Tough Tory choices
This piece is part of a BBC TV series focusing on Conservative policy.
If David Cameron becomes prime minister he may spend an awful lot of time in Brussels and talking about Europe. It's a tricky and potentially dangerous topic for the Conservatives, but the handful of policies that have been announced suggest it could blow up into one of the big stories of PM Cameron's first term in office. The Irish No to Lisbon raises even more tantalising possibilities. 
The Conservatives are clear that they don't want to leave the European Union, but have very severe doubts about the way it is being run at the moment. Mr Cameron has made two firm promises: to take back certain powers from the EU and put his party at the forefront of forging a brand new European political group. But more oblique hints suggest he could also be heading for a first-term referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU.
That's an awful lot of the "E" word for someone who was elected leader promising not to "bang on" about Europe. It is a subject that evokes real passion in the hearts of many Conservative stalwarts. That can make it an awkward subject too, where pragmatism is seen as betrayal and principle as obsession. The Conservative civil war was about Europe, and it was a huge factor in Mrs Thatcher's downfall and the undermining of John Major's government.
But times have changed, the pro-European generals, like Ken Clark and Michael Heseltine, may not have quit the field, but no longer command big battalions. The vast majority of those in power now range from suspicion of the EU to downright hostility. They think this is a mirror image of the views of the British voters. Lower down the ranks, while few openly advocate leaving the EU, many see a semi-detached relationship as a logical outcome. 
Mr Cameron's first foray into European politics has not been an unqualified success. During his campaign to become Conservative leader he won some over with a promise to pull the Conservatives out of their current grouping in the European Parliament. He hasn't yet been able to keep the promise. As this is exactly the sort of esoteric Euro-row that seems designed to confuse, I will leave this most pressing problem until last.
Most Conservatives think the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty is a gift. While it helps them argue the case that the treaty is dead, it also hands them a convenient blunt weapon for next year's Euro elections.
The June 2009 elections for the European Parliament will be taken by most in Westminster and perhaps many in the country as merely a dress rehearsal for the general election. But there's likely to be clear blue water between the main parties on Europe itself. It is now certain that if the Lisbon Treaty is still in limbo the Conservatives will offer a referendum if they win the next election. What if the Irish do vote again, and do vote Yes?
The shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, argues: "If this treaty is ratified in this country without a referendum, and if it is ratified in all other countries and comes into force before a general election, in our view not only would political integration have gone too far but the treaty would lack democratic legitimacy in Britain. So as we have already made clear, that situation would not be acceptable to an incoming Conservative government and we would not let matters rest there".
What precisely this means the Conservatives will not say at this stage, but it sounds like a pretty big hint that there will either be an attempt at renegotiating Lisbon or a referendum on Britain's relationship with the European Union, or a combination of the two.
The other major Conservative promise is to bring home certain powers from Brussels. They would attempt to "repatriate", as it is known in the jargon, both social and employment policy. This is complex, because so much of it is covered by health and safety legislation. Many Conservative MPs and MEPs want fishing policy brought home as well, although at the moment Mr Cameron's team judge this to be too complex. Others would add to the shopping list perhaps defence, perhaps agriculture.
These priorities for an incoming Conservative government would be against a background of a shift in the European political landscape.
The Conservatives are at the moment part of the EPP-ED group, which is dominated by the German Christian Democrats and the French UMP, both currently parties of government. It is the biggest and most powerful grouping in the parliament. While centre-right, it is pretty enthusiastic about a Europe of "ever further union".
That is why Mr Cameron wants to pull out of the group. But his initial promise proved hard to keep. The most obvious partners, the Czech Civic Democrats (ODA), don't want to link up until after the European elections in June 2009. One source tells me this will happen and they are on course to form the fourth-largest grouping in the European Parliament, with 60 members and six countries involved. A more cynical source says that is "tosh to put it politely: we'd link up with one serious party of government and a series of mavericks and extremists". At any rate, it would mean even before Mr Cameron had to start hard negotiations about Britain's relationship with the EU he would have severely annoyed the leaders of the two most powerful EU countries, France and Germany.
It wouldn't be the best background for what is big, high-wire stuff. It is just about possible to see other EU countries allowing British opt-outs on social and employment law. It is approaching the fanciful to expect these other countries to allow Britain to opt out of a treaty that has already been ratified.
But if there had been a referendum in Britain that instructed the government to seek a different relationship they would have to accept it, at least in some form. It is hard to see whether this would end up with new opt-outs, a new relationship, an exit strategy or a reconstruction of the whole European project. Some think the latter is possible. In the words of one enthusiast, the Conservatives would "storm the citadel" and lead a Europe-wide movement that would change the EU into a more democratic, looser organisation, no longer aimed at "ever greater union".
But there is a potential downside. On the Conservative Party's main webpage on policy there is not a single mention of Europe - a reflection of the high command's belief that while people may agree with them about the EU, it is not a main priority for most voters. If Mr Cameron does end up "banging on" about Europe, fighting a referendum campaign against a new Labour leader who'd be seeking to make a mark, it might rather bore the voters, who thought schools and hospitals were Mr Cameron's priority.
So there are those who think this will remain on the back burner. One Conservative politician, who desperately wants a changed relationship with the EU, believes only a leader with a Powellite obsessiveness and a willingness to take on the whole of the civil service, the diplomatic corps, big business as well as France and Germany could succeed. And he adds ruefully that sort of politician doesn't become party leader these days.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~36~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.
Mark:
Tough choices for the Tories if they win the elections...When they happend?
Complain about this comment
Anyone wanting to see a change in the UK's relationship with the EU has to hope the Conservatives not just win in 2010 but win with a large majority. Labour still has some time (less than 12 months) to retrieve the situation, but all signs are that the Conservatives are going to win big in 2010 such as to command a real majority in Parliament for the first time since EU political union began at Maastricht. The Conservatives do not need to make any detailed policy announcements in any policy areas right now. Labour is suffering a melt-down and only their supporters (including those at the BBC) would wish to distract public attention from Labour?s troubles by focussing on Tory policies right now. However the time will come, most likely in the run-up to the next year's euro-elections, when Conservative policies will be unveiled and there is reason for hope that the wait will be worthwhile.
I would like to see the 2009 Euro-election manifesto commit the Conservatives "to change our relationship with the EU to one of trade and not political union, and to enter into negotiations with our EU partners to achieve this end". Such wording would imply the real change (and not just empty talk) would be achieved and that the Conservatives would be prepared to play hardball (i.e. threaten to leave) as a last resort if our partners will not negotiate in good faith and in a timely manner. There should also be a promise of a written UK Constitution to ensure there is never a repeat of the one-way leach of powers from the democratic arena of the nation-state without the permission of the people.
Complain about this comment
Henley by-election:
Conservatives: 19,796
BNP 1,243
UKIP 843
Neither the BNP or UKIP is getting anywhere and yet they should be sweeping the Tories off the pavement. The Lisbon Treaty fiasco is a gift.
I couldn't vote BNP but I could vote UKIP.
We need a new anti-"EU" party.
Complain about this comment
The Tories may talk tough but when push comes to shove and they actually have power, they prove they are full of hot air. Their front benchers look forward to retiring to a high paying job with lots of taxpayer funded perks in Brussels just the way Labour party higher ups do.
The one thing the UK has going for it is that it hasn't given up the pound for the Euro....yet. It still has some measure of control over its sovereignty although you can be sure there are those who stay up at night plotting how to get rid of that too. As the doors close behind one treaty after another, the chances of going backwards and escaping through an exit diminish. Funny, should a major player like Britain, France, or Germany opt out of the EU altogether, the whole house of cards might collapse by surprise just like the USSR suddenly did. But I don't think we will ever find out.
In the end, the European project will go through just as its secret steering committee intends it to. It will just take a little longer for them to get around the laws and work out the details than they'd like but the final destination of an EUSSR is not in doubt.
Complain about this comment
If David Cameron wishes to try the impossible that is up to him. Having lived the first 60 years of my life in England and the last 12 in Spain, I know very much what he is up against.
Historically, culturally and emotionally Britain sees itself much closer to the United States than Continental Europe. My generation eat American food, saw B17 bombers flying off to Europe and saw hundreds of American tanks driving towards the London docks to be shipped to France. But times are changing, my generation are passing and the world has changed. Both my children live in Europe, The E.U. is a fact of every day life. We take open borders, the Euro and such mundain things as common electric plugs, for granted.
The European Community is a club of countries. In fact it is rather like a large Mediteranean matrachal familiy, given to disputing within but standing firm agaist outsiders. In this context Britain is a rather awkward brother-in-law that is tolerated - to a point. But when times get tough must either work with everybody else or leave.
Times are getting harder. The next ten years are going to be much less easy than the last. The next American President will have more than enough problems without even thinking about the U.K. Europe is looking morer and more towards the East and South.
The U.K. needs the Community much more than the Community need the U.K. Your last paragraph say it all. How is Cameron going to get it over to the public. He can hold as many referendums as he likes but he is likely to get less out of the E.U. not more.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I am almost excited by your words, "... It is approaching the fanciful to expect these other countries to allow Britain to opt out of a treaty that has already been ratified.
But if there had been a referendum in Britain that instructed the government to seek a different relationship they would have to accept it, at least in some form. ..."
Given your reported comments of William Hague as well, one can almost foresee the Conservatives biting the bullet and holding a referendum on the EU and the EU/UK relationship within the UK.
This will be even more likely if, as has been suggested in your previous Blog Comments, that the Franco-German axis is likely to concede Ireland concessions for them to be excluded from certain parts of the ramifications of the Lisbon Treaty in order to bolster a "Yes" vote in a second time around referendum!
Given that the French and the Dutch were given certain dispensations and deliberate concessions to the Constitutional Treaty as a result of their earlier "No" votes in their referendums, there is certainly precedent for achieving change by threat of referendum or actually obtaining changes by use of agreed bribes in the form of opt-outs or exclusions to drive a change of heart.
One can imagine that an incoming UK Conservative Government would learn from the Irish experience and seek changes to the Lisbon Treaty to the benefit of the United Kingdom. A referendum would seem to be the most opportune way of achieving changes, opt-outs or exclusions.
As an individual who is keen on close european cooperation but sees a need for complete overhaul of the EU monolith, I do see some hope in the advent of the young Conservatives and their potential to drive changes in the UKs relationship with the EU and indeed to the EU. Good luck William Hague.
Having the hope of a referendum is enough to fill me with a warm glow towards the Conservative Party. I just hope the Conservative Government do not disappoint as they have done in the past!
Complain about this comment
I have to confess that I really don't understand how conservatives can put out rhetoric like that. The more extreme views they put out the more they are in danger of becoming prisoners of their own rhetoric. In politics becoming prisoner of own rhetoric in essentially means to either do bad decisions that are against common interest or abandon your rhetoric and do what is necessary and productive.
The other thing that I don't understand about conservative rhetoric is that don't they understand that there is possibility that the rest of the EU just doesn't give up. That's a real possibility. Imagine a situation where UK can either leave or play along, and if it chooses to leave there won't be any EEA kind of treaty offered as a means of retaliation. That would, in more or less, mean collapse of whole UK economy.
Like I said in previous topic, I don't think that conservatives are really leaving EU nor I think that they are going to negotiate treaties over. I just can't understand how politicians even in this day can write cheques that they can't never cash.
Complain about this comment
I post 4 MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The Tories may talk tough but when push comes to shove and they actually have power, they prove they are full of hot air. Their front benchers look forward to retiring to a high paying job with lots of taxpayer funded perks in Brussels just the way Labour party higher ups do. "
I'm not sure I'd agree. I think tory front benchers look forward to high paying jobs as directors of corporations and merchant banks. They would be less likely to invest their hopes of future riches in an EU gravy train when they would prefer the big business gravy train instead.
Perhaos the Brit politicos are more like your american ones after all.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius II Post 4
"In the end, the European project will go through just as its secret steering committee intends it to."
Just one thought.....if the steering committe is a secret - how come you know all about it? They can't be very good and keeping themselves secret, can they? Perhaps you've just being reading a bizarre conspiracy theory with no basis in reality...
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
Jukka (7): The UK has already signed the EEA treaty. We would remain an EEA member even if we were to leave the EU. The purpose of UK-EU negotiations in the coming years should be to achieve something better than the EEA. For example an arrangement where we participate in the common EEA/EU market, but have full participation and voting rights in EU institutions regarding single market regulations while not taken part at all in political union.
Complain about this comment
There will be a game of cat and mouse going on.
The first step must surely be to invite the EU to consider Conservative proposals for a changed relationship with the EU.
The EU's response to these proposals should be put to the British people in a referendum, with its first question as follows -
Do you accept this offer, or not? Yes or No.
If the response is 'not', there would be a second question.
'As you do not accept these terms, what action woould you like the government to take?
1. attempt a further renegotiation
or
2. would you prefer Britain to withdraw from the EU?
If a majority votes in favour of acceptance, then the withdrawal/renegotiate question would not apply.
If a majority votes against acceptance, then the withdrawal/renegotiate question would become the significant one.
This process could be repeated until the voters voted either to accept - or withdraw.
Complain about this comment
Even just a year ago 'Europe' would have been a difficult subject for the Tories.
Public sentiment in the UK has shifted substantially. Now that New Labour is virtually non-electable, the Conservatives can allow themselves the opportunity of addressing the canker of the EU's 'democratic deficit' in a decisive way. It would be not only a necessary move, but a popular one too.
Furthermore, I contend that the majority of the British public - while not 'Europhobic' or wanting to leave the EU - are sick and tired of the overbearing EU Project and do not want any further 'ever closer union'.
A Conservative government would gain legitimacy for its arguments and negotiations with the EU by the simple measure of asking the British people whether or not we support the Lisbon Treaty (irrespective of whether it has or has not been ratified).
Jukka_Rohila @7 wrote: "imagine a situation where UK can either leave or play along, and if it chooses to leave there won't be any EEA kind of treaty offered as a means of retaliation. That would, in more or less, mean collapse of whole UK economy."
Firstly, in the unlikely (no matter how desirable) event that the UK did leave the EU, we could still be a member of a EEA-type treaty that would also be advantageous to EU states - to say otherwise is scare-mongering.
Secondly, the UK's contribution to the EU coffers is substantial (even taking into account the rebate). I don't think that Germany and the Netherlands (and other nett contributors) would be keen to increase their already large contributions to meet this shortfall. It would probably be political suicide for their governments to even try.
The EU is never going to 'kick out' the UK. It can't afford to even if it wanted to.
As businessmen say: Cash is - and always will be - king.
Complain about this comment
i agree and disagree at the same time with the conservative position.
i agree that we do need more democracy in the EU, more legitimacy. this can be done by co-operation btw the big countries, not isolation.
i disagree with the fact that leaving the EU is the solution or taking back powers from brussels.
about th elisbopn treaty - it could have been more slim and readable. yes, just like constitution - simple wording, precise and short. it must have set the foundations of the EU and then, with additional portocols and treaties, etc to organise the day-to-day business of the EU. then i think it will succeed everywhere in europe. people will know what they are voting for, they'll understand the text.
the democratic element - why each country doesn't vote for not only for its MEPs but also for th ecommissioner? the national party that wins the major part of the vote elects the commisioner, th eleader of the party list. then these commissioners can elect the president of the commission. so we vote for parliament (legislature) and commission (executive). of course, th ecommission and its presedent should be approved by the parliemanet.
simple... democratic...
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (10) and ScepticMax (12):
You forget that UK trying to renegotiate its EU treaties is more or less based on "we want changes or else..", the thing is that two can play that game and the response of the rest of the EU could be "play ball or treaties concerning UKs trade with Europe will be unilaterally revoked".
The important thing in this kind of scenario is that UKs threats would be political as the retaliation of EUs would be economical. Just think about how the markets would react if a head of state of some large EU country or a member of EU commission would threaten to revoke UKs EEA membership? If markets would think that there is a serious probability that the threats would materialize, there would be crave consequences: whole industries would either halt their productions or re-address their logistical change, the stocks would collapse, the Pound would start free fall followed by rise of interest rates crashing the economy to recession.
If Tories take an irrational position against Europe, there is big risk of Europe taking irrational position against UK. European Union has been the project of the century and in this world climate I bet EU leaders could and would take a risk of starting a trade war. In a trade war UK would suffer more than EU. That's a fact and that fact should be acknowledged by those who wish to readdress UKs position in and towards EU.
Complain about this comment
The Conservatives won't change anything; for a politician to really tackle the EU they need the sort of steadfast conviction of Thatcher, and Cameron just isn't that man.
However can we move away from the idea that if the UK were to leave the EU then we would be outcasts unable to trade with anyone; Russia isn't in the EU yet we buy their oil, China isn't in the EU yet we buy their cheap plastic junk.
The EU and the UK are like 2 trains moving along the tracks together, but there will at some time come a fork in the tracks, and at that point both must decide which path to take; an EU modelled on Globalism and Free Trade as the UK wants, or an EU modelled on Protectionism and White Christian values under France.
Although as part of the UK's pro-EU minority it would really help our cause if the EU could use a little more carrot and move away from the idea that when they get out the stick they will beat you to death with it. An animal (in this case the Lion at the heart of the UK) backed into a corner will only lash out, damaging both the EU and UK.
p.s. Maybe the UK leaving the EU for say 5 years would be a good idea; then when the CAP had collapsed because of lack of funds the UK would be happy to jump back onboard and play along.
Complain about this comment
Tapestory (11). Are you recommending this process?
I don't understand why it would be recommended for Britain when an almost identical one for Ireland is called "making them have referenda until they get the right answer".
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @14 wrote:
"I bet EU leaders could and would take a risk of starting a trade war. In a trade war UK would suffer more than EU. That's a fact and that fact should be acknowledged by those who wish to readdress UKs position in and towards EU."
You're on: How much do you want to bet?
Furthermore, I'll happily bet you that:
1) The Tories will not take an 'irrational position' on Europe. (BTW, an 'irrational position' would be to ignore the clear demands from the British people for 'less' EU).
2) EU leaders would not take a risk of starting a trade war. (They're too chicken to do anything other than threaten small countries like Ireland).
3) Any 'trade' war between the UK and the EU would damage the EU more. Britain faces the 'wide open sea', Europe faces 'the wide open steeps' - and the Russians control most of their resources.
Ready to put your money where your mouth is?
Complain about this comment
Jukka (14): We are not threatening you with anything. Quite the opposite; without the UK federalists such as yourself will be able to proceed more freely on your beloved path of ever closer union.
You are threatening trade wars against the UK but that is not possible under WTO trade rules. The absolute worst case scenario would be that the UK would be outside both the EU and EEA, as Switzerland is today. Let's take a look at how bad this would really be. The EU external tariffs are 0% for services, and average about 2% for industrial goods and about 11% for agricultural produce. 75% and growing of the UK economy is services and so would be totally unaffected if we were outside the EU and EEA. Most of the rest is manufacturing which would be slightly disadvantaged. Only agriculture would face significant change, but this is a sector which employs less than 1% of Britons. The savings of being outside the EU CAP system would easily be enough to fund compensation for British farmers. If such tariffs were applied on UK exports to the EU they could also be applied in the other direction. The UK imports more industrial manufactures and agricultural produce than we export to the Continent so we would actually be in profit. One further consideration is that as an EU member we must hand over the tariff revenue from our non-EU trade (which amounts to about 40% of our total trade) direct to Brussels. If we were outside the EU the UK would keep this revenue for itself. So the absolute worst case situation is actually of net benefit to the UK. Your threats are rather hollow I am afraid.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #14
What you say almost sounds threatening.
However, the UK cannot get kicked out of the EU as easily as you may imagine but the UK can certainly argue for change to the EU along the lines of a more trade-oriented form of European Cooperation rather than the centrist political union that France and Germany currently seem intent on building.
If the UK arguments fall on deaf ears, the suggestion from the Conservtives seems to be to then give themselves authority to renegotiate membership and relationship by full authority of a referendum.
We have all seen how recent events have caused a flurry of worry and consternation at the heart of the EU at the democratic choice of the Irish and, to be honest, I am glad that there is concern. There should be!
Even if the UK Electorate were to wish for withdrawal from the EU then disengagemet would probably be too complex to happen quickly but it cannot be ruled out. It must remain an option for all member states to individually choose their relationship with the EU. The Lisbon Treaty appeared to me to make this a viable option so everyone on the Councuil of Ministers thinks this option should exist and remain availble for the future..
The bottom line for the EU is that the UK with Rebate contributes only slightly less than Germany. However, If the UK were to withdraw this would probably mean the end of the EU as it is currently constituted as the EU would not have the full 9+Billion Euros that the UK contributes BEFORE Rebate. The UK would not have to worry about the Rebate as the money has not left the UK Treasury and can be spent in other ways.
I can imagine that the UK Taxpayers would be heaving sighs of relief at the though of how much money that would save them!
I firmly believe that UK withdrawal would actually hurt the UK LESS than it would harm the EU as we would have our full 9+ billion Euros saved and could very much manage trading with the rest of the world as well as we did prior to 1973! We still ahve our ties with the Commonwealth Countries that have never disappeared despite EU membership.
But to be realistic, withdrawal from the EU is highly unlikely and I think the best thing for both the UK and the EU is for the UK to participate in Europe but with a renegotiated relationship between the UK and the EU based upon our Anglo-Saxon heritage and not just accept the status quo of the existing elitist Gallic-Germanic new order. The rest of Europe can renegotite their terms and form of relationship as they see fit!
It is only if this change cannot be delivered that the UK should consider withdrawal from the EU!
The main point being that the EU can threaten and cajole as much as it likes but actually it is the UK that has the cards to play when it comes down to it. It is never too late for the UK to say "No" to further EU integration!
Complain about this comment
One of the questions I have for Marcus Aurelius II is, what would be the benefits of leaving the EU? I am never clear on what Eurosceptics hope to acheive by taking us out of the EU, and they never seem quite clear on it themselves, beyond the act of leaving itself and slagging off the institution without a serious suggestion as to what we should be doing instead.
It's just hot air to think we are important enough to do without our links to Europe. We are a small, unimportant island nation with nothing left but delusions of grandeur and a seige mentality. What would be so bad about being part of a more integrated EU anyway? We'd have the largest economy, armed forces and workforce in the world by far, and we'd tope the Olympic medal table by literally miles. And does having the Euro make the French any less French? I don't think so. Scotland has been part of the UK for a good couple of hundred years. Is it now exactly the same uniform grey as England? Not really, I don't think, and I'm Scottish. And if the apparently all powerful and all seeing bureaucrats of the European Commision can't stop the Spanish having a three hour lunch break, why on Earth would they want to try and make us drive on the right?
The idea of the EU being a trade organisation is fine, but the point of the EU is basically protectionism. Look at how France exploits the CAP, and look at the huge trade tarrifs between the US and EU on things like steel and cereals. If the UK were to take itself out of the EU, what is there to stop them from imposing exactly the same tarrifs on us the second the door clicks shut behind us? Loyalty? I would not put it beneath them to impose a trade embargo on us just out of relief at being rid of us. And the idea that we could do as Norway does is pretty flawed too - they have enough oil money to fund themselves for the next century. We owe 40% of our GDP to the bank. And even when we ruled the waves, Britannia still did most of her trade with Europe; we would strip mine the colonies and then sell what we made from it to the Prussians.
As for our links with the US, this is the realm of pure fantasy. They are protectionists too. And, just like Europe, we would need them a hell of a lot more that they need us. They are happy to stiff us militarily and politically, even with all the blind loyalty we have shown them over the last few years. Again, they owe us nothing. Same with the Commonwealth.
Perhaps I sound a bit general, but one of the problems I find in the UK is that the arguments against Europe do not seem to be terribly well framed. I can't find anything beyond the idea that because we kicked the Hun in two world wars, he will try and win a third by being sneaky. Talk like that on these comments about an EUSSR and a secret steering committee specifically dedicated to curtailing British freedoms seems about as credible. I could accept proper debate on the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, but there doesn't seem to be much actual argument about that, just shrilly expressed paranoia about an Orwelian superstate. And in any referendum on the EU, it would be this visceral and emotional side of the campaign which would win, so I'd be against anyway.
I'm not slavishly pro-European, although I do think adpoting the Euro is a good idea. Not only would it save having to change your money every time you go on holiday, but any argument about the Euro being Monopoly money for the misguided would be pretty well finished off by having the 6th largest economy in the world behind it, along with the 4th, 5th and 7th. Europe has a massive democratic defecit, and if it is to ever gain legitimacy as a political entity it must address this. However, you can argue that it even today still dedicates itself to questions of trade. The fact that trade impacts on every single issue of our lives is a seperate one. If you want to be libertarian, be libertairan, but also be prepared to accept the classical anarchism that this entails.
I would also ask him why he has named himself after a Roman emperor, what with them actually having created a European superstate, and what's more done it with a sword rather than a treaty.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John (10):
I don?t think that the provisions of EEA Treaty will apply automatically to UK, despite of the fact that it is a contracting party. According to the Article 126, Paragraph 1 ?The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty of Rome (they use the full name) is applies and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.? So even if UK remains a participant in the EEA Treaty its provisions will NOT apply to its territory, if it leaves the EU. I know it?s pretty silly but this is how it is.
Complain about this comment
Young-Mr-Grace
"Perhaos the Brit politicos are more like your american ones after all."
If you mean ambitious and corrupt, that is the universal human condition. The genius of the American system the founding fathers devised is that it anticipates just that and divides and separates powers to a degree that no one or group of them can be completely dominant for very long. It sets them against each other in a way that for any of them to get what they want, they have to compromise with those they are politically opposed to. Even in the same party, you will see the President and Congress fight over power. They are made watchdogs over each other by the very nature of their own power and limitations. Watergate was a demonstration of that in action. If they won't compromise, the Constitution prefers paralysis to tyranny.
What secret steering committee? The nameless faceless Eurocrats and Parliamentarians in Brussels for one and their supporters in governments around Europe who devise the treaties and then write regulations under them all designed in one way or another to usurp power. The more stealthily the better. That way by the time anyone figures out what they've been up to, it's too late it's over. American legislators do the same thing, put countless hidden riders in bills to sneak them through as part of large important laws. A lot of the staff of Congressmen are lawyers who comb through these bills but there are so many of them, they often don't find them. We call it pork barreling. Im sure there are other names for it too.
Complain about this comment
To repeat something I posted in the previous thread :-
"Just to put a true figure on what you said in post 100, the 2006 EU published figures that are not confirmed say that the Net UK contribution is 4.8046 Billion Euro. Should the UK's rebate be disappeared for the same year then not only would the UK have been the first net contributer but it would have paid 9.3078 Billion Euros against the next largest being Germany 7.8783 Billion Euro.
By the way should anyone try to verify these figures don't use the Wikipedia ones as they ignore the TOR (Traditional Own Resources) figures, look direct at the EU's own figures, and remember the TOR figure is composed of the next four figures."
When you compound that with the trade deficit which Wikipedia claims for 2007 was Exports $470 billion (2007 est.)
Imports $600 billion (2007 est.)
I think it is really stretching credibility to suggest the EU could ever contemplate a trade war with the UK if it left or even if it refused to negotiate as the loss of the UK contribution and EU exports to the UK would be too great, plus #14 Jukka_Rohila, there would be a host of countries and companies jumping in to replace EU imports, that's called business. Finally if the EU Franco-German alliance refused to negotiate it would show them for what they are, dictators, and it's by no means certain other EU members would not also leave and want to join a trading alliance with the UK.
Complain about this comment
To ScepticMax (17):
I never do gambling or betting, but in this case, with you, why not. I propose a bet of a nominal sum of 10 euros done via Internet betting agency.
Lets however first negotiate rules...
Conditions for a draw:
If Tories after the next UK parliamentary elections don't form a new government. (Or would you be willing to continue the bet even if Labor forms the next government? Or would you give for one of my my winning conditions?)
All EU members together negotiate a new treaty which forms a multi speed EU, allowing some members to just trade together and some countries to advance towards ever closer union. (I do understand that this is more or less what Tories want, however I would put this one under a draw as it's a decision and a treaty negotiated by the EU. Or would you like this to added on your winning conditions?)
Conditions for me to win:
UK stays as a member of EU without renegotiating its old treaties with it.
UK secedes from the EU and is a EEA member without voting power.
UK secedes from the EU and is not a member of EEA nor negotiates a comparable treaty with the EU.
Conditions for you to win:
UK renegotiates old treaties with the EU, staying either as an EU member, or an EEA member with voting power in matters regarding economic co-operation, or negotiating a comparable treaty with the EU.
*The term old treaties refers to treaties which have been ratified by all member countries and are legally binding. The Lisbon Treaty will be counted as an old treaty if its been ratified by all member countries.
How would you see these conditions? I welcome any suggestion.
Complain about this comment
Now I do not think that UK, leaving the EU is a viable possibility.
First of all as I explained above it will not get the EEA benefits automatically.
Second if UK wants to be part of it will have to negotiate with the very same EU. This will include a financial contribution (this is laid down in Part VIII) of the EEA Treaty. And there is always possibility that the demanded contribution can be a pretty serious one, say bigger than the present one to EU.
Third as member of EEA will have to automatically accept EU legislation in the area of trade (the four freedoms and others, Article1, Paragraph 2) without formal say their preparation (Commitology procedure de facto gives participation in the preparation of legislation on expert level, but it depends on the good will of EU really). On the top of this UK will have to accept de facto trade agreements between EU and other countries.
Forth City of London will be unhappy to put it mildly. To put it less mildly the may declare themselves The Most Serene Republic of CoL and try to join EU. I will love to see the border check point on the Strand. More realistically there will be a big exit of financial institutions towards New York and Frankfurt. Especially if these two improve their regulation regimes a little bit.
Generally the UK economy will suffer very badly, as neither fishery nor mineral extraction are big contributors there. It is possible that Wales and Scotland may decide that they will be better off in EU after all than in UK.
And when the moment comes when England re-applies for EU membership it may discover that French presidents can be a bit awkward and that sometimes Luxembourg puts treaties on referenda too.
As those of us that play poker may testify the biggest problem with the bluffs is that they can be called.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who reads the remarks by Giscard d'Estaing following the Irish referendum, in which he openly admits that the Lisbon treaty is the same as the old constitution that he wrote, but made much more difficult to understand to deliberately disguise the fact following the French and Dutch rejections, must harbour serious and profound doubts about the wisdom of British membership of the EU. Any political organisation which displays such contempt for the electorate that it is supposed to serve is not something to which we should be a signatory. It defies belief that the British public are refused any opportunity to object at the ballot box in any meaningfull way, apart from squandering a vote on a fringe party which, however laudable its aims, will never form a government.
The Conservative party, notwithstanding its past history of division over Europe, has a perfect opportunity to harness the majority opinion in the UK that now is the time for the people to have a say. Promise a proper debate on our relationship with the EU, allowing both sides to present their arguments in a fair and equal manner, and then hold a referendum on membership, with a possible option of a new relationship with the EU being negotiated, and if unsuccessful, outright withdrawal. The number voting for continuing down the road currently being travelled by the EU would be pitifully small.
"Europe" has been a boil in UK politics for far too long, and if it isn't properly lanced by a democratic expression of support or rejection by the people, it can only cause more trouble in the future, whichever party holds office. The blatant refusal by Labour to honour its manifesto committment on a referendum (and its dishonest claim that the Lisbon Treaty is somehow different to the constitution having been blown out of the water by M. d'Estaing, who should know) will almost certainly cost it dear at the next election. However did free Britons allow our politicians to surrender our democracy in so cavalier a fashion? Common on David Cameron - its all up to you now.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand why the EU generates so much ire amongst contributors to blogs.
It has brought considerable benefits in terms of free movement across borders (Schengen) - except of course for the UK; a single currency that has saved business and tourists millions in exchange conversion and bank charges - except of course in UK; and then there's the question of employee rights and benefits which EU citizens enjoy - except of course in UK!
There's a bit of a common thread here. If UK citizens had the chance to enjoy all these benefits they might not be quite so negative towards an institution, which for all it's faults - and it has plenty, has provided overwhelming benefits to the citizens of those countries that are prepared to take part fully.
It really is about time the UK grew up and worked out it's place on the planet - that's Europe, not hanging on to some phony "special relationship" with a country far away, on another continent, that only believes a special relationship exists when it wants something from it's European poodle.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 (@ 3)
The utter failure of the anti-EU parties at Henley tells its own story. These blogs may be fully of rabidly anti-EU comments, but that is not what the majority in the UK want despite the best effots of our anti-European press tp persuade them. Most of us DO want to be part of the EU (even in many cases if this is more a matter of heads than hearts)
I hope David Cameron heeds the lesson of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton - namely that you do not win elections by appealing to your own supporters, you win them by appealing to the centre ground, especially if you want to be re-elected. He has to ignore the Euro-hating mob who turn out to his party conferences. They have no where else to go, and UKIP is obviously going no-where.
If David Cameron does win the next election he would be wise to resist the calls for fundamental re-negotiation of anything, or he will tear the country and his own party apart, will take his eye off the economic ball (which is where it needs to be at the moment) and do untold damage to our realtionship with our European neighbours and allies, lose influence not just in Europe but across the world (especailly with the US), and damage UK business with all the years of uncertainty it would create.
This - on a every small scale - is no doubt why he has chosen not to split the Conservatives from the EPP.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @24,
I'm not usually a betting man either, but I'd be delighted to accept (I lost a potential fortune by not betting on the Irish to reject the Lisbon Treaty even though I had a source within the Commission who advised me to do so...).
Just a couple of comments on conditions:
1) the first condition for you to win - "UK stays as a member of EU without renegotiating its old treaties with it." - is acceptable - so long as the Lisbon Treaty - if ratified by all countries is considered an 'old treaty'. Any re-negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty in the interim period (see item 2 to follow) would count as a 'win' for me - as this is what I believe will happen.
2) We need a time-frame: I suggest 2 years from the date of the next General Election (on the reasonable assumption that the Conservatives win).
I'm not sure how Internet betting works, but happy to learn. Any suggestions anyone?
(We could always send our stakes to Mark Mardell for safe-keeping. I think he's trustworthy... ;-)
Complain about this comment
ATNotts # 27
"I don't understand why the EU generates so much ire amongst contributors to blogs"
Perhaps you didn't read my post above about the admission by M.d'Estaing that the EU is deliberately trying (and partly succeeding) to hoodwink the electorate. Maybe that's why there is such ire, and not just on blogs.
SuperJulianR # 28
The oft-quoted choice of "being in the EU" or "being the 51st State of the USA" is a false one. There is a whole world out there which belongs to neither. The UK is a world trading nation which is often hampered, rather than helped, by its membership of the introspective EU. Given the complete lack of democracy and accountablity in the EU, as evidenced by the admission of M.d'Estaing, would you suggest that membership is essential to Britain at any price? Exactly which freedoms, like the ability to have the freely expressed choice of the people respected by its politicans for instance, would you see as a price worth paying for membership?
It is not a question of Britain growing up, as you put it; it is a question of Britain deciding if the democracy she has enjoyed for centuries is worth protecting or not? You may be willing to sell your national soul for a metaphorical piece of silver, others are not so keen.
Complain about this comment
AchKnalligeWelt (20): The reasons to renegotiate the UK-EU relationship (or to leave if our partners refuse to negotiate) are:
1. Restoring democracy.
2. Saving money
NikolayTzvetkov (21 and 25): The financial cost of EEA membership would have to be a very low one for the UK, or it would simply be more advantageous not to be part of it at all. As per my post 18, the UK would actually benefit in terms of net tariff revenue from being outside the EEA as we would (i) raise more from tariffs applied to EU26 exports into the UK than we would lose in tariffs applied to our exports sent in the other direction and (ii) we would keep the tariff revenue on our trade with the rest of the world, which currently we hand over to Brussels. Outside the EEA we would also be free to negotiate free trade agreements with others, as Mexico has done for example with both NAFTA and the EU.
There would be economic benefits to the UK from EEA membership (the Swiss government calculated the direct costs to them of EU membership would be 7 times higher than EEA membership) but the main benefit of this option is political. I.e. it can easily be sold to the British public as no change to trade, but freedom from the worst excesses of political union. Never-the-less it should only be viewed as a transitional arrangement that serves the immediate necessity of breaking with the undemocratic political union.
The long-term ideal remains that the WTO achieve the abolition of trade restrictions worldwide, but a useful and achievable staging post towards that ideal, which might be negotiated in the period (say 2010 to 2025) that the Conservatives can hope to be in power, would be for NAFTA, the UK, and the EEA/EU26 to negotiate a transatlantic free trade area. This would give everyone the benefits of a larger market than now, allow those governments that want to create an undemocratic political union to do so, while allowing the British (and perhaps others) to remain free.
Complain about this comment
''Some think the latter is possible. In the words of one enthusiast, the Conservatives would "storm the citadel" and lead a Europe-wide movement that would change the EU into a more democratic, looser organisation, no longer aimed at "ever greater union".''
An European political party which understands the importance of the European project but wants to improve Europe's democratic accountability would be a good idea. On this moment there are no real opposition parties in the European Parliament with exception of a few communists and fascists. Most of the current 'Pan-European' parties are more of the same 'ever closer union' stuff. I'm a great supporter of the European project but I think the current Union has serious shortcomings. We should stay focused on economic cooperation in first place and improve the Union's democratic accountability.
Complain about this comment
To ScepticMax (24):
I can accept re-negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty in the interim period as an condition for you win.
I can accept the time-frame of 2 years from the date of the next UK General Election, if the Conservatives win.
I have sent e-mail to an Internet betting company, Ladbrokes, and asked them about how to make an bet. Their reply was that if I want to make an bet, I have to submit the bet to them, and if they accept it, people can freely join the bet.
I think I will submit bet to them, when the proposition of the bet is ready, thought other means of having the bet should also be discussed. So if anybody has any ideas or is a representative of an Internet betting firm, please join the discussion.
I would also accept sending our stakes to Mark :-)
By the way should we name our options?
Should my option be "No victory for Tories" and yours "Tories get their way"?
Also to make the bet more clearer, I also propose that to remove the draw, so Tories not forming the new government would become a winning condition for me and a completely new treaty of multiple speed and multiple integration level would be accounted for your victory conditions?
---
So proposed conditions would be:
---
Conditions for me to win:
1) UK stays as a member of EU without renegotiating* its old treaties with it; or
2) UK secedes from the EU and becomes a EEA member without voting power; or
3) UK secedes from the EU and is not a member of EEA nor negotiates a comparable treaty with the EU.
4?) The Tory party doesn't form a government after the next UK General elections
Conditions for you to win:
1) UK renegotiates old treaties* with the EU staying as an EU member; or
2) UK secedes from the EU and becomes an member of EEA with voting power; or
3) UK secedes from the EU and negotiates a new treaty with the EU
4?) A new EU treaty which allows multiple levels of integration and participation to EU is negotiated, ratified and becomes legally binding.
The time-frame of the bet is two years from the next UK General Elections.
*Old treaties include all EU treaties, from the Treaty of Rome to Treaty of Nice, and the Lisbon Treaty.
*Renegotiating of a treaty, to be a winning condition, they must become legally binding.
Complain about this comment
A message for the UK peoples:
Europe will continue further integration till we reach a Federation of European States, much like today's United States (of America). Whether you like it or not.
Your ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is complete and it will be deposited in Rome very soon.
If the Conservatives (which I like very much and identify myself with) reaches power at the next general elections, they will have to decide what UK wants to do:
1) Stay in Federal Europe and abandon Eurosceptic line.
2) Use the exit clause from the treaty of Lisbon and leave the EU.
Easy Cheese! You Euro-Sceptics can talk and talk, but you will not reach anywhere.
Regards,
Euro Centurion
Complain about this comment
From article: ''What if the Irish do vote again, and do vote Yes?''
Then we will need to restart the ratification process; as the treaty will have been altered as an incentive. The Lisbonites will evidently try to play this down; but it is infact the very rules we have in place right now...
They are currently trying to persuade the other European national representatives, that they should be allowed to renegotiate with Eire and not negotiate with those currently ratified...
Evidently another reason they wanted a rush for ratification despite the Unanimity rules.
One cannot act unanimously if the treaty is changed half way through the ratification process.
From article: ''While centre-right, it is pretty enthusiastic about a Europe of "ever further union". ''
That is a scary prospect in itself; its just that the Tories want our social and employment legislation to be further to the right than even the EPP-ED group would dare to go.
Taking agriculture (notice that is not Agribusiness) is a good idea; and then we can ban all Genetically Manipulated food, without exception. Though I would imagine they want it back so that they can turn Agriculture into Agribusiness: another disturbing prospect.
From Article: ''In the words of one enthusiast, the Conservatives would "storm the citadel" ''
Conservative 'enthusiast' wants to 'storm the citadel'...
Oh do behave yourselves.
We want co-operation and peace; no need to storm anything... I thought that was what we were trying to avoid... has this 'enthusiast', ever actually tried to storm a citadel, even a figurative one...?
The day we start listening to young Conservatives is the day we lose all hope of regaining any semblance of reality.
We surely don't want to trade Insincere liars, for enthusiastic liars.
New Labour must do the only honourable thing they can: vote through a bill of Proportional Representation, so we will never again be held hostage (sorry to use the Lisbonite Irish-bash) by an elected dictatorship.
They promised it in 1997.
As they promised a referendum on the Constitutional treaty 2004.
That way we may have a representative governing body; and a process of election where no votes are wasted/ ignored. We will get the true diverse opinion of the public; and avoid a knee-jerk backlash to a Tory landslide majority.
Of course New Labour would rather see a Tory majority than actually give the people fair representation. They truly are a bunch of megalomaniacs.
And a word to the wise:
If NewLab. offer anything (anything at all) as manifesto promise in 2010; you have no rational basis as to believe a single word of what they say.
Promises as empty as the Coffers.
Complain about this comment
The Tory party might use this rethoric now because it would win many points with the British media,notably THE SUN and THE DAILY MAIL,but it would be much harder for them to actually do anything about it.In fact many influential Conservatives in Britain are some of the most pro-Europian politicians.
Complain about this comment
cryptomate @ #34
How very tiresome is the line you follow.
You mention that you are symathetic to the the politics of the UK Conservative Party. This party is traditionally center-right. One wonders whether your political leanings are perhaps further right and may even be more right wing than Ghengis Khan!
Apparently you think the UK must be with the EU or out! If that is the opinion of the other heads of government of the Council of Ministers, I would be very surprised given the funding that derives from the UK to fund the grandiose schemes of the EU.
However, I can imagine that the sentiment you express is typical middle european mentality that allowed dictatorships to flourish in the 1930s in two western european countries!
"Do it our way or else!"
Why on earth should the UK not be in the EU but the EU not change to the better - more representative, more financially accountable and more economy-driven than socio-politically motivated?
I believe that closer European integration is inevitable but it does not mean that it has to be modelled on the existing EU which is not the ideal and is too centrist to be acceptable to all.
Far better we come together in mutual support and agreement than be herded onto the cattle wagons headed for an unknown destination and told we must like it or lump it!
Complain about this comment
cryptomate wrote: ''YOUR ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is complete and it will be deposited in Rome very soon.''
(emphasis is mine.)
cryptomate wrote (At 11:45pm on 21 Jun 2008 ): ''French minister who told US: "So long, it's been good to know you." ''
(emphasis is mine.)
Now forgive me when I ask one simple question: you refer to the UK population in the 'inclusive first' (ie. us); and the exclusive second (ie. your). Now I'm a reasonable man; but your attitudes and strange agent provocateur style is becoming rather transparent, unlike the views of your favourite UK politicians.
Are you a UK citizen or not? Only you seem rather unclear on the matter yourself...
Personally it matters little where you are from, or indeed where you are; I just thought others may wish to see your comments in context with each other...
External scaremonger and bully one minute; and homey one of the boys Lisbon sympathiser the next.
An EU Centurion indeed. (or is it Agent provocateur?)
Complain about this comment
#35 need4reality
"promises as empty as the coffers"
In other words your bog standard, normal, every day politician's promise....
;o)
Complain about this comment
I'm amazed.
The UK do not want to leave the EU.
The majority are for the EU
Have these people ever seen the polls, not only in this country (England) but in all European countries.
As has been stated by most of the3 EU political elite if the Lisbon Treaty had been put to a vote in any, yes ANY, country it would have been rejected.
The problem I have is that all three main political parties are for the EU, whereas most of the proletariate, ( the much maligned common people) are against it.
Considering that we pay in around £14 billion and get back in subsidies around £4 billion it does not seem to me a good bet. Alright you may sat=y that we adre helping less fortunate countries to better themselves but I have always thought that charity begins at home, in fact it should never leave home.
The Gettysburg address is 300 words
God's 10 commandants are 297 words
The EU directive on the export of duck eggs is 26,911 words
The EU directive on manufacturing condoms is 50 pages long.
Makes you wonder how we ever managed before does it not.
Complain about this comment
I feel that the continent ain't bovvered.
I suggest that the UK rides out its bubble economy disaster first before trying to play with the big boys.
Complain about this comment
#30 - MalcolmW2:-
Clearly you have found a bogey man, but you conveniently ignore those benefits that we Brits are not allowed to enjoy.
As regards democracy, at least in most other EU countries there is a democratic, proportional or other fairer electoral system unlike our first past the post farce, where most of the electorate (in safe constituencies) need not even bother voting, and the outcome of elections is settled in a small number of marginals.
I cannot agree more with cryptomate (#34) the UK should either embrace the EU, or get out. Despite the delusions of the sceptics, the UK needs Europe more than the EU needs the UK.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @33
Your revised conditions are acceptable.
I suggest that the options are labeled simply:
1) Jukka's Way.
and
2) ScepticMax's Way.
BTW: Are you sure you want to go through with this? 10 Euros is an awful lot to bet on the Lisbon Treaty surviving? The Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said "I wouldn't bet 100 crowns (£3, $6) on a Czech 'Yes' [to the LT]" ;-)
Complain about this comment
cryptomate @34
Over my dead body.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @ #36.
With respect, you may have not noticed that Mark commented upon the subject of your last sentence.
I quote, "But times have changed, the pro-European generals, like Ken Clark and Michael Heseltine, may not have quit the field, but no longer command big battalions. The vast majority of those in power now range from suspicion of the EU to downright hostility. They think this is a mirror image of the views of the British voters. Lower down the ranks, while few openly advocate leaving the EU, many see a semi-detached relationship as a logical outcome."
I think there is a lot of truth in this given that there was very little opposition among the Conservative MPs when arguing for NOT ratifying the Lisbon Treaty in the lower house.
If there were many "influential Conservatives" among the MPs "who are some of the most pro-Europian politicians", then there was scant show of their influence in the parliametary debate.
I actually believe that David Cameron is being quite astute. He lets the Labour Party make all the wrong moves. He keeps his powder dry and can allow the voters to give him the authority he needs at the next General Election to allow him to make the challenge to the Council of Ministers to achieve the desired UK changes to the EU, return of surrendered opt-outs and recovery of some surrendered sovereign powers.
He may not give the UK people the referendum that William Hague would, no doubt, support but then he may not need to. He just needs to hold out a threat to go to the country and offer referendum to achieve his objectives.
Either way, this would satisfy me. The UK still engaged with Europe but with the EU relationship with the UK restored to the UK being the master of it's own house. In that sense my elected government would truly govern with full authority and not with one arm (held by the unrepresentative EU) behind it's back!
Complain about this comment
Rayatcov (40): A majority of Britons favour of a looser relationship with the EU. See for example the March 2008 polling evidence conducted by ICM on behalf of the EU-sceptic think-tank Global Vision. This shows 41% of Britons want a relationship based on trade but not political or monetary union, far more than the 27% who want further integration or the 24% who want out altogether.
http://www.global-vision.net/Global1839.htm#
The same organisation has a May 2008 opinion poll carried out among Europeans that show a large majority of French and a small majority of Germans would be hostile to the UK re-negotiating its membership in this way. However a small majority of Polish people would support the UK in this goal and a much larger majority of Poles would like the same looser arrangement if the UK can successfully negotiate it.
http://www.global-vision.net/Global1840.htm#
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum1 wrote: ''I suggest that the UK rides out its bubble economy disaster first before trying to play with the big boys.''
I think the bubble is part of the larger problem. The pro-Lisbon government are running Britain into the ground; and the 'big boys', always with the 'little Englanders', 'Irish children', 'big boys' cr*p.
Do you people (and I in no way assume by your name you are German) ever get tired of your own self-obsessive insult driven politics; because it surely is 20th century.
Or are you an agent provocataer?
Complain about this comment
ATNotts @ #42
"Despite the delusions of the sceptics, the UK needs Europe more than the EU needs the UK."
Tell that to the few people left in the fishing industry of the UK given the huge fishing fleets from France, Spain and Portugal now taking fish stock from the seas around the British Isles!
We need EU Policies like the Common Fisheries Policy like a hole in the head!
Some might say the UK got done up like kippers by the EU on that one!
Complain about this comment
no. 4 MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''...the final destination of an EUSSR is not in doubt.''
Very astute and critical post (as unfortunately we must be...); but I beg to differ on your conclusion. The good people of Europe will not go along with this Lisbon charade and will not (as is hoped by some) turn on each other if the 'project' fails. The EU is not the same as Lisbon.
The people of Europe will choose love; and cast off the fears of a bygone age as with all the unwanted and useless baggage they (the script writers) have burdened us with.
And the term 'EUSSR' is not helpful. That idea; and that which they have planned, are both unacceptable; and are an insult to our intelligence.
Old-Man-Mike wrote: ''The E.U. is a fact of every day life. ''
Very true; and no doubt a lot of what the Tories are claiming they will do, is merely to win UKIP(esque) votes; and re-establish their traditionally Euro-sceptic fan-base. To be honest within the current system, they will be able to do as they please; and it will be much easier to stand up to the people of the UK than it will to take a stand in Europe on the EU issues they claim to champion...
Look what happened to Thatcher... she won for her people, exemption from all the good bits of the EU plan; and left only the power-leach. Thanks Maggie. I mean Lady Thatcher... *wrings cap*
Old-Man-Mike wrote: ''In fact it is rather like a large Mediteranean matrachal familiy''
The EU (especially the Lisbonite element) always seem to come across as rather Patriarchal in my honest opinion. One big happy Matriarchal Mediterranean family it is not; not only due to the fact that we are not all Mediterranean; ie. The British, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Czechs, Belgians, Dutch, Austrians, Polish, Portuguese, Irish, Estonians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Slovakians, Slovenians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns, Luxembourgians; nor arguably the north-western French and Spanish people... I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make... the Mediterranean Union may well be on its way; but that is not the existing EU; and would presumably be working towards Union with Middle Eastern and North African coastal countries... though of course that remains to be seen.
Old-Man-Mike wrote: ''But when times get tough [UK] must either work with everybody else or leave.''
You should hear what they say about British ex-pats: complaining about foreigners in the UK, ranting on about it IN ENGLISH, while in a foreign country themselves (I accept that this may not include yourself). But you may have fled 'rip-off' Britain to find lower taxes and cheaper prices elsewhere; but some of us (the majority) are still here... and these 'representatives' of our culture abroad, are not necessarily a true reflection of our population, as Freeborn-John, rightly points out. (comment 46)
The people of Europe are more united than you may imagine (and that includes the British and Irish). We do not want wars or bloodshed; but peace and co-operation. Just because peoples vision for European Unity differs, it does not make these ideas more or less valid than each other.
Complain about this comment
I'm a pro-European from Poland and I like the idea of Britain getting a semi-detached status in the EU more and more. Perhaps then an integration at a greater pace would finally be possible. If there is something wrong with the way the EU works, as the Conservatives think, it might be caused by the fact that some members act like they don't really want to be here. Loosing the UK would be a blow, I think, but maybe a smaller but stronger EU is better than a big confused one.
Complain about this comment
#48 - Menedemus
OK, so the UK is outside the EU. I suppose a UK government would allow the UK fishing fleet to fish willy-nilly and destroy all the stocks within our own 12 mile limit - I think not!!
And, surely, just a the beastly French can fish in our waters, and the Spanish flag their trawlers in the UK, can't UK fishermen "invade Spanish or French waters".
Of course they could - but for various reasons they choose not to.
The same rather futile, bankrupt arguements have been used by the UK haulage industry regarding the freeing up of regulation in their industry.
It's about time we Brits packed up whinging and joined in with free trade - of course to do that successfully we might need to learn a foreign language - and wouldn't want to do that would we?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
I certainly didn't mean to imply that american politicians were more corrupt than those in the UK - I'm sure that they are no more or no less so. I just wanted to point out that ambitious and self-serving politicians are common to all systems and that the euro gravy train is not the only one in the station so torys would not base euro policy on the hope of landing a euro job when they have plenty of other high paying alternatives.
As for "nameless faceless Eurocrats and Parliamentarians in Brussels" I'm afraid that is just a myth. I have friends who work in Brussels for the commission - it's not top secret stuff. I have four MEP's who represent my constituency in the european parliament. They were freely elected - again they are no secret.
As for things being "the more stealthily the better" again the irony is that the Lisbon treaty would have given greater powers to the european parliament and to the national parliaments to scrutinise and reject proposals.
The US system works well - the founders did a resonable job (apart from not properly defining the rights of states vs federal govt and keeping slavery and so sowing the seeds of the civil war which killed more americans than any other) give them 8/10. It's a good model for any single nation to follow however the EU has a more difficult job - 27 nations have to be accomodated in a way which respects differences and maintains independence while allowing common decisions to be made even if that overrides the objections of some. Not a straightforward task as at present (despite what some eurosceptics claim) the EU is not a nation building exercise.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
great video of MEPS with their noses in the trough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnMtc_QJ4-E
Complain about this comment
Young-Mr-Grace wrote: ''...Lisbon treaty would have given greater powers to the european parliament and to the national parliaments to scrutinise and reject proposals.''
How? What powers of Scrutiny?
I ask because this is the first time anyone has aid anything pro-Lisbon that could (if backed up by actual fact) persuade me that the Constitutional treaty could be some good...
I know as well as anybody that the treaty cannot be ratified to the whole EU now; but what are these, scrutiny powers which would be great for a new proposal?
How would these powers 'streamline' the process?
You may be doing very well indeed!!
Complain about this comment
Its a strange one. I do dislike the Tories generally but Labour, Tony Blair in particular, has completely shafted the UK by sitting back and allowing the EU to be continually driven forward by the one-track mind Europhiles.
What he should have done if he wasn't one himself, would have been to say after the Constitution was killed, along with much of the Eastern bloc such as Slovenia, Czech Republic, Poland, oh dear what a pity thats a shame, the people have signalled that we are at a saturation point with European integration, lets put the brakes on and go no further. That is what your average citizen probably would have been happy to get behind.
Instead, Blair was happy to sit and watch Brussels get blamed for everything when he was part and parcel of it all.
The problem with Brown is that for all his talk, he's failed to get in amongst it and grab the EU by the horns, at a time when France and Germany aren't so much on the same page as they usually are. He *WOW* got a protocol on Competition. What a diplomatic genius he is. What a political victory [/sarcasm]
So really, Brown has to go, damage limitation. The only problem is, I agree 100% with Cameron's view on Europe and hope he's not just all hot air, but I'm also very, very concerned about the fact that whilst Cameron might be "new Tory", at the end of the day we all know the type of Tories who are going to get elected alongside him if they get a majority in the Commons. These are the raving Eurosceptics who want to take the UK out of the EU.
That, is really just a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. There is still some hope left to save the EU and loosen the ties a bit but it has to be played carefully. I think Cameron is the man to do so but I think the large amount of Eurosceptic used cars salesmen that will get elected alongside him might put this fantastic plan in total jeopardy.
Wow, that was long, but I think its a serious point to be made.
Complain about this comment
To #34,
Sounds like somebody is living in 2004.
Or Germany, one suspects. The last Europhile country left in an era where the importance of national identity has significantly come to the fore again (see Euro 2008).
Complain about this comment
To need4reality post 54.
Thanks for your reply to my post. I hope that the cut and paste below is useful to you. It's from the irish referndum comission web site www.lisbontreaty2008.ie. (worth a look - It's supoosed to a neutral statement of the facts)
I know that the changes below may not streamline operations because they add an extra review layer to EU legislation and they do not give a single country veto but they do for the first time allow national parliaments (as opposed to just govts and civil servants) a direct chance to comment on EU legislation at an early stage and provided enough parliaments object then changes would be made. It's a start in the direction of making common decisions with democractic accountability as I assume that you could lobby your MP on any proposed EU legislation at this stage.
You're all doing very well !!
PS Am I really sad enough to be posting about EU legislative processes at quarter to 10 on a Friday night ??!!!!
Proposed Changes - Role of National Parliaments
At present, national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision making. If the Treaty enters into force then national parliaments ? in Ireland?s case, the Dáil and Seanad - will have 8 weeks after the publication of an EU legislative proposal to vet that proposal and offer an opinion.
If a number of national parliaments object to the proposal it must be reviewed. Each national parliament has two votes; the Dáil and Seanad have one vote each. The review must take place if one third of the national parliaments request this. In the case of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, a quarter of the national parliaments would be able to require a review. The Treaty would also give national parliaments a specific role in relation to proposed changes to the Treaties.
Proposed Changes - European Parliament
The Lisbon Treaty would extend the decision making powers of the European Parliament.
At present, the European Parliament makes decisions jointly with the Council in some areas, for example, in relation to consumer protection and environmental issues. This is known as co-decision. If the Treaty comes into force, co-decision would apply to a number of new areas. These include agriculture, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal and civil matters, and measures relating to the internal market.
At present, the European Parliament and the Council have joint decision making powers over most of the EU?s budget but the Council has the final say over certain spending items.
If the Lisbon Treaty comes into force then the European Parliament and the Council will have joint decision making powers over the entire EU budget.
Complain about this comment
Have I missed it?
I just cannot find anything on this website to inform people of the very significant events in Austria. The Socialist Party, which is part of the government has promised a referendum if the Lisbon Treaty does not come into force and there is yet another treaty.
Members of the "EU- "parliament" think it is significant and have been giving their angry comments.
See Austrian Radio website.
Complain about this comment
need4reality #49
"...the people of Europe won't go along with this Lisbon charade..."
They won't be given a choice. Ireland was the only stumbling block this time. Last time it was France and Holland. eventually they will figure out how to eliminate all of them. One way or another, despots will have their way.
Why don't you like the term EUSSR? Don't you see the similarity between where the EU is going and where the USSR was. A centralized body which governs every activity of every individual from cradle to grave. And run by a thoroughly corrupt government which is accountable to no one and can crush all opposition with the back of its hand. Where is the difference? So far Europeans are free to leave but if they begin to quit en masse, that privilege may also be taken away. The similarity is that all power gravitates to the center away from the people who are governed, and who in the end will wind up with nothing to say about how their lives are run. Perhaps Orwell's 1984 would be a better analogy.
AchknalligeWelt
As an outside observer, I am neither pro nor anti EU. But I do have observations. The real question is what does Britain lose by being in the EU versus what it gains or conversely what does it gain by not being in the EU versus what it loses.
By being in the EU Britain loses much of its sovereignty. It must conform to EU laws in the treaties it signed up to. It has ceded the right to make its own decisions by those most affected by them. Were the UK actually a democracy this would be a tragic loss but the UK can hardly call itself that. The difference therefore is that local UK despots in Parliament would be able to make decisions most favorable to their constituents where now they must often defer to those who make decisions which may favor other constituencies in other countries over them. The desire of the French government to put a cap on gasoline taxes two weeks ago and its inability to do what it deemed best for its own economy is a case in point. It had to defer to Brussels which gave it a firm NO, not unless and until they change their minds. At least Britain still has control over its currency, something it almost lost. How would it have handled Northern Rock if it hadn't? Would the entire economy of the UK been severely damaged?
What about trade? The UK could negotiate bi-lateral trade agreements with each nation individually as it saw fit just like it used to. I wish my own government would pull out of WTO and NAFTA and do the same. This would give it far more leverege and flexibility than it now has and would not make it subject to a supranational court to decide what it can and can't do. What about laws. There isn't a single law the EU has enacted that the UK couldn't enact word for word if it wanted to. But the decision would be in Parliament in London, not in Brussels. Those who advocate complete submission to the EU trust Brussels more than they trust their own government to look out for their rights. But then who would know better whom they can trust the least.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The very excellent Viennese newspaper, the Wiener Kurier states that only 28% of Austrians are pro- "EU".
Complain about this comment
Hi MarcusAureliusII #59,
I saw two things on the TV last night that made me think of your posts. The first was the report on Obama and Clinton being the best of friends after trading insults for months, it seems they met in a joint rally in a town called Unity (hum) and Obama said "I am proud to call her a friend and I know how much we need both Bill and Hillary Clinton as a party and as a country in the months and years to come". Would you trust this pair with your future?
The second thing was a fictional US film called "American Dreamz" which made me think of George Bush.
It made me think that we're not the only part of the world that is infested with politicians that resemble those lizards called Chameleons.
Finally to cinnamonpyre #53,
Thanks for that link, it looks like even the German's are waking up to what is happening.
Complain about this comment
To #38 and #56
My Nationality in this Era is European Union Citizen. And My Country is the European Union.
Germany, Spain, UK and others are just union states.
I am descendent of the Romans of the Roman Empire (The previous EU).
Complain about this comment
cryptomate,
Poland,Lthuania etc,were not part of the Roman empire,but they are in the EU.
Western Balkans are at the hart of Europe geographicaly and were part of the Roman Empire,but are not part of the EU.
And lets not talk about the other Roman Epire regions,such as the Mediterranian Coutries that are Historicaly much more conected to the Europian continent then the former Soviet Republics.
But somehow there is no talk of them ever being in the Union.
Georaphicaly not in Europe????????
What about Cupruss then????
Complain about this comment
To #64 :
EU-Revived Roman Empire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBZX_YKNnhE
The rise of Europe and the new Holy Roman Empire (http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/The%20rise%20of%20the%20new%20roman%20empire.HTM)
By the way, the Czech govt sees no constitutional problems with EU treaty (just released).
Complain about this comment
Some information concerning the european history and geography.
The Roman Empire was divided in two parts, greek East and latin West, in the 3d century. Since then (at least) Europe is divided. This division is deeply rooted in the civilizational distinctions, which eventually resulted in the devision of Christianity.
The current Balkan conflict occurs precisely where the line dividing the two parts of the Empire was drawn 18 centuries ago. It is also interesting that the ethnic division in this conflict is consistent with that observed in the WW2. Therefore, this isn't ethnic or religious conflict but a fundamental conflict between two civilizations.
It is also interesting to note that practically all major military conflicts in Europe, including the most bloody all-european wars in the 17th and 20th centuries are related to the (failed) attempts to restore the (western) Roman Empire. In this respect, the european involvement in the Balkan conflict appears significant. Again the same story, 3d time within one century.
I see no reason to expect that the present attempt to reincarnate the Empire will be more peaceful than the previous ones.
Complain about this comment
It is ironic that under the current EC/EU Treaties there is no possibility of a member state volunatarily leaving. Referenda on this issue would not remove the UK from its obligations. This is only possible under the Lisbon Treaty!
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
If you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are friends, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you that goes to a place called Brooklyn. It is in Hillary Clinton's interest for Obama to lose and lose badly. That would give her another shot at it in 2012
Complain about this comment
Mark, is it conceivable that the UK's problems with the EU at some point become too much for the other members to bear, and that there begins to be a movement for the UK to bow out gracefully or otherwise? Would that harm the rest of the union more than the immediate benefits of getting rid of a difficult partner?
Complain about this comment
Mark: The final paragraph sums it up well.
MarcusAureliusII: NAFTA gives your government more leverage than you might realise. Read Article 605 carefully, and consider it with regard to US imports of Canadian energy.
eusupporter: The UK does not need Lisbon to disengage from the EU; Parliament need only explicitly repeal the European Communities Act 1972 for de facto (if not de jure) secession. Indeed, any member state with parliamentary sovereignty that wished to leave the EU could follow a similar path.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII #68, I concur, neither of those two should be trusted in any way after their false show of unity in the town unity, and as for the total plank who chose that town to make such an announcement, that was spin at its very worst. It's just a shame that after the US elections they could be controlling the US, time to run for those hills if that happens I guess. To AlanBerlin #69, It's true there is a common perception across the EU (old members anyway) that the UK is not really in the EU. It is also true though that whilst the population have that perception, they are also not enamored with the present direction of the EU. At best your scenario would be some EU politicians getting fed up with some UK politicians, but neither do their own (EU's) voters share their dream. As for would it harm the EU, read my post #23 as the figures suggest a lot of their funding would disappear once the UK goes. All the smaller EU members love quoting contributions per capita as that makes their contribution seem significant. However when the actual cash amounts are looked at only Germany, UK, Holland, France and Italy contribute a significant amount, the interesting source for this can be found in the EU's document [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
66. At 6:54pm on 28 Jun 2008, fragility wrote:
Some information concerning the european history and geography.
The Roman Empire was divided in two parts, greek East and latin West, in the 3d century. Since then (at least) Europe is divided. This division is deeply rooted in the civilizational distinctions, which eventually resulted in the devision of Christianity.
-NOT VERY CORRECT INFORMATION IN FACT.ROMAN EMPIRE WAS DEVIDED IN CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX,CATHOLIC EMPIRE WAS NOT NECESARILY LATIN ,IT INCLUDED THE BIGGER POPULATIONS OF ANGLO-SAXONS ETC.AND BYZANTIUM WAS NOT GREEK BUT IT INCLUDED ALL DIFFERENT REGIONAL POPULATION,OF WHICH GREEKS WERE A SMALL PART OF.
THIS DID NOT EVENTUALLY RESULT IN THE DIVISSION OF CHRISTIANITY,IT WAS EXACTLY THE DIVISION OF CHRISTIANITY THAT DEVIDED THE EMPIRE IN TWO.
Therefore, this isn't ethnic or religious conflict but a fundamental conflict between two civilizations.
-I AM AFRAID I HAVE TO CORRECT YOU AGAIN ON THIS,THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE CHANGED SO MUCH DURING ITS CENTURIES OLD CONQUEST THAT A VERY SMALL PART OF WHAT WAS THE EASTERN EMPIRE SURVIVED IN THE PEOPLES IDENTITY OF THAT REGION,THE CONFLICTS ARE PART OF ARBITRARY DRAWING OF THE BORDERS BY THE BIG POWERS AFTER THE FALL OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE,WITH THE RISE OF NATIONALISM.-
It is also interesting to note that practically all major military conflicts in Europe, including the most bloody all-european wars in the 17th and 20th centuries are related to the (failed) attempts to restore the (western) Roman Empire. In this respect, the european involvement in the Balkan conflict appears significant. Again the same story, 3d time within one century.
-NOT REALLY.AS I SAID,COUNTRIES LIKE POLAND AND OTHER FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE, YET THEY ARE IN THE EUROPIAN UNION,TERRITORY OF GREECE USED TO BE PART OF THE EASTERN EMPIRE YET IS IN THE EUROPIAN UNION,WHILE NORTH-WEST OF GREECE WAS PART OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE BUT ITS NOT PART OF THE EU. ,MEDITERANIAN COUNTRIES WERE ALL SIGNIFICANT PARTS OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE YET THERE IS NO TALK OF THEM EVER BECOMIN MEMBERS OF THE EU.
THE WORLD AND GEOPOLITICS CHANGED TO THAT EXTENT DURING AND AFTER THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND THE COLD WAR,THAT WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CAN NEVER BE RESTORED,BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER BE THE SAME.
Complain about this comment
To #63,
Then you are living in a little fairy land I'm afraid to tell you.
Not only that, but you completely misunderstand the concept of EU Citizenship.
Article 17 of the EC Treaty:
"Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship."
Ah, bless.
Its amazing how a standard Europhile argument that the EU helps get rid of things like nationalism, when at the end of the day they're just wanting to replace one form of nationalism with another (ie. "Europe is greater than the USA", "We are better than China" etc).
As much as I think UKIP are a bunch of crazy people Nigel Farrage hit the nail on the head, granted with a hint of exaggeration, when he said that EU nationalism is the biggest threat since 1945.
If only there was a middle ground with people like #63 then we wouldn't need things like UKIP.
Therein lies the problem with Europhiles. An increasingly annoying breed.
Complain about this comment
And also, I have to say I find this comment
"I am descendent of the Romans of the Roman Empire (The previous EU)."
Rather disturbing.
I can imagine something similar being said in a beer hall several years ago as well.
Complain about this comment
To the moderators, I can't see why my post #71 has not been printed as all I can see is that maybe the link was corrupted in some way. I've now removed that document link and split the post.
To AlanBerlin #69,
It's true there is a common perception across the EU (old members anyway) that the UK is not really in the EU. It is also true though that whilst the population have that perception, they are also not enamored with the present direction of the EU. At best your scenario would be some EU politicians getting fed up with some UK politicians, but neither do their own (EU's) voters share their dream.
As for would it harm the EU, read my post #23 as the figures suggest a lot of the funding would disappear once the UK goes. All the smaller EU members love quoting contributions per capita as that makes their contribution seem significant. However when the actual cash amounts are looked at only Germany, UK, Holland, France and Italy contribute a significant amount, the interesting source for this can be found in the EU's document fin_report_06_en.pdf
Complain about this comment
To Named-Erion:
Some additional information on the history of the Roman Empire.
1. Diocletian divided the Empire in two in 285. This was much before the Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. The Church split occured many centuries later.
2. The Greek was lingua franca in Rome 2000 years ago. The Caesar's last words were in greek: ?a? s? t?????. After the division, it became an official language in the East, and quickly disappeared from common use in the West.
3. Here is a popular map of the Empire for kids: http://rome.mrdonn.org/twoempires.html. Compare the line dividing East and West with the geographical location of the opposing parties in the present Balkan conflict.
4. What is the order parameter for the division of the two sides in the current Balkan conflict? It is obviously not the religion. Why did EU supported the moslems? Islamic trend among eurocrats?
Complain about this comment
cryptomate @63wrote:
"I am descendent of the Romans of the Roman Empire (The previous EU)."
No. You are the descendent of the last lousy bunch who tried to 'unify' Europe under their perverted vision.
Complain about this comment
Jan Kee-skop
Hard to believe but the US has energy reserves beyond imagