referendums , but never the less a number of countries decided to hold referendums . After France and The Netherlands voted against the Constitution there was no further point in continued ratification , as from that point it was a non starter . Seven countries that had planned to have referendums , cancelled them ...."
and,
"..Europhiles like you think that Eurosceptics like me are against Europe . We are not . What we are against is the form the EU has taken , the corruption , wastefulness , incompetence ,lack of foresight , trying to force vastly varying peoples and cultures into the one size fits all . France and Germany may be pledged to merge their identity into one federal state ; but I have my doubt of that ever becoming a reality . I am not convinced that any of the 27 European States ever want to lose their sovereignty . The imposition of Laws and regulations on all member states , as in anticipation of a single federal state , causes offence among the people . You may accept an EU " Warts and all " but not everyone does ..."
11) Manneken wrote:
#93
I think you're being very unfair. I've asked many times what the project of the Eurosceptics is. I never get an answer..."
and,
"..The supranational defense of human rights and democratic values clearly strengthens them. You can argue over the extent (say voting rights for prisoners) - but those are the details that deserve our attention..."
Short of writing a 300 page riposte to the Lisbon Treaty I think it is very "..unfair.." of Manneken to set such high standards of qualification for replies to his very basic reasoning for retaining the present EU.
Surely within the 1 to 10 I've quoted above are sufficient examples of things that 'anti-EU' would prefer to have in place of, or, introduced for the present EU, bearing in mind we must all accept what is the fait accompli/de facto of the EU entity in pre-eminent 'Political' position.
How, when, where is it stated only the "..defence of Human Rights.." & "..strengthening of democratic values.." is possible via the EU!?
Manneken is surely over-stating the case for an EU: 'Peace' was upheld for 35 years without an EU & nothing of the last 20 years suggest the EU has contributed significantly to the continued 'peace in our time'.
Those 'Democratic values' Manneken declares so pertinent and in need of upkeeping were self-evident in the UK and across the whole of Western Europe & Scandinavia long before a Maastricht Treaty made a Single Union.
Though he has not done it Manneken at times writes as one of those duplicitous 'pro-EU' who regard any aspect of 'political-judicial-social' engineering outside/without the EU as never quite as good as that which Brussels has set down in documents.
Hence, alongside the Lisbon Treaty we have the EUropean Human Rights Declaration: A thoroughly worthy documewnt, but in truth its HR concepts were almost entirely in place across the UK & EUrope before the EU encoded its version!
The irony being that as the EU-Brussels entity trumpeted this laudable piece of 'democratic values' it passed into Law the Lisbon Treaty which in 26 of 27 Nations not 1 ordinary Citizen of a Democracy had had the opportunity to Vote upon!
Thus, we have Manneken, JorgeG1, JohnofH etc. all defending what IMO is the indefensible: It really does not matter whether we the 'anti' can provide evidence of an alternative when all we need do is point to the inescapable factual reality the EU Governance is WITHOUT EVIDENCE it retains the CONSENT/APPROVAL of its Citizenry.
Complain about this comment
instead of giving ireland 7 billion euros, every body in ireland should be given 1 orange instead.
Complain about this comment
#111 - CornwallCoastPath
You are right as I understand it that the decision to kill off the European Constitution was made by unanimous decision of the European Council but I don't think that was unreasonable. The whole thing was dead in the water. What would have been the point of holding a referendum on something which did not stand a snowball's hope of ever becoming law?
It is what happened next that really worries me. In effect, huge chunks of the constitution were simply cut and pasted into Lisbon but that was re-branded as a treaty which simply took away the tedious nonsense of having to consult with the people (apart from the Irish who got it right second time around). That was the point when I fell out of love with the European project. If you do not trust the people, the whole concept of democracy flies out of the window. I remain agnostic and I have not given up on the idea but my confidence is severely dented.
As regards a broader union involving the States, I could see a situation in which the UK or Ireland might look westwards in only because a common language and a shared history would make it easier. However, the idea odf a European American partnership seems to me too far fetched. The cultural differences are simply too deep. The right to bear arms? The death penalty? No I don't see it.
What I can see, if the EU project goes pear shaped would be a renewed British interest in the Commonwealth. The possibilities that exist in an organisation which embraces the massive potential of India and the investment clot of Canada, Australia and New Zealand is breathtaking.
Complain about this comment
#109. At 8:02pm on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken
For once you have thought about what you have said, I have worked with many Dutch Flemish and Walloon French speakers so I have a slight knowledge of the inability to move on from history as shown by the Flemish I know and have known. Belgium is in terms of attitude a country of enigmas as are you, the EU is liked but disliked, the Euro is liked but disliked, your post reflects that attitude, you champion an entity you know is flawed but you can't try to change it. For me it is strange that if you don't like the situation you don't firstly object and secondly try to change it, that is the English way, or at least it used to be.
As for Reynders, well even though he is no longer the president of the MR he still acts as if he is, he even sends birthday congratulations to the senior MR members who signed an open letter for his dismissal, rofl, rofl.
Complain about this comment
#112
Absolutely.
One of the things that really annoy me at this level is this tendency to "cement" economic policy. A good example are the Maastricht criteria. They should not be defined at Treaty level, but at governance level.
If a majority, qualified or otherwise, decides to alter them, that should be possible.
Same with the current Merkel/Sarkozy proposals. They should be done under the community process, so that we retain the flexibility to address changing circumstances.
So, yes, higher quality democracy at EU governance level. Specifically, as I have advocated many times, more transparency (e.g. making voting in the Council public). But that will increase the probability that this level will gain more power. The increased democratic level of EU decision making process reflects its growing power.
On your point about blurring EU/Euro. It's a good point, but lengthy. It seems like multi-speed Europe is the only solution to a lot of problems, otherwise the slowest participant decides the beat. I don't think it reflects quality, but wasn't it Lincoln who compared laws with sausages? Not a pretty sight, but sometimes necessary.
Complain about this comment
@ manneken, 103
*Up to you Eurosceptics to provide your vision (for the umpteenth time).*
They do provide it Manneken, don't despair. It comes in many shapes:
1. Glorious isolation :
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2010/08/britain_and_eu
2. Anglo-Saxon supremacism, i.e. to become the 51st state of the USA, notice how the Europhobes and their unelected tabloid bureaucrats loudly cheer when the UK joins any military enterprise (badly) conceived by Uncle Sam… but stand up in arms if they are reminded by a European Human Rights court that they should adhere to the very treaty they signed decades ago (which includes the inconvenient rule that prisoners are not stricken off their human & civil rights when sent to prison, they are just deprived of liberty)
3. Making Britain more like North Korea:
http://www.ft.com/cms/72b1ab96-8dea-11de-93df-00144feabdc0.html
4. ...and centuries old xenophobic anti European sentiment – This is from A History of England by Andre Maurois:
"And thus in the Sixteenth Century England produced an art and literature that were its very own. From European renaissance it took everything it suited its genius; thereafter it turned its back on the continent. In Tudor times everything contributed to make it more insular: the developments in the national language, the construction of a powerful navy, the break-up with the Roman church. One needs to read the Memories of Sully, the story of a French ambassador in London, from early Seventeenth century, to fully understand how violent English xenophobia was at the time: "It is true that the English hate us – writes Sully –, and with such a strong and general hatred that we are tempted to consider it as one of the natural traits of this people. This hatred is, above all, the result of their pride and conceit, since no other people exist in Europe who is more arrogant, contemptuous, more inebriated with the idea of their own excellence. If we were to believe them, only in them reason and spirituality can be found; they adore their own opinions and despise those from other nations; the idea of listening to others or hold a healthy mistrust of themselves never crosses their mind. On the other hand, with such a character, they hurt themselves more than they hurt us. They are at the mercy of their own caprices. Surrounded by sea, it is almost as if they had assimilated their own instability. One of the secrets of the popularity of the Tudors is, precisely, the art with which they knew how to adulate the insular prejudices and the pride of their subjects" [this was long before Murdoch, the Daily Mail and other unelected tabloid bureaucrats took a leaf from the Tudors' book and elevated this art to new heights].
[extract translated by myself, can be checked here http://www.scribd.com , searching for the book and going to page 261, requires signing in]
Several centuries later little has changed it seems...
Complain about this comment
#114 - Lorentz
How can they reject Kenny's proposals out of hand when he is holding the trump card - default? And the damage that Ireland has caused? The real economy is in good shape. It is the property market and the financial services sector which has gone belly up and you don't think that the ECB had something to do with that?
Complain about this comment
100. At 5:49pm on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
Re the inception of the EUro-zone, "Of the 12 founders, 9 were in-line."
Correction to Your correction of Buzet23.
Your claim to '9' Nations completuing the 'qualification' criteria for the EUro-zone is manifestly incorrect.
Only 4 Nations were inside the criteria: Most of the original 15 did not fulfill the criteria as laid down by the EU-ECB & of those 6 were not even close.
Manneken need only look back at the EU's own EUROPEANA & EUROSTAT web-pages to see Your claim is inaccurate.
Complain about this comment
#120. At 8:52pm on 05 Mar 2011, JorgeG1
Boring and pathetic.
Complain about this comment
@ 123
"Boring and pathetic."
What... an extract from the History of England?
Complain about this comment
#119. At 8:50pm on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken
Here is a question for you as someone who seems to know Belgium.
Since Belgium is in effect the heart of the EU with a federal government comprising of three regions (Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels) and three languages (French, Dutch and German). Can you explain why Belgium is currently imploding because of the linguistic and historical differences between the various parties whilst the EU which is composed of 27 different nations and languages and historical differences is expected to succeed. If a small country can't make it work then who can?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Manneken, 103:
At least your tone is a bit more measured this time - good to see that!
But I'm afraid you refer to my entry (93) without really appreciating what I'm saying - apologies if I wasn't clear!
"Why the EU? As I've said many times before, the short answer is peace, prosperity and democracy."
The very point I was making in 93 was that peace, prosperity and democracy are not the sole concerns of Europeans. So why the focus on Europe? Please answer that question!
"I'm happy to discuss alternatives, but where are they?"
Please read 93!
"Up to you Eurosceptics to provide your vision"
Please read 93!
"I've asked many times what the project of the Eurosceptics is. I never get an answer."
That's rather endearing - it assumes that Eurosceptics share the same basic mentality as the Eurobelievers, namely that there has to be a grand projet of some sort!
I can't speak for other Eurosceptics, but I set out my vision in 93 of how I would like the world (and by implication Europe) to be. And I think I gave a fair analysis of how the EU matches up to that vision.
By "project" do you mean a detailed plan to achieve that vision? I'll see if I can take an afternoon off work and produce one. But it certainly wouldn't include incomprehensible treaties whose purpose is to obscure rather than enlighten!
In the meantime, here's a draft version of a project specifically for Europe:
(1) The EU to state clearly and publicly what its objectives are. If it is to create a new superpower to rival the US, that should be spelt out.
(2) The merging of the current nation states into a new nation state (if that is the objective) to be done on an entirely democratic basis. (1) is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for this. Other necessary conditions include the informed and ongoing consent of the peoples of all the current nation states.
(3) The Lisbon Treaty (and the European Constitution if it still exists) to be annulled and replaced with a clear treaty explaining the relationships between the member states and the EU. In accordance with relationships between willing parties, leaving the EU should be possible unilaterally (i.e. if either the EU or the member state wishes it).
(4) There should be referendums in all member states on whether to accept this new treaty. Any nation voting No will be free to leave the EU.
(5) There should be regular referendums (e.g. every 5 years) in all member states on whether they wish to remain in the EU.
In summary, the EU will only consist of those countries whose populations, having been fully informed about the EU's objectives, are in favour of membership.
Hope that's enough to be getting on with ...
Complain about this comment
Mods, re 126,
Here we go again, it's ok to criticise England but it breaks the house rules to answer, if you allow #120 then you should allow the right of reply, is that too much to ask for once?????????
Complain about this comment
#125
I've answered enough questions. "A fool can ask more questions than a wise person can answer" someone said way back. I don't have to justify the EU's existence - it is actually there.
Where's your vision? What's the project of the Eurosceptics? I keep asking. Never an answer.
(btw, under Reynders, and he did try to drive the finance ministry into the ground, public debt dropped further from 100 to 80% of GDP, until the banks collapsed and the bail-out cost between 15 and 20% of GDP)
Complain about this comment
the "funny" part is that countries like slovakia with average salary 600 euros per month but of course european prices need to lend money to save "poor" nations of greece and ireland
Complain about this comment
#120
jorgeg1;
So what is your post saying, that Tudor England hated the French? Duh, yeah...and?? You know, in 4 years time its 200 years of continuous peace between Britain and France which has far more relevance than your Tudor nonsense. In that time, France and Germany have been at war 3 times.
Complain about this comment
What is missing from the new Irish Government's statements are the acknowledgment of responsibilities. I had thought that placing all the blame on Ahern and Cowan was just more of the same meaningless political game play.
I don't recall Edna decrying what we all now know was surreal housing and commercial prices and lending. I don't recall the Irish news looking into the justification of the outrageous personal spending by the Irish people in general. We don't hear very often from those who spent more than they were earning and now are in foreclosure, we just hear them crying on the news how they are desperate not to lose the house it turns out they couldn't afford from Day 1. For years we wondered what were we doing wrong while friends and family all around were living it up in new luxury homes, new cars in the new circular drive. Now all of ye want ME and mine to help pay for debt I didn't run up or cause.
There were lone voices questioning how on earth it was all being done but unfortunately none of these were in government, banking or business in Ireland. Now as a nation we have to pay the price of it. But before I pay it, the bankers and developers living in mansions need to sell off their 'stuff'- from their jewels to their cars. Bankers Bonus agreements have to be ripped up - they didn't earn the ones they got all these years so either claw it back or rip up agreement. Bankers and Developers mansions should be turned into childcare homes or homes for the aged. We can't build a better future till we all acknowledge our past mistakes and accept responsibility.
Complain about this comment
#129. At 9:34pm on 05 Mar 2011, Manneken
You perpetually ask questions and now that I do the same you can't answer, so be it.
As for Reynders I guess you still haven't understood the complexity of what he managed to achieve despite my clues, look at how the public debt shifted from being internal to external. Manipulating figures to make them appear good so that you appear a good manager is a typical politicians trick, Gordon Brown was very good at that, so is Reynders. The Belgian rot was there before the crisis hit, Manneken.
Complain about this comment
Still confused...
Okay; the Irish government took on a huge mountain of debt to bail out Irish banks. This screwed their finances up so badly that they needed a bail out. The chances of them actually paying off the loads at 5.8% interest look somewhat slim so there is a high chance of bankruptcy. The Irish want to re-set the interest rates on their debt to a lower level, about 2%.
If the Irish default then what will happen to the interest rates that the market will demand on Italian, Greek, Spanish and Portugese debt? If Ireland defaults without serious painfull consequences then who is going to lend money to the other troubled economies?
If the UK and Germany accept a reduced rate on the Irish debt, 2% has been mentioned, then the cash gained from Ireland will not cover the debts taken on by these countries when they borrowed the cash to hand on to Ireland. In effect the bad debt will be transferred to these countries. Before this happens it must be made absolutely clear to the world that Ireland has done everything it can to meet its obligations. This isn't yet true. Which public assets has Ireland sold to repay its debt? How far has Ireland gone to meet the competitive criteria proposed by Germany? How much deeper can Ireland cut its public expenditure?
The measures required of Ireland to service their debts may be unpopular in Ireland but sadly beggars can't be choosers and it is the opinion of Ireland's creditors that is important. It is the creditors who will decide whether or not Ireland has gone far enough in attempting to meet its obligations.
If Ireland defaults then the treatment of Ireland by the EU, China and the US is likely to be harsh. The EU will wish to make clear to the other PIIGS that defaulting is not an attractive option. China and the US are likely to support the actions of the biggest economy on the planet.
I don't understand how Ireland is a position to negotiate. What can they offer in return for improved terms? If Ireland gets improved terms then why not the other PIIGS?
Complain about this comment
We all know Ireland is going to fail...and the Sun is going to turn into a giant red star and the Universe will eventally collapse and then have a big bang again.
Why can't one just reform the EU? Why has the word 'union' become fighting words...cant the democracy of the current system (quote unquote) be improved upon.
Make it like an election, perhaps. But, if the elected people DID appoint the "Lady" Ashton, isn't that democratically elected??
Also, here is an off topic link that provokes thought. I agreed with the article becomes I'm have all of these flaws.
www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html
Complain about this comment
btw, the article is supposed to be provoking thought, (if one looks it up under the author name--there are articles with the thought provoking thought of "why my cat is not married."
So, just opening up the blog, not disrespecting it.
Complain about this comment
Also, WebAlice,
I'm only somewhat partial to Facebook because it is soooo not addictive for me and it demands too much of a persons time....you end up ignoring people if you just play the games...like I do.
And I probably seem rude...and I'm not really rude :)
Complain about this comment
123 Buzet writes:
#120. At 8:52pm on 05 Mar 2011, JorgeG1
"Boring and pathetic."
Not at all, I found it extremely interesting, especially the extract by Andre Maurois. Jorge is right, nothing has changed.
However, if there was a contribution that deserved your epithet then it was *115. I can only assume that the poor moderators were so overcome by sheer boredom that they passed it in utter desperation. It takes some conceit to assume that anyone might be interested in such meaningless, incoherent ramblings.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#120 JorgeG1
Well, Andre Maurois eh ? Of whom the late Kenneth Clark (presenter of the television series 'Civilisation' and father of the late Alan Clark MP) says
"Soon after the fall of Paris I received a visit from M André Maurois. I am an admirer of his biographies, and when I had met him in the past I had enjoyed his conversation. On this occasion the graceful raconteur was in a very different mood. All he wanted to do was to attack England for having stood up to Hitler. He said that our obstinacy was an insult to France, a menace to Europe and a crime against history. All this was said with passion and a certain malevolence. I realised that at the moment the French, having failed to fight the Germans, felt they must fight someone, and I listened patiently -- but inwardly I was seething with rage, and after about twenty minutes diatribe I showed him the door. He said he was on his way to America, where he could pour out his far-sighted view of history into more receptive ears. If a Jew like Maurois felt so bitterly opposed to our resistance that he had to repeat it to every Englishman he met, what, I wondered, could the other French intellectuals, many of whom had been secretly pro-German for some time, have been saying about us?"
...perhaps because one of André Maurois' sponsors was Philippe Pétain - Head of State of the collaborative Vichy government of not very fond memory.
Complain about this comment
Clive Hill: secret internal inquiry by the European Parliament has found widespread abuse of expenses by MEPs employing ficticious staff or unqualified family members, it was revealed last night....
So are you suggesting, Clive, that it's not only EU subsidies for non-existing olive-groves in Greece?
P.S. And how many fictitious Ph.D.s are there in the EU Parliament?
Complain about this comment
#138
mhoward;
Trying to pass this off as history is real conceit. Which year did you drop history in favour of Home Ec mags?
"I googled to find a list of the wars England started during,say, the last 300 years in its lust for power during its empire building days, but it was too long and cumbersome to reproduce (I gave up by the one about 'Jenkin's ear'). However, is there anyone in the world England hasn't fought against or invaded? Once Ireland, Scotland and Wales were overwhelmed, the continent was next. Interminable wars against the Spanish, the French, 3 Dutch wars. Then the rest of world was the target: American wars (including burning down the White House), various uprisings in India cruelly put down, the three Boer wars, Afghan wars (now in the middle of the 4th one there),Russia, Crimea, Iraq, Opium wars against the Chinese etc etc.
In fact curiously enough about the only country England didn't go to war against was Germany right until the 20th century. No doubt because all the kings and queens in the last 300 years were German right up to the present queen, and she is half German, half Scottish, married to Philip of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg"
Complain about this comment
#134 Ulkomaalainen
If the Irish default then what will happen to the interest rates that the market will demand on Italian, Greek, Spanish and Portugese debt? If Ireland defaults without serious painfull consequences then who is going to lend money to the other troubled economies?
One of the problems of the eurozone is that these nations cannot print money (QE) to meet their obligations. That would cause currency devaluation but those nations might decide it's a price worth paying. They do not have that option because they are in the eurozone.
The ECB could do that and continue to prop up their finances in place of their central banks. The ECB did it in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) for some time but were not allowed to continue, mostly by Germany.
#134 Ulkomaalainen
If the UK and Germany accept a reduced rate on the Irish debt, 2% has been mentioned, then the cash gained from Ireland will not cover the debts taken on by these countries when they borrowed the cash to hand on to Ireland.
The ECB and Germany borrow at a much lower rate than the RoI. German 5-year bond rates are currently 2%. The ECB can borrow at less than 3%. To turn it around, why should the EU profit by nearly 3% (the difference between the ECB borrowing rate and the 5.8% the RoI has to pay) at the RoI's expense ?
#134 Ulkomaalainen
...it must be made absolutely clear to the world that Ireland has done everything it can to meet its obligations. This isn't yet true. Which public assets has Ireland sold to repay its debt? How far has Ireland gone to meet the competitive criteria proposed by Germany? How much deeper can Ireland cut its public expenditure?
The RoI has been a model of austerity (this WSJ article from just after the Irish bailout was announced). The problem is that austerity measures can also affect growth without which the debt can never be paid ...draining more cash out of the economy could exacerbate Ireland's fiscal problems. The unemployment rate in Ireland, at about 14%, remains higher than the euro-zone average of 10%. If Ireland's efforts slam consumer spending and hit tax revenues, it could make it harder to fix the deficit, creating a negative spiral that prevents Ireland from paying its debts without a restructuring. 'restructuring' means 'default'.
#134 Ulkomaalainen
The measures required of Ireland to service their debts may be unpopular in Ireland but sadly beggars can't be choosers and it is the opinion of Ireland's creditors that is important. It is the creditors who will decide whether or not Ireland has gone far enough in attempting to meet its obligations.
German, French and UK banks are heavily exposed to debt in the PIIGS.Banks in Germany, Europe's biggest economy, had $512.7 billion at risk to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain at the end of the second quarter. That included $59.6 billion to the public sector and $150.4 billion to banks, the BIS said.
French lenders had $410.2 billion at stake in the four countries. Banks in the UK had $370 billion at risk, and lenders in the U.S. $352.9 billion. Globally, lenders had about $242.4 billion in public-sector exposure to Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal, the BIS figures showed.
It is this that drove the EU to 'force' the RoI to accept a bailout rather than default. Default would have been a much better financial option for the RoI. In the end, at this bailout repayment interest rate which is politically based - they will have no choice. Nor will Greece which is in a similar situation.
#134 Ulkomaalainen
If Ireland defaults then the treatment of Ireland by the EU, China and the US is likely to be harsh.
The only Irish 'fault' in all of this has been allegations of corruption between Fianna Fail politicians and property developers. The Republic of Ireland's interest rate was too low because it belonged to the Euro. The bailout was accepted by them because they could not devalue because they belonged to the Euro.
#134 Ulkomaalainen
The EU will wish to make clear to the other PIIGS that defaulting is not an attractive option. China and the US are likely to support the actions of the biggest economy on the planet.
The EU may vent political 'harshness' on the RoI but they can do little or nothing financially because of the exposure of EU banks to Irish debt. The US and China will regard this as a eurozone, not RoI problem because the Irish have been forced down this path by belonging to the eurozone.
I don't understand how Ireland is a position to negotiate. What can they offer in return for improved terms? If Ireland gets improved terms then why not the other PIIGS?
What they can offer is not to default. The other PIIGS should get better terms.
As Manneken has explained, the Euro was a political project. These repayment interest rates are politically motivated and financially ridiculous. There will be much political noise and quiet 'financial adjustment'. Probably when the German state elections are over.
Complain about this comment
#115
Thank you for a long answer. I see two basic problems with your approach. The first is where you qualify the quotes you mention as "an alternative".
I don't think they qualify. E.g. the analysis that the Euro caused the financial problems or the Irish bankruptcy (such as it seems to be) is deeply flawed, extremely simplistic and actually just plain wrong. I've called that "quod erat demonstrandum" before. It's circular, unproven, not shared by independent analysts, and just doesn't pass the quality bar of proper debate. These quotes are not alternatives, they are criticisms of specific bits, which then turn out to be either incorrect or presenting facts in a very biased way (e.g. calling the EU institutions "undemocratic" or "unelected"). They are neither. I don't argue by putting on labels.
The second problem is that your answer lacks in substance. The EU is about peace, prosperity and democracy. It dates from 1957 (arguably 1952), by the way, not the 70s.
It starts from the observation that previous political arrangements in Europe led to massacre and mass destruction on an unprecedented scale. It is intellectually dishonest to dissociate the EU from the world wars - without them, the EU would never have come into existence in the first place!
How do eurosceptics propose to have europeans live in peace, prosperity and democracy? We know that "sovereign nation-states" go to war. History proves it.
We also know that a free-trade association (EFTA) is vastly inferior to the EEC, and that the EU is the result of that competition (in itself a good thing, I think). Why else would the UK have switched camps, back in the 60s?
You say I overstate my case. I don't think I do. I don't "believe" in the EU, I only observe that it is extremely successful, while a lot could be better at the level of organization, transparency etc. I'm afraid of war in Europe. Yugoslavia proves I'm right to.
But I also observe that improving the EU, which is necessary, almost always seems to point to better internal functioning of the EU, which in turn has the effect of moving power to the federal level.
I would be against that, were it not for the three goals and one argument. The three goals are peace, prosperity and democracy. The one argument: everyone is free to leave.
The EU is not an empire - the first time this happens to Europe.
It proves its value every day - but not in a dogmatic, high-handed way, but through little, incremental steps that actually improve peoples lives in ways that national states have been unable to provide throughout history.
That being said, it does not excuse for the lack of transparency and accountability we still observe, or the fact that political debate is often done on dishonest terms. But that calls for action within teh current structure, rather than trying to destroy or vilify it.
Complain about this comment
#143
clivehill;
"The ECB and Germany borrow at a much lower rate than the RoI. German 5-year bond rates are currently 2%. The ECB can borrow at less than 3%. To turn it around, why should the EU profit by nearly 3% (the difference between the ECB borrowing rate and the 5.8% the RoI has to pay) at the RoI's expense ?"
I'm surprised you think that 5.8% is high for a borrower that is at risk of default.
Complain about this comment
#127
Thank you very much for your post.
It's interesting that a lot of your points seem to be about a better quality of the treaties, or a clarification of what the EU is actually about. Let me try to address them one by one.
"(1) The EU to state clearly and publicly what its objectives are. If it is to create a new superpower to rival the US, that should be spelt out."
The treaty of Rome, back in 1957, spelled out "ever closer union" as its objective. I think that's pretty clear.
Churchill himself said it: we need the United States of Europe. He just envisioned the Empire outside that. He wanted three players: the Empire, the USofA and the USofE (built around France/Germany). Then Suez happened, and the UK realised the empire was gone.
"(2) New Nation-state." This is not the goal. The EU is not a nation-state, and never will be. The constitutional treaty clearly spelled out "unity in diversity". The diversity is essential. The EU wants the opposite of the cultural monolithic approach of the USA.
"(3) A new treaty. Sigh. Really? We tried it before. It gave us 10 years of discussion, first the constitution, then lisbon. What we observe, is that when we get ordinary people of Europe together, it automatically tends to become some kind of federal project (people want the freedom to move, invest, work etc. - that's the internal market, the corner stone - the rest seems to follow naturally). It is typically the member-states who resist such a clear definition, because they stand to lose out.
What you propose is along the lines of the constitutional treaty process. Call it differently, but it would still be largely the same. Happy to do it again, but I don't think the result will be very different.
Still, you only mention a process. What would you like to see as the end result?
(4) and (5). I disagree with the referendums. It's not a vision, anyway, it's just a rather flawed technique of decision making. Would you accept an EU-wide referendum on such a new treaty? Thought not - and it underscores my point.
If the eurosceptic view is limited to a strong preference for referendums as a decision-making process, then the EU case is sure to win the argument. It's very shallow as a platform.
As to leaving the EU - that is now perfectly possible. It doesn't take a referendum, only a national party winning an election. The EU cannot stop a member-state from leaving. The process would take some time (as does application for membership), but no-one would stop it, if some member-state really wanted to leave. They would lose their rights as a member-state though (i.e. being in the internal market, rather than outside, and be part of the decision making process).
I believe it would be very unfair to give the EU or other member-states the right to push out a member-state. It should only be the right to leave, not the right to push out. As it is today.
Complain about this comment
Clearly there is no depth to which the fragrant Margaret will not slip to reveal her uninformed at best and shamless ignorance of factual reality at worst concerning 'BRITIAN' and the 'BRITISH' over the Centuries!
That the fragrant lady finds favour for JorgeG1's contribution including, "3. 'Making Britain More Like North Korea'" typifies a state of mind completely at odds with the perspective of the literally the rest of the 'free' World!
The insult perpetrated on the terribly long-suffering North Koreans by JorgeG1 & MHoward by hinting any comparison of their deprivations was the equal of Britons truly reaches a depth of malice & invective that tests to the limit my resolve NOT to refer Comments.
IMO neither 'anti-English-speaking peoples' contributor deserves to be indulged any more by others on this Blog, however, I don't favour boycotts and am aware not everyone will share my view, so perhaps it is best to just record:
JorgeG1's #120 was a sickening post.
MHoward's #138 in its support is revolting.
Complain about this comment
The Irish want help but on their terms ! The Irish 'economy' is one built from over indulgence and extravagance. Where they have lived on borrowed money based on ridiculous over-valuations of land and property.
You've enjoyed the cream now it's time to get realistic- if it wasn't for the EU you would already be bankrupt. Stopo blaming everybody else.
It's time people took responsibility for their own actions you pay more interest because you are a big risk simple as that. Get your country in order cut out the fat tighten your belts and then you'll all see the benefit.
Complain about this comment
#131 champagne_charlie
So what is your post saying, that Tudor England hated the French? Duh, yeah...
Well, no.
The reason I felt at liberty to attack André Maurois' objectivity is because JorgeG1's quote from him is so subjective.
#120 JorgeG1
...thereafter it turned its back on the continent...
The Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 celebrated a treaty between France and England (Francis I and Henry VIII). In 1514 at the same time as that treaty was signed, the English Henry Grace a Dieu the largest warship in the world at the time was launched. The treaty - and thus the warship - do not suggest isolation.
In Tudor times everything contributed to make it more insular: the developments in the national language, the construction of a powerful navy, the break-up with the Roman church.
The key to all of that was the break with the catholic church. That was all to do with the Holy Roman Emperor being Catherine of Aragon's nephew and pressuring Pope Clement VII (who was actually captured by Charles V in 1527/8) not to annul Henry's marriage to Catherine.
That annulment was vital to the Tudor succession. Henry had to have sons and Catherine was past child bearing age.
One needs to read the Memories of Sully...
In the wikipedia entry on Maximilien de Béthune, Duke of Sully, it says this (my bold):
Sully left a collection of memoirs written in the second person very valuable for the history of the time and as an autobiography, in spite of the fact that they contain many fictions, such as a mission undertaken by Sully to Queen Elizabeth in 1601. Perhaps among his most famous works was the idea of a Europe composed of 15 roughly equal States, under the direction of a "Very Christian Council of Europe", charged with resolving differences and disposing of a common army. This famous "Grand Design," a Utopian plan for a Christian republic, is often cited as one of the first grand plans and ancestors for the European Union
So I can see where JorgeG1 got the inspiration.
Complain about this comment
#144. At 08:32am on 06 Mar 2011, Manneken,
You make some wild assertions there that can't be proved :-
"The EU is about peace, prosperity and democracy."
Nato is about peace in Europe and it has achieved that, the EEC, and EU had nothing to do with that, prosperity and democracy are indeed the objectives of the EEC and EU but they are objectives that are yet to be reached. The concept of spreading wealth over the whole EU means those that have get poorer and disgruntled, Germans will not accept their hard earned money being blown on Greece, Ireland Portugal etc for ever. As for democracy, well even you agree that this is lacking in the EU.
"We also know that a free-trade association (EFTA) is vastly inferior to the EEC, and that the EU is the result of that competition (in itself a good thing, I think). Why else would the UK have switched camps, back in the 60s?"
Do we know? what proof do you have of this, as for the UK switching sides that was because of a dreadful deceit perpetrated on the UK public by the PM Edward Heath who was an avid EEC/EU federalist, but said all that was wanted was a common market. I was a 'pro' activist at that time and campaigned for a 'yes' vote, but regret that intensely, if the internet had been available then Heath would not have got away with the lie as we could have examined the treaty of Rome in detail and seen the lies. EFTA was just an association or in other words a sort of confederation where cooperation for mutual benefit is promoted, there was no need for an expensive, bureaucratic nanny superstate overseeing every action and making the economies moribund with excessive unnecessary regulations.
Complain about this comment
#145 champagne_charlie
I'm surprised you think that 5.8% is high for a borrower that is at risk of default.
Not on the open market but this is not the open market. In fact Irish 10-year bonds on the open market pay above 9%.
The bailout the Irish (and Greeks) have from the EU is the equivalent of having a loan arrangement with your own central bank. There is an argument to say that they should pay the same interest rate as the ECB if you regard the eurozone as a unified financial entity.
Complain about this comment
#149
clivehill
Within one year of the FOTCOG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1521-1526
Complain about this comment
#152 champagne_charlie
Within one year of the FOTCOG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1521-1526
...but are you saying that is sufficient for your line that Tudor England hated the French? Duh, yeah ?
This is about Henry VIII's foreign policy. This section is about 1538:
On paper, Henry was in a weak position against such united powerful opponents and he tried to break up the Habsburg-Valois entente - he even offered himself for marriage to various French princesses but this came to nothing. In November 1538 Henry involved himself in negotiations for marriage to the niece of Charles V – but this too came to nothing.
So Henry VIII was not especially opposed to France. He just wanted to keep France and the Holy Roman Empire from ganging up on him.
Complain about this comment
#153
clivehill;
"...but are you saying that is sufficient for your line that Tudor England hated the French?"
On reflection, probably not.
Complain about this comment
#146 Manneken
The treaty of Rome, back in 1957, spelled out "ever closer union" as its objective. I think that's pretty clear.
It is not clear. As I asked you earlier, does it end in a nation-state ? A United States of Europe ? It seems to be what you are advocating yet you continually disparage nation-states.
Churchill himself said it: we need the United States of Europe. He just envisioned the Empire outside that. He wanted three players: the Empire, the USofA and the USofE (built around France/Germany). Then Suez happened, and the UK realised the empire was gone.
If there was a point at which the UK empire would have been perceived to have gone, it was the independence of India in 1947. Thereafter it was referred to as the 'Commonwealth of Nations'.
So why did France apply to join the Commonwealth in late 1956 if they had been aspiring to the EEC since 1952 ?:
A British Government document of the time reported, "The French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis." The request was turned down by the British prime minister Anthony Eden, along with a request for Commonwealth membership, and a year later France signed the Treaty of Rome with West Germany and the other founding nations of the Common Market, later to become the EU...
Complain about this comment
#149 Clive Hill
Good post in reply to #120 from JorgeG1.
JorgeGI said euro sceptic views of glorious isolation stemmed from Tudor time. Nothing could be further from the truth as that was the time when England began to develop trade routes, backed by a growing navy, with the rest of the known world.
The break with the Church of Rome provided the opportunity for English privateers like Sir John Hawkins and his cousin, Sir Francis Drake, to break into he Spanish/Portugese monopoly of the New World that the Pope had decreed. We wanted a piece of the action and we took it by force. At the same time, Hawkins developed the skills and the knowledge to modernise the English navy in time to defeat the Spanish Armada.
Our foreign policy towards Europe since Elizabethan times has been to ensure that no single European power should dominate, or threaten to dominate, the continent of Europe. For anyone to suggest that can be described as a policy of glorious isolation is truly ridiculous!
The Great Britain that emerged with the accession of James 1 in 1603 was a country that looked to the entire world, not just to Europe, and that remains true today. We have good links with the Commonwealth and the English speaking world and most of us have relatives and friends living there. We are far more international than the Europeans in our outlook.
Europe on the other hand remains a collection of mainly insular looking nations with far weaker links with the rest of the world and with a quite different attitude to us on all manner of things, from the domination of the Church of Rome in many countries to the system of law based on the Napoleonic code rather than the Common Law.
Europe is a great place to do business with, like the rest of the world, but it is not a place where we should be seeking "an ever closer union". That is simply a bureaucratic nightmare that makes us al poorer and we see all the evidence for that in the disasterous effects of abandoning economic reality in setting up the Euro.
We need to reinvent EFTA and then Europe will get richer and leave NATO to look after our security.
Complain about this comment
#156. At 10:35am on 06 Mar 2011, busby2
Well said and especially "We need to reinvent EFTA and then Europe will get richer and leave NATO to look after our security". That is indeed the sort of change that is needed, however I'm sure the politicians throughout the EU will be against this as it diminishes their prestige by being responsible for just their own nation and electorate. Their egos are all they consider it seems.
As for the Euro, if it had just been Germany, France and the Benelux countries it may have worked and even been suitable for the UK, as the pre-requisite is always economies that have converged and are very similar. Without that pre-requisite being absolutely satisfied the one-size-fits-all interest rate is a noose on a hangman's gallows waiting for a head (i.e. a Nation).
Complain about this comment
#150
My dear Buzet23: "As for democracy, well even you agree that this is lacking in the EU."
I think you have now crossed the line of normal debate, with the most insidious and intellectually dishonest thing you have ever posted (and it was a challenge). Just as well this blog is moderated, and, unlike your good self, I don't believe in insults as political arguments, or words starting with "sc." and ending on ".mbag" would jump to mind.
On balance (you should try that, actually, it's a liberating technique of thinking), the EU is more democratic than some of its member-states. The UK is a good example.
In the Eu, legislation is made by three bodies: the council, the commission and the EP. The EP is directly elected. The council consists of the governments of the member states - typically elected by majority (with some exceptions). The EC is proposed by the council and approved by the EP, who can vote them away at any time.
In the UK, legislation is made by three bodies: the monarch, the commons and the lords. The monarch is hereditary. The lords are appointed by the government of the time, often on the basis of money gifts to parties in power. The commons have not produced a government representing more than 50% of votes at any time since the war, except for the last one. The commons have not voted away a government since time immemorial.
The EU has a clear constitutional framework, division of powers and subsidiarity. No happenstance majority can abolish human rights or due process.
The UK has no constitutional guarantees, and its parliament, will powerless in practice, can be used by any happenstance majority to abolish all guarantees of the rule of law or civil liberties. There is no subsidiarity or any limit on the amount of power the government wishes to grab.
The EP has real power. It forces the council and the commission very often to change policies or legislation, sometimes profoundly.
The commons has no real power. They rubber-stamp.
Buzet23, unless you start to improve the quality of your postings to the level that this blog deserves, and until you withhold from twisting the truth and throwing insults, my recommendation is you keep to yourself. At the moment, you're just intellectual clutter.
Complain about this comment
"The EU is about peace, prosperity and democracy."
Lets examine this one:
1) Peace: arguably democracy is the key to peace as the examples of fully democratic countries engaged in war with each other are limited. However, this argument is slightly flawed as fully democratic countries have only really existed since end of 19th century (UK, America, France). But based on the Balkan civil wars over the last 20 years it is clear that the EU is utterly incapable of keeping the peace, but entirely capable of sitting on the side lines wringing their hands and worrying about the mental effects on their poor soldiers whilst mass murder takes place around them
2) Prosperity. I am struggling to think of any successful long term democratic political structure that does not promise prosperity and does not have some track record of delivering it. The point is meaningless as there are many routes to prosperity and many definitions of prosperity
3) Democracy - that would be except for referendums that do not produce the result the EU wants or, in Austria's case electing in free and fair elections a party the EU did not like. EU record does not support that statement
Fundamentally I believe that the EU is going down a road that the UK will not follow and indeed it should not follow. That road may be right for some countries and I would be sad to lose some of the benefits that the membership of the EU has brought but in the end the UK simply is not European, busby2 has pointed out that EU countries run on Napoleonic legal code and we run on common law - it is my view that the difference is so fundamental not just about how law works but also the role of law makers and many of the "proportionality" concepts of human rights laws, that UK detachment from the EU is almost inevitable. That does not mean that we will cease to be members but that we will negotiate more and more opt outs
Finally there is always one argument that pro-EU posters never rise to. How can you defend the EU when it continues to insist on the CAP, a policy which clearly but indirectly, conspires with its equally detestable US equivalent, to ensure that poverty and starvation remain rife throughout Africa by denying them the ability to compete in world markets for food products. The CAP should have been abolished 40 years ago but continues for no reason other than the French desire to bribe their farming vote, after all which is more important the lives of millions of Africans or a few thousand French farming votes.
Complain about this comment
#155
No, not a nation-state. A union of states and peoples. I know it goes outside the framework of 19th century political thinking, but hey, the world changes. So do political concepts.
Sometimes some people even come up with something that didn't exist before. Why don't you try opening up your mind on this one?
Your example on France applying commonwealth status proves my point: in the aftermath of WWII, Europeans were looking for new, better ways of political organization, since the previous one (the nation-state) failed miserably.
It would seem odd they would not have tried many different formulas (the European Defense Union was another one that never made it - it was killed by the French Parliament - this was another major step towards the EEC).
The interesting thing, which the Eurosceptics keep ignoring, is that the EU is the result of this Darwinian competition between different forms of governance in Europe. As with most evolutionary products, it's not as pretty as it could be. But it is better than the alternatives. EFTA has had its day - it's failed.
#156
Leave security to NATO? So you favor the Americans rule Europe? I'm not ready to be a colony just yet.
Complain about this comment
Actually, an intelligent study of Tudor foreign policy reveals three things which much of the above has ignored. Firstly, it fluctuated wildly depending on who was in power at the time and more especially the religion of the incumbent. What you see in the reign of Henry VII is relative calm but based on a firm alliance with Spain largely due to marriage.
In the reign of Henry VIII, you start to see the emergence of modern diplomatic pragmatism. It is simply not true to say that the Tudors hated France. They laid claim to it. Henry VIII's title style changed several times throughout his reign but the title King of France was never dropped. Nevertheless, England continued to have an 'off and on relationship' with France throughout the long reign and direct confrontation was actually quite rare. Henry played one alliance off against another in a way which would eventually mature into the doctrine of maintaining the 'balance of power' in the seventeenth century which can, in many ways, be regarded as the high point of British diplomacy provided you are willing to accept the primacy of pragmatism over moral considerations.
It is the French alliance with Scotland which confuses issues later. The reign of Mary creates an entirely different scenario, not least because of the reversion to Catholicism and her Scottish power base. The French basically sat on their hands during the reign of Elizabeth I understanding that the outcome of the Spanish/English confrontation would determine the balance of power in the region. In the event, the Armada was defeated, the Anglican supremacy established and French involvement ceases until the accession of James I (VI of Scotland) and the Act of Union which effectively ends the Franco-Scottish alliance. Of course we are no longer in the Tudor era.
It is interesting though that the French continued to support the Stuart cause long after they fell from power as their support of the uprisings of 1715 and 1745 plainly shows. The French support for the American revolution is another example of the way in which both France and Britain were pursuing policy for purely pragmatic reasons. It really is not until 1815 and the second congress of Vienna that you begin to see the logic of the entente cordiale and the futility of further conflict.
Champagne Charlie has referred to this in his earlier post and he is right. There has been no Franco-British conflict since then. But Charlie, four wars with their eastern neighbours - two Franco-Prussian wars and then those two nasty little incidents in the 20th century.
Complain about this comment
158. At 11:40am on 06 Mar 2011, Manneken
Oh dear. So far I have respected but not always agreed with you but the following is complete garbage and demonstrates a complete ignorance of British constitutional arrangements:-
"In the UK, legislation is made by three bodies: the monarch, the commons and the lords. The monarch is hereditary. The lords are appointed by the government of the time, often on the basis of money gifts to parties in power".
In the UK, legislation occurs in one of the following ways:
1. Proposals put before the Commons in the form of a Bill.
2. Proposals put before the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland assembly where these relate to devolved powers.
3. Bills that come before the Commons - generally but by no means always instigated by the Executive - if passed go forward to the Lords which can delay implementation for up to one year unless the Commons invoke the Parliament Act in which case the Lords are overruled.
4. The Bill having been approved by the democratically accountable Commons and either endorsed or imposed upon the Lords goes to the Monarch who quite simply gives the royal assent whereupon it becomes an Act and is enshrined in law.
Except in so far as she may be consulted in a private capacity, the monarch has no part in the law making process except for simply signing the instrument. The role of the Lords is entirely secondary. While I would agree that two successive governments have completely messed up the necessary reforms of that house, it is simply not true to say that a bunch of political appointees has the power to alter or reject legislation.
Whatever your position on the wider matters, you do your case no favours by misrepresenting UK constitutional arrangements, especially if you have a subtext of seeking to show that the UK is not a democracy. Out of interest, if the UK and other member states have questionable democratic credentials and it is their appointees who make up the Council of Ministers and the Commission, where does that leave your claim that the EU is democratic?
Complain about this comment
Manneken
The moderators didn't like my original , so here is an edited version , hoping to leave out the unpleasant truths they didn't like .
The more I read your posts , the more I think you are a student of modern history or political science .
Nearly all your quotes and observations appear to be from what you have read , from Monet , Schuman to the EU commission propaganda site " Europa ".
Peace , Prosperity and Democracy may have been the original aim . The Treaty of Rome was signed by six adjoining countries , Germany , France , Italy , Belgium , Luxemburg and Holland , with the promise of ever closer union . These countries had a common history , in that they had been overun , occupied or defeated in WWII . Had these six countries alone become a federal state , the EU might have succeeded .
Today history has moved on , there is no cold war , most European countries are pacifist , we have enjoyed years without war , though peace has largely been watched over by NATO .
The EU today is not about peace and prosperity , is nearer dictatorship than democracy ; it is a political movement , trying to force 27 sovereign states into a single federal state to be called Europe . I suspect that the situation is exacerbated by banks , Financiers and Lobyists , whom one suspects really own The EU . " He who pays the piper calls the tune ".
I was living in Italy at the time of her acceptance for the single currency . Italy's finances only seemed to be going in the right direction because of considerable adjustment of the state accounts to conceal the unfavourable elements ; it was common knowledge throughout Italy . Prodi was president of the commiission at the time and he must have known the truth .
I feel that your view of the EU is expurgated , idealised as in the writings of the original authors and the " Europa "propaganda . You do not seem to be seeing the real live EU as it has developed today .
It is true that Britain could have been (still is) a major player and guide to the way forward for the EU .
The EU is the baby of France , perhaps financed by Germany ; Britain will never be allowed to steer the EU from its original course .
I believe that I am not alone in thinking that the EU would succeed as a confederation or commonwealth of self governing sovereign nation states . The EU commission , bureaucracy and parliament should be abolished , an administration pared down to the minimum ; cut the ECJ and ECHR and all the law making and directives . Let countries manage their own coastal waters again and fishing industries as before . Less developed states are only in it for the handouts, to help them toward prosperity . There is no reason why they cannot be helped along the way without being forced into an EU straight jacket . Contributions to the EU by member states could be far better used helping their own economies and those of needy neighbours , without the vast waste and unaccounted for expenditure of the current EU .
Free movement around Europe could continue as now , but perhaps with slightly better control , also the abilty to work in another country . I have never had the slightest difficulty in travelling across Europe before Britain joined the EEC . It is a myth that you can travel around Europe without being stopped to show identity documents . What does it matter whether it is a passport or identity card , or that you are not stopped at frontiers . You are more likely to be randomly stopped by police , or carabiniere regularly within the country .
The EU is not a nice children's fairy story , where everything is certain to end happily ever after .
Complain about this comment
#158. At 11:40am on 06 Mar 2011, Manneken
"Buzet23, unless you start to improve the quality of your postings to the level that this blog deserves, and until you withhold from twisting the truth and throwing insults, my recommendation is you keep to yourself. At the moment, you're just intellectual clutter."
You are asking that I reduce myself to your intellectually numb level, amazing, my post #150 evidently evaded what grey matter you have between your ears which is a pity as the post was not controversial but a valid analysis. You have been corrected by so many posters on this thread that it should be getting through to you, yet you still continue in the same tired bizarre way and spout utter nonsense in most cases.
Complain about this comment
162 threnodio writes to Manneken:
"Oh dear. So far I have respected but not always agreed with you but the following is complete garbage and demonstrates a complete ignorance of British constitutional arrangements:-
and in the last pa:....especially if you have a subtext of seeking to show that the UK is not a democracy.
-----------
Well, you could have fooled me about what constitutes a true democracy,especially as far as the Royal Prerogative is concerned according to the following article:
The Queen has the right to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. However, in the C21st this is convention as opposed to reality. In fact, after an election, the Queen chooses the leader of the majority party to lead the Commons. However, what happens if the Prime Minister refuses to quit after losing a vote of no confidence is unclear – as it has never happened in recent political history. Theoretically, the monarch can exercise powers of appointment and dismissal. How this would fit in with a democracy is difficult to decide.
Ø The monarch has other powers of appointment (ministers, peers, senior C of E officials, head of BBC, senior civil servants etc) In reality these are chosen by the Prime Minister; only the Order of the Garter and the Order of Merit are at the personal disposal of the Queen. Therefore, a vast amount of power with regards to senior appointments rests with the Prime Minister.
Ø The Queen opens and dissolves Parliament. She also approves all statutes of law. In reality, the date of a general election is set by the Prime Minister and the Queen, in the State Opening of Parliament, simply reads out the proposed bills for the next 5 years of a government and plays no part in deciding them. No monarch has refused to give the Royal Assent to a government bill (passed at this stage by both the Commons and Lords) since 1707. Now it would appear to be completely untenable that the Queen would refuse to sign a government bill that had passed the Commons, select committees, the Lords etc. It would spark off a major (the major?) constitutional crisis.
Ø In theory, the monarch has the right to grant pardons and input some sentences. In reality this power is exercised by the Home Secretary; a classic example was when Jack Straw stated that Myra Hindley’s life term meant life.
Ø The monarch, via proclamations or Orders in Council, may declare war or treaties, without the input of the Commons/Lords. In reality, the declaration of war and the signing of treaties is done by the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was done by a Prime Minister and not by the monarch. One is a democratically elected politician accountable to the electorate via an election; the other is in the position by a quirk of birth.
The monarch is above the law and has crown immunity. The legal immunity conferred by the Royal Prerogative may extend to institutions and servants of the Crown. Cabinet ministers may try to use crown immunity to avoid the release of parliamentary documents as they are servants of the Crown. This remains an issue that lawyers discuss and analyse to this day – can ministers of the government use the Royal Prerogative to stop an investigation in to the work that they do on certain issues?
As I said above, doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Complain about this comment
#160 Manneken
No, not a nation-state. A union of states and peoples. I know it goes outside the framework of 19th century political thinking, but hey, the world changes. So do political concepts.
OK, no problem with original thinking. Now it's time to put your thinking where your mouth is (to paraphrase the vulgar) - what is the end result of 'ever closer union' ? You keep insisting that the eurosceptics have no 'vision', with the implication that those in favour of the EU do. So what is it ? What is its structure ?
The interesting thing, which the Eurosceptics keep ignoring, is that the EU is the result of this Darwinian competition between different forms of governance in Europe. As with most evolutionary products, it's not as pretty as it could be. But it is better than the alternatives.
No it isn't. It is the opposite of that. The Darwinian would suggest a pretty much random set of designs of governance with the fittest surviving.
No such thing has occurred. EU governance is almost entirely unevolved. Its institutions are elitist inventions which have not had time to evolve. The EU keeps pushing onward without waiting for this evolution to occur.
That stems from what is, I believe, a broadly continental (though not particularly German) approach to government which is essentially elitist. There are those that 'know how things work' and they impose their view of government on the rest of the population. The École nationale d'administration, for example, is designed to produce them.
Among other things that leads to corruption - because why would one simply accept an imposed system about which one was not consulted - or even which one had rejected in a referendum ?
It also accounts for the anti-democratic nature of the EU. The people should not be allowed to interfere with the ideas of the elite.
#156
Leave security to NATO? So you favor the Americans rule Europe? I'm not ready to be a colony just yet.
Yet you want the UK and 24 other EU nations to be colonies of the Franco-German alliance ?
Complain about this comment
#161
threnodio;
"Champagne Charlie has referred to this in his earlier post and he is right. There has been no Franco-British conflict since then. But Charlie, four wars with their eastern neighbours - two Franco-Prussian wars and then those two nasty little incidents in the 20th century."
I overstated my case that Tudor England hated France, and have accepted the rebuke on that. It clearly didnt, I was frustrated with other posts and posted in haste. The "balance of power" theme has dominated English/British policy throughout European history and one should never forget that.
If one truly looks at post-1815 Anglo-French relations they would be quiet amazed at the stark contrast with the previous 600 years, Vichy excepted.
Complain about this comment
158. At 11:40am on 06 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
#150
My dear Buzet23: "As for democracy, well even you agree that this is lacking in the EU."
I think you have now crossed the line of normal debate, with the most insidious and intellectually dishonest thing you have ever posted (and it was a challenge). Just as well this blog is moderated, and, unlike your good self, I don't believe in insults as political arguments, or words starting with "sc." and ending on ".mbag" would jump to mind.
...
Buzet23, unless you start to improve the quality of your postings to the level that this blog deserves, and until you withhold from twisting the truth and throwing insults, my recommendation is you keep to yourself. At the moment, you're just intellectual clutter.
Anyone reading your post Manneken will see that you are the one trading insults and trying to stifle proper debate.
In the Eu, legislation is made by three bodies: the council, the commission and the EP. The EP is directly elected. The council consists of the governments of the member states - typically elected by majority (with some exceptions). The EC is proposed by the council and approved by the EP, who can vote them away at any time.
In a democracy, there is an offical opposition that puts forward and develops an alternative programme to the Governing party or coalition at a General Election. At the European level that doesn't exist. The whole programme of legislation is controlled by the Commission whose whole purpose is to develop "an ever closer union".
The EP has real power. It forces the council and the commission very often to change policies or legislation, sometimes profoundly.
The commons has no real power. They rubber-stamp.
Nonsense. The European Parliament has far less power than the House of Commons. The majority party in the House of Commons forms the Government (the equivalent of the Council of Ministers) and the job of the Civil Servants (the equivalent of the Commission) is to carry out the elected governemnt's policies, knowing that the Government is ultimately responsible to the electorate for the discharge of their responsibilities at the next General Election.
The Civil Service has be be impartial and able to serve different Governments. A Government unable to command the support of the House of Commons falls as happened in 1979.
The European Parliament does not choose the government of the EU. It does not the power to introduce or to choose the legislative programme - that is given to them by the Commission. All legislation therefore has to have the approval of the unelected Commission whose whole purpose is to create an ever closer union. The European parliament has not the power to amend legislation by either striking out clauses or inserting others. It must either accept or reject legislation proposed by the Commmission. There is nothing democratic about this process.
The European Parliament is in fact based on the model of how Germany was governed pre WW1, with the Chancellor selected by the Kaiser proposing legislation for the Reichstag to approve. That model of government led to the outbreak of WW1 as there was no check on the Germany's armament drive that led Germany to think they could win a European War when a suitable pretext arose as it did in 1914.
Your description that The commons has no real power. They rubber-stamp. most accurately describes the European Parliament, not the House of Commons. The government in the House of Commons comes under scrutiny every day on the floor of the House and in the media and votes are not always forgone conclusions. The ability to amend legislation during pasage of a Bill gives the Commons real power and members can also introduce Private Members Bills, an ability denied of course to European MPs.
Complain about this comment
#162. At 12:46pm on 06 Mar 2011, threnodio_II
Manneken has no real excuse to make such a fundamental mistake about the power of the Queen as it seems to know Belgium. Similarly, the hereditary Belgium king signs the legislation coming from the two houses to place them into statue, but he also has a small number of extra powers. For instance, a citizen can appeal to him over legal matters, and he has the power to empower an individual politician of his choice as 'formateur' to try and form a government.
Your last paragraph has a good point at the end and one that will make the manneken's, Jukka's of the blog well vexed.
Complain about this comment
#154 champagne_charlie
A Sharlie de Shampyinyer
Merci bien, trop gracieux.
Complain about this comment
166 Clive Hill writes:
"That stems from what is, I believe, a broadly continental (though not particularly German) approach to government which is essentially elitist. There are those that 'know how things work' and they impose their view of government on the rest of the population. The École nationale d'administration, for example, is designed to produce them."
--------------
A bit like Eton and Oxbridge here then. Can you just remind us how many people in the present administration hail from these particular establishments? And how many of them are the offspring of other nearly hereditary families that have 'ruled' this country for generations? With the 2-party system operating here it is hardly difficult - the choice is either Labour ruled by the Unions or Conservatives, mostly in the hands of aristocratic families. We citizens in the middle either abstain from voting or do as we are told. And as I mentioned at *165 the hereditary royals to top it all off. Some democracy!
Complain about this comment
160. At 12:01pm on 06 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
#156
Leave security to NATO? So you favor the Americans rule Europe? I'm not ready to be a colony just yet.
It was the USA through NATO that won the Cold War and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and gave Eastern Europe their freedom to become democracies.
And whilst we kept our freedom when Hitler failed to invade us in 1940, Europe needed the USA to enter the war in order to defeat Hitler and to liberate Western Europe, otherwise the Soviets might have taken over the rest of continental Europe as well.
Having the USA as an ally through NATO has served Europe very well. It is an alliance in the mutual self interest of all member nations and it DOESN'T make us a colony of the USA!
Complain about this comment
@ 159 "Fundamentally I believe that the EU is going down a road that the UK will not follow and indeed it should not follow."
Wake up to reality. Your comment is at least 25 years out of date because that is around the time (1985 date of first Schengen agreement, which was signed outside the then EEC precisely because the UK and possibly Denmark - on this one I'm not sure - didn't agree) when the UK stopped 'following'. The UK continued not to 'follow' with the creation of the Euro and now it stands as a spectator wishing for its failure every single day.
All this is thanks to you lot, Europhobes, but instead of congratulating yourselves because you have indeed been extremely successful in freezing the UK in a permafrost as the sole member of an institution that only exists in history books - the EEC of the 1980s - you continue to be full of bitterness because you cannot seem to achieve your ultimate goal, whichever it is, either glorious isolation or become a permanent midget partner of the US combined with, of course, destroying the EU.
Complain about this comment
172 Busby writes:
"It was the USA through NATO that won the Cold War and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and gave Eastern Europe their freedom to become democracies."
Oh no, not that old chestnut again. It was the bravery of the people of Eastern Europe that toppled the Soviet Union. They risked their lives to do it and to claim otherwise is an insult to them.
Complain about this comment
#165 - margaret howard
Oh well, here we go again!
For once, your Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V produced something which is broadly true. Now what I suggest you do is read it before posting it. Then get back to us about what powers the Monarch has that other heads of state do not and why it is undemocratic. While you are there, why don't you copy and paste your source? Stupid question - when did you last do that?
Complain about this comment
#174 - margaret howard
"It was the bravery of the people of Eastern Europe that toppled the Soviet Union. They risked their lives to do it and to claim otherwise is an insult to them".
All is forgiven. Amen and again Amen!
Complain about this comment
#171 margaret howard
A bit like Eton and Oxbridge here then. Can you just remind us how many people in the present administration hail from these particular establishments? And how many of them are the offspring of other nearly hereditary families that have 'ruled' this country for generations? With the 2-party system operating here it is hardly difficult - the choice is either Labour ruled by the Unions or Conservatives, mostly in the hands of aristocratic families
You are talking about politicians. I am talking about everybody at the top, including the Civil Service
...ENA graduates are often recruited as aides by government ministers and other politicians; this makes it easier for some of them to enter a political career. As an example, Dominique de Villepin entered politics as an appointed official, after serving as an aide to Jacques Chirac, without ever having held an elected position...
This has been an issue in UK politics with the advent of 'political advisors' and the Oxford PPE graduates (David Cameron, Ed Balls, both Milibands) but that is a fairly recent phenomenon.
The French system was created specifically to fill the upper reaches of government.
There are alternatives in UK political life, like business people; union people; academics and others. Many of them have been controversial - figures like Archie Norman and Alan Johnson - but they provide a different perspective in UK politics.
Complain about this comment
#176 threnodio_II
#174 - margaret howard
"It was the bravery of the people of Eastern Europe that toppled the Soviet Union. They risked their lives to do it and to claim otherwise is an insult to them".
All is forgiven. Amen and again Amen!
Although I don't disagree on the bravery front, nor with the final toppling of the 'system', I don't agree that the people of eastern europe brought it about in broad terms.
The east europeans were stamped on in 1953 in East Germany; 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
That only ended when Mikhail Gorbachev made it clear that the USSR would not intervene to prop up east european puppet governments.
That in turn came about because the USSR could no longer support its 'system' economically.
The reasons for that are a matter of much debate but central to it is the USSR's military-industrial complex and its effect on the economy.
In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union devoted a quarter of its gross economic output to the defense sector (at the time most Western analysts believed that this figure was 15%). At the time, the military-industrial complex employed at least one of every five adults in the Soviet Union. In some regions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, at least half of the workforce was employed in defense plants. (The comparable U.S. figures were roughly one-sixteenth of gross national product and about one of every sixteen in the workforce.) In 1989, one-fourth of the entire Soviet population was engaged in military activities, whether active duty, military production, or civilian military training.
Complain about this comment
165. At 1:16pm on 06 Mar 2011, margaret howard wrote:
Quite literally NOTHING that You wrote was/is 'Constitutionally' accurate for the UK post-1945.
It is breathtakingly unreal to read someone living in the UK could still apply such out-dated concepts as You do to the Governance of G.B.!
The only 'power' of the UK Monarch as Head of State is the OBLIGATION by Statute & Convention to uphold the 'will' of the House of Commons.
The Monarch is empowered ONLY to appoint as Prime Minister the person proposed by the Majority of the HofC, and in turn the Monarch MUST approve the appointment to Cabinet rank by that PM - - there is no choice in the matter - - there is no wheeling & dealing with the Monarch as to whom shall be appointed.
In addition the Monarch signs into Law any Bill Passed by both House of Parliament so that it will be entered on the Statute book (in practise there is no signature, merely a Seal): This is a Constitutional Convention which REQUIRES the titular Head of State maintain the Legal process.
Yes, of course any Monarch is at liberty to refuse to Consent to sign a Statute: However, it is 2011 and not 1911 and thus far no Monarch has thought to abuse and end their 'power' & their family's Hereditary 'position' by such an Un-Democratic blunder.
That the fragrant lady fails even to understand these most basic of UK Constitutional Law & Practise is not a surprise, but does leave one amazed at her willingness to expose such ill-informed views and considering if there was any truth in her claim to have been Grammar School pupil!?
Complain about this comment
- "It was the USA through NATO that won the Cold War and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and gave Eastern Europe their freedom to become democracies."
- "Oh no, not that old chestnut again. It was the bravery of the people of Eastern Europe that toppled the Soviet Union. They risked their lives to do it and to claim otherwise is an insult to them."
IMHO neither :o)
It was a typical revolution from the top. What can one do if the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, head of Politburo and head of USSR says it's time to close the shop? :o)))))) And confesses his childhood dream was to oust the Communist party? :o))))))
Even Russians, very lazy and critical of revolutions, coudn't do nil!
:o))))
Complain about this comment
#178 - Clive Hill
"That only ended when Mikhail Gorbachev made it clear that the USSR would not intervene to prop up east european puppet governments".
And Gorbachev was what? An East European. It was the Soviet Union which did all the stamping, not the Russians. The trick the East Europeans learned was to bide their time and wait for their moment. It came when Gorbachev refused to support Jaruzelski, it came when someone in Berlin simply decided to walk through the Brandenburg checkpoint, nobody stopped her and the next day the wall was history, it came when a middle ranking Hungarian officer preferred to cut the wire at the Austrian border than fire on civilians. You think that does not take guts?
Complain about this comment
158. At 11:40am on 06 Mar 2011, Manneken wrote:
"..In the UK, legislation is made by three bodies: the monarch, the commons and the lords. The monarch is hereditary. The lords are appointed by the government of the time, often on the basis of money gifts to parties in power. The commons have not produced a government representing more than 50% of votes at any time since the war, except for the last one. The commons have not voted away a government since time immemorial..."
The above is utter tosh & gibberish: Are You a clone of QOT?
No 'Law' in the UK is proposed never mind made by the Monarch.
The House of Lords is a mixture of appointed, internally elected & hereditary Peers: Political Party patronage is used, but then why should retiring senior members of the Commons, experienced and versatile experts in business, economics, health, education etc. not be asked to to serve their Nation in a Political manner (e.g founder of Test Tube babies, Lord Winston, or, former Head of the CBI Lord Digby Jones etc.)? Any examination of the membership of the HofL soon dispels the idea it is packed with money subscribers to 1 or other Poltical Parties; this is simply factually inaccurate.
As for the '50%' Election results: Please point to the continental EUropean Nation with a Government Elected (other than Coalition as in the preent UK) by more than 50% under Proportional Representation!?
Surely, You misunderstand or are even more impoverished of factual reality on the UK than appears so: Every UK General Election bar 1 post-1945 has had 60+% Voter participation with some considerably higher.
In the FPTP system used by the UK for a century regular changes of Government have come about reflecting a healthy Democracy.
Why would the Commons seek to 'bring down' a UK Government: A very large number of MPs would have to be persuaded their Constituents approved of such an action and in that the overturning of an Elected Government was not isurping the 'will' of the Citizens.
Surely, You again misunderstand the UK Constitution: It is about the maintenance of 'Democracy' in the face of considerable challenges from without and in the considerable heat of internal debate as to policy.
It is not in the UK that Far Right Political Parties have enjoyed success at the Ballot box: We can look to almost half the EU27 members for such instances and of course the EU Parliament has a significant minority rump of Far Right devotees which is doubtless why the UK's only extremists the 2 BNP reprsentatives feel so at home in Brussels.
Complain about this comment
But of course the USA played a major role by bankrupting us in the arms' race. And, I guess, by some oil/gas machinations ;o)))))), as pre-perestroyka it fell down to 10 dollars plus/minus around it.
Without money it is very hard to hold a state together, any state,
I venture to say.
Brave people of the Eastern Europe are also of course very brave and played a big part. Lech Walensa mostly, credit undeniable, and Hungarians who cut some wire and let people pass somewhere forgot where, but there was a major pass through unauthorised performed in those quarters.
These were still pea-nuts IM un-humble opinion :o)))), as when nobody plans to hold you anymore :o)))) it is comparatively easy to break free.
Still, requires a nerve to cross the old rope with red flags. Like with wolves in a forest. Because "what if", and, the overall feeling that the rope has been there forever and will always be.
As to geographical split, the USSR collapse, that was not initiated in any "Eastern Europe", don't make me laugh, it's a night party of three core Republics' heads - Yeltsin, Ukraine, Belorussia, three communists ;o))))) get-together in a hunting house in Byelovezhskaya Pusha (Belowezhsk forest). In the evening they sat down to a meeting to drink vodka and discuss this and that :o)))))), and by the morning they signed a paper "We, three, release the three slav union, and the rest can do whatever". Literally. They all figured out it's much more promising to be a President of a country than a General secretary of the Comm party of a "republic".
So the USSR woke up to newspapers flash the next day, of the news that we are separated and go our own ways from that date on.
Overall, it was a two-step exercise.
First Gorbachyov undermined Communist party from within, annnounced perestroyka and that the communists are no good anymore, failed country management, and the next step is Yeltsin plus two slavs released the three slav states.
Then accompanying republics and countries did what they wanted, given such a double bang in the centre ;o))) First communists are out, second three slavs go separate.
Complain about this comment
Manneken - thanks for your reply at 146 - but I think it generates many questions and comments:
(1) When it comes to statement of objectives, reference to the Treaty of Rome is simply not sufficient. If a politician, when asked about his policies, just said "please refer to my manifesto", he would rightly be judged to be evasive.
(2) The concept of "ever closer union" is, I would suggest, not clear at all. It implies there is no end-goal. It seems a bit like Mao's "permanent revolution" - would that be a good analogy? And how is it consistent with "unity in diversity"? Ever closer union suggests there will come a point when there is no more diversity - is that in fact the end-goal?
(3) "Nation state" - this is a area where the Eurobelievers really do seem to be tying themselves in knots. I'm sure there's a formal definition of "nation state" somewhere, but in my understanding a nation state is a political entity covering a defined (but not necessarily unchanging) geographical area with a defined (but not necessarily unchanging) governing structure and numerous identifying features such as a constitution, a currency, a central bank, a flag, an anthem, a head of state, etc. Germany, France, Britain etc. largely meet that description - and so does the EU. Do you have a different definition of "nation state"? If so, what is it, and please explain how the EU does not meet that definition.
(4) Comparison with the USA - again there are a lot of mixed signals here from the Eurobelievers. If "The EU wants the opposite of the cultural monolithic approach of the USA", please explain why the EU is already in some respects a more monolithic unit than the USA. An example that springs to mind is that none of the EU states, because of their required adherence to the ECHR, can have capital punishment. In the USA, the policy on capital punishment varies from state to state.
If the EU wants to distinguish itself from the USA, why does the EU flag have stars?
And - going back to (3) - is the USA, in your view, a nation state?
(5) "A new treaty. Sigh. Really? We tried it before. It gave us 10 years of discussion"
Please read my entry! The treaty I was proposing would not just be new, it would be clear and it would be democratically managed. How much time has been spent on that? None at all, as far as I can see.
(6) "Still, you only mention a process. What would you like to see as the end result?" Not true - you really must read people's entries properly before commenting on them!
As stated in 127: In summary, the EU will only consist of those countries whose populations, having been fully informed about the EU's objectives, are in favour of membership.
(7) "Would you accept an EU-wide referendum on such a new treaty?"
Only if it was in addition to, and not a substitute for, referendums at the national level. If the referendum was only at the EU level, it would take as a given the very thing that consent needs to be sought for, namely the merging of the current nation states into this new Europe-wide nation state!!!!!
(8) "The EU cannot stop a member-state from leaving. The process would take some time (as does application for membership) ...."
I think this is very revealing indeed. It goes completely against what I would consider a reasonable basis for any relationship, namely willing participation on both sides, one of the implications of which is that the break-up of a relationship only needs the say-so of one party. If the EU makes leaving as difficult as joining, willing participation on both sides is clearly not the guiding principle.
In essence I have no problem at all with the idea of merging some of the current European nation states into a new enlarged nation state (or whatever you wish to call it). But - and this is where I differ hugely from the EU's current approach - it should be done democratically, and with the full participation of, and respect for the views of, the peoples of the current nation states. That includes the right not to join, or to leave, this new entity, without any pressure or obstacles whatsoever. Call that neoliberalism or Anglo Saxon fundamentalism if you wish - I just call it basic human decency and the only practical way in such an ambitious project can succeed.
Complain about this comment
Must add that before three slavs released the USSR formally, the three Baltic republics have ran away already before that :o))))))
And "Eastern Europe" satellite states were let go by Gorbachyov.
So the slav-released USSR was by the time of its "let's go" consisting of 12 Republics only. 15 - 3 Baltics. Kind of a biten already an apple. And deprived of the halo :o), the Warsaw Agreement states.
Anyway, for anyone interested, the date of Belovezhsk forest party was 7-8 December 1991, the decision of USSR release was announced formally in newspapers and TV here formally on 8 December,
then Constitutional Court of the USSR raised a shout that for this is required a Referendum, they were neglected,
on 12 December 1991 Russian Soviet Socialist Federative Republic Supreme Council ratified the USSR release, stating "the Agreement of 1922 of the three USSR founding fathers - Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia - is cancelled."
Complain about this comment
#182. At 3:13pm on 06 Mar 2011, cool_brush_work
Regarding the far-right nationalistic parties, it is not spoken about much but the Belgian Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang (formerly Vlaams Blok) had roughly 1 in 5 Flemish voters voting for them until the last election, when it dropped to around 11 or 12 % (7.76% of the Belgian total). Considering that this party and other Flemish parties that are also nationalistic claim Brussels is their capital it is a damming indictment of the heart of the EU. The EU made their disapproval known when Austria voted far right but never have I heard a whisper about Flanders from them.
Complain about this comment
'ever closer union'
The state when you can democratically vote for someone who is not of your nationality, or accept that someone not of your nationality can have a political influence in the affairs of your daily life on a european level, and at no point actually view them as a 'foreigner' but rather a fellow European.
The nation state is a old tired and blood soaked concept.
The EU may not be perfect yet, but it preferable to another two millenia of War. NATO? Good for defending the threat from without, but hardly makes friends from within.
Complain about this comment
I am keen on stating the date of USSR release - 8 December 1991, because some of the Cold war winners are unable to name the date or the year when they won :o)))))))))))))
Basically, all of them :o))))))
So, what would they do without a bbc blog; it gets more misty with years :o)))))
Constitutional Court of the USSR was of course right, in objecting to ratification of such a 3-states' Union deal on dis-union :o), because by USSR constitution the procedures for the release were a vote of all the USSR members, 3 is too little.
That's why the Yeltsin's slav trio release paper was so tricky, introducing , for the first time :o), the notion of "the three USSR founders" :o)))) Like, to make it seem, that the three slav were thouse founders in 1922, and therefore the decision of the original three republics will be enough to cancel the Union deal.
Anyway it's all gone and grown over with grass, but there stayed a mass feeling here that nobody asked the people, again someone from the top creates Unions, releases Unions, same un-caring attitude to population opinion in new democracy as in old communism. Believe it or not we were surprised to wake up in "independent Russia" on the December 8th :o)))))
Even more surprised were those republics who were not invited to the forest party :o)))))), as insignificant un-founding :o))))) union members. Before that, they thought they are equals, at least, technically :o)))))) What a surprise that three slavs didn't care to invite them, even, but gathered secretly.
Kazakhstan, Azerbajan, etc. have only got more convinced at that point that as those Russians were crazy initially - such like they stayed true throughout :o))))
And were offended - yes.
Yes.
there were no "founding fathers" in the beg., it's technical cover-up, Russian empire only.
On the other hand, Constitutional court was rightly neglected - there was no referendum on USSR creation - so why on USSR release? :o)))) Nobody here ever asked anybody :o))))), would be a violation of old traditions o:))))))
______
Mind it we are still nervous here are react inadequately :o)))) to the idea of "Cold war loss to the USA". Becuase it depends what you mean by a victory, as Cold War by fact involved a military competition, it was in essence an arms race, or to a huge degree of that "competition" - the military part we did not loose. But were armed up to the teeth by the time of USSR release/collapse/call this any thing - there was definitely a military parity reached, and many think we had more of everything, even. More of capability to fight - achieved at a less expense.
If you mean by the victory the economical country loss - yes, we lost, by all means.
It's just normal huge empires, which USSR no doubt was, and in prime military shape, - they normally don't vanish off the map, in peaceful times, especially :o))))) that's why nobody can get the hang of it :o))))
but as we are crazy Russians - we can.
Complain about this comment
#158
manneken;
I've given up reading your posts so I missed this paragraph picked up by CBW;
In the UK, legislation is made by three bodies: the monarch, the commons and the lords. The monarch is hereditary. The lords are appointed by the government of the time, often on the basis of money gifts to parties in power.
The whole post was an absolute shambles, utter made up rubbish. But this paragraph really takes the cake.
Complain about this comment
i think nick clegg is tremendous.wonderfully honest .god save nick clegg and all who sail in her.
Complain about this comment
AiW "It was a typical revolution from the top."
Nope it was not. Polish Solidarity Union which has started the whole liberation process in Central/Eastern Europe was very much a grass root movement working from the bottom up.
And martial law in Poland was imposed by a Moscow's lackey, gen. Jaruzelski (in December of 1981) only because decaying USSR was no longer in a position to quell a highly probable rebellion with its own forces.
One should also mention that JPII fella who was so effective that Yuri Andropov ordered his assassination (the attempt by a Turkish fascist hired via Bulgarian Sigurnost almost succeded) considering Karol Wojtyła much more dangerous than Lech Wałęsa.
Complain about this comment
175 threnodio writes:
#165 - margaret howard
For once, your Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V produced something which is broadly true. Now what I suggest you do is read it before posting it. Then get back to us about what powers the Monarch has that other heads of state do not and why it is undemocratic.
------------------
You have a habit of changing the subject! My reply that you refer to was in answer to your posting at *166 to Manneken where you wrote:
"Oh dear. So far I have respected but not always agreed with you but the following is complete garbage and demonstrates a complete ignorance of British constitutional arrangements:-"
-----------------------
You see - you talked about his 'complete ignorance of British constitutional arrangements and not 'what powers the monarch has that other heads of state do not and why is is undemocratic'. Surely you can spot the difference.
----------------
You go on to say:
While you are there, why don't you copy and paste your source? Stupid question - when did you last do that?
No need to give you my particular source, just google in Royal Prerogative and you will find hundreds of sites. Just for your guidelines I did just now and that is the answer I got:
The Royal Prerogative (a set of privileges held by the monarch) includes the powers to declare war, make treaties, take possession of or give up territory, issue orders to armed forces, do anything necessary to defend the realm, in an emergency to confiscate or destroy property and intern aliens, make appointments and to control and manage the civil service. Although the powers listed are still exercised in the name of the monarch, in practice, they have been passed to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Parliamentary authority is not required for the exercise of these prerogative powers, although Parliament may restrict or abolish the powers by a Bill. Some criticisms of this source of the constitution include the fact that the powers provide the executive with a means of by-passing the legislature. Therefore, some believe that the government could be described as undemocratic. Great Answer Report
Complain about this comment
With due regard to such as the fragrant Margaret, QOT, JorgeG1, and the Blog's new contender for 'I know better than all of you' Manneken waxing powerfully on their concerns for UK 'Democracy' perhaps they might like to pause for some actual reasoned thought before embarking on anymore slanders of Britain & the British:
BBC NEWS article - - 6 March 2011 Last updated at 16:55 GMT
'Marine Le Pen poll rating shock for French politics'
"An opinion poll suggesting far-right leader Marine Le Pen could win the first round of next year's presidential election has caused a shock in France.
The survey for Le Parisien newspaper puts the National Front leader, who took over from her father Jean-Marie in January, ahead of all other candidates.
It gives her 23% of the vote, 2% ahead of both President Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist leader Martine Aubry..."
Of course it is just a phone-Poll and no survey is 100% reliable. All the same, it would seem the 'democracy' of one of the EU's stalwarts is yet again failing in an essential element to which I referred in #179 to MHoward & #182 to Manneken, i.e. "..It is not in the UK that Far Right Political Parties have enjoyed success at the Ballot box: We can look to almost half the EU27 members for such instances and of course the EU Parliament has a significant minority rump of Far Right devotees which is doubtless why the UK's only extremists the 2 BNP reprsentatives feel so at home in Brussels."
Obviously there is still much time to pass before the France Presidential Election, however, such Polls do give indications as to the variety of 'Constitutional' weaknesses within not only France but many EUropean nations.
The BBC article continues: "... for the new far-right leader to be ahead of both President Sarkozy and Ms Aubry is an astonishing result, the BBC's Hugh Schofield reports from Paris.
A story on the website of the left-of-centre daily Liberation says "politicians are hesitating between prudence and panic after the poll".
On the basis of this opinion poll of 1,618 people, Ms Le Pen would automatically qualify for the second round run-off with one or other of the two mainstream party leaders.
In 2002, Jean-Marie Le Pen achieved second place, not first, in the first round, and his poll ratings were never as high as his daughter's are now, our correspondent notes.
Marine Le Pen, 42 , has proved a canny successor to her father.
Where he was a brash provocateur with a devoted but clearly circumscribed following, her trump card is a kind of woman-on-the-street ordinariness which potentially has an even wider appeal among working and middle class voters, our correspondent says.
She has been at pains to junk some of the more overtly offensive aspects of the National Front's programme.
She is riding high on the sense of dissatisfaction that is not so much a wave as a permanent condition in France, our correspondent says.
As this poll suggests, there is in the country an entrenched appetite for anti-establishment, curse-on-all-your-houses populism - which the mainstream parties would be most unwise to ignore..."
Nothing is certain though I firmly believe France's followers of liberal democracy will triumph over the extremists in the decisive Ballot.
It is nonetheless striking that as this Blog yet again finds the 'anti-English speaking peoples' contributions lining up to berate the Citizens & Politics of the British Isles a far more pertinent and dangerous threat to the 'values of democracy' lurks much closer to the centre of the EU-Brussels entity!
I do urge the likes of Manneken & JorgeG1 to examine their beloved EU's and own States' political shortcomings far more deeply before they next embark on unbalanced & mainly unfounded diatribes against the British Constitution.
As for their UK supporter-in-chief, well the fragrant lady would do well just to withdraw and quietly compose herself whilst she attempts to recover a modicum of fairness in her contributions.
Complain about this comment
#192 - margaret howard
"You have a habit of changing the subject" - I do?
"Just for my guidelines, this is the answer I got" - from where Margaret? - oh no, I should know better than to ask, but in this case it really does not matter because statements of the obvious could come from almost anywhere.
The Royal Prerogative is a set of reserved powers which are utilised in a state of emergency and are similar to powers taken by any other executive in similar circumstances. In the UK, these circumstances would be a). a state of war or national disaster or b). if a lunatic Scots prime minister cannot be bothered with the democratic process when imposing his vision on the English.
Yes Margaret - on reflection - completely undemocratic.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to see that in recent poll, Le Pen was leading the pack. Yea I know I'm dubious of polls myself, but it is interesting. Europeans are often fond of poking fun at the "TEA Party", what's the word on Le Pen?
Is it possible they could unseat Sarkozy? How would that affect French involment in EU?
Complain about this comment
. . . and Margaret,
your source if factually wrong as well:
". . . although Parliament may restrict or abolish the powers by a Bill".
And how does a Bill become an Act, Margaret? That's right. It receives the Royal assent.
Complain about this comment
PS: Re, 'Royal Prerogative'
The 'RP' is of course (& has been for some 90 years if the fragrant one bothered to read beyond the first paragraph of documents) merely the technical terminology still used by the modern day United Kigndom Government for the 'authority' and 'power' of whichever Government is in 'Office'.
No UK Monarch for a Century has had the 'authority' or 'power' to declare the price of 1st class postage never mind a war!
Similarly the technical terminology of the 'Crown' is a mere play-on-words whereby the 'authority' & 'power' that rests with the Government-of-the-day specifies it acts within the Constitutional parameters reflected in the personage of the Monarch/Head of State.
Even fragrant Margaret's allusion to the Monarchy being above the Law is utterly false:
Members of the Royal Family have faced legal proceedings on such mundane matters as speeding & even control of their pet dogs!
Whilst by force of circumstance it is highly unlikely any members of the Royal Family will fall foul of any serious Law-breaking were it to occur each & every member is a 'Subject' of 'Crown' Law under the UK Constitution.
After investigation of an alleged crime should the 'Crown Prosecution Service' find sufficient cause a prosecution could be brought against member of the Royal Family.
If convicted that Royal person might find themselves sentenced to a term in one of the 'Crown's Prisons'.
Oh look Margaret I know the above is going way over Your head so just try this: Every time You read the term 'Crown' THINK 'Elected Government'.
Okay.
Complain about this comment
Jorge wrote "!All this is thanks to you lot, Europhobes, but instead of congratulating yourselves because you have indeed been extremely successful in freezing the UK in a permafrost as the sole member of an institution that only exists in history books - the EEC of the 1980s - you continue to be full of bitterness because you cannot seem to achieve your ultimate goal, whichever it is, either glorious isolation or become a permanent midget partner of the US combined with, of course, destroying the EU."
You have yourself admitted you do not like the anglo saxon way of doing things - you are not interested in (and possibly are uncomfortable with the inevitable conclusions) relating to the difference between common law and civil law,
And you claim Europhobes are isolationists when you sit in your glass bubble proclaiming everything is wonderful in Euroland
I am wondering whether you are in fact a set up designed solely to elicit angry responses from those with a sceptical mind
Why is it isolationist to want to trade with the world not just the EU, to maintain our civil law system which has proven far more successful for commercial world (there is an economist article from many years ago on that point)
Of course, as my post asked, if you are a Europhile please justify the CAP
Complain about this comment
194 threnodio writes:
"Just for my guidelines, this is the answer I got" - from where Margaret?"
As I told you, just google in 'Royal Prerogative' and you will find what you need. If you believe them to be faulty then there are facilities to correct them. Anyway you are changing the subject yet again - we were discussing British constitutional arrangements not website sources. You seem to be obsessed by them. What does it matter where my sources come from? Like many people I know I trawl through hundreds of websites every day - it's a hobby of mine. Quicker than going to the library.
Complain about this comment
196. At 7:10pm on 06 Mar 2011, threnodio_II wrote:
. . . and Margaret,
your source if factually wrong as well:
". . . although Parliament may restrict or abolish the powers by a Bill".
And how does a Bill become an Act, Margaret? That's right. It receives the Royal assent."
Thren, I fear there is no saving the fragrant one under any circumstance.
If there is an 'anti-English' aspect to be dragged up from the hidden depths then she'll doubtless use it.
As we have all witnessed time-and-again even when proven irrefutably wrong on some topic she ploughs on regardless. Her urge to vilify the 'English' oversoming all sense of proportion: Hence from denigrating Poppy Appeals to accusing Churchill of genocidal mass murder to lauding acts of terrorism so long as they were against the 'English' there is no stooping to which she will not seek an even lower level.
Complain about this comment
"Nope it was not. Polish Solidarity Union which has started the whole liberation process in Central/Eastern Europe was very much a grass root movement working from the bottom up.
And martial law in Poland was imposed by a Moscow's lackey, gen. Jaruzelski (in December of 1981) only because decaying USSR was no longer in a position to quell a highly probable rebellion with its own forces.
One should also mention that JPII fella who was so effective that Yuri Andropov ordered his assassination (the attempt by a Turkish fascist hired via Bulgarian Sigurnost almost succeded) considering Karol Wojtyła much more dangerous than Lech Wałęsa."
powermeer let's separate flies from mutton chops.
Superiority complex :o))))))))), as usual.
Poland could have had 100 Lech Walenca-s and produced an infinite number of Paul II-s; with USSR and the Communist party back in place - what would it have changed in the world?
Surely free Poland uber everything :o)))), however I doubt Mr Reagan and the likes will be substantially satisfied with the outcome of 1989 full stop :o)))))
Moreover, the whole "Eastern Europe" put by USSR back to place :o) where taken ("Who took Berlin?! Put it back to place!") wouldn't exactly be a total happiness in the "Cold war". Just a positional retreat, rather, and less of a burden (for us).
We like here Lech Walenca seemingly more than Polish do, still, what is he to Gertrude, how to say to us? That's your local thing. Nobody here in Russia was noticed yet running under his banners.
You say "grass-roots" - sure - in your countries. Warsaw block.
I say here, in the USSR, it was run from the top.
Not a single person here was observed in 1989-1990-1991 with a banner and a shout "communist party out, USSR out, long live revolution".
I haven't seen nil, until it was allowed and directed from above :o)))))
That's why I posted a joke here a while ago about doom and gloom in prospects for a Russian revolution, as "at every revolutionary situation our ruling party together with the president and whole government takes side of the uprising, heads it and invariably stays in power." ;o)))))
Complain about this comment
anyway I got distracted from Ireland ;o), just a friendly warning: when they create USSR they don't ask you, and when they release it they don't ask you either o))))))))))
Complain about this comment
#201 - WebAliceinwonderland
Dear Alice,
You are so right. Come 1989, the Soviet economy was in meltdown and nobody gave a damn about eastern Europe. In fact, it was a golden opportunity for Gorbachev to dump the enormous burden of the Warsaw Pact while at the same time appearing to be a liberating hero to the west. The paradox of Walensa being popular in Russia is compounded by Gorbachev continuing to be a hero in the west.
This still does not take away the fact that the East Germans in '53, the Poles and especially the Hungarians in '56 and the Czechs in '69 were subjected to terrible humiliation and all eventually learned the virtue of waiting for their time to come and seizing it when the opportunity arose. The result was a sequence of virtually bloodless coups and a peaceful transition to independence. Let me say at this point that the Soviet Union deserves great credit for its co-operation and restraint at this time. It could easily have been otherwise and the result would have been a bloodbath.
I know it is not fashionable to pat Gorbachev on the back in modern Russia but the fact remains that his moderate approach contributed significantly to the peaceful transformation and the courage and determination of the eastern Europeans to bide their time and seize the moment when it came remains awesome.
Much as it galls me to agree with Howard M, she is right on this one. Any attempt by the 'great western powers' to claim credit for winning the Cold War is garbage. It was won by good honest folk in the most honourable way. All credit to them and to you for not steamrollering the dream.
Complain about this comment
198 Justin writes:
"You have yourself admitted you do not like the anglo saxon way of doing things - you are not interested in (and possibly are uncomfortable with the inevitable conclusions) relating to the difference between common law and civil law, "
I agree, I too don't know the difference between them but believe they ultimately both originated from the Continental/Saxon/Frankish/Romano laws existing since ancient times and adapted to suit new circumstances as they arose in the different european countries. I didn't know that one was more inducive to trade than the other for instance.
-----------------
You go on to say:
"Why is it isolationist to want to trade with the world not just the EU, to maintain our civil law system which has proven far more successful for commercial world (there is an economist article from many years ago.." on that point)
Could you tell us how UK trade success compares with that of the continent, Germany for instance? And what is it's world ranking at the moment, just ahead of Italy but behind USA, China, Japan, Germany and France? Not bad I agree but hardly deserving your eulogy.
Complain about this comment
Hi Clive Hill #143.
Thanks for the reply, you obviously took some time over it. Sadly I'm still not getting it.
I understand that being in the Euro denies Ireland valuable economic tools a non Euro-zone country would have had to handle their current problems.
"#134 Ulkomaalainen
If the UK and Germany accept a reduced rate on the Irish debt, 2% has been mentioned, then the cash gained from Ireland will not cover the debts taken on by these countries when they borrowed the cash to hand on to Ireland.
The ECB and Germany borrow at a much lower rate than the RoI. German 5-year bond rates are currently 2%. The ECB can borrow at less than 3%. To turn it around, why should the EU profit by nearly 3% (the difference between the ECB borrowing rate and the 5.8% the RoI has to pay) at the RoI's expense ?"
The EU isn't getting anything. It is the debt holders who get the money isn't it? That is the UK and Germany. The markets would demand 9% interest on a loan to Ireland. This is the level that the markets perceive is adequate compenation for the risk of lending money to Ireland. 5.8% is unfair, it is unfair on the UK and Germany. They have performed a service for Ireland and are due compensation for the risk.
"#134 Ulkomaalainen
...it must be made absolutely clear to the world that Ireland has done everything it can to meet its obligations. This isn't yet true. Which public assets has Ireland sold to repay its debt? How far has Ireland gone to meet the competitive criteria proposed by Germany? How much deeper can Ireland cut its public expenditure?
The RoI has been a model of austerity (this WSJ article from just after the Irish bailout was announced). The problem is that austerity measures can also affect growth without which the debt can never be paid ...draining more cash out of the economy could exacerbate Ireland's fiscal problems. The unemployment rate in Ireland, at about 14%, remains higher than the euro-zone average of 10%. If Ireland's efforts slam consumer spending and hit tax revenues, it could make it harder to fix the deficit, creating a negative spiral that prevents Ireland from paying its debts without a restructuring. 'restructuring' means 'default'."
Yes Ireland has made an effort, but what more can they do? What assets can they sell?
"French lenders had $410.2 billion at stake in the four countries. Banks in the UK had $370 billion at risk, and lenders in the U.S. $352.9 billion. Globally, lenders had about $242.4 billion in public-sector exposure to Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal, the BIS figures showed.
It is this that drove the EU to 'force' the RoI to accept a bailout rather than default. Default would have been a much better financial option for the RoI. In the end, at this bailout repayment interest rate which is politically based - they will have no choice. Nor will Greece which is in a similar situation."
This I really don't get. The markets considered Ireland to be a bad risk and so raised the interest rates on Irish loans to such an extent that to fail to take a bail out would have meant bankruptcy. I understand that Ireland were put under political pressure to accept the bail out, but it was still the decision of the Irish government to accept the bail out under the agreed terms. The terms are political yes, but they were arranged to be favourable to Ireland and not the UK and Germany.
"I don't understand how Ireland is a position to negotiate. What can they offer in return for improved terms? If Ireland gets improved terms then why not the other PIIGS?
What they can offer is not to default. The other PIIGS should get better terms. "
If Ireland cuts its interest rates payable to the UK and Germany then when Ireland next needs money where would it come from? The markets would probably demand interest rates greater than 10% because of Ireland's poor treatment of its creditors and the UK and Germany having been cheated by Ireland would be unlikely to offer further support. How would Ireland stave off bankruptcy under these circumstances?
I don't understand what Ireland gains from a deliberate default. If they carry out their threat then they risk bankruptcy without political allies. If the UK and Germany perceive the terms of the bail-out as untenable then they should offer a new package, but this should be initiated by the creditor and not the debtor. If Ireland goes bankrupt while visibly exerting itself to meet its obligations then it goes down with its political reputation intact and is surely far more likely to be offered assistance in rebuilding its economy than if it makes good on its threats.
At heart I can't understand why it is in Irelands interests to make good on its threats. I must still be missing something.
Complain about this comment
#204 wrote "I agree, I too don't know the difference between them but believe they ultimately both originated from the Continental/Saxon/Frankish/Romano laws existing since ancient times and adapted to suit new circumstances as they arose in the different european countries."
Sadly you are completely wrong. There is no shame in that, after all what I know about chemistry (to use but one example) is probably much worse than your knowledge of legal systems
Putting it simply they start from a completely different basis.
European civil law systems or Napoleonic code systems ultimately derive their basis from Roman law and in particular the code laid down by Emperor Justinian. Essentially they set out an entire code or set of principles on which all human ventures must obey. There is no precedent, no need for presumption of innocence. It is very much a top down approach where law makers are the power. It runs into two specific problems (1) where there is some new way of doing something it is not legal unless covered by the code (2) because everything is based on principles there is a lack of certainty as each court may interpret the principles differently
Common law systems are completely different. The starting point is that everything is legal unless there is a law to stop it. The rules such as presumption of innocence, habeas corpus even trial by jury are all designed to restrict the power of the law makers and government to act arbitrarily. The common law system works very much on the basis that power ultimately derives from the people. The problem for the common law system is that everything turns on the precise words used in statute and how those words should be interpreted - often parliament does not use words precisely enough so unintended consequences arise.
There was a very good article some years back which reviewed both common law and civil law systems and came to the conclusion that for business common law was a better system. I cannot remember all the detail but the basic thrust was that business flourished better in common law systems because there was much greater certainty of what the law meant yet common law (particularly judges) retained enough flexibility to adapt the law for brand new situations
As for the UKs ranking: USA, China, Germany and Japan have far bigger populations and therefore much bigger internal markets. As for France - some years we are ahead of them - but the real question is why France is not significantly further ahead, it has a large population, much bigger land mass so property is cheaper and it should be the obvious place for goods coming into Europe by sea - in spite of all these natural advantage over the UK which sits on the edge of Europe in a small congested island - France is not a lot better and it should be.
And on the other argument which you have set running - in the UK the monarchy is not above the law, I wonder if an Italian would say the same about their leader?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS