A presidential game of musical chairs
America has a "race" to be president. What do we have, here in the European Union, when it comes to the competition for the job of president?
The new job, that is, president of the council. Nothing so obvious and active that it would justify any athletic metaphor.
Over the last few days I've toyed with thoughts about Rubik's cubes, snooker or those hugely irritating plastic games where you have to jiggle several little balls into hollows.
All capture the fiendish task of balancing three top jobs (the new president, the new high representative for foreign affiairs and the president of the commission) where the appointments have to please a clear majority of EU leaders, balance the left and the right and small and large countries.
Musical chairs
But perhaps musical chairs is better.
If you watch children playing musical chairs, you will observe several types of individual.
Those who, rather naively, enter into the spirit of the thing dashing around and only looking for a seat when the music actually stops.
Then there are those anxious not to lose, who hover too obviously near a particular chair, not daring to join the fun and games.
And there are those who bounce around with all appearance of abandon, all the while carefully watching mummy's hand on the "stop" button.
The moment the hand moves, they make sure they are sitting down, knocking hoverers and dashers alike to the ground.
The point is you can't afford to look too obvious.
Earlier in the week I reported on Radio 4 about a French briefing, that Sarkozy was, reluctantly, withdrawing his support from Blair for the job.
It followed shortly after a friendly meeting between the French president and the German leader, Angela Merkel, and was a result, I presumed, of her reluctance to give Blair the job.
But others think that Sarkozy was playing a cleverer game than that.
All the Brussels insiders and old hands I know agree on one thing about top jobs in the European Union.
The front-runner never wins, and the winner emerges from the woodwork at the last moment.
So was Mr Sarkozy trying to push Blair back into the woodwork, to spring out again at a more appropriate moment?
Favourites
Certainly much of the hot money seems to be moving on to the Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen, who as a good player of the game, stresses he is not a candidate.
But the French briefing also pointedly said that the two best qualified people for the two presidential posts (commission and council) were Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and the current President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso.
It didn't say who should get which job.
Some think Barroso would be a wise choice for president of the council.
Peter Ludlow, the author of the razor-sharp insights into summits and other EU business, wrote way back in December "those inclined to take bets on the identity of the first permanent president of the European Council might be well-advised to consider what odds to quote on Barroso.
"As one who has in his time been president of the commission, prime minister and foreign minister, Barroso has... both the pedigree and, if 2007 is anything to go by, the form to do a job that is as crucially important as it is fiendishly difficult."
When I last asked Barroso about this, his reply was on the lines of "I am very happy in the job I am doing".
For once I think we can take a politician's statement nearly at face value: he would rather stay on as president of the commission. That doesn't mean that he couldn't be persuaded to switch.
For who else is there? Bertie Ahern is mentioned sometimes, but the way of his going from Irish politics doesn't look good.
Merkel would, no doubt, be excellent but her job is to win the German election in 2009.
Worth a bet?
Isn't there anybody I haven't mentioned?
Well, quite a few, in one sense. Any former head of government or head of state could be in the running.
I have neither the time nor patience to make a list of all the potential candidates, which would include all the former presidents and prime ministers of EU countries.
Giscard d'Estaing rather fancies himself for the job, I'm told.
Kohl and Thatcher aren't well enough. Any past leaders you'd place a bet on?
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Hmmmm.... who would I like to see as the leader of a United Europe (bearing in mind that Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin were all previous contenders)?
Any chance of actually asking us, the people, to vote on whether we want any of this?
Complain about this comment
What about Joschka Fischer or Martti Ahtisaari as high rep?
Complain about this comment
I'd like to see Vaira Vike-Freiberga... Well, as long as it's not Blair or VGE...
What about Jospin?
Complain about this comment
So Barroso can become a president?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
"Any past leaders?"
If EU presidency paid more than GAZPROM, perhaps former chancellor Schroeder could be enticed to accept the position?
Complain about this comment
Janez Potocnik for Council President.
Quiet, chairman type who won't put his ego in the way.
Or put him in as Commission president if Barroso moves.
Complain about this comment
The European Union failed where the Roman Empire succeeded: unity. In my opinion the only task of the European President should be to create more unity and mutual understanding between the nations of Europe. That would hopefully improve the cooperation between the nations of this economic giant but political dwarf. We need a unknown but very experienced politician. That's why I think Anders Rasmussen would make the perfect president.
Complain about this comment
Is Romano Prodi out of games? Maybe Europe is too much right oriented for him?
Complain about this comment
True, Prodi must be looking for a new job since the Italian elections, and would also be seen as having the 'credibility' as a former Commission president.
His name hasn't been mentioned, but maybe that's because he's playing exactly that essential quiet game Mark discusses.
Barroso is mentioned more by EU-state zealots as appealing because it's apparently thought he could become a 'super-president' ... presumably meaning he could combine the roles of both Commission and Council president.
The question I'd like the answer to is: technically, is there any bar to Barroso keeping his current job while also taking on the new one?
If not, could we actually be witnessing an elaborate charade being put on by the EU elites ... behind which, to advance the EU-state, Barroso was always the man for the new job?
Maybe such an idea is pie in the sky. But it's always worth asking the questions ...
Complain about this comment
Just because the word ?president? appears in a job title does not mean it should be confused with the presidency of the US federal government.
The American president is an elected version of the kings of old. He has no legislative power (other than ?executive veto?, the equivalent of ?royal-assent? in the UK, but which a super-majority in Congress can over-ride). The power of the American president comes from his position as head of a vast executive, including the most powerful military in the world.
This so-called new ?president of Europe? is a very different thing. It will have no executive power comparable to that of an American president (the existing president of the EU Commission heads up the Brussels agencies). It will have no formal legislative power either. His formal power will be limited mainly to setting the agenda of the meetings he presides over. The role does however come with very significant informal power because this new president will have access to information that no-one else is privy to, namely the negotiating positions of the heads of government at EU summits, and can use this information to shape the outcome of those late-night deals in Brussels.
So one must ask why we are being subjected to the dismal spectacle of elected heads of government queuing up to vacate their elected positions. Since politicians are by nature interested in power, it can only be because they believe they will be more powerful in this mainly informal role than as an elected head of government answerable to their people in elections. This shabby spectacle is therefore the opposite of the vibrant race in America, being nothing but the evidence of the degradation of elected office that EU membership entails.
Complain about this comment
There's a long-standing mistranslation being perpetuated here. President in French means both a head of state and a chairman of, for example, a committee or even just a meeting.
We would do better to call the President of the Commission its Chairman, mirroring the Dutch title of Voorzitter.
I don't believe that anyone has in mind that the "President" of the EU would be equivalent to a Head of State. Chairman would be more fitting but then the eurosceptic team would scream "just like Chairman Mao - see we were right all along!"
Who's best for the job? Anyone who'll just get on quietly with doing the job instead of using it for self-glorification and personal gain. Well that excludes Tony Blair.
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax wrote:
'Any chance of actually asking us, the people, to vote on whether we want any of this?'
Well, no chance of YOUR OWN government, either NuLab or Tory, giving you a vote as they - undemocratically ? opted out of the Euro and Schengen without consulting the British people in referendum. It is most interesting that no Eurosceptic has ever invoked democracy in relation to the British opt-out from the Euro or Schengen, yet this is an example of shocking democratic failure. The UK is the only country that has opted out of these two key pillars without holding a referendum, despite those two pillars being, among other things, key elements in the completion of the single market that this country voted in referendum in 1975.
I would say this is a glaring example of Eurosceptic ?selective thinking?, hypocrisy and double standards.
Sweeden and Denmark could give the UK lessons in democracy without even trying. They only opted out of the Euro after consulting their people. With regards to Schengen, the UK is the only voluntary opt-out (Ireland doesn?t count as ?voluntary? opt-out, for obvious reasons).
Complain about this comment
Barroso has proved to be a hardworking President of the Comission (by the way, what did Prodi do for Europe and later for Italy? I can't remember).
The Portuguese candidate also has no enemies. Moreover, he speaks at least 4 wide spoken languages.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @ 11 wrote: "... they - undemocratically ? opted out of the Euro and Schengen without consulting the British people in referendum."
The suggestion that the government should hold a referendum everytime they plan *not* to do something (such as hand over control of borders or monetary policy) is, er, 'novel'.
Voting on all the things the government doesn't plan to do, we'd never get time for anything else!
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1, As StuartC correctly points out, voting should be about policies a government plans to do (or change). Keeping the status quo is not a valid reason for any referendum.
As for my suggestion that we have a say in the matter being "a glaring example of Eurosceptic ?selective thinking?, hypocrisy and double standards." methinks that in your distorted logic you are guilty of the very sins you castigate EUrosceptics for.
I agree that Denmark and Sweden could give the UK government lessons in democracy. Our government is too scared to ask us, the people, what we really think about the Lisbon Treaty, the Euro, Schengen, etc. After all, they do know what the answer will be: rejection.
Complain about this comment
1 ScepticMax wrote:
'Any chance of actually asking us, the people, to vote on whether we want any of this?'
An election by the general public of "a President of Europe",would most probably mean that the nation with the largest population would get to choose. Oh dear, that's Germany. Maybe we should just leave it to our elected Heads of Government?
13 StuartC- wrote:
"The suggestion that the government should hold a referendum every time they plan *not* to do something (such as hand over control of borders or monetary policy) is, er, 'novel'."
To whom is it suggested "control of borders or monetary policy" should be handed over? Please give proof - something more substantial than a Daily Mail headline please.
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (10): It does not matter what this new office is called. It does however say something very disturbing when politicians that used to want to be prime minister so much that they would go to the bother of running for office now compete with each other for the right to resign from that office to take up more powerful positions from which no voter can hope to eject them. Mark Mardel calls it 'musical chairs', but it is the voters who are left standing at the end.
The EU is really about politicians freeing themselves from the shackles of democratic accountability. You see this everywhere you look, including the EU Parliament where the list-system protects incumbent MEPs. The entire thing is made for insiders, by insiders.
--------------------
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny". ? Thomas Jefferson
Complain about this comment
Methinks by hyprocrisy is meant that people who criticise the EU should also be saying
"Them there unelected Whitehall-ocrats telling us Yorkshiremen what to do, taxing our beer and telling us where to import our bananas from. The Prime Minister? Did we get to elect him? Or his predecessor? I only got to vote for my local MP. Except I didn't even bother doing that, them Londoners are out to get us and take away our freedom so what's the point? And the pound? Blasted currency union! They just set interest rates to suit shandy-drinking stockbroking Southeners, never listen to us."
I expect a lot of Yorkshiremen were saying that when it joined England, but they seem to have got over it!
Complain about this comment
Great blog entry Mark, very entertaining and insightful as usual. Please keep us informed on the manoeuvring.
ScepticMax, I find always find your comments unhelpful.
Making a comparison between the construction of a complex intergovernmental organisation by political negotiation, and the conquest of Europe by war is ridiculous (and seeing as you fairly often make similar comparisons, the joke is getting old).
Please try to engage with the topic which Mark posts on a higher level, rather than continually returning to your argument about the UK's membership being illegitimate.
It is regrettable that UK citizens were not allowed to express a view on whether or not the terms of the Lisbon Treaty were acceptable, and there are clearly improvements to be made in the EU's decision making processes.
However, the EU does exist, the UK is a part of it, and I feel that your concerns about the UK's membership could be expressed in more constructive and topical ways, rather than simply refusing to engage because you are unhappy with the notion of it.
Mark's not representing the EU he's just reporting on it.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @ 15 asked: "To whom is it suggested "control of borders or monetary policy" should be handed over? Please give proof - something more substantial than a Daily Mail headline please."
I was referring to ideas such as Britain joining the euro (involving handing control of monetary policy to the ECB) or joining Schengen (and abolishing systematic border controls).
I agree that Britain joining Schengen isn't actually being proposed right now ... JorgeG1 mentioned it as something we have opted out of. Please read the post I was replying to!
But you may remember we did have a little national debate about whether to join the euro ... for about five years.
I would also agree that our joining that is not being proposed any more now either (except still by a few euro-zealots like Chris Huhne).
This is probably because, as even reknowned euro-fanatic John Monks now admits (contrary to all the scare-mongering he indulged in a few years ago), the British economy is "doing well".
Complain about this comment
Mark
You question Aherne's prospective candidacy on the basis of the way he was forced to leave government.
As if being found out for lying, deceit, etc, was any bar to career progress - ask Tony Blair.
Complain about this comment
15. greypolyglot wrote:
An election by the general public of "a President of Europe",would most probably mean that the nation with the largest population would get to choose. Oh dear, that's Germany. Maybe we should just leave it to our elected Heads of Government?
When I wrote "we, the people" I was referring to the the British people. I don't really give a tinker's cuss about what the people of other countries think. I would not presume to interfere in their business and would appreciate them returning this courtesy.
18. _erasmus_ wrote: "ScepticMax, I find always find your comments unhelpful."
Tough. The truth is not always 'helpful'.
Besides, I don't see why I should accept the rotten premise upon which this whole edifice called the 'European Project' is built.
Making 'helpful' or 'constructive' comments would just add to the pretense of legitimacy that this project of 'ever closer union' doesn't have (at least so far as UK involvement is concerned. As I've mentioned before, what other countries do is not my concern).
Finally, I'm not attacking or criticising Mark (and I don't believe I ever have). I think he's a splendid reporter and does a thoroughly good job.
Complain about this comment
Were the peoples say on this MARK answer you dont get one just being forced into the soviet EU and you cant say us septics are wrong.I will never see any EU president as my leader.
Complain about this comment
-StuartC- @ 8 wrote: "True, Prodi must be looking for a new job since the Italian elections,"
Some weeks ago he also rejected an important place related to GAZPROM...
betuli @ 12 wrote: "by the way, what did Prodi do for Europe and later for Italy? I can't remember"
In Italy there were coalition problems, both in the governments before and after the European Commission period. Very difficult to evaluate in those conditions.
In Europe: Euro, enlargement of the European Union, the European Constitution (at least he tried), trust in the European Institutions after Sander Commission. Nothing of those were obviously his inventions, but I think he managed to do his role quite well.
Complain about this comment
One slime ball always knows another. Take Sarkozy's advice and leave Blair off the ticket.
Complain about this comment
I think that there are two people who have been overlooked, and they happen to come from the same country: Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik and EU External Affairs Comm. Betina Ferraro Walder (spelling??). They have been central, yet subtle, part of the EU for years and have a wonderful reputation in the international community. Plus their women of which there is a lack of amongst the candidates.
Also, Giuliano Amato perhaps
Complain about this comment
It would do no harm to the debate to get some of the facts straight.
The post of President [of Europe?] is that of the European Council, not of the Council [of Ministers] which remains the main player for the governments of the Member States in the process of legislative decision-making in the 'institutional triangle' of Commission, Council and European Parliament. (The present arrangements for a rotating chairmanship of the Council among Member States will continue, although camouflaged in bumf about a "team presidency").
Currently, the European Council is not an institution of the European Union i.e. it is best described as a committee of Heads of State and Government which "shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof" (Article 4 of Treaty on European Union).
This mandate is reproduced word for word in Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty but the words "It shall not exercise legislative functions" are added. These were needed to clarify the situation arising from the fact that the European Council becomes an institution under the Lisbon Treaty and will be able, as a result, to use the international legal - but not legislative - instrument of a decision. (As Mark will be aware, the discussions and decisions of the European Council are currently expressed through the informal instrument of the "Conclusions of the Presidency").
The essential tasks of the new office of elected President are to "chair and drive forward" the work of the European Council and to "ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" (Article 15.6 of the TEU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon).
In short, it is a carefully circumscribed chairing function and the incumbent will only have the mandate that the members of the European Council are willing to give him or her by unanimous decision.
The political push for the post stems from a simple reality viz. the unwillingness of the Heads of State or Government from the larger Member States to allow colleagues from smaller Member States to chair their discussion (or to give the latter's often neophyte staffs in capitals indirect control of the European steering wheel, no matter how ephemeral).
Complain about this comment
DenisOLeary (26): If the role were limited to simply the formal power you describe to chair a meetings twice a year why would a number of European prime ministers be lining up to quit their office to assume it?
Not all power is formal. The power of this role is mainly based on access to information that no one else has, e.g. the bottom-line of every government at EU Council meetings (a.k.a. ?summits?) gained through such means as the one-on-one ?confessionals? held between the Council President and each government during those marathon late-night negotiating sessions that Mark Mardell reports on. This information gives the holder of the presidency unique visibility as to what range of agreements is feasible. Armed with this unique insight, the Council President then has some latitude to exercise their personal preference towards one outcome over another, and to twist the arms of prime ministers, chancellors or presidents to get them to agree to things which their voters may not like.
This role therefore is very much a contributing factor in the breakdown of the link between governed and governors that EU membership entails.
Complain about this comment
I think dear Silvio would be a great choice. Instead of just 60 million Italians, 500 million Europeans could have a laugh.
Complain about this comment
This is a perfect example of "Euro-democracy at work. Or would it better be called Eurocracy. Don't ask the several hundred million people who live in Euroland who should be in charge of anything by having them vote on it. NO! The last thing Europeans trust is an open and fair vote. Look what happened the last time they were allowed to have their say, the French and Dutch put a stake through the heart of the European Constitution. Who are they to deny Eurolanders a 400 page document that will control every aspect of their lives nobody can read or understand except a lawyer. They will take what is given to them and they will live with it even if they do grumble about it for a while. If they still don't like it they can leave. And they do. BBC reported that 10% of the native British population has emigrated, many to places outside Euroland.
Complain about this comment
Replying to #27 Freeborn-John, I happen to agree with your analysis but not your conclusion. My belief is that Heads of State and Government were mistaken in the solution that they adopted and that this may well eventually emerge because of possible attempts by the President of the European Council to usurp the role of the President of the Commission.
The latter has all the cards in the areas that really matter as he represents the institutional status of the Commission in relation to economic issues.
If the European Union was capable of agreeing a common foreign policy it would have demonstrated this years ago.
As to the competition for the job, as the only likely candidates are from members or former members of the group that made the mistaken decision in the first place are you really surprised at their eagerness to occupy the seat?
If the successful candidate has any sense. he or she will stick to the Lisbon Treaty mandate, prepare the usual four meetings (not two) of the European Council each year in close collaboration with the President of the Commission and spend the rest of the time swanning around the globe representing a non-existent common foreign policy position of the EU (but avoiding being in the same place as the High Representative).
The late-night sessions that you describe are a reality in all instances of EU decision-making. But, also under the Lisbon Treaty, only the Council of Ministers, for the most part acting in co-decision with tyhe European Parliament, can adopt binding legislation.
With the exception of the informal Eurogroup, the specialist ministers in each area have had the good sense to retain the rotation of one of their number as chairman of their meetings, recognising that only a Minister, with a domestic political mandate, has the democratic credibility to fulfil the role. This quality, as you point out, the President of the European Council will also lack.
Complain about this comment
Entirely unrelated, but how about a short piece about the effects of the 2009 election? For instance, it seems clear to me that the Union for Europe of the Nations group will be gone after the next elections. Why? Two simple reasons:
* The Italian Alleanza Nazionale will have merged into the Partito della Libertŕ by then, which will be a member party of the EPP instead of the UEN.
* Three of the two Polish member parties (the ultra-catholic Liga Polskich Rodzin and the left-populist Samoobrona Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej) are all but disbanded, as they clearly failed the electoral threshold in the 2007 election and don't even turn up any longer in Polish opinion polls.
Add the fact that Cameron will be trying to get anyone and everyone he can to join his Movement for European Reform (some more moderate UEN members might take him up on that), and it becomes pretty clear that the UEN will be gone by then.
I'm sure there are other changes which will result from the 2009 election -- how about a blog post on that? ;)
Complain about this comment
welcome EUSSR!
Complain about this comment
27: "a number of European prime ministers be lining up to quit their office to assume it?"
The number of European prime minister who are lining up to quit their office is 0. Rasmussen and Merkel are being considerate but both of them already indicated they want to focus on their domestic job first. :)
Complain about this comment
StuartC- wrote 'The suggestion that the government should hold a referendum everytime they plan *not* to do something (such as hand over control of borders or monetary policy) is, er, 'novel'.
ScepticMax wrote: 'JorgeG1, As StuartC correctly points out, voting should be about policies a government plans to do (or change). Keeping the status quo is not a valid reason for any referendum.'
I am sorry but you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Perhaps you didn't read my previous comment in full:
'The UK is the only country that has opted out of these two key pillars without holding a referendum, despite those two pillars being, among other things, key elements in the completion of the single market that this country voted in referendum in 1975.'
With regards to the Euro, it is self evident how this policy is a key element in the 'completion of the single market'
With regards to Schengen, obviously you don't really know much about this but I will enlighten you. The preamble to the Schengen Convention of 1990 (which every EU member state at the time signed, except for the UK, in turn forcing Ireland to follow suit) states that: 'WHEREAS the Treaty establishing the European Communities, supplemented by the Single European Act, provides that the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers?.
Do you understand this? Is it plain English enough?
THE INTERNAL MARKET SHALL COMPRISE AN AREA WITHOUT INTERNAL FRONTIERS.
What this means is that by opting out of Schengen the UK automatically ceases to be a FULL MEMBER of the 'internal market' AKA Single Market, WHICH WAS VOTED BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE IN REFERENDUM IN 1975. As a result of the Schengen and Euro opt-outs, but particularly the former, the UK is now more of an EFTA member than a full EU member.
This is precisely the opposite of planning ?*not* to do something' or ?keeping the status quo?. I am not saying for a minute that British politicians should have joined these two pillars without holding a referendum. What I am saying is exactly the opposite, i.e. opting out of KEY policies of the EU that involve the completion of something that was voted YES in a referendum in 1975, shouldn?t be left to be decided by politicians. This is the equivalent of cheating to the people as, even if you cannot believe this, there are British people who are both in favour of the EU and also in favour Schengen and the Euro. They deserve to be heard, rather than be bullied by an Eurosceptic government and opposition, who in turn are dictated by an unelected xenophobic pro-US press.
Complain about this comment
Ticape (33): Mark Mardell mentions both the Danish and Luxembourg prime ministers as favourites to assume this unelected post of Council president and the player of 'musical chairs' must not look obvious. The BBC article that Mark links to also mentions the current German chancellor. The Lisbon treaty bars the position to any holder of national office so any of these candidates would have to resign as democratically elected head of government to take it up.
José Manuel Barroso also quit as elected prime minister of Portugal in order to take up unelected post as president of the EU Commission. The trend towards a degraded position of elected office is clear.
Complain about this comment
Jorge G1 #34
"With regards to the Euro, it is self evident how this policy is a key element in the 'completion of a single market."
A single market for what, the trade in goods the UK agreed to or a single market for money it did not agree to?
In a single market for goods, there are no internal tarriff barriers. Goods move freely between one country and another. A single curency is an entirely different idea. You can easily resurrect tarriff barriers if you opt out because you find it is greatly to your disadvantage. No longer having control over your own currency is not something easily reversed.
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Act is such a trade agreement betweent the US, Canada, and Mexico. But do you think for one moment Americans would give up control of the dollar to Mexico and Canada? And can you image the outcry if it were even proposed let alone agreed to by the government without a vote? The creation of a single currency is not a step to a single market, it is a step to a single country. That is what the EU has always been about and now the secret is out. If the people of the UK just sit back and let it happen, I do not want to hear them grumble in five or ten years that they no longer have any say over their own lives, that they no longer live in what they consider a democracy. They will have gotten what they deserve.
Complain about this comment
(35): And what's the name of the Danish Prime Minister? Rasmussen; and what's the name of the German Chancellor?: Merkel and what did I say about them. I'll repeat:
"Rasmussen and Merkel are being considerate but both of them already indicated they want to focus on their domestic job first. :)"
And Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg since 1995 will be having an election in 2009. So again which prime minister will be quitting their job? none
For the next time I suggest you do a little bit of research and improve your reading comprehension skill, which would be helpful for the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #36 :
?A single market for what, the trade in goods the UK agreed to or a single market for money it did not agree to?" .... ?The creation of a single currency is not a step to a single market, it is a step to a single country."
Another Eurosceptic that selectively misconstrues and distorts what I said.
I am not saying the single currency should be imposed to anybody, let alone Schengen, as I know fully well that there is too much of a police state culture here for that even to be contemplated (e.g. the UK has the largest CCTV network per head of population in the world, can you imagine such a country to be willing to join Schengen? ?. Only if you believe in Santa Claus).
WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE BRITISH VOTED IN 1975 FOR A SINGLE MARKET. THE EURO AND SCHENGEN ARE FURTHER ELEMENTS THAT THE EU HAS AGREED TO DEVELOP THAT SINGLE MARKET (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, NAFTA MEMBERS HAVEN?T DECIDED ON A SINGLE CURRENCY OR A BORDER FREE AREA, BUT THE EU HAS) THEREFORE, DEMOCRATIC DECENCY SHOULD IMPLY THAT IF THE BRITISH PEOPLE VOTED IN FAVOUR OF SOMETHING IN 1975, THEY SHOULD AT LEAST BE CONSULTED AGAIN BEFORE THE COUNTRY OPTS OUT OF THAT SOMETHING, I.E. OF THE SINGLE MARKET.
OPTING OUT OF SCHENGEN = OPTING OUT OF THE SINGLE MARKET AND JOINING EFTA, BUT THIS HASN?T BEEN OFFICIALLY ACKNOWLEDGED, JUST PUSHED THROUGH THE BACK DOOR.
IS ALL THIS TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND PERHAPS?
Complain about this comment
To follow up on my comment further above (still off-topic, I know, but I haven't been able to find any link to how I might e-mail Mr Mardell...?):
There's talk that the EDP could join forces with the PES in the next European Parliament instead of caucusing with the ELDR in ALDE, as it does now. Main reasons:
* The Italian Partito Democratico is torn between joining PES and EDP; having a common group in the European Parliament would make it easier for the PD to be a member of either of the two parties.
* More influence for the EDP -- caucusing with the PES would give them a lot more clout than caucusing with the ELDR.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @34, I'll try and answer you as simply as I can without recourse to the pompous, arrogant, patronising and shrill language you so favour and which suits you so well:
The greatest act of 'cheating' the British people happened in 1975.
No matter what the 'small print' may have said, most British people voting in the 1975 referendum believed they were voting for an EEC - a European Economic Community, not a 'monetary and political union'.
Obviously they were mistaken and also misled by our political elites. Now, over 30 years later, we - and a new generation who were not born then - understand the constitutional implications of this ruse and demand a say in the matter. Hence the urgent need for a referendum to decide whether the UK should adopt or reject the Lisbon (aka Constitutional) Treaty - and by doing so agree or disagree to the project of 'ever closer union'.
It is the EUrofanatics who are afraid to let the British people decide, hence the reluctance to allow a referendum, and hence hysterical comments such as " ...bullied by an Eurosceptic government and opposition, who in turn are dictated by an unelected xenophobic pro-US press".
Oh yes, one last thing: writing in capital letters doesn't make your lame arguments any truer - just 'louder'.
If
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax
"we...demand a say in this matter."
No you don't. The British people haven't demanded anything of their government. They have been at most like sniveling whimpering dogs, complaining mewlishly. If something like that happened in America, there'd be a second American Revolution. The entire nation would be up in arms. The President would be impeached. Congressmen who supported it would be assassinated. It is unthinkable.
On Justin Webb's blog, a contributor named kecsmar (almost undoubtedly British) said that Europe is an elitist society. I think he is right. Not only have the Prime Ministers sold Britain out on this issue relinquishing political power to an unelected foreign elite, so have all three major political parties. When was there ever a serious debate in Parliament, in the newspapers, on TV, or anywhere else in a national public forum? Why isn't it the first and only topic of discussion on PMQT every week? Clearly nobody in Britain feels the British people have a right to have a say in who governs them. There isn't even a written down constitution to point to with guaranteed rights. Maybe that is your idea of democracy, it is not mine and would find no favor on my side of the pond.
JorgeG1
I'm not a Euro-skeptic, I'm just pointing out the facts. It is not for me to say how Britain or Europe should be governed, I do not live in Europe, I am not a European citizen. Only, when Europe in general and Britain in particular comes to realize that they have gotten themselves into another fine mess, don't come crawling to the US for help again. America has bailed out Europe from its own folly more times than it should have already.
Complain about this comment
40. At 5:30 pm on 10 May 2008, ScepticMax wrote:
?It is the EUrofanatics who are afraid to let the British people decide, hence the reluctance to allow a referendum, and hence hysterical comments such as " ...bullied by an Eurosceptic government and opposition, who in turn are dictated by an unelected xenophobic pro-US press".?
I am no EUrofanatic although it is obvious that you are an antiEUrofanatic. It is plain to see. Your fanatism makes you blind to any argument which doesn?t fit your views.
I will try to explain once again without using pompous and patronizing language which is already owned by the AntiEUrofanatics and for that reason I try to avoid.
If you had read my comments carefully you would have appreciated what I said. What I am saying is that I DO WANT a referendum to be held. But you are being selective, as all AntiEUrofanatics are in relation to which kind of referendum you/they want. You just want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but don?t want a referendum on the Euro and Schengen. Well, why not have one referendum covering all that, with two clear and unambiguous options:
1 Stay in the EU, with the euro, Schengen and the Lisbon Treaty
2 Leave the EU and make official what already is a fact: British membership of EFTA, which is exactly the current version of what the British people voted in referendum in 1975
As you and the rest of antiEUrofanatics practice selective "group think" you just want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I am absolutely happy with that as well although it would be utterly pointless because, if one is held and the UK votes no and all other EU members ratify the Lisbon Treaty, the UK will almost certainly be forced by the rest of the EU to hold the referendum I am advocating above, i.e. the only grown up referendum that is possible to have. The rest is just continuing with the infantile games that this country has been playing for too long in relation to its position regards the EU. I hope that you will agree with me that it is undemocratic if a NO from the UK would have to force the 18 EU members which ratified the EU constitution to have another revision of the matter.
As an antiEUrofanatic, I cannot understand why you and the rest of your antiEUro army don?t want an IN or OUT referendum. What exactly is it that you want to achieve?
With regards to ?hysterical? comments I would like to know which part of that "hysterical" comment is inaccurate.
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax, I forgot to mention something which will make my argument even clearer (if not louder) : From a pro-EU perspective (not EUrofanatic by any stretch of the imagination) I do want the UK to leave the EU and join EFTA. This is the best it could happen both for the UK and the EU and it would once and for all settle the EU-hypocrisy that this country has practiced for far too long. Please do leave the EU and join EFTA or NAFTA or the ?anglosphere? or whatever?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII - true enough. We are truly wimps. I do hope that one day we'll have our own Boston Tea Party and become the masters of our own destiny once again.
JorgeG1
1. There is enough jargon around without the need to invent silly words like 'antiEUrofanatic'. I am, I proudly admit, a 'EUrosceptic' - is that not sufficient?
2. I have read all your comment carefully and find them illogical and nonsensical.
3. Since 2004 the only referendum under discussion in the UK was about the Constitutional Treaty. The government promised a referendum and breathed a sigh of relief when this was kicked into touch by its rejection by French and Dutch voters. The resurrection of the Constitutional Treaty as the renamed 'Lisbon Treaty' has given the UK government an excuse to call off the referendum.
4. Only the pro-EU LibDems proposed an in/out referendum - and this is only as a fig-leaf to cover their broken promise (as they too promised a referendum on the new Treaty).
5. You say: "I hope that you will agree with me that it is undemocratic if a NO from the UK would have to force the 18 EU members which ratified the EU constitution to have another revision of the matter."
My answers:
1) I didn't make the rules. The same goes for Ireland too. If they reject the Treaty in their forthcoming referendum - it's dead. (Of course, they'll probably be told to vote again until they 'get it right').
2) I don't much care about the other member states. I care only about British interests.
6. You ask: "I would like to know which part of that "hysterical" comment is inaccurate."?.
Here's a hint - it's the same sentence of yours that I quoted before: " ...bullied by an Eurosceptic government and opposition, who in turn are dictated by an unelected xenophobic pro-US press".
7. Finally, you ask "What exactly is it that you want to achieve?".
Answer: A rolling back of the over-arching, over-bearing and overblown nascent European super-state.
Complain about this comment
My answer No. 6 to JorgeG1 in post 44should have read:
a) Neither our government nor our opposition is Eurosceptic. Alas!
b) Our government is not dictated to by the press. (They'd certainly be doing a better job if they were. Even the comics could run the country better - but that's another subject....)
c) Our press is not xenophobic or pro-US. We have a pluralistic press (unlike the broadcast media which is predominantly liberal-left). Some newspapers can, at times, be 'xenophobic' - but this is not reflective of the British press as a whole. The British press is definitely not pro-US (I wish it was - as we, as a nation, have a lot more in common with the US than we do with, say, Finland, Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia......... etc.).
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax [45]:
"The British press is definitely not pro-US (I wish it was - as we, as a nation, have a lot more in common with the US than we do with, say, Finland, Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia......... etc.)"
In terms of what? culture, economics, or geopolitics?
And this is yet another thread that has been sidetracked to that colophon of political debates among British eurosceptics. Cheer up, though: once the Reform Treaty is ratified, the debate can happily revolve around the exit clause. :)
Complain about this comment
g_rizzly
You are right. There is far less in common between the United Kingdom and the United States of America than I think most British would like to believe. Reading BBC and their blogs over the last few years, I am amazed how little most Europeans actually know about the US. Frankly I think the Average American learns much more about European history, culture, and civilization in a high school education than the average European learns about America's in their equivalent. But it is at higher levels where the disparity is most surprising and disappointing. Not just the BBC but even at the ministerial level. Owen Bennet-Jones' interview with Sir Christopher Meyers, Britain's ambassador to the US was most revealing. BBC of course got it wrong in its series "America, Age of Empire." The path to America's surprising rapid rise from obscure remote colonies in a vast wilderness to world dominance began with the signing of the Declaration of Independence and ended with the signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At that moment although nobody knew it at the time, the die was cast. Everything before those events was prelude, everything subsequent was consequence. The exact course of history was mere details.
I don't know if British media or Europe for that matter would be any less anti-American than they are if they actually understood it. They might be even more anti-American than they already are. We know the French are very angry and jealous. They imagined a world where France and French civilization would be dominant. It hardly matters. The paths of the two civilizations on opposite sides of the pond continue to diverge. Their only interest in common now is fighting Islamic terrorism and the extremism which leads to it. But they seem rather ambivalent at times. Perhaps they think that is because the next big attack will be against America. They may be in for a shock. They are a soft target.
Complain about this comment
Maybe they should think outside the box for the new top job, and go for some one who is from outside the e u. R M from Zimbabwe will be available soon or even G W B from the U S A? By only having people from inside seems to show an inward looking mentality.
Complain about this comment
Some years ago, probably when the EU were only 15 members, or better before, when the Union was formed by 12 countries, any step forward would depend very much on UK decisions to co-operate or not.
Then Tony Blair came, and many in the continent were optimistic over his alledged Europeanism. But this pro-EU British hope definitely disappeared since the Iraq invasion.
Now no one in Europe can see any other British leader more Europhile than Blair was malgré tour. His successor has shown little interest, if not ridiculous contempt, in this matter.
Well, the only British hope for a tighten EU membership would be represented by current Foreign Affairs secretary, David Milliband, but it's unlikely he become the next British PM.
So at his point, UK should move to one of the two clear options, that JorgeG1 mentioned: stay or leave.
The good thing is that EU, thanks to further expansion, more integration or desperation over UK loyal conduct, is not longer depending on the British dilemma.
Complain about this comment
I don't see the problem. The Teutonic Queen Murky Angel Eyes and the Gaelic Tsar Nicolas of the Kozy Nosestra have decided whom it will be. It won't be Tony the Paper Tiger. When they feel the time is right, they will Blare it out to the rest of you Commoners and you will know their choice. All in good time loyal subjects of Euroland, all in good time.
Complain about this comment
# 44. ScepticMax wrote:
"Answer: A rolling back of the over-arching, over-bearing and overblown nascent European super-state."
Has it ever occurred to you that that is a rather good description of the United Kingdom?
First union - England and Wales - countries with different currencies and languages; second union - England and Wales with Ireland - ditto; third union; England, Wales and Ireland with Scotland - ditto.
The UK also provided a single currency used in four different countries.
Hm, it rather looks to me as though we set the ball rolling. Does that make it an "own goal" or is this just the natural evolution of things?
Perhaps you'd like to roll back all of this "super-state" nonsense and go back to Wessex, Anglia, Mercia, etc?
Complain about this comment
41. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"America has bailed out Europe from its own folly more times than it should have already."
If by any chance you're referring to WWI and WWII, please check the history e.g. via Library of Congress records. US entered WWI just in time to join the victory parades at the end (OK, I exaggerate but not by much). Your troops fought and died heroically but only for a few short months and the tide of the battle was turning before they arrived.
US entered WW II in Europe rather late and only after Germany attacked the US east coast and declared war on US.
On both occasions you billed the UK for ships, planes, tanks, ammunition, etc. The UK has only recently managed to pay off your bill for WW II. Thank you for your help. Should we leave a tip?
47. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"There is far less in common between the United Kingdom and the United States of America than I think most British would like to believe."
Here I agree wholeheartedly - the bulk of your population being made up of any original nationality that you care to think of except British.
"I think the Average American learns much more about European history, culture, and civilization in a high school education than the average European learns about America's in their equivalent."
That is possibly true but since neither learns very much at all in these areas it really isn't saying a lot. And I find that most Americans (and most British for that) think that American independence dates from 1776 when of course the real date is 1783 (Treaty of Paris). see http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41704
Complain about this comment
A good game of musicial chairs is always fun!
thanks Mark for the excellent blog....
Complain about this comment
To ScepticMax (45), g_rizzly (46), and MarcusAureliusII (47):
Actually you are all right. ScepticMax is right if we look at cultures. In Hofstedes dimensions UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand are either very close or exact copies of each other. Thought culturally similar, all countries are in different situations, making different decisions and following different policies, thus being sometimes very different. In example UK is more closer with France and Germany in regards of execution of welfare society than US. Also Ireland is more integrated than UK with EU: having more constructive and productive relationship with the EU. The point being that in real politik, different countries have to follow different policies and base their national image on different things.
To me its always sounds weird to say that UK isn't European or as European as other European countries. There are 27 countries in EU, and many others planning to join it. These countries are very different culturally and have very different policies, but still they all see themselves as Europeans and see the European Union as common project that is beneficial for them and for the whole continent. Saying that UK doesn't belong to EU as it's culture is so different isn't a good argument, because all EU members are very different culturally. Saying that UK doesn't belong to belong to EU as it's economic system is so different isn't a very good argument as there are other EU members that have either have as free and dynamic economy or more flexible than UK.
To me UK is European and it should be an integral part of EU. The problem seems to be that the nations political elite suffers still from the loss of British Empire, and is missing the good old times. This can be both seen from thinking that UK still as an alone nation state can make an considerable impact on world, and the desire to imply that UK has been build on same ingredients as USA - the only current superpower. Of course British people, as also Americans, for a long have suffered from brainwashing of Rubert Murdochs media empire, which have carried an selected political message for long. To me it seems strange that in UK people worry more about EU decreasing Britains independence when the media that steers and guides heavily political life is owned by foreigner with questionable agendas.
Complain about this comment
graypolyglot 52
Is that the way you learned history? Funny that's not the way I learned it.
In World War I, the Russians had withdrawn to fight their revolution and Britain and France were tied down in a stalemate fighting trench warfare until the Americans arrived. Britain, France, and Germany were exhausted but they all just kept pouring money and men into a bottomless pit of death. Neither side was winning when the Americans came in with inexperienced fresh blood that eventually turned the tide.
In World War II, America was attacked by Japan, not Germany. The US was worried about U-Boats off the east coast but there was no attack I'm aware of on American soil by Germany. Churchill persuaded Roosevelt to give priority to Europe over the Pacific. Americans fought the battle of the Atlantic to keep Britain supplied long enough for the war effort in North Africa and on the European mainland to get moving, first through Sicily and then in France. Montgommery was one sweet pain in the rear end. I think Patton and Eisenhower had as much trouble managing Montgommery as they did with Rommel and the Wermacht. Without American support, the Allies would have lost in Europe. Even the USSR depended on a huge amount of US aid in the form of loans of material and arms which they never paid back ($900 million, a lot of money in those days) and the opening of a second and then a third front against Hitler. Without American entrance into the ETO, Hitler could have wiped out Britain and turned his entire attention to Russia. BTW, the loan the UK finally paid off 60 years later was at a super generous rate of 2%. What a bunch of deadbeats. As we say, no good deed goes unpunished.
In World War III, the US footed the bill for countless trillions of dollars for a worldwide military that surrounded the USSR and kept it contained. It sustained this effort for over 45 years. It was committed to a strategy of burning down the entire Soviet empire and China with 20,000 hydrogen bombs that would have brought an end to all human life on earth. If it hadn't, all of Western Europe would have been swallowed up and would now be a captive of a Soviet Empire.
I'm not going into the details again now of how the US first though the Marshall Plan and then through very generous one way trade concessions and incentives to major US corporations rebuilt Western Europe.
In the Balkins, the US came to Europe's assistance again when it couldn't even deal with Kosovo. This was the last straw after Bosnia and Croatia. It looked like Europe was on the verge of re-fighting WWI. Greece and Turkey were ready to go at each other with the weapons the US supplied through NATO to fight WWIII.
In World War IV, the US is carrying the brunt of the burden in Afghanistan and Iraq while Europe pretends to care about Afghanistan and openly opposes the US in Iraq. Iraq probably wouldn't be in half the mess it's in had the Europeans given even nominal token political support to the American and British effort.
Personally I think it would be a good idea for America to disengage itself from the outside world and let it do what it will to each other. We have reached a point where we no longer defend the interests of American people by being outside the US but of huge transnational corporations who depend on openness, free trade, and a safe place to conduct business wherever they go. Why should I care if people in other parts of the world want to kill each other, destroy their infrastructure, and drive away investment? I am not inclined to stop them. Let the corporations themselves hire mercenary armies to fight their battles.
Jukka_Rohilla
The US is not a copy or close to any other culture no matter what Hofstedes says. It is original and unique with its own culture, values, systems, in short its own civilization. I can tell immediately for instance when I am in Canada that I am not at home anymore. If anyone copied anyone, they've copied us but not very exactly. IMO they are different from the US and from each other. I think citizens of those countries would be the first to agree.
I sometimes wonder if the UK hasn't created a delusion of a connection with the US to live vicariously as though it was some sort of extension of it. It is a dangerous delusion for them because they will surely be hurt and disappointed when their assumed direct connection allows them to take liberties that will be unacceptable and rebuffed. Nick Robinson's gaff at the White House was just such an example.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
'I don't know if British media or Europe for that matter would be any less anti-American than they are if they actually understood it. They might be even more anti-American than they already are.'
Hmmm, I'm living in Europe and watch the news very often but the don't seem Anti-American to me. May I notice the huge difference between being Anti-American (dead to the USA! and stuff) and being skeptic towards the USA.
'We know the French are very angry and jealous. They imagined a world where France and French civilization would be dominant.'
During the Ages of strife between the UK and France, the French were searching for a strong ally. When the USA declared independence the French tought: 'this is perfect! A strong, possible, ally West of the UK is what we need'. They sent weapens and soldiers to the young USA, hoping they would become a strong ally of them in their strife with the British. After the War of 1812 the USA and the UK became best friends and France felt betrayed. They lost many wars in the 19th century: the Wars of Napoleon and most important of all the War of 1870-1871. The newborn German Empire annexed large parts of French territory. After this defeat the French tried to conquer a large Empire. The conquered Indo-China and the Sahel but their Empire was much smaller then the British Empire. It took many years but France reconquered the lost territory on Germany during WWI and expanded their Empire with Syria and Lebanon. France was on this moment the most powerfull nation in the world. The glory of the British Empire was declining. WWII ended the French Days of Glory. Within 14 days France was defeated. After WWII their Empire collapsed, just like many other European Empires. The strife between the UK and France was easing because both nations had lost their Empire. But the French could not deal with the fact the USA, the nation which betrayed them (according to the French) was now the most powerfull nation in the world.
This explains the strong Anti-American feelings in some parts of France and the skeptic view of the French on the USA in general. The French should, of course, just accept their Days of Glory are over but for a proud nation this isn't very easy to admit.
'The path to America's surprising rapid rise from obscure remote colonies in a vast wilderness to world dominance began with the signing of the Declaration of Independence and ended with the signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At that moment although nobody knew it at the time, the die was cast. Everything before those events was prelude, everything subsequent was consequence. The exact course of history was mere details.'
Do you mean you believe in 'The End of History'. The power of the USA will decline to just like the power of the European Empires did. Over 100 years their will be new Empires. The power of the USA was never so small. Will the future bring recovery or further decline to the USA? Nobody knows.
Complain about this comment
21. ScepticMax wrote:
"When I wrote 'we, the people' I was referring to the the British people. I don't really give a tinker's cuss about what the people of other countries think."
Thank you for summing up the essence of euroscepticism so well. It really does make me wonder, though, what you would say to someone who made the same statement as above but replaced the word "British" with "Scottish," "Welsh," or "English."
That's what happens when you draw arbitrary lines in the sand to separate people into nations, you see. Since the divisions are arbitrary, it is difficult to get people to agree on where exactly the lines should be drawn. I, for one, look forward to the day when there will be a sense of European nationhood, and British nationalism would be as obsolete as the demand for an independent Wessex.
Complain about this comment
?
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax says:
?What exactly is it that you want to achieve?
Answer: A rolling back of the over-arching, over-bearing and overblown nascent European super-state.?
Not sure if you are a Tory party member or supporter, but whatever the case may be you sound like one of them in your anti-EU rhetoric: ?Hate the EU, but don?t really want to leave it please? stance, obviously not a very grown up one. I?m afraid you, like them, are on a hiding to nothing.
A few months ago asked the Tory party about their EU policy and this is an extract of what they replied:
?As David Cameron has made clear, we will be extremely vigorous in pressing for EU reform. This is exactly what the Movement for European Reform, which David has set-up, is designed to achieve. This is a new pan-European campaign to promote a positive vision of an outward-looking Europe, rather than an inward-looking EU obsessed with its own bureaucracy. It is also for this reason why we have announced our withdrawal from the federalist European People's Party. I can assure you that we will keep the pound as our currency, and we will restore Britain's opt-out from the European Social Chapter. This is a realistic and pragmatic approach to an EU which we believe has gone too far down the federalist route.?
To which I replied if it was then the Tory policy to kindly request the 24 EU members that have adopted or are committed to adopt the Euro to bring back their own currencies, and to kindly request the 29 EU and EEA members that have joined or are committed to join Schengen to bring back their policed borders between themselves, as I could not imagine two clearer examples of a ?federalist route?.
Of course, I received no reply. This, in a nutshell, exemplifies the absurdity of the position of ScepticMax and the Tories. At least UKIP have a coherent and grown up policy in relation to the EU. To say that the policy is to want to convince the rest of the EU of the need to mould the EU in accordance to the British ?vision? is not a policy, is an absurdity. In the end of the day, the UK will not be able to fundamentally change the EU's course as it seems so plainly obvious that the rest of the EU have a starkly different vision of what kind of EU they want, as exemplified by their adoption of the Euro and Schengen.
So ScepticMax, you can take the ?over-arching, over-bearing and overblown nascent European super-state? or leave it. You are not going to fundamentally alter its course.
Complain about this comment
Verhofstad ex belgian PM might be an outsider for the EU presidency he was an active candidate for the commission job after Prodi,may be too active for certain.
He has the skills and says he is not looking for the job,so that's a sign.
Despite the rumours Prodi was an active President at the commission , amongst other challenges he is the one who put the Galilleo poject back on track and lobbied for this till the end of his mandate.
Future generations will be thankful not to depend on just a USA driven navigation system.
And why not Prodi after all ???
Complain about this comment
DutchNemo
I don't know that the US and UK were such good friends after the War of 1812. The UK supported the Confederacy in the Civil War hoping the US would remain divided and therefore weak. How fortunate for them the Union was preserved. A weak America could never have bailed them out of four world wars and rebuilt it after the second one. America's problems with France began immediately after the Revolution with the XYZ affair and has been a constant source of friction ever since. Let's be honest, nations don't have friends, they have interests. The French were not looking for a friend in the American Revolution, they were looking for a way to diminish British power and influence by denying it its colonies in America.
I see my posting #55 above has not been published. Perhaps my comment about Montgommery being a prima donna in World War II and as big a problem for America as the German enemy hit a nerve with the moderator. Funny how sensitive Europeans are when the bashing goes the other way for a change.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII:
Your version of history is either a sad indictment on the standard of history teaching in the USA, or a sign you have been watching too many Hollywood blockbusters :-)
Complain about this comment
odysseus_nz
I think your problem odysseus_nz is that likely being from New Zealand, you have been reading your history books upside down. Now why do you suppose the US went to war so many times in Europe at a cost of so many lives and so much money and spent so much more money to defend it and rebuild it after WWII? Do you think it was for the fun of it? Do you think they just wanted to get in on the action? I know the rest of the world hates to think of how much they depended on the US in the past and still do just to survive. Hopefully, if my government ever comes to its senses, we will put a stop to that and let the rest of the world get on without our help. I'd like to see just how well they do on their own. I for one am sick and tired of all of the sacrifices American taxpayers make to an ungrateful world. President Bush just pledged another 750 million dollars to help poor people around the world pay for the higher cost of food despite our own economic problems at home. How much did your country pledge? How much aid did it actually deliver to the victims of the tsunami? How much in private donations from the generous pocketbooks of your fellow citizens? How much to fight AIDS in Africa? What do you suppose America could have done with that extra 15 billion dollars? At the very least we could have built a few more nuclear aircraft carriers.
BTW, if you are from New Zealand, the reason you are not now part of the Imperial Japanese Empire is becaue 65 years ago Americans fought and died stopping the Japanese around the Phillipines before they could get to you.
Complain about this comment
55. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"graypolyglot 52
Is that the way you learned history? Funny that's not the way I learned it."
That does not surprise me. re US entry to WWI please see
http://hubpages.com/hub/World_War_1_America_Declares_War_on_Germany
And re US entry to WWII see
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm
To say that "The US was worried about U-Boats off the east coast " is quite an understatement. see
http://www.de220.com/History/History%20Documents/DE_Beginnings.htm
Without for one moment condoning Japan?s pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor I?ll point out that there are many who see US Commodore Perry?s gunships in Tokyo Bay as the reason for it. See http://teacher.scholastic.com/pearl/timeline/index.htm and
http://www.baxleystamps.com/litho/ry_litho_main.shtml
But we?re getting far away from the purpose of this thread. I believe that a United Europe can ensure that we avoid replaying our unfortunate history (which the USA would probably also prefer) and that we?re a long way off needing a "President" on American or French lines. For now we just need a chairman to seek consensus among our 27 states and then represent it.
Complain about this comment
Why do so many discussions about international politics end up in arguments over who owes what to whom as a result of World War 2? The war ended 63 years ago; most people who fought in it are dead; with the end of the Cold War most of the geopolitical effects of WW2 have been undone. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
DenisOLeary (30): It is an interesting question as to whether this President of the EU Council will have more legitimacy than the president of the EU Commission. In my view he will since the Council is composed of legitimate heads of government, each with a democratic mandate to govern (in their own country only). The EU Commission is certainly the least legitimate of the EU institutions having neither the ?output legitimacy? of intuitions such as the ECJ or ECB, nor the veneer of a sham-democratic legitimacy that the elections to the EU Parliament provide.
Personally I would reduce the Commission to a pure civil service by removing its power to initiate legislation (transferring this to the EU Parliament) and put its bureaucracy under the control of the EU Council president. I would also remove the legislative power of the Council of Ministers since national executives should not be the creators of superior EU legislation that cannot be blocked by the national legislatures (parliaments) that are supposed to keep our governments in check. The Council would have to be empowered with a veto over the legislative output of the European parliament to compensate for eliminating the Council of Ministers. Each member-state?s parliament should also have the power to prevent EU legislation not directly addressing a cross-border issue from being applied within its country. This is the only way to safeguard democracy in Europe into the future, such that we can elect governments with the power to change things even that have previously been agreed. Such changes would go a long-way to making the EU acceptable from a democratic point of view, but would most likely not be acceptable to those who cling to the federalist vision even when no true European polity has formed.
However I personally have no faith the EU will ever be satisfactorily reformed. The June 2007 decision to ignore the results of national referendums was the final straw for me. I believe the UK should now concentrate on re-negotiation of its relationship back towards one of trade and should leave if this cannot be achieved in a short timeframe.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
'I don't know that the US and UK were such good friends after the War of 1812.'
True, my words were ill-chosen. After the War of 1812 the relationship between the UK and USA became stronger while the relationship between the USA and France weakened and continued to weaken. The War of 1812 was the turning point, which of course didn't mean there were no conflicts between France and the USA before 1812 or conflicts between the UK and USA after 1812. I must admid I didn't knew the UK supported the Confederacy.
'Let's be honest, nations don't have friends, they have interests.'
You're confusing nations and states. States have interests but nations can have friends. A nation is a group of people who have the same language, culture and sometimes religion. For example: Koerdistan is a nation but not a state. Because nations are a group of people they can like or don't like other nations. States can't like or don't like other states because they're just a geographical and political entity. A state can exist out of numerous nations (Ethiopia, Yugoslavia ect).
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (66): Well, I'm a federalist and I agree with everything you just proposed. Just because I want a federal European "superstate" doesn't mean I support the dysfunctional current structure of the EU, in which supranational legislative power is (mostly) given to the representatives of national executives, who meet behind closed doors. If a country were governed the way the EU is governed, it wouldn't be considered a democracy and it would not even meet the democratic criteria for EU membership.
Yes, the EU is an undemocratic mess. But no, the solution is not to seek more national opt-outs. The solution is to do the same thing you would do if your national government were an undemocratic mess - try to enact fundamental change.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @ wrote:
"So ScepticMax, you can take the 'over-arching, over-bearing and overblown nascent European super-state' or leave it. You are not going to fundamentally alter its course."
I'd like to leave it, but if I can't I'll be a canker. Then, hopefully, you'll have to cut us out.
@57 MTE_05, the amalgamation of Wessex, Mercia, et. into 'Britain' took many centuries and much bloodshed.
I'm afraid that the accelerated 'pressure cooker-ing' of so many disparate countries into a federal super-state will end in tears. Or worse.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05 (68): I am not sure the federalists writing the EU treaties would agree with you. They want all EU law to be superior to national law, even when there is no cross-border issue because they want to gradually replace the legislative power of our national parliaments. They want the EU Commission to retain the monopoly of legislative initiative because this is the one-way ratchet that ensures integrartion cannt be reversed, even if desired by the heads of government in the EU Council. They do not want national parliaments to be able to have any power over EU law (except a useless power to scrutinize Commission proposals), because if national parliaments could vote to reverse the application of previously agreed EU policy on their territory, the British for example would immediately vote to pull out of the CAP, and other policies which have never enjoyed support here. Federalists want to keep Monnet's institutional design because it leads automatically to his goal of a European state.
The time is passed for the UK to try to reform the EU. The difference between the British state and the EU is that the former is legitimate while the EU is not because there is no majority in this island that supports the existing powers it has over us. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to elect a new Conservative government mandated to renegotiate our relationship so as to repatriate powers to the UK (or take us if our partners refuse to accept).
Complain about this comment
Re 36: "NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Act is such a trade agreement betweent the US, Canada, and Mexico. But do you think for one moment Americans would give up control of the dollar to Mexico and Canada?"
Are you trying to hint that the UK stands to the EU as the US stands to NAFTA? If anything, the UK could be compared to Canada... except for the standards of living of the average people, where Mexico would be more appropriate.
Complain about this comment
Why do so many political discussions end with the discussion of WWII?
World War 2 isn't irrelevant. Many of the major issues affecting the world today (China and Japan's relationship, the Balkans, the Middle East) are heavily tied in with World War 2 and its effects on the world or even World War I. You can't understand the present without understanding the past.
Complain about this comment
@ Freeborn-John (70): I know most European federalist politicians don't agree with me. That's why I nearly always vote for anti-EU forces rather than pro-EU ones (all other things being equal between them), despite my sincere desire to see a European superstate. Put simply, I would like a European superstate, but not *this* particular European superstate. I would like a proper European Confederation, with a clear division of powers at the supranational level, with a proper supranational Parliament that would have sole authority to vote on supranational legislation, subject to a veto by 50%+1 of member state legislatures. I would like this Parliament to elect a proper executive, with powers clearly defined in a constitutional document, with no need for ministers to come from specific countries and with no powers to vote on legislation. And yes, I would like to see a European Constitution, a REAL constitution that did what constitutions are supposed to do - describe in very precise terms the limits of the powers of supranational institutions. I would like to abolish the Commission, the Council of Ministers, and possibly also the EU Council (although I can see the merits of making the EU Council the collective head of state of the European Confederation).
I am a strong believer in referendums and I think the people of each member state should be given the opportunity to choose whether they want to be part of the European Confederation or not. I fully expect you Brits to reject it, and I think it would be better for all of us on both sides of the channel if the UK was no longer part of the European project. De Gaulle was right on this one. I also think Denmark, Sweden and Finland would be better off leaving. The rest, though, should stay together.
Is it possible to get from here to there, from the EU we have today to something like the Confederation I described above? I don't know; I'd like to believe it is. But I do know that no one in the current crop of politicians would support such a project.
@ ScepticMax (69): There may be many disadvantages to European integration, but bloodshed is certainly not one of them! And your argument loses much of its strength if you rephrase it to say "the amalgamation of Wessex, Mercia, et. into 'Britain' took many centuries and much taxation."
@ yaasehshalom (72): WW2 isn't irrelevant, of course - ultimately, no major continental war is irrelevant, even thousands of years after the fact; many borders in Europe today can be traced back to the conquests of Charlemagne. But it is time to let go of the guilt, debts and duties stemming from WW2. It is time to look at it truly as something that happened in the past; something done by *other* people, *other* generations. It is time to refer to our countrymen who fought in WW2 as "they," not "we." WE didn't fight the war, WE didn't win or lose, act heroically or cowardly; THEY did.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot #64
"there are many who see US Commodore Perry's gunships in Tokyo Bay as the reason for it (Pearl Harbor)."
Then they see it wrong. Is that why Japan also invaded China, Korea, The Phillipines, and much of Southeast Asia, to teach those Yankees a lesson about Perry? NO!. It was because along with their partners in Italy and Germany they were totalitarian dictatorships bent on conquering the entire world.
I don't know what Europe needs, I only know what it is...and what it isn't. It's a place in a terminal state of decline long ago eclipsed by the United States of American and now in the process of being eclipsed by China and India. And it is not a friend of America.
DutchNemo, in the sense used here, nations are states.
larciniagigante
I'm saying the US entered NAFTA which is a free trade treaty. The UK entered the EU with its people believing they were entering a free trade arrangemnt too. So did the citizens of the other members at the beginning. But what they didn't know was that this was a ruse, a first step down a path of extranational political integration which would rob every one of them of their national sovereignty entirely. What I am saying is that most of them allowed this to happen with hardly a whimper. The UK hasn't gone quite as far as the others...yet. This could not happen in the US. Just look at what happened to the Kennedy McCain illegal alien amnesty treaty. Despite support from both Conservative Republican leaders and Liberal Democrat leaders in Congress, it was soundly defeated because of public outcry and threat to their Senators and Representatives of what would happen to them if it passed. I'm surprise American citizens haven't started a shooting war at the Mexican border yet.
Complain about this comment
74. MarcusAureliusII :
I agree that Japan invaded China, Korea, The Phillipines, and much of Southeast Asia because, along with their partners in Italy and Germany, they were totalitarian dictatorships bent on conquering the entire world.
But, it can still legitimately be argued that the memory of Perry's gunships in Tokyo Bay incited the Japanese to seek to ensure that the US would keep out their way in future.
Incidentally, in respect of your comments to odysseus_nz, the Japanese went to The Philippines because they were and had been a US colony since 1898. Americans fought and died stopping the Japanese around the Phillipines for reasons other than protecting New Zealand.
You say that you "don't know what Europe needs, (you) only know what it is...and what it isn't. It's a place in a terminal state of decline long ago eclipsed by the United States of American ...". So why bother to join in a discussion about a future Presidency of Europe?
You say that Europe is not a friend of America. But look at the spontaneous outpourings of sympathy and offers of help right across Europe following 9/11 and following the New Orleans disaster. The US response was pretty much the same as that of the junta in Burma facing their current catastrophe. Some people just can't stand the thought of needing foreign help. In the past we Europeans have needed help and been able to swallow our pride and accept it with gratitude.
To come back to the point, uniting Europe can help us put an end to our centuries long disputes and pave the way to a peaceful and prosperous future. How we achieve that is surely our concern not yours. Many of us do not believe that Europe is in terminal decline but rather that it is on the cusp of a new renaissance.
Complain about this comment
@Marcus Aurelius II
just to clarify something but it's not because the British were led to believe that the precursors to the EU were to be just a Free Trade Agreement like NAFTA that the rest of Europe was, or that those precursors were only meant to be a NAFTA-like construction.
On the contrary: From the very beginning it was made very clear that this pan-european project was to be more than just an FTA. Hence the words: "Ever Closer Union".
Complain about this comment
graypolyglot
For people who are supposed to know history, I am disappointed that they either never taught it to you accurately or that you have read it throught a prism that has so distorted it, black is white. So was it to teach America a lesson that the Japanese Imperial Empire not only invaded the Phillipines but like every other country it invaded imprisoned its population, turned them into slave labor and tortured them? Did they teach the Americans a lesson by throwing Chinese babies in the air and catch them on the ends of their bayonets? What kind of mindless tripe do your read?
Why do I write entries on these blogs? To give Europeans a taste of their own medicine. To give them a taste of bashing which they more than deserve. They spout off about America at the slightest opportunity when in fact they have an endless history that is nothing less than damnable. Behind its facade of imagined self imortance and false culture lies a very ugly truth nobody ever talks about. Well I'm talking about it so that they can hear it maybe for the first time in their lives. The world and their place in it is very different from the illusion they have painted.
Oh how nice that they poured out sympathy for America after Katrina and 9-11. Talk is cheap. What did it cost to mail that sympathy card, half a Euro? How about sending 100,000 troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan to root out al Qaeda and the Taleban to make the world safe from terrorists? How about sending half a million troops to Iraq to help destroy the insurgency? How about a direct warning to Iran that if it doesn't shut down its nuclear weapons program now and dismantle what nuclear weapons program it has already has built Europe will demand NATO bomb its military industrial complexes to dust? Europe is all talk and no action. The only kind of war Europe knows how to fight is a war of words. When it comes to the real defense of what little democracy it has it sits in its cafes and lets others like America do its fighting for it...or cowers under its beds. I say next time America should give it up as a lost cause. When Russia finally has had it with Europe and shuts the gas and oil off, I say don't lift a finger. Let it freeze. You want people to sacrifice by not burning fossil fuels to prevent further climate change. What poeticc justice and irony that would be. YOU make the sacrifice this time.
BernardVC
It's one thing to join a trade union, another to enter into a reverse operation to join and become like Siamese twins where you actually share organs. There is little doubt that the EU will be a dictatorship that will hasten the downfall of Europe. I'm all for it. Lets see how its one unified foreign policy deals with Russia upon whom it is entirely dependent for furl. In the end, they will be on their knees begging for "a mutually acceptable arrangement" which is a doubletalking code phrase for surrender.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05: You cannot have a head of state of a confederation, it being a voluntary association of sovereign states and not a state itself. In a democracy, all power must be derived from a people and the EU does not have one. The EU so-called parliament should not elect the head of the Brussels executive because to do so would imply we are willing to live under a European government dominated by majorities in other countries, which is absolutely not the case. The executive (government) may only be elected by a real parliament that can truly claim to be the legitimate representative of a sovereign people. So long as the nations of Europe exist, which they will do for the foreseeable future (i.e. well beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this), and so long as we wish to remain democracies, our national parliaments will remain our only legitimate representation and the EU may only exercise those powers that we wish to confer upon it.
Monnet?s self-aggrandising institutions have acquired excess power through undemocratic means only at the cost of forfeiting their legitimacy. It is imperative that any incoming British government re-negotiates our membership to something which a majority of Britons might find acceptable, i.e. a relationship based on trade and not politics, such we can once again decide our affairs in elections between parties that compete on the basis of programs of government that they put before the people.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII:
I think you make a common mistake of equating critic and criticizing America to being anti-American. Like in example when French warned that starting a war and occupying Iraq wouldn't be a terrible good idea, it was deemed in the US as anti-American: see the renaming of French fries to Freedom fries venture. Same too with the policy of "you are either with us or against us". To me it seems like there is a strong black and white thinking going on in a America, which doesn't just end to governing elite but that also goes deeper into media and maybe to general thinking. I don't know from where does that line of thinking comes from, but I do know that in the world of gray, thinking just white or black isn't very constructive.
Like in example the war against terrorism. People and governments all over the world were horrified about 9/11. The US got the blessing of UN and it's NATO allies to catch the perpetrators and bring them in front of justice. No problem. Now, the thing is, that after the 9/11 US administration has used the war against terror, as an puppet to further its own agendas. Iraq wasn't about Al-Qaida and Saddam collaborating, or even Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was and is about oil and US stake on middle eastern oil. Thus how can you blame Europeans in general and NATO partners on not agreeing on following US actions, when these actions where clearly not right?
Now, Europe has a bloody history witch is full of civil and foreign wars, conquest and plunder, ethnic clenching and genocide, empire building and imperial wars etc.. Now what we have learned and is shared very strongly in collective memory that wars should be avoided and common human rights must be respected. That is why European countries see it better to talk and discuss, to negotiate than use force. Force should be used only on self defense. In Europe we have succeeded on making former enemies friends and partners, so why couldn't the same happen in other parts of the world?
Like in example Iran. From the beginning of Islamic revolution, the relationships with it and western countries has been frozen. Now this policy hasn't worked and neither will more stronger policies as they don't solve the fundamental problems. 1) Islamic revolution happened because Iranians didn't like Shah, because he and his regime were more or less puppets for the US. 2) Iran has invested on nuclear technology, because it doesn't feel safe. If we want to Iran completely close nuclear option, we have to address Israels nuclear weapons and address overall security situation in the Persian Gulf. If we want Iran to progress in to a democratic country, more like Turkey, we have to let them govern their self, and as that happens, the change will surely happen. Of course, not always does negations and compromises bring results, but even then war is not the first option to choose.
Complain about this comment
"I don't know what Europe needs, I only know what it is...and what it isn't. It's a place in a terminal state of decline long ago eclipsed by the United States of American and now in the process of being eclipsed by China and India. And it is not a friend of America." [#74]
And more and more Americans are waking up to this fact. There is no point debating with perennial fellow travellers and "useful idiots" (to use Lenin's expression) their suicidal policies.
It's simply high time to take our toys and go home, leaving 27 EUnuchs as impotent as they've always have been, at mercy of al-Qaeda and...GAZPROM.
Next time you're in dire straits again, comrades, don't call us: we'll call you.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat (80) and MarcusAureliusII (74):
What is with this attitude? I really don't understand. World isn't a zero sum game.
Europe has chosen a path that US previously followed: to build and develop own country, to keep out of foreign politics and conflicts, to engage in war only in defense. Even in US you have many people that think that is a the way how US should act, some of them presidential candidates.
I also can't really understand on painting Al-Qaida some force that is about taking the world over. It's rag tag group of individuals that have had good luck with their terror strikes and lots of publicity. Terrorism and fanatic Islam will meet their end, the day when stop is put to Saudi-Arabia, US ally, financing global jihad. The rest of the middle east will stabilize when US stops financing Israel, US ally too, and they have to make an peace with Palestinians and other neighbors. Al-Qaida is not Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or Soviet Union, you are creating an enemy out of thin air.
Russia and Russian goverment also aren't some force from hell that is trying to conquer world or Europe. Russia and Europe are and will be geographical neighbors, and we can have friendly and prosperous relationships with each other. Russia has energy and lot's of development potential, and what it needs is safety and resources to develop, that Europe can provide. Interdependency is the key here.
The point I'm trying to make is that prosperity and freedom can be best achieved by co-operation and interdependencies between world powers. The more we work together, the more linked and safer the world is, the more we also have prosperity. All global players US, Europe, China, Russia, India and Brazil have much more to win by working together than working against each other.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @81, if you seriously contend that radical Islamism is not an existential threat to western liberal democracy, then you are truly, in Lenin's phrase, a useful idiot.
I hope you enjoy your life as a Dhimmi under the Caliphate.
Complain about this comment
Anyone got a point related to the position of the president of the EU Council?
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @83, Does a bayonet point count?
Complain about this comment
Rotating presidency?
Who is next?
Complain about this comment
"A state can exist out of numerous nations (Ethiopia, Yugoslavia ect)." [#67]
Sorry, but history has amply demonstrated that they cannot: not in the long run.
That's why prewar India fell apart, Yugoslavia fell apart, that's why Soviet Union fell apart, and that's why that other Union of Soviets (Russian for 'Councils') will never succeed as a superstate. Even itsy-bitsy Belgium seems to have no future as 2 nations state.
And I won't even mention a perennial problem of Baskonia and Catalonia which doesn't want to go away.
Complain about this comment
@ ScepticMax (82): Sorry, but radical Islamism is not even a remote threat to liberal democracy or anything else. They can't even overthrow their own governments in the Middle East - the Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to take over Egypt for, what, 60 years now? - and you think they are some kind of barbarian horde at the gates of Europe about to establish a new Caliphate and take over the world?
What do radical Islamists actually DO? Well, they plant bombs and kill people. Not so different from the IRA. Would you say that the IRA in the 1970s or 80s was on the verge of destroying liberal democracy in the UK? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I'm sorry, but I really don't see how blowing up buses, trains or planes is going to bring down the government and establish a new Caliphate. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?
Better yet, give me a historical example of a case when terrorism has EVER helped the terrorists take over the government of a country.
Israel has been facing much more relentless attacks than Europe or the US for many decades, and I don't see the Israeli government about to pack up and hand over power to Hamas. Terrorism is a danger to the lives of individual Israeli citizens, but it is not going to bring down their liberal democracy. Neither is it going to bring down our liberal democracies. You may stop panicking now.
@ MarcusAureliusII (77): Oh, I see, responding to 9-11 by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, for the purpose of destroying imaginary WMDs at the behest of an incompetent president is a sign of manliness and a healthy backbone, while questioning the wisdom of our enlightened leaders and refusing to go in guns blazing and kill women and children at the slightest provocation is a sign of wimpish cowardice.
You claim that the American people would never put up with an erosion of their democracy, but I see every reason to believe that the American people is in fact very much docile. Although it would be difficult to erode American democracy, since the two-party system ensures that there isn't a whole lot of democracy to begin with.
Europe's history is bloody and restless. Over the past two hundred years we've had countless revolutions, riots and rebellions. Europeans rise up against their governments all the time. When was the last time Americans rose up against their government? In the 18th century, I believe.
It is interesting to note that every time you talk about American strength, you really talk about the strength of the American government - its military might, its willingness and ability to invade and defeat other countries. It's never the strength of the American people doing something without or against their government. Compare this with the French. They take to the streets against their government at the slightest provocation. The Americans enroll in the military to serve their government at the slightest provocation. The French have a weak government but a strong people. The Americans have a strong government but a weak people.
The European Union, counted as a single bloc, is the strongest economy in the world. The highest standards of living in the world, measured in terms of the Human Development Index, are to be found in Europe. We don't need the burden of a special relationship with a United States whose economy is increasingly unstable, whose foreign policy decisions are increasingly erratic, and who contains a significant number of people that apparently despise us. It is time, I believe, for a reverse Monroe doctrine - for Europe to insist that the US stay out of our hemisphere.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla
Don't pontificate to me. Europe has over a thousand year history of genocide it imposed in endless forms from feudalism to imperialism to socialism, communism, fascism and it brought its misery, enslavement, and death to every corner of the earth in unequalled measure. Europe is the greatest curse which ever befell humanity. Only Islamic terrorism may one day challenge it in that regard. Americans cannot be told by Euopeans what to do or how to think. America was born and remains a rejection of everything Europe is or ever was. It wasn't until America stepped into Europe 67 years ago during the worst single bloodbath in human history that the genocide there stopped and had America left, it would have started right back up again almost immediately. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason America went from 13 obscure colonies to the greatest civilization on earth far eclipsing all others in less than two centuries is that it is actually a far better and smarter place? The only thing the losers of Europe can teach America is how not to be a failure by their own example.
MTE_05
President Bush explained the invasion of Iraq to the world succinctly and plainly when he said it was done to prevent the nexus of terrorism and WMDs. Which word didn't you understand?
Complain about this comment
Although unrelated to the discussion, Marcus Aurelius II brings up some interesting points in the EU-US relations. Some of it is true, i.e.
the EU is not doing enough on defence. Furthermore, it looks like EU defence is illogical, i.e. there is as we speak a part of the EU that is occupied by a third party. Before sending troops abroad, the logical thing to do is first defend EU soil.
However, the US also has its own share of blame:
-It has alienated prospective allies, such as South Americans by its support for regimes like Somoza and Pinochet,
-it has alienated the Russians by antagonizing them needlessly( not just because the Taliban were "freedom fighters" back in the Reagan era, but even today)
-it has behaved on many occasions in an arrogant and undefensible way
-it has on its hands the same practices used by the islamofascists(from the point of view of a civillian bombed to dust in Yugoslavia or
Iraq in "shock and awe" campaigns-without a formal declaration of war, BTW, what its the difference from 9/11?)
-it does not have a clear-cut explainable policy on how it plans to deal with the
problems. How exactly do you eradicate the Taliban and the Iraq insurgency?
-it has foresaken old alliances for the sake of new ones when it sees countries ready to
be uncle Sam's puppet for their own purposes.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII (88):
I have a book tip for you. The rise and the fall of the great powers - economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000, by Paul Kennedy. The book costs about 3 dollars when bought used from Amazon.
Now the reason America came super power? Huge natural resources, continuous flow of cheap labor, huge amounts of capital in loans from Britain, access to global trading network, and at least but not last Atlantic ocean. Before the second world war, US used a tiny fraction of its GDP to its army, thus allowing the money to be invested into economy and growing more rapidly. Compare this to other parts of the world, where military expenditure took huge amounts of national GDP. Those are the reason America became a great power first and then a super power.
Want to know an interesting thing? Oil is what fuels the world economy. The other reason US became super power and dollar became main reserve currency was that US had huge oil reserves and ever increasing production of oil. Now the peak oil in US was in the 70s, the oil production has then turned down, and now US only produces 30% of the oil it consumes. Now 30% is huge when you compare it to Europe or Japan, but its declining that means definitive changes on US economy including dollars position as reserve currency. Just look and see, look at the oil.
Btw. its not that I nor other wont understand what President Bush says, it's just we don't believe in him anymore. Iraq is about oil and the control of middle eastern oil. Now what we and nobody outside White House and Pentagon know is what is the ultimate plan? Is it to use Iraq as an base of attack to Saudi Arabia if the Al-Saud is struck from power? Is it to threaten both Saudi-Arabia and Iran to keep trade of oil in dollars, or is there some other motive.
Complain about this comment
"Anyone got a point related to the position of the president of the EU Council?" [#83]
I don't have a point, but as an outsider I have a couple of questions.
1. What is this person (answerable to 2 different chairmen of 2 different councils) going to preside over?
2. What is a Foreign Policy coordinator going to coordinate in the absence of coherent EU foreign policy?
3. What is "unified staff" going to command in the absence of a unified EU military force?
4. Who is going to implement EU common energy policy when even that policy cannot be agreed upon by its members?
5. What actions in international arena will new, strenghtened leadership be capable of taking of behalf of the multinational EU superstate short of issuing statements, appeals, and, in extremis, condemnations "in the strongest possible terms"?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila, Scotandr1,
Very true.
The world wide rejection inside the public opinion towards American foreign policy (except in few nations -someone said puppets- like Albania, FYROM or Kosovo) makes more important and urgent Europe creates her own insititutional body, to become a political giant, not only an economic one.
Many Europeans would feel very happy to be distinguished around the world from her North American "ally".
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
That's the same incorrect answer BBC gave in its series "America Age of Empire." Like your explanation, they thought America became powerful because of what it had instead of what it was. Yes those resources helped but other places in the world had resources and did not rise to dominate the world. Russia for one. Europe had some but it stole what it didn't have from everyone else through its empires. And where did that get it? Just look at film and photographs of Europe at the end of World War II. That was the sum total of its civilization when left to its own devices. Would it happen again if America pulled out of Europe and left it to itself again? I don't know but I am perfectly willing to find out.
Complain about this comment
I think that apart from natural resources and the ocean, there have been a number of US characteristics that have greatly helped the US become a superpower:
-meritocracy. Many competent people in positions of influence, including people who could say "no" to the government. Regrettably,
it is hard to find this is the EU today.
-a much more background-agnostic society than Europe. In the US one could be as american as one wishes from day 1. In Europe in some countries you can be second generation and still feel (and be treated like) a foreigner
-a sense of pragmatism(if it ain't broke, don't fix it). In contrast, the Commision in particular often tries to fix things that ain't even broken.
-nationalism(I take the positive side of it, such as "ask what you can do for your country","buy American" and so on, rather than freedo fries and other things.)
The unfortunate thing is that even in the US, and as Americans generally will also recognize, these advantages are no longer like they were say 30 years ago or even less
Europe cannot claim to be doing any better though.
In my view there are lessons Europe can take from the US(in general there is a lesson to be learned from everything),
without either copying the US(for example the last thing one should copy is the US legal system-the german or french system is much better IMHO), or following blindly.
Being a good friend means also being able to say no to your friend. Only slaves will always say "yes, master".
To come back to the original question,
I do not think that the name is important,
but the attitude, job description and responsibilities to take the concerns of ALL Europeans into account, since unlike the US, Europe is NOT a nation and Europeans do not (yet?) feel as one nation.
So if for example the Poles veto one
prospective EU policy, it is the EU presidents's job to side with the EU citizens rather than with the Commission or a third country. It would be unthinkable for the
US president to side against a state. So the president must be able to balance things, not act like a king who will enforce the wisdom of the commision on the ignorant EU peasants.
Complain about this comment
@ MarcusAureliusII (88): You do realize, I hope, that the creation of the American colonies was a direct result of European history and European imperialism, which you apparently think should have never happened. Now, I happen to agree with you on that point, but it is bizzare to hear you claim, at the same time, that "Europe is the greatest curse which ever befell humanity" and that America - the direct result of that "curse" - is the best thing ever. I mean, it's a bit like hearing a chicken say that eggs are a terrible curse which should not exist.
Not only were American colonists European, but their ideology was also European. Your form of government is called a "republic" and your upper legislative house is called the "Senate" - both of which are terms taken directly from the Roman Republic (FYI: Rome is located in Europe). The term "democracy" and the concept it represents comes from ancient Athens - also in Europe. The concept of natural rights was invented by Enlightenment philosophers, such as John Locke, who lived in Europe. Free markets and free trade were first advocated by Adam Smith, from Europe. Oh dear, it looks as though you'd better change your form of government immediately - it's far too European. Take the British constitutional tradition, add a bit of French republicanism, and you have the United States.
To be honest, I can't think of any major modern political ideology or principle of government - good or bad - that DIDN'T start in Europe.
And speaking of genocide, you may want to have a word with the Native Americans before you claim your hands are so nice and clean.
(P.S. your namesake, Marcus Aurelius, was also European; those rotten Europeans are everywhere, it seems!)
Complain about this comment
"A French court has convicted seven men accused of recruiting poor young Muslims in Paris to fight against US-led forces in Iraq.
[...]
The men were tracked down and arrested after a young Frenchman was found dead in the Iraqi city of Falluja in 2004.
Five of the seven men are French."
[BBC World]
Just like several would-be Islamist terrorists arrested not so long ago in Germany were blond, blue-eyed native citizens of that country.
A perfect example that Islamism is not a threat to liberal European democracies and that new generation of EU citizens can think and act independently of the Great Satan". ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------
WHOM GOD WANTS TO PUNISH HE FIRST DEPRIVES OF REASON
Complain about this comment
"To be honest, I can't think of any major modern political ideology or principle of government - good or bad - that DIDN'T start in Europe." [#95]
1. FINLANDIZATION, so prevalent in "old Europe".
It was created in ASIA, in more sense than one, but was enthusiastically adopted by EUnuchs lacking testicular fortitude to stand up for anything.
2. Sharia-based global caliphate, a concept which originated in the backward Middle East but these days actively supported by many a citizen of enlightened Europe.
P.S. Since you've mention John Locke and Adam Smith... They didn't "live in Europe": they lived in England, and they were not European, but Englishmen; a distinction which is a source of many problems in EU and nature of which "Continentals", it seems, cannot comprehend. Just as they cannot understand a nature of special relationship between US and UK. Or a fundamental contradiction between free market and welfare state.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat (96):
That's your evidence that Europe is in danger because of Islamist? Few individuals that made a wrong choice in life?
The thing that I really never have understood is that people see Islam as a one way street. The logic by you and other seems to be that if you let even a one muslim into your country he will spead Islam and bread until the whole country is a muslim country. Same too with Koran. If you read one verse of it, you want to read more and more until you have a beard and wifes in burkhas. The logic is the same in both cases, Islam is a one way street.
Now in reality this is not the case. Muslims or other people with Arabian or middle eastern background don't differ from other people. The thing is that here in the west most people have abandoned old religious ways, become more tolerant, found new ways to belief and many have abandoned faith all together. The same will happen with muslims too. There is no reason why books of Richard Dawkin or Stephen Hawking wouldn't talk to muslim youths as they do talk native westerners.
If don't believe this, then you have serious people problem.
Complain about this comment
"There is no reason why books of Richard Dawkin or Stephen Hawking wouldn't talk to muslim youths as they do talk native westerners.
If don't believe this, then you have serious people problem."
Nope. However I do have a serious problems with 'useful idiots' who believe in multiculturalism/civilisational equivalence and who tolerate madrassas in heart of Europe in which many young muslims get their education.
[Perhaps that's why you don't see their names on Nobel science prize lists, but on many a police wanted list]
P.S. I appreciate a fact that you have not adressed EU FINLANDIZATION problem.
I've noticed it's a taboo subject in Western Europe, except for some inhabitants of Southern Karelia.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05 @87 wrote
"... radical Islamism is not even a remote threat to liberal democracy or anything else. "
There are none so blind as will not see.
Radical Islamism is not only terrorism. It has other ways of manifesting itself and eroding our lifestyle. Slowly our hard-won liberties are being eroded by just the threat of force.
For example: many national publications in the UK will happily print cartoons ridiculing Jesus, Moses, the saints and the prophets of Judeo-Christian belief. They don't fear the wrath of radical christians and/or Jews. They're not worried that they'll be subject to arson, violent demonstrations in Canterbury or Edgware, death threats or having their throat slit and a notice pinned on their dying bodies. Now, how many will national publications will print a cartoon taking the mickey out of Mohammed? How many editors stood up for our right of freedom of speech and reprinted the Danish Cartoons that caused such bother among bigoted idiots?
You may say that such cartoons are 'insensitive' or disrespectful'. Well, personally, I urinate on all the 'sensitivities' and 'respect' of all religions.
Curtailing individual freedom of speech because of the threats (or 'sensitivities') of some deluded idiots who believe in God (or Allah/Jesus/Mohammed/little pixies at the bottom of the garden) is the first step in the destruction of all that is valuable in western civillisation and an extinction of the flame of enlightenment that has burned brightly on this continent for 300 years.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05, I recognise that I owe you a fuller response to your post (@87), but it's been a long day....
Forgive me if I just make a few bullet points instead.
1. Radical Islamism is not a monolithic force (and it is not just Al Qaida). There are various types including Shia (as the Iranian theocracy), Sunni (as in the long-established strategic agreement between the House of Saud and the Wahabi Council ), it has nationalist tinges in Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines).
2. Sure the Muslim Brotherhood have been trying to overthrow Egypt for (more than actually) 60 years. The way they have been stopped (By Nasser, Sadat and now Mubarak) is by brute force and authoritarian dictatorship (dressed up in the guise of elections - for one party). We in Europe rightly despise such regimes and their treatment of 'dissidents'. But this leave us so 'soft' that we cannot even boot out a one-eyed, two-hooked rabble rouser, let alone root out the seriously dangerous fanatics.
3. Virtually all the other Arab countries in the Middle East deal with their fanatics as Egypt does - if not worse (better?). But the Islamist are gaining power and sooner or later another 'Shah' will fall. This time in a Sunni state.
4. Israel stands up to Islamic terrorism and is castigated for it by our nice Pilgers and Polly Toynbees. The demonisation of Israel by the appeasing left - including the BBC [BTW, where is the Balen Report?] - is so well documented that I need not go into it here.
5. You ask "give me a historical example of a case when terrorism has EVER helped the terrorists take over the government of a country. We all know the saying that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. So, with no 'value judgement' either way, for starters: USSR, Algeria, Eire, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Israel [as many anti-Israelis would jump to say], Assorted 'liberation armies/fronts' etc, etc, etc. - please feel free to add your own to the list.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05 #95
The original settlers to the American colonies began their transformation as soon as they stepped off the boat. It started around 1607 and by 1776 it bore little resemblance to Europe already, even though the colonists considered themselves British subjects. That difference came from the struggle to survive in a far different reality, a much harsher and more life threatening environment. The story of America is in part one of overcoming almost impossible adversity time and time again. My ancestors were European but I am no more European than Barack Obama is. I have far more in common with him than I have with you. In fact come to think of it, while I don't think he's the best candidate or would make a good President, he'd be better at it than any European I can think of. America was born as a rejection of Europe, a kind of anti-Europe the result of a revulsion as well as a revolution. While Europeans would like to take credit in part for the invention of America, part of their way of vicariously sharing its success, the fact is that the use of words notwithstanding, America was a completely original invention. Yes, most of those who were responsible had read all the classic European literature but their knowledge and their lives were influenced far more by their direct experience of living under the British tyranny of King George III in a place where they had no recourse except to revolt. The invention of America was driven by a way to form a government that would never be anything like what existed in Europe at the time. That is how America became the world's oldest democracy. There is still no other country or government even on a small scale quite like it. Certainly not Canada, and I think they'd be the first to agree.
scotandr1
If you want to understand America assuming that is even possible for a non American (I'm not sure it is) you have to read American history. America cannot be explained in a few short sentences or paragraphs. It is a very complex place with a very complex history even if it is short by European standards. Everything that happened had a reason. Understanding America entails not only understanding what happened but why it happened. Trying to understand it as though it suddenly floated freely into the existance it has today is a mistake most non Americans make when trying to grasp it.
Complain about this comment
Re post 102, as some one who thinks the U.S is on the whole a good influence on the world I have to take issue with them being the oldest democracy. I think Athens predates it by over 2000 years. If you want something a lttle more recent it would be the U.K. I appreciate in both these older democracies not all had the vote, but then again not all had the vote or the same constitutional rightis in the U.S. when first founded - talking specifically about the black poipulation, but there were others.
I repeat I think the U.S. has much to be admired.
Complain about this comment
Jordanbasset(103): I think the Americans have a strong case for having created democracy as we know it today; i.e. the nation-state with a republican form of government (with elected representatives rather than the direct participation of citizens), a mass franchise, liberal limits to the power of majoritorian institutions and a separation of powers protected by a distinct body of constitutional law. Indeed I would say that no country in Europe has ever equalled what the Americans achieved in 1789 and that we in Europe are actually receding further from it with every new EU treaty.
The Athenian democracy was in many respects repugnant and cannot serve as a practical model today. All citizens may have taken part directly in the government, but citizenship was highly restricted and depended upon slavery to free up time for citizens to take part in the affairs of state. There were no liberal limits to the power of the majority in the forum, such that the mob could vote even to execute the greatest of Athenians (Socrates) for merely expressing ideas they did not agree with.
England cannot claim to have invented democracy, but can claim to have discovered liberty. Montesquieu said "One nation there is ? in the world that has for the direct end of its constitution political liberty". Henry Grattan, the 18th century Irish politician, said that "you can get a Parliament from anywhere but you can only get liberty from England". I feel the tradition of English liberty still lies at the heart of our problem with the EU. Continental thought since Rousseau has been dominated by the idea of collective self-realisation; the idea that collective action is required to achieve political goals and the individual may be coerced in the interest of the collective (e.g. the nation, or the proletariat, etc.). Anglo-American political thought since Locke never accepted this, retaining a belief in the primacy of liberty; i.e. that individuals should be free to do what they want, with state interference limited to preventing one from unlawfully harming the interests of another. With the discrediting of socialism as an ideology, many of its former champions on the Continent have merely transferred their allegiance from class to Europe as the collective of choice, while retaining the idea that whole countries can be coerced through QMV in the interests of the European collective. This coercion is however viewed as an unacceptable interference by the British who believe we should be free do what we want unless it causes injury to people in other countries.
Complain about this comment
.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #104
In his "EAST OF EDEN" John Steinbeck has addressed (en passant) the problem Freeborn-John writes about [#104], by observing that while "some countries have replaced a concept of individual with a concept of collective" [...] "nothing of value has ever been created by a collective" and that "worthy ideas are always born in a lonely mind of an individual".
Complain about this comment
cont.
If socialism is a discredited ideology who elects former communists to German Bundestag, socialists to French National Assembly and current communists to Italian Parliament?
Who prevents rationalisation of Airbus' production model and brings Alitalia to the verge of brankruptcy? Who buys/reads L'Humanite and Il Manifesto? Who joins CGT and paralizes Old Europe's countries with constant strikes whenever their governments try to introduce some free market mechanisms into their statist economies?
Seven Dwarfs and Sleeping Beauty?
Nope. In Western Europe socialism is still alive and well, although hardly anybody there wants to admit it.
Complain about this comment
Free-born John,
There must be something wrong within the Anglosaxon model when UK heads the Europe list in problems such binge-drinking or junk food eating. Glasgow, for instance, has one of the lowest life expectancy in Western Europe.
Many British also cannot wait to flee the country as soon as possible towards better places with more "joie de vivre" or "dolce far niente".
At the same time, social democracies in Scandinavia rise shadows over the convenience of Locke's theories. Neither US nor UK is ever mentionned as a "happy society" in any field. Dear British fellows: not everything is about money.
There is also the concept of a city as a community space where individuals can live happilly all together enjoying public spaces, something quite difficult to find in lands where the private property is the most sacred principle (if not the only one).
If anybody still doubts it, pls visit any French or Italian city, for example, and then compare with any British one. You'll understand why British expats is a common phenomenon in this world.
Complain about this comment
Re #104:
First off, Socrates was not executed by a mob; he was tried by jury and was only found guilty by a slight majority (despite him manipulating and provoking the court throughout his apology for his own personal and philosophical reasons).
Second, the essence of government is not to ensure that every person has his/her say, but to ensure the existence of an organised state that in turn will ensure liberty, legal equality, and basic welfare for each and every citizen. As Aristotle has argued this goal can also be achieved by an englightend monarch or aristocracy. However, as he and Lincoln have argued and practice has shown, a government 'of the people by the people for the people' is currently the only known way to ensure minimum state corruption through an extensive system of checks and balances.
Third, as regards Golden Age Athens versus any other government since, there can be no comparison at all. As Socrates has demonstrated in Plato's Protagoras, the political art is teachable and has to be taught to each and every citizen so that democracy can function properly. In other words, the elected institutions or the general franchise are less important than the citizen itself - for he is the measure of all things, a being able to reason, make decisions and act.
In that sense, classical Athens had some 30,000 citizens who were the best and more informed generalists that have ever existed: by turns warriors, judges, statesmen, philosophers, artists. Today's democracies have a minority that can reason comparably to classical Athenians (depending on the quality of each country's media and educational system) and large uninformed masses which are swayed, more often than not, by impressions instead of arguments.
Fourth, despite its extensive net of checks and balances and its admirable set of institutions based on direct democracy, it seems to me that the American government today is inferior to many of its European counterparts. For I believe that that the average European is better educated, better informed, and more cosmopolitan than the average American.
Citizens and institutions constantly interact in a democracy; however, as illustrated above, I think that it is the informed citizens and not the representative institutions that make democracies tick.
Complain about this comment
G_rizzly (110): You call it a jury; I call it a mob. But my point is that Athens was not a liberal democracy if men were put to death there for holding opinions deemed unacceptable to the majority. The idea that there should be liberal limits to what majoritorian institutions may do, that liberty is a higher goal than even democracy, is a modern one. Indeed the idea of liberty ? that men should be able to think and do what they want providing it harms no-one else ? was unknown to the ancient world. Plato (in 'The Republic') described his utopian society as divided into three classes; the common people, soldiers and guardians, with the latter holding all political power. It was to be a society with no social mobility or private property, with education used to inculcate a blind obedience, the forcible separation of children from their parents, the killing of weaklings at birth, etc. Karl Popper (in 'The Open Society and its Enemies') goes so far as to identify Plato with the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. While Plato's utopia may have been more inspired by Sparta than Athens I still believe that the ancient Greeks cannot serve as any practical model to the modern world.
I do not doubt for a moment many of things you say; that the achievements of ancient Athenians are out of all proportion to their number, that the masses today may be swayed more by impressions delivered by the mainstream media than by argument, or even that the average (if not the top tier) European is better educated and more cosmopolitan than an average American. But it does not alter my opinion that modern democracy as we know it today was invented in America by James Madison and the other founders of the American republic, who in turn based their new utopia on the ideas a great Frenchman (Montesquieu) and a great Englishman (Locke) whose ideas seem further from attainment than ever in their home countries as each new EU treaty is imposed on us without the consent of the governed, even as expressed in national referendums.
Complain about this comment
@ MarcusAureliusII (102): From the point of view of the non-Western world, the culture and politics of the United States and Europe are virtually indistinguishable. At least that's what my friends from the non-Western world tell me. My personal experience confirms this view: Europe and North America really do look the same when you compare them to Asia, Africa and [most of] Latin America.
@ Freeborn-John (104): To say that America created modern democracy would be just as incorrect as to say that Russia created Marxism. The principles which form the basis of American democracy are for the most part not American inventions. America was the first country to implement those principles, yes (although France followed just a couple of decades later, and Britain can claim to have implemented most of them at roughly the same time, albeit slowly and gradually), but the principles themselves were not an American invention. No single country can really claim to have invented modern democracy - different bits and pieces arose in different places at different times. Athens, and by extension Greece, can claim to have invented the idea of popular sovereignty. Italy can claim to have invented the notion of elected heads of state. Britain can claim to have invented separation of powers ("checks and balances"). France can claim to have invented human rights. And so on.
As a side note - yes, Athens had slavery, but so did the United States for nearly 100 years after its creation.
In your paragraph on English liberty, you say that it is a Continental idea, rather than an English (British?) one to place the interests of the nation before the interests of the individual. But England is by no means composed entirely of Lockean liberals - on the contrary, the UK Labour Party played a pioneering role in the creation of the European welfare state model. More to the point, you argue that the coercion on individuals by a collective is somehow the same as the coercion of one collective (the nation) by another (the EU). I'm sorry, but it's not the same at all. You can't be an individualist and pretend that a nation is the same as an individual.
@ powermeerkat (107): If John Steinbeck made the remark that all ideas are "always born in a lonely mind of an individual", then I have to ask - as opposed to what, exactly? A collective mind? No such minds exist. A human collective is a sum of separate individuals and their relationships. No one has ever claimed that the collective has a mind of its own. Steinbeck's argument is a straw man.
@ powermeerkat (108): If a majority of continental Europeans are opposed to free market reforms, if socialism is alive and well there, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the people of Europe are adults who should have the freedom to make their own choices as to the kind of society they wish to live in. The purpose of the economy is the welfare and happiness of the people - not the other way around. If the people are happy, there is no problem. And people in continental Western Europe tend to be happier than people in Anglo-Saxon cultures.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05
From the top of the Empire State Building, a midget and a giant also look the same. It's not my problem if some people are so unable to distinguish differences everything looks alike the them. To a geneticist, a chimpanzee and a Brit look almost the same. But if you think a Brit and a chimpanzee are alike, just try having tea time with a chimpanzee. They hold their cup in the wrong hand and they spill the scones all over the floor. Positively uncivilised.
I think you give people in the developing world far less credit than they deserve. They know exactly whom to come to first when they want a free handout.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05 (112): You make some good points, and it is true that there were times in post-war Britain (but not elsewhere in the English-speaking world) when Rousseau's collectivist ideas might have seemed to have triumphed over Locke's liberalism. But the discrediting of the collectivist ideologies of both left and right leaves liberalism standing alone in the 21st century.
As a believer in liberal democracy I find the authoritarianism of ancient Athens distasteful, but I find the damage that the EU does to our democracy equally repugnant. The difference between the national collective and the EU collective is very important for representative governance. The British people are one polity with a strong identity born of their shared language, history and culture. This identity gives rise to the strong solidarity necessary for individuals to accept as legitimate decisions they do not like personally but which a majority of their countrymen favour. The strength of national identity is therefore crucial to the acceptability of the majoritorian political institutions that are synonymous with democratic politics. These strong solidarities exist within nations, but not between nations. Because Europe consists of many polities (of which the British are just one), we do not agree to be bound by pan-European majoritorian institutions thus rendering democracy as we know it impossible at international level.
Complain about this comment
"No one has ever claimed that the collective has a mind of its own. Steinbeck's argument is a straw man." [#112]
Sorry!
Soviet Union and all top communists leaders and ideologues around the world have always claimed exactly that. Including Hujintao, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro and that latest incarnation of Comical Ali - Hugo Chavez.
Following Marx's claim that proletariat has a mind if its own, and that's why its dictatorship should be accepted by others because a "consciousness of proletariat is supreme".
"The purpose of the economy is the welfare and happiness of the people "...
Nope: the purpose of the economy is economic progress through generation of wealth. And nothing more.
The rest is simply a communist/socialist propaganda disconnected from reality.
[ everybody knows that "money can't buy you love". Or give a meaning to you life.].
And that's why welfare states are failing all over 'Old Europe'. And fast.
Q.E.D.
------------------------------------------------------------
IF ALL PEOPLE ARE GIVEN EQUAL CHANCES THE WORST WILL PREVAIL; FOR THEY CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY."
(Jose Ortega y Gasset)
Complain about this comment
Re #111:
"You call it a jury; I call it a mob."
Yes, but you are wrong to do so. A mob is a disorderly crowd, a jury is a collective body performing its constitutional function by following procedure. We do not know how large Socrates' jury was, but we do know that it was constitutional and that it followed procedure.
"The idea that there should be liberal limits to what majoritorian institutions may do, that liberty is a higher goal than even democracy, is a modern one."
Yes, fundamental rights and the protection of the minority are a modern concept indeed. However, you should consider that the Athenians were more of a club and less of an electorate. When there is such an advanced degree of socialisation, the need to protect the individual from the group does not arise any more than it does in our own societies. Other than that, you are very correct to say that the usefulness of ancient democracy as a form of government is limited today.
"each new EU treaty is imposed on us without the consent of the governed, even as expressed in national referendums."
Which is also a correct observation: it is quite difficult to legitimise the EU when the people are not involved. That, however, is an obvious consequence of the process chosen by the European elite as most expedient to achieve the union. Things may change dramatically in the future.
Complain about this comment
And what has this "Athenian democracy" accomplished in the long run?
Have you been to Greece...lately?
Complain about this comment
I have, and half of Parthenon's frieze is still missing. Which should answer both your questions. :)
Complain about this comment
Re #118
Well, a significant percentage of EU subsidies still cannot be accounted for, although half of Greek sculptures have had their hands chopped of long time ago.
A total mystery, this.
Complain about this comment
@ MarcusAureliusII (113): The point was that Europe and North America have more in common with each other than either of them has in common with the rest of the world. Just like a Brit and a chimpanzee have more in common with each other than either of them has in common with, say, an elephant. This was a reply to your assertion that America is a negation of Europe, a sort of "anti-Europe". If your assertion were true, we should expect American culture and politics to be polar opposites; we should expect American culture to be as different as possible from European culture. But it's not.
@ Freeborn-John (114): Liberal triumphalists would be well advised to take note of the fact that the 21st century has only just begun. Yes, all tremble before liberalism's awesome might... for the moment, in 2008. This was also the case in 1908. A little over twenty years later liberalism was on its knees. Here's a toast to the 21st century - may this be the century when liberalism is finally defeated for good. The industrial revolution created the idea of progress; the idea that the future can be better than the past, and that we can make it so through human effort. As long as this human hope endures, we collectivists will always rise against liberalism. Specific political movements may rise and fall, but the hope for a better world can never be defeated.
Regarding the EU, it is possible to oppose its policies for different reasons, or even for the same reason but coming from different ideological angles. You are a liberal and I am a socialist, but I completely agree with you that democracy is a desirable goal and that the EU is undemocratic - and therefore it should be opposed in its present form.
Regarding your comments about national and European collectives, first of all I do not see how a belief in a national collective can coexist with your liberal individualism. Second, I agree that the peoples of Europe do not see themselves as a single polity, and that this produces a crisis of legitimacy for the EU. But it is a crisis that can be overcome. Given enough time, and given proper democratic institutions, the peoples of Europe *will* begin to see themselves like a single polity. After all, it works well enough in Switzerland... Our problem right now is that we do *not* have proper democratic institutions. Even if Europe were a single polity, the EU as it exists today would still be undemocratic and illegitimate.
@ powermeerkat (115): Marx and the communists claim that the proletariat has common interests - in other words, that all workers have the same common interests - not that it has a mind of its own. Indeed, I don't think the concept of a collective mind was even invented before the science fiction literature of the second half of the 20th century. And I don't think Marx watched Star Trek.
As for the purpose of the economy - Why is economic progress desirable in the first place? Because it improves the happiness and welfare of the people. It is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. But if you believe that economic progress in itself is good, regardless of the social cost, then you presumably approve of Stalin's rapid industrialization drive in the 1930s? Or you believe that we should all adopt the Chinese model, since China is currently the world's fastest growing economy?
The American free market system provides neither the happiest society in the world (that honour is held by the Scandinavian welfare state), nor the fastest economic growth in the world (that honour is held by China). So what exactly is it good for?
@ powermeerkat (117): In the long run, Athenian democracy and culture is one of the three pillars on which modern European culture was built - the other two pillars being Roman and Christian culture respectively.
Modern Greece is no more indicative of Athenian democracy than modern Italy is indicative of the Roman Empire, or modern Iraq indicative of ancient Sumeria.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05 (120): I am a liberal and not an anarchist, who therefore has no hesitation in saying that the state is necessary. This being the case the question of the extent of the territory governed by the state is an issue. I believe that representative government is only possible when the governed are a single polity; a unified people of sufficient solidarity that individuals that are part of the polity will accept majority decisions of the polity that they personally disagree with. I further believe there is no pan-European polity. The solidarity required for majority decisions to be accepted is also a minimum required for the acceptability of the redistributive functions of the state. Therefore you as a socialist should also be in favour of the nation-state because the welfare-state cannot exist without its solidarity. It is no accident that taxpayers tolerate their money being spent on the education, healthcare, etc. of their fellow-citizens, but not on others (who perhaps are more needy) in other countries.
There is also a difference (which I feel Mark Mardell ignores in many of his posts about Serbian 'nationalists') between a nationalist and an imperialist. A nationalist, such as Jefferson or Ghandi, can believe in government by the people, where as an imperialist believes it is OK for one people (e.g. Serbians) to govern another (e.g. Kosovo). Jose Manual Barosso spoke last year of the EU as an empire showing him to be a liberal imperialist, which I as a liberal nationalist find unacceptable.
You mention that in future the different peoples of Europe will come to see themselves as a single polity, thus satisfying the basic condition for pan-European majoritorian institutions to be accepted as legitimate. I might agree with you that in the very long term a global demos will emerge but I see no reason to believe the forces of globalisation will be restricted to Europe alone. The things that European nations share in common are mere civilisational values that experience shows to be too weak to hold a state together. Furthermore there is no difference between these European values and those shared by the wider Western world. Indeed the world-wide experience is that one of the minimum requirements for a durable state is a common language, something that we in Britain share with many Western countries outside of Europe, but not with our Continental neighbours.
If this analysis is correct then a multi-national state would be expected to first appear in the English-speaking world (and not in Europe), and to be based on the Lockean principles (including the consent of the governed) that dominates the political culture of the English-speaking world but seem alien to Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Re #120
1. You obviously haven't read Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin's "seminal work".
Otherwise you'd know that the world proletariat will eventually lead the world to communist paradise because its endowed with "collective class consciousness" which prevents it from ever being wrong
["four legs good, two legs baaad"]
2. You cannot grow a healthy rational economy in a socialist system.
[Socialist economy is an oxymoron]
Soviet style industrialisation had about as much in common with sound economic principles as forced collectivisation which created Great Famine in Ukraine, till then known as "Europe's breadbasket".
3. Before you speak about Scandinavian welfare state as a provider of happiness you should perhaps check depression and suicide rates among Scandinavians.
On the other hand Polynesians and Caribs who've never even heard about welfare state, let alone experienced its mood elevating properties...;-)
4. As for US free market economy, responsible for 25% of global production and most of critically important technological patents - simply observe a movement of human masses. This system must be doing something right after all if so many people want to live and work in USA rather than anywhere else. And by no means only poor Latinos and daughters of Chinese presidents and sons of Soviet general secretaries.
For example: so many scientists and physicians from European wealthy welfare states immigrate to America in "pursuit of happiness" that leaders in Bonn, Paris , etc., express growing concern about this trend and want to introduce remedial mechanisms.
Of course, STATE-imposed/controlled mechanisms. :-)
Complain about this comment
@ powermeerkat (122):
1. I have read Marx, Engels and Lenin. Not Stalin, because he never wrote anything of note. No one ever made the claim that the proletariat can never be wrong, or that it has a collective mind. Perhaps you'd like to support your claims with actual references to chapters in their published works?
2. You certainly can grow an economy in a socialist system. According to the CIA world factbook - available online - the current economic growth rate for the United States is 2.2%. For Cuba it is 7%. No doubt the CIA must be a communist front organization to publish such figures.
And I never said that Soviet industrialization was good. I only said that it achieved rapid economic growth, which it did. Of course it did so at a great social cost - but you said that the purpose of the economy is to grow no matter the social cost. So, why are capitalist economies good when they grow at the expense of the people, but communist economies are bad when they do the same thing?
3. In the Human Development Index, Iceland is first, Norway is second, Sweden is 6th and Finland is 11th. They are all in front of the United States. So are Australia (3rd), Canada (4th) and France (10th). The United States itself is 12th.
Suicide and depression are strongly influenced by climate, which is why they are high in rich countries that are cold and dark for much of the year but low in poor countries with lots of sunshine and good weather.
4. The US has much more open immigration policies than Europe. Indeed, many European countries are hostile to immigrants to the point of xenophobia - Switzerland comes to mind with the famous black sheep poster, and more recently Italy. I make no excuses for this behaviour, but it has nothing to do with the European economic model - it is due to the fact that European countries are traditionally monocultural and not used to immigration. The US, on the other hand, is a nation built by immigrants. So it is hardly surprising that many immigrants prefer to go to the US.
Having said that, according to the CIA world factbook the net migration rate for the United States is 2.92 migrant(s)/1,000 population. For the European Union it is 1.46 migrant(s)/1,000 population - and higher for countries such as Germany (2.19), Greece (2.33) and Italy (2.06). Hardly the massive difference you make it out to be.
Besides, Canada has a much higher immigration rate than the US (Canada stands at 5.62 migrant(s)/1,000 population). Perhaps we should all adopt the Canadian model then.
Complain about this comment
@ Freeborn-John (121): I agree with you that no pan-European polity currently exists. But I see it as a challenge, an obstacle to be overcome. What I find odd is that the people who point out the non-existence of a unified European polity are usually the same people who actively work against the formation of such a polity by putting every European question in terms of "us versus them".
Regarding the prospects for the formation of a European demos, you should not discount the European Union itself as a force. It is possible - though it takes a long time - for a government to create its own demos. Many existing nation-states were not really nations when they achieved independence. Latin America comes to mind. Many are still not yet nations. Africa comes to mind. Are the various nations of Europe really more different from each other than the various nations that existed a century ago in what is now India?
I don't think the kind of Anglo-Saxon demos you proposed is feasible, for simple reasons of distance. British, Canadian and Australian people could presumably be made to feel as a single nation, but how on Earth could a single democratic government rule over such widely scattered territories? Are there any areas of policy at all - besides basic constitutional law - in which it would be possible and useful to have the same legislation for Britain, Canada and Australia?
* * *
With regards to the argument that the welfare state is only possible in the context of a nation-state, I have to disagree. The welfare state - or at the very least its regulatory aspect - is increasingly impossible in the context of a single nation-state. Capital is much more mobile than ever before. Corporations are in a position where they can hold governments up for ransom: "Either you implement policies friendly to us or we exit your markets, lay off workers and damage your economy." A Europe composed of separate nation-states would generate a race to the bottom in which governments compete with each other to attract business by cutting taxes and social services. It would be the end of the welfare state. The only way to prevent this is to have a continent-wide governmental authority that can negotiate with corporations from a position of strength. Losing one country's markets is one thing - most of the large multinationals could easy cope with that - but losing all European markets would be a crippling blow.
So we need continent-wide regulations and a uniform tax regime, or we will have no regulations and no social services at all.
Now, having a uniform regime of regulation and taxation across Europe doesn't necessarily mean that all taxes from across Europe should be collected in a common treasury and redistribution done on a supranational basis. No, that will not work as long as the people of each country see themselves as a separate polity. You are correct in this. I want every European country to levy the same taxes, but they should keep and spend their own tax money.
From a purely socialist point of view, untainted by federalism, the *only* purpose of the EU should be to ensure uniformity of regulation and taxation across Europe so as to prevent a race to the bottom in the provision of welfare state services. That can be done with a lot less bureaucracy - and a lot less integration - than we have currently. But it cannot be done with no European Union at all. Therefore no far-sighted socialist, not even the most eurosceptic one, can possibly oppose the existence of the EU altogether (but radical reform is, of course, always an option).
* * *
Regarding the difference between nationalism and imperialism, your distinction becomes very vague and blurred when it is not clear where one nation stops and another begins. Is Scotland a separate nation? If yes, then a person arguing that Scotland should be governed from London is an imperialist. If not, then that person is a British nationalist. In 1947 one might have asked, "is Pakistan a nation?" Whether Nehru was a nationalist or an imperialist depends on the answer to that question. Today, is Kosovo a nation?
Complain about this comment
MTE_05 (124): I disagree there is a race to the bottom in environmental or other standards going on in the world. People everywhere want clean air and water, education and healthcare but those in poorer countries simply cannot afford the same high standards that we have in the West. Everywhere we see that as people become richer they use part of their increased wealth to improve these things. The surest way to prevent the third world improving their social conditions is to deny them access to Western markets on the dubious grounds they cannot afford the same standards we enjoy. The myth of the race to the bottom is actually just protectionist rhetoric.
You ask if there are any areas where it would make sense for English-speaking countries to have the same policies. I would suggest that free movement of labour between the English speaking countries would be a lot more useful to most Britons than the corresponding EU right. Statistics show there to be far more British ex-pats in the English-speaking countries than the EU.
My distinction between nationalism and imperialism is very precise. You raise the case of Scotland, asking whether it is region of the UK or a nation itself. This is a question which only the majority of Scots can answer one way or the other. A Scottish (or indeed English) nationalist would be someone wanting Scotland (or England) to withdraw from the UK, and form a separate state as the Irish did in 1921. But that would not make a person favouring that course of action an imperialist. An Englishman who would wish to see the Scots remain in the UK against the majority opinion in Scotland could however rightly be called an English imperialist. Nehru was clearly a nationalist just like Jefferson, Ghandi and De Valera. I don't believe any one ever called these men imperialists. Mark Mardell should therefore call the majority in Kosovo that desires independence 'nationalists', and those in Serbia wanting to deny them 'imperialists'.
Liberalism and nationalism are compatible, as exemplified by Jefferson whose US Declaration of Independence is simply an eloquent restatement of Locke's principles. I do not know how Jose Manual Borroso squares his liberal imperialism when the national referendums that might indicate the consent of the governed for membership of what he calls the European Empire have been cancelled in the certain knowledge they would be lost, and the 2005 referendum results ignored.
It is clear that the EU is doing its utmost through all its spending programs to generate the illusive European demos. But judging by the decline since 1990 in those identifying themselves in Eurobarometer polling as primarily European one has to conclude it is failing. National identities once formed are extremely resistant to change and may actually be strengthened by the forced march towards a superstate.
Complain about this comment
Coming back to the post subject, I find a natural process the way European institutions are adapting themselves according to our changing societies.
Any state, some more than others, is in continuous metarphose to engage with the current demands. This is happening now in UK where Scotland independence is on the table.
But also happens in Spain, where the territorial model of the state is evolving day after day.
Spain came to be a very centralistic state during Franco's dictactorship till 1975, to become one of the most discentralized countries in Europe.
There are in Spain 4 nacionalities and 17 self-governed regions, plus 2 self-governed cities (in North Africa). That have not been an obstacle for the Spanish success in the last 30 years.
On the contrary, this system has promoted the healthy competence among regions, and has been giving the central power a role of referee and representative of the whole, a process which is still in progress.
So, that's sort of how I imagine Europe could be in the future: states with a high degree of self-government, and a centre, Brussels, as a European face and mediator.
It's realistic, it has zeitgeist.
My bet for European president: Benita Ferrero-Waldner. She's worth it.
Complain about this comment
"you said that the purpose of the economy is to grow no matter the social cost. "|[#123]
Don't ascribe to me what have not said: it's a Bolshevik method. I simply and clearly stated that the purpose of economy is economy, and not creation of welfare state or making people happy. That - including distribution of wealth generated by economic growth - belongs to social engineering politicians/rulers with socialist/statist mentality are so good at.
2. Dont' quote me indexes because it's ridiculous: subtract, for example, 12 million (at least) mostly unskilled and semi-illiterate illegal aliens in the US, and all the indicators will change in the New York minute, including a significant drop in crime rates and an increase in quality of American public education.
3. You chose to ignore my point that so many scientists and physicians (not to mention artists, film directors, musicians, etc.) from European wealthy welfare states (mostly NATIVES of those countries) immigrate to America in "pursuit of happiness" that leaders in Berlin, London, Paris , etc., express growing concern about this trend and want to introduce remedial mechanisms.
And anybody who's ever tried to immigrate from an EU country (e.g., UK) to US and get a permanent residence/work permit there would tell you that it's not easy at all. On the contrary: you have to jump through quite a few hoops.
And yet they try, and try again, sometimes for years. Perhaps they're simply masochists who don't want to be made happy by a state and its aparatchiks?
Because how would you otherwise explain it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MOST SCARY WORDS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARE: "I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'VE COME TO HELP YOU"
(Ronald Reagan)
Complain about this comment
@ powermeerkat (127):
1. If you're saying that happiness is a socialist/statist goal, and liberal capitalism is just about making money - happiness be damned - then, well, I have to agree with you. But if "the purpose of economy is economy," then presumably the best economy is that which grows fastest, right? So the best economy is the Chinese economy. And also, if the purpose of the economy is *not* to provide for the happiness and welfare of the people, then you cannot complain about economies that make their people unhappy - such as, for example, the economy of the Soviet Union.
So again I ask: If "the purpose of economy is economy," then what is wrong with Cuba, or China, or Stalin's industrialization drive?
2. You have provided no proof of that. And any country with a significant immigrant population (which includes all of Western and Northern Europe) could make the exact same claim.
3. I ignored that point because we're not talking about which country is best for scientists, physicians, or artists. We're talking about which country is best for people in general. Of course there must be *some* people who are better off in the US than in Europe. But my point was that *most* people are better off in Europe. A country should be judged by how it treats its entire population, not how it treats its artists.
And thank you for making me understand why Ronald Reagan, being from the government, never helped anyone.
Complain about this comment
@ Freeborn-John (125): I was talking about a race to the bottom among European countries, not between Europe and poorer parts of the world, and the solution I proposed was uniform regulation and taxation across Europe, not protectionism. Please re-read my arguments on this matter in post #124.
I can definitely see a case for the free movement of labour between English-speaking countries. It makes sense for people from the UK to be more attracted to other such countries rather than countries on the continent, because of the issue of language. But a free movement area is not something that should be entered into lightly. As long as the various national governments of this English-speaking union retain the right to set completely different labour market policies, free movement of labour may well result in all the people of a given profession being attracted to a single country, draining away from all the others. I don't think free movement of labour is a good idea without some kind of supranational authority to oversee labour market policies and prevent such imbalances.
Regarding nationalism and imperialism, surely a person wishing to maintain the UK even against the wishes of a minority of British people (even if that happens to be a local majority in a certain region) could call himself a British nationalist rather than an English imperialist? And the accuracy of those terms depends entirely on whether England is a separate nation or just a part of the British nation. My comment about Nehru was based on his desire to keep Pakistan within India (on which he eventually backed down in 1947, of course). Consider any person wishing to keep Pakistan within India in 1947. Would that be an Indian nationalist or an Indian imperialist? It depends on whether you want to consider Pakistan a separate nation at that point.
On the issue of Kosovo, I don't think anyone could consider Kosovo a separate nation as of 2008. It is a geographical region inhabited mainly by members of the Albanian nation. Albania and Serbia are nations; Kosovo is not, or at least not yet.
I agree with you that there is no progress in the creation of a European demos - if anything, it is slipping away even further. But I think the main reason for that is the enormous expansion of the EU over the past decade. The EU is almost double the size it was 10 years ago. This expansion has added countless millions of people who do not see themselves as European, and it has encouraged anti-immigration and isolationist feelings in the older EU member states. It will take time to recover and get back on track building the European demos.
On the other hand, if Turkey becomes a member, it will be all over. In such a case the European project would inevitably fail.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @ 34 wrote: "'The UK is the only country that has opted out of these two key pillars without holding a referendum, despite those two pillars being, among other things, key elements in the completion of the single market that this country voted in referendum in 1975."
Wait a moment. The Euro, at least, wasn't even formally proposed in 1975. In fact, any such plan was specifically denied by the government in the referendum debate back then.
So you can hardly later start inventing significant new add-ons to the Single Market plan that was voted on then (even if you consider they do 'improve' the Single Market) and claim they were approved by that referendum (even though the add-on was specifically denied back then) ... and so conclude that not implementing them is somehow "cheating" the people.
As I write this, I almost can't believe you're seriously suggesting that this is logical or acceptable.
By this token you could dream up any further centralisation of powers, relate it to the Single Market in whatever tenuous way, and then say people voted for it in 1975 so we should implement it.
Actually, that plan sounds rather familiar ... yes, it's exactly the way the EU elite *IS* pushing forward the EU project! Any coincidence?
Here's the reality. You might well regard Schengen and the Euro as "key elements" of the Single Market. But the treaty says "opt out". Read it. That, therefore, is the status quo.
So I repeat: referenda on *not* changing something would be seen as pretty wasteful and pointless.
Complain about this comment
1.Re # 128 if "the purpose of economy is economy," then presumably the best economy is that which grows fastest, right?"
Wrong, as PRC is going to find out soon, but I have not time to teach Economy 101 here.
2. "if the purpose of the economy is *not* to provide for the happiness and welfare of the people, then you cannot complain about economies that make their people unhappy - such as, for example, the economy of the Soviet Union."
Wrong again. As I already stated USSR hadn't had any oconomy because socialist economy is an oxyMORON.
[BTW Cuba doesn't have one either and the diabetic island survives thanks to multimillion remittances sent by Cuban citizens who managed to make it to Florida Keys.]
Besides, people living in a Soviet GULAG were primarily unhappy for quite another reason:
They never knew when they were going to be arrested, purged, sent into "internal exile" or worse. Something you might have likely learnt first hand but for the Great Satan.
3. "thank you for making me understand why Ronald Reagan, being from the government, never helped anyone."
Well, he actually did help lots of people, particularly in Soviet-subjugated Eastern/Central Europe.
[Don't ask me, ask them: they've erected monuments for him, not I.]
Granted: he helped people who wanted to TOPPLE their "helpful" governments.
Also, all sovietologists I know agree that Ronald Reagan mightily helped to destroy Soviet Union, which without his "roll-back" policies would have probably dithered another 20 years.
Although its true RR never helped any fellow travellers and "useful idiots"; on the contrary: he hurt them deeply by destroying their Mecca and their dreams of Workers' Paradise. And that's why each time one mentions Reagan's name they foam at their mouths; much, much more than when one utters Thatcher's name.
P.S. Sorry, but I don't see any point in continuing that exchange. Over and out.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05: I personally believe the ultimate end is the greatest happiness for the greatest number and that liberty and democracy contribute this end. But that?s a debate for somewhere else.
I have to disagree with you when you say no-one ever claimed a collective to have a mind of its own. Rousseau himself coined the term ?general will? claiming that if individuals surrender themselves to the general will (as represented by a national assembly in his case) then they somehow remain free no matter what the collective will demands of them. Soon after Robespierre was separating men from their heads in the name of the general will. Every pseudo-democratic dictatorship since has justified itself in similar terms. Marxists called for a ?dictatorship of the proletariat?; fascists for the sacrifice of the individual to the national cause. I do not claim the EU to be so authoritarian, but the Brussels institutions also believe in the general will of the European collective, equating the common good with the accumulation of more power for themselves, and demanding that national ?egoisms? be sacrificed to this end.
Complain about this comment
@ It seems you consider it sufficient to merely declare yourself to be correct and leave it at that, providing no arguments to justify your views. I am referring to the way you dismissed every argument I made by claiming simply that I was wrong, or that the Soviet or Cuban economies did not exist (which presumably means that the CIA world factbook is written by communists, right?). I am wondering how you explain the fact that the Soviet GDP was the second largest in the world after that of the United States as late as 1988 (source: CIA world factbook, again)
And if we are going to measure a person's goodness by the number of monuments in their honour, I'm afraid Lenin would win by a landslide. I should know - I am from Eastern Europe, and there are plenty of Lenin statues left around here (though most are in Russia, of course).
But no matter. You are correct that we have nothing further to discuss.
Complain about this comment
@ Freeborn-John (132): Well, I am glad to see that we are both utilitarians, at least.
Your list of ideologies which supposedly believe in a collective mind is more like a list of ideologies which believe in a collective anything. Rousseau's concept of the "general will" is exactly what the name implies - a general *will*, a general *desire*, a general *goal*. Not a general mind. Rousseau argued that it is possible to formulate political policies which are in the interests of everyone (not merely a majority, but literally everyone) and that any individual opposed to the general will would be opposing his own interests and is therefore misguided. What Rousseau never provided was a good way of determining just what this general will actually *is*. That is why his ideas are so easily abused - Robespierre could claim that the general will was whatever he said it was.
Now, Marxism is very much a negation of Rousseau. Rousseau believed that, fundamentally, everyone in society has the same interests - and those interests can be called the "general will". Marx argued that society is divided into classes, and these classes have opposing interests.
As a side note, you mentioned the fact that many dictatorships justify themselves with democratic rhetoric. I find this to be a great progress over past centuries, because in the past dictatorships were more fond of justifying themselves by appeal to a God-given right to rule (the divine right of kings in Europe, the mandate of heaven in China, and so on). Better a dictator who pays lip service to democracy - and therefore plants in the minds of the people the idea that democracy is good - than a dictator who claims to be God or some derivative thereof.
It seems odd to place in the same category people who believe that inequality is bad and differences between nations are a source of evil (Marxists) and people who believe that inequality is good and differences between nations are a source of virtue (fascists). It also seems odd to place in the same category nationalists who demand the sacrifice of the individual for the nation, and European federalists who demand the sacrifice of the nation and "national egoisms" for the good of all.
Indeed, the only thing that all these various groups of people have in common is that they are not liberal individualists. But the world of politics does not completely revolve around liberalism. There is no such thing as a single, united anti-liberal camp - there never was and never will be, because the differences separating all those anti-liberal ideologies are greater than their common opposition to liberalism. We cannot judge every idea or ideology solely based on its relationship with liberalism, as you seem to do.
Complain about this comment
Small note in the margin: My comment #133 above was in reply to powermeerkat's comment #131. Sorry for not making that clear in the post itself.
Complain about this comment
MTE_05
The similarities between Europe and the US are only superficial. Deep down there is a world of difference. The misunderstandings comes from Europe's profound lack of knowledge and insight into the American experiment and the resulting civilization. The real differences stem from a different way of looking at life, at the world, at ones relationship to it. and at power. Even most non American experts on America don't get it. BBC didn't. Even most immigrants who spend a lifetime here don't fully get it.
Here's an example. When I got my first job out of college I was a management trainee in the 26th largest company in the US. The philosophy of corporate governance and control as explained by top management was typical of all successful large corporations and of the government itself. The overriding principle was to push authority outward and away from the center as far as possible, to give it to as great a degree as possible to those in each local area and then hold them accountable for how successful they were at using it. There were overriding principles and rules to be sure but they were not necessarily iron clad because they could not anticipate every possible situation. Breaking the rules was possible when necessary if there was general concensus that it was the best course of action under particular circumstances. The center knew it could not possibly manage a large unwieldy organization by itself. It could not know what the particular problems or best solutions were in local cases. There was certainly lots of vertical communications both upwards and downwards and lateral peer to peer communications to discuss what solutions worked facing problems and what didn't so that they could learn from each other. The US government operates in much the same way.
By contrast, the ideal European model is one of absolute central control. The EU is a perfect example. It tries to usurp power and lay down a single law to everyone which they must obey without question or face punishment. This is one reason why it is doomed to fail. It is rigid, arbitrary, inflexible, numb to its actual circumstances at the real world level and indifferent at the center at how its policies are failing and how to correct them. This is the way dinosaurs become extinct.
The irony is that in the decentralize model, success brings with it far more power to the organization as a whole and to the center in exerting outside force than could possibly be dreamt of by those with the centralized power model.
There are many other differences but this is one of them. The failure of Europe is due to its unwillingness to get beyond its tyrannical infantile mind which demands total and immediate conformity to its whims.
Complain about this comment
@ MarcusAureliusII [136]
Sorry, but Europe is not failing at all. You do not seem to appreciate the real difficulty of the European project, namely the transfer of sovereignty. We do not have to deal here with the relatively weak and recent states of America forging a federal union, but with major states like France, Britain and Spain with a long history, a strong national identity, and often a world power status. Even the so-easily-abused Greeks remember that they were running the major medieval empire until 600 years ago and the entire Christian fraction of the Ottoman Empire until 150 years ago.
As regards de-centralisation: it is not yet a priority for Brussels, but it happens and it happens at a regional, not a national level.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII [136]:
And I find this to be quite a coloured view of things which heavily flirts with prejudice:
"The failure of Europe is due to its unwillingness to get beyond its tyrannical infantile mind which demands total and immediate conformity to its whims."
Complain about this comment
g_rizzly
I am not surprised my views have agitated some. In fact I am surprised that there hasn't been more invective and even ad hominum attacks against my position. But I stick with what I said.
I understand the problem of transfer of sovereignty implicitly. It's a transfer of the tyranny of the governments of Britain, France, and Germany to an even larger tyranny in Brussels, one of an invisible unelected bureaucracy. It fits the European model to a tee.
The Republic of the United States was not the first government after independence, the Articles of Confederation was. It failed because it was too weak. The Constitution would not have been adopted because it was too strong until the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments was added. This limited the power of the central government acceptably, however it is not an iron clad guarantee against tyranny of the center such as in times national crisis as in a war which demands much stronger central authority. But that tyranny is used judiciously when it has to be and is relinquished when the threat is over. The tyranny of central government in Europe is never relinquished except after a war has destroyed that government and subsequent governments invariably re-establish it sooner or later. Look at how the British population, presumably having the most democratic governmebt in Europe (at least they like to think so) sit passively while what little power they have to make decisions affecting their own lives is being given away wholesale to Brussels by the Labor government. In the US, such action would trigger a second American revolution. As it is, many Americans are up in arms about the trade treaties we are already engaged in such as WTO and NAFTA and want out. Any outside interference from say the UN or the ICC would trigger calls for war.
Is Europe failing? There is no doubt of it. The US eclipsed it long ago, so much so that the Europeans have to glue themselves together just to have enough political voice to try to be heard. China, for all its problems is a far more dynamic society. Remarkably, in one generation it has built an economy out of nothing that is over 50% larger than even the largest European economies. It is swallowing up European jobs, natural resources, markets, energy supplies wholesale every day. It is even swallowing up Europe's domestic markets thanks to WTO. Don't expect the US to come to Europe's aid, not after the reaction to the threats from Iraq and al Qaeda. Besides, whether Europe knows it or not, China Inc is largely a subsidiary of major American corporations. India will be next, another untapped opportunity for American investment with fewer and fewer restrictions. Europe's economies by contrast are among the worst places to invest now. The mountain of restrictive regulations are bad enough. The weak US dollar is proving a killer strategy even if it has not been deliberate. I'll be surprised if we don't have either a worldwide deep recession or an enormous round of inflation in the next five years. Expect the US dollar to weaken much further, energy and food prices to continue to rise sharply, and European economies to collapse. France is already on the verge. How do I know? The French government has as much as said so. It is bankrupt and it has no way to create new jobs.
g_rizzly I take it you don't like it when someone expresses a view about Europe seen through entirely different eyes than you are accostomed to but that is what internet blogs are for, not just for cheerleading and preaching to the choir.
Am I prejudiced? Prejudice means having a preference. Yes. Am I bigotted? No, my preferences are not arbitrary. They are based on what I see and have seen. I saw Europe first hand by living there and I didn't like it.
Complain about this comment
Re #139
MarcusAureliusII, nobody really likes a view different to his/her own, but we supposedly grow mature enough to deal with that impulsion. :) Even so, I do not see why you need to defend your right to express the view you consider correct so vigorously. You really should not have to.
Ok, let's analyse what the phrase I found 'particularly coloured':
"The failure of Europe is due to its unwillingness to get beyond its tyrannical infantile mind which demands total and immediate conformity to its whims."
Well, excuse me, but apart from the fact that you consider Europe a failure already, using phrases like 'tyrannical infantile mind' and 'demands [...] conformity to its whims' hardly indicate a balanced, albeit subjective, approach to the subject and can easily be considered abusive. Your critique did not really bother me; the total lack of respect to the millions of people involved in the project did.
Complain about this comment
g_rizzly
Would you like some examples? Well first there is the fact that the British population never had any hope of a referendum on the EU constitution which cedes their sovereignty from a local tyranny they have some small voice in, in Westminster to a remote one in Brussels they don't. Even the Tories never made an issue of it, not seriously anyway. BBC reported that the Prime Minister can shove the treaties which is the constitution piecemeal down Britain's throat not only without a referendum but without even so much as his own Labor Party's consent in parliament. The French government made the mistake of putting the Constitution to a referendum and much in its smug self assurance it would be approved, it wasn't. They won't make that mistake again, the next time it will be shoved down their throats too. In most "donor" countries, the Constitution was never put to a referendum while in the donee countries which benefit from automatic transfers of taxpayer monies from donor countries there would be no reason not to accept it. Why wouldn't Hungarians not want British taxpayers to be forced to build them new bridges and highways if that's what Brussels decides is right? Why should anyone in Birmingham have anything to say about it? They will do as they are told.
Of course the British government itself is a tyranny of the majority. I don't know why they call the party not in power the loyal opposition? They are neither loyal to the party in power's program nor are they a true opposition since they have nothing to say about it. Unlike the US Congress which can vote down a bill proposed by the President, the party in power and the Prime Minister are one. There is no real written down constitution in Britain, what there is of one is a vague collections of various documents and traditions hardly assembled into a hard and fast bill of rights and constraints on the government. Nor is the government open. How can it suddenly come as a surprise as it did a few months ago or last year that British soldiers in the field are badly underequipped? Where was the oversight of government spending or wasn't that allowed? Nobody seems to care. The examples are all over the EU, there is really no end to them.
Why do I express my views so vigorously? Well it may seem that way to myopic people unaccostomed to hearing any real dissent of substance to the value or presumptions of their civilization. They have sold much of the world and themselves quite a bill of goods. Is it possible that deep down they don't really buy it any more than I do and simply don't want their perpetual unchallenged self reassurances challenged?
The tyrannical mind is the infantile mind. Any elementary book on psychology will tell you that. It demands immediate gratification of its every whim. It's not a danger unless it grows up expecting the same. It is deluded into thinking it is the center of the universe and the only thing that matters. It comes as a rude shock when it finds out otherwise.
I don't know why you expect respect. Europe has never shown it to anyone else. Look at its sorry history, a litany of the worst crimes ever committed and they were committed in every corner of the world over a period stretching out for a thousand years. Don't they teach you the real truth about the world in your schools? Personally I think the American government has been far too generous in the past towards Europe and the American people far too ignorant of the truth of the world or far too polite and uncritical of Europe. It is also far too ready to help people in trouble without question of how that help will be received or whether or not it is even deserved. My own view is that the US should pull out of Europe immediately, that goes for NATO, WTO, and every other treaty and let Europe fend for itself. I'd favor replacing it with bilateral treaties which use America's overwhelming advantages to gain even more advantage. As I see it, the US is already at war with Europe in every way but militarily. Europe wanted it that way. Now under seige from many sides on many battlefronts it is losing badly. Russia will give it good reason to worry about its energy supplies, especially in the coming winters. China will continue to buy up energy and other raw materials European industries have always counted on. The trade war is going very badly for Europe which is being flooded with an ocean of cheap goods from Asia while its own domestically made products which have to support luxurious social safety nets are uncompetitive. They weak US dollar is killing it. It's technology is far behind America's and Japan's. What has it got to look forward to except more of the same. If inefficient small farmers in France can't make lots of money without huge subsidies now, they never will.
Complain about this comment
Re #141:
The fact that the USA have superior checks and balances than most European states is well-known. It is also well-known that currently the European Union is little more than a collective of member-state ministers assisted by a strong bureaucracy in Brussels. Even so, the time to deal with the EU's democratic deficit got a big postponement with the last enlargement.
As regards 'the EU's infantile mind', why don't you just admit that you got a bit carried away and colourfully attributed human characteristics to the institutions of the European Union? :) As regards European history, we are taught in a dispassionate way about the actions of our forefathers. We do not hold ourselves responsible for eternity (apart from the Germans and I am not convinced that they are not excessive in this) as we do not demonise your own people for the genocide of the Native Americans.
And I am afraid you are correct that the US is in war with the EU in every respect but militarily. However, I am not convinced that you are correct when you state that Europe wanted it this way. I will concede that successive US administrations and the American people have been most generous towards Europe during and WW2 and the Cold War, but it is unclear that this is the case with the current administration. For all we know, there has been a clear attempt at de-railing the European project from the Bush administration: first by invading Iraq and cutting Europe off its privileged oil supplier and making it totally dependent on Russia, second by sowing discord among 'Old' and 'New' Europe, third by lobbying for Turkey's accession, fourth by bringing the EU into conflict with Russia by insisting on installing the anti-missile shield on Russia's borders and admitting Ukraine and Georgia prematurely into NATO. In this context, you might be surprised to find that many Europeans would also welcome US pulling out of Europe immediately as you suggest.
As regards your economic arguments I am not prepared to accept your projections; I am sure, however, that we will soon find out for ourselves so there is no point in arguing what will happen to the world's economy.
Complain about this comment
g_rizzly
The structure of the United States government is without doubt the most carefully figured out one in human history. More thought, effort, gnashing of teeth, compromise, and self re-examination has gone into it than any other by far. The American revolution was much more than a political rejection of European rule over the colonies, it was a re-assessment of how people and government relate to each other to make it possible to have a government without the likelihood of the tyranny the American colonists had won their freedom from not being re-established at some future date by its own citizens. European governments by contrast are the result of an evolutionary process which never really broke completely with their past. We still see vestiges of it today. It is the mentality of it I am referring to most which is reflected in its social constructs, entirely different from their counterpart in the United States. This is one reason why Europeans can never understand the US. But to even scratch beneath the most superficial layers of its skin requires a reading and understanding of American history beyond which even most European scholars of the US fail to make the effort to obtain. You can easily see the difference in what would appear to be corresponding institutions of the two civilizations. For example, the EU constitution was a pathetically clumsy parody of the American constitution. It was a prescription for cradle to grave control of every human life in Europe. It was so long and so convoluted, 400 pages of legalese that few actually read it, and very few of those could even understand it. I read the red line opt outs, did you? They are not really opt outs at all. 40 pages of legalese. If you plow through it, what it says is that Britain will have five years before it must conform to the entire treaty after which if if fails to conform, it can be punished to whatever degree the EU deems necessary and it will have no say in that punishment and no defense against it. This is not democracy in any common understanding.
Take my word for it, Europeans deamonize America at every opportunity. The term America bashing was not invented to describe a few minor isolated incidents, it is descriptive of a constant tirade which in combination with the actions of Europe in the last 7 years has effectively alienated many Americans to the point where they have written off Europe completely.
Did Europe want a war with America? The answer is that for most Western Europeans there is little doubt. The victory of Gerhard Schroeder after he cynically played the anti-American card in his campaign for re-election when he was behind in the polls came before the invasion of Iraq and found such fertile ground that Jacques Chirac did the same. Do you think we didn't see the anti-American demonstrations in Europe on our television screens here in the US? When America invaded Iraq, the entire world including Europe believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Then why was Western Europe so opposed to it? Leaders in France and Germany were protecting the illegal profits of their friends who were circumventing the UN sanctions by violating them but the majority of people wanted to see the US attacked because they are insanely jealous of America's far superior civilization. Even Britain which claims a special relation with the US was split about 50-50. In other countries it was about 90-10. How ironic that even though it cost Europe nothing they would deny Iraqis deliverance from the cruelest of dictatorships by the same American military force that had saved them from both Hitler and Stalin and made the lives they lead today possible because they hate America so much. Chirac could hardly have spoken more plainly when he said he wanted the EU to be a force which confronts America. Well he got his wish and now the EU will have to live with the consequences. He will not have been the first leader to have underestimated what a powerful adversary the US is no matter what the nature of war fought against it including this economic and cultural war.
The US does not need to de-rail the "EU project." It is doomed to fail by its very nature. It has de-railed itself and now it is careening at high speed over a cliff.
The US did not create the current conflict between Russia and Europe, it is a natural consequence of a failed and broken empire trying to reassert its former tyrannical power with the one weapon at its disposal, energy. And keep in mind that Russia is every bit European. Its 74 year slave empire was based on a quintessentially European philosophy, Communism. The destruction of the USSR by escalating the nuclear arms race to the point where it went bankrupt is something the European left will never forgive America for. The best they can hope for as an alternative is their own version, the emerging EUSSR.
Will the world's economy suffer a major blow soon? Substitute the word subprime mortgage with stock margin accounts and you have exactly the same scenario that lead to the great depression. Sadly neither of the two likely candidates to be the next President of the United States shows much knowledge of economics. Even if the Treasury and Federal Reserve manage to soften the blow, the world will pay a heavy price as the trouble ripples out from the largest import and export market in the world. Will Europe escape? They thought they would in 2000 but their recovery was much longer in coming and shallower than America's and that was a mild recession by historical measure. The next one could be a humdinger.
Complain about this comment
"France is already on the verge. How do I know? The French government has as much as said so. It is bankrupt and it has no way to create new jobs." [#139]
1.Those who speak ill of France have obviously not witnessed an almost total collapse of Italian state and its economy.
[Just like those who speak ill of intelligence of tenors have obviously never talked to ballet dancers.]
Although I have to admit Italy has less strikes than France despite having not just one, but two Communist parties.
[Forgive me for not mentioning Greece: there are limits even to my cruelty]
2. I agree that US should get out of NATO ASAP and replace it with a "coalition of the willing" (.i.e., those with not only real capabilities, but, more importantly, testicular fortitude), through bilateral agreements, just like those US already has with Australia, Canada (NORAD), Japan and S. Korea.
g_rizzly (#142),
3.AMD [Anti-Ballistic missile Defense], which cannot be possibly used against USSR II, has nothing to do with NATO: it's a purely American project, and potential deployment of few of its components in Czech Republic and Poland is a result of bilateral agreements between Prague, Warsaw and Washington; just as an ongoing/planned deployment of its elements in the Far East is a result of bilateral agreements between Washington, Tokyo, Seul and Canberra.
BTW. In view of the most recent erratic, fire-triggered launch of several Russian misiles from the base in Lodeynoe Pole (close to Schengen area borders) EU might want to think about its own anti-missile defense protecting its western flank.
Those missiles - whose take-off has been initially/instinctively denied by Russian military- were fortunately merely short range air-to air ones.
What will mighty EU do if during next snafu intermediate nuke-tipped Russian missiles launched accidentally from, say, Plesetsk (which has had its own share of mishaps) cross (acidentally, of course) Oder/ Main/Elbe/Seine and impact?
Call Pentagon?
Are you sure you're going to have any working communication systems left then?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Complain about this comment
Re #144:
"AMD [Anti-Ballistic missile Defense], which cannot be possibly used against USSR II, has nothing to do with NATO"
I didn't say it does. What I said is that Russia does not like US anti-ballistic installations in its former satellites.
"What will mighty EU do if during next snafu intermediate nuke-tipped Russian missiles launched accidentally from, say, Plesetsk (which has had its own share of mishaps) cross (acidentally, of course) Oder/ Main/Elbe/Seine and impact?"
Oh, come on, nobody shoots one's best customer. This is polarisation scenario that Europe simply doesn't need.
Complain about this comment
g_rizzly
You missed the point completely. The launches were a technical accident. Even so, had they had nuclear warheads and had they been armed, they could have caused an unimaginable disaster. Russia knows 20 anti-ballistic missile missiles won't change the balance of power between themselves and the US. They still have thousands of nuclear warheads and bombs, more than any other nation including the US. They just want to drive a wedge between the US and Europe. They don't have to. Schroeder and Chirac have already done that most effectively.
The missiles are emplaced to intercept ICBMs launched from Iran during their boost phase. The alternative is a pre-emptive strike against Iran's entire military industrial infrastructure. Personally, I think that would be a far more sensible strategy. What on earth are we waiting for, the Israelis to be forced to do it first? All of Europe and the Arab world is hoping it just gets done by someone already.
Complain about this comment
Re #145
1. Russia doesn't like a lot of things, first and foremost that's it's no longer a superpower and never again will be one, oil@gas or no oil/gas.
On the other hand its former satellites don't like a lot of things Moscow's doing. Ukraine, for example, doesn't particularly appreciate attempts to poison its leader and freeze it into rejoining USSR II; Lithuania - burning its refinery after Vilnius had decided to sell it to a Polish company rather than to Gazprom;
Georgia - Kremlin-staged provocations which would give it a pretext to invade this Caucasian country. Etc., etc., ad nauseam.
2. Don't tell me that you are unaware of many Russian military /space misshaps (e.g., at Baikonur) caused by obsolete equipment, poor design and maintenance, and massive corruption. There's so much information about it in public domain that you'll easily find it yourself if you really want. And if you do, you most certainly won't get killed by 'unknown assailants' like many a Russian investigative journalist.
Complain about this comment
Russia is a banana republic only its banana happens to be gas and oil. It doesn't manufacture anything you would want to buy in preference to something much better made somewhere else and it never did. I'm not sure it can even feed itself. Its population in declining. It has a lot of sparsely populated territory in Asia that China is eyeing enviously. It is a broken country. But it can create a lot of trouble for Europe, especially by witholding energy sales or diverting them to China and India.
We know about many of the Russian space disasters. They had many explosions on takeoff. A recent re-entry from the International Space Station landed hundreds of miles off target. It is still by and large a primitive place, especially once you get away from the large cities. Their health care system probably stinks too and I think they have major problems with alcohol addiction. Personally, I do not see that they have any real conflict with the US, no strategic points of contention that could lead to war any longer. If they still want to take over Europe, I say let them have it. Let them deal with Sarko, and Angel eyes.
Complain about this comment
"It [Russia] is a broken country. But it can create a lot of trouble for Europe, especially by witholding energy sales or diverting them to China and India". [#148]
Maybe a new EU president (man/woman, transgender) and a new Foreign Policy Coordinator (ditto) will focus on finally creating a coherent, common energy policy for the superstate.
Perhaps they'll be alerted by the fact that the 1st foreign visit of the new Russia's president (Gazprom chairman, Mr. Medvedev) was to oil/gas rich Kazakhstan, where he's pressured its leader (Mr. Nazarbayev) into not building (or allowing construction) of any oil/gas pipelines to Europe bypasing Russia, and continuing exporting it through Russian territory.
[Just recently Moscow has bullied gas-rich Turkmenistan into promising the same]
But if supermen/superwomen in Brussels can't see clearly visible writing on the wall then ....oh...just forget it.
BTW. 2nd foreign country pres. Medvedev has visited was China, where "increased cooperation in energy sector" was indeed one of main topics of his talks with pres. Hujintao. One doesn't have to be a rocket-scientist to figure out what it'll lead to in practice and mean for EU at the time when Russia's oil/gas production is already levelling-off.
Complain about this comment
How wonderful to find irony in life. Europe has demanded a cutback in CO2 output from burning fossil fuels in an obsession with global warming. I'm not suggesting that this is not a serous concern but many Europeans put blame squarely on the US. In fact in the recent talks I think in Bali a few months ago they seemed to agree with the Indians and Chinese that the developed world, ie. the US and Europe should cut back while the developing world, ie. India and China shouldn't have to. In other words, the US and Europe should absorb all the pain and live worse so that Indians and Chinese can live better. Of course Europe promised an 8% voluntary cutback of its CO2 output below 1990 levels when it signed the Kyoto Protocol and will miss its target by 92% according to a BBC report last year. How ironic if Europe is forced to go it alone and make the cutbacks it demanded of the US not willingly but because it has no other choice due to reductions in delivery from Russia upon whom it counted so foolishly. Hoist on its own petard as it were. Meanwhile the US has sufficient coal for over 200 years and the world's largest supply of uranium. There's an old saying that god looks out for drunks, fools, and the United States of America. Sometimes I think there is something to that :-)
Complain about this comment
"Russia dosn't like a lot of things" cont.
Russia doesn't like a video showing its MiG-29 shooting a UAV in Georgian airspace.
Russia doesn't like the latest installment of "Indiana Jones" tale either, because it doesn't potray KGB thugs in the most favourable light and seems to imply that Russia almost started a nuclear war in 1957.
Russia is right on at least the latter account; it has not almost started a nuclear war in 1957. It was in 1961.
Shame on you, Mesrs. Lucas and Spielberg!
And shame on you Ms. Blanchett for looking so nasty. And seeming to enjoy it.
Complain about this comment
It's rather interesting how things work out. By insisting that all of the major decisions and many of the minor ones be unanimous, the designers of the EU paralyzed it. I won't go into the obvious about the Constitution or the Lisbon treaty but just yesterday, Sarkozy wanted to freeze taxes on fuel as the cost of oil goes up because the added tax places an ever greater burden on his pathetically weak domestic economy. No dice, his government doesn't have the power to do that, it ceded it to the EU thinking it could bully the EU into doing whatever it wanted whenever it wanted it or that all of the Eurocratic minds would think the same. Surprise!
Complain about this comment
"A model of a proposed European manned spaceship has gone on show at the Berlin Air Show. "
If you look at details of this project you'll find out that it's likely to have the same rate of success as Galileo project, French Google, and Airbus's EU-taxpayers subsidized A-380 white elephant. Particularly if you look at it from the Phoenix Martian probe's viewpoint.
As somebody pointed out in a HYS debate dealing with space exploration
"while US in conquering new frontiers EU is debating whether Eurovision songs should be sang in English or in Flemish".
Of course one could always ask: WHAT's Euro Vision?
P.S. Euroentusiasts who claim here that "EU is the biggest trading block in the world" would better inform
themselves what APEC is before they get another shock.
[I've recently discovered that most Europeans don't even realize that whole Europe is smaller than just...Australia]
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat;
European technology is pathetically behind America's and Japan's. The inability of BBC to fix its own web site's software for years is proof of that.
Look at the airframe of the Airbus A-380 and the American military air cargo plane the C5A. They are very similar. The USAF has operated the C5A for about 40 years without much incident or fanfare. The Russians have a comparable plane. Turning it into a civilian aircraft for passenger and air cargo use should be child's play for a company like Boeing or Lockheed Martin. The reason they haven't done it is that they don't see enough demand for it. In their view, it's not what the market wants. They judge the total market for such a plane is around 500 units. EADS says 1200. So far EADS has run billions over budget and years behind schedule to produce it encountering many technical obstacles it has yet to overcome. So far only one A-380 has been delivered to a customer and that one went to Singapore Airlines earlier this year. Boeing's counteroffering to the Aviation industry was the 787 Dreamliner, also running into productions problems but of a comparatively minor nature. Not to be outdone, EADS designed another bomb, the A-350 designed to compete head to head against the 787. It is also running into serious problems. So far Airbus has orders for about 149 A-380s, down about 15 because DHL cancelled an order for about 15 due to production delays. Can Airbus ever catch up and make a profit out of this? Was it one more European monument to ego rather than a sound business decision? Stay tuned, I'm sure there is much more news to come about it and how European taxpayer money was squandered on this boondoggle. With every new failure, Europe demonstrates that in one major arena of its war with the US, the technology front, its society is so incompatible with advancements, the reward for individual initiative it is falling hopelessly behind.
Complain about this comment
And yet, Europeans still live longer, healthier, and happier lives than Americans. European countries - well, Scandinavian ones, to be more precise - are still at the top of the Human Development Index and nearly every other measure of quality of life. The economic growth of the European Union is still higher than the economic growth of the United States (3% compared to 2.2%), and the European Union has less inequality of wealth than the United States (EU Gini Index stands at 30, while for the US it is 45).
But clearly, the fact that Airbus has problems with the A-380 signals the imminent apocalyptic demise of all European technology, because the entire European economy and way of life relies on that new airplane (with a little contribution from the BBC website). Right...
The fact is, the EU is doing better than the US in just about every imaginable way, as can be seen from a quick look over the country information published by the CIA world factbook (which is great as a source because it can't be accused of anti-American bias). But apparently, evidence doesn't matter if it contradicts neoliberal ideology and American pride.
Complain about this comment
"EU growth rate is 3% " [#155]
The European Commission (which is great as a source because it can't be accused of anti-European bias) claims that "economic growth in the 15-nation eurozone will be 1.8% this year while inflation would rise to 2.6%."
Some analysts, considering EU's predictions overly optimistic expect a real growth of 1.3% in the eurozone.
BTW. What does CIA handbook say about Deutsche Telecom spying on its employees? :-)
Complain about this comment
MTE_05
If Europe is so much a better place to live than the US, why do so many Europeans keep coming here? Maybe you could persuade them to go home. Now how are you going to convince them? I know I can't. Some of them talk about how much better it was where they came from but when push comes to shove, the are still windbags here just like they were there and actually getting on a plane to go home is the last thing on their minds, their worst nightmare. So now why don't you ask someone who knows...say David Beckham. I'll bet over 90% of Americans don't know who he is, never heard of him and couldn't care less. I know I don't care either. Why don't you kick that one around a little?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
Is there any country in the world with a zero emigration rate? I really, truly do not see the problem if some people choose to leave Europe. Others - in fact a greater number of people - are trying to get into Europe. Some people leave the United States too, and many others are trying to get in.
I certainly would not want to move to the US, and none of my friends do either (though I am considering moving to a different country within the EU at the moment). As for David Beckham - please, keep him! :) My feelings towards him reflect those of the 90% of Americans you were talking about.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS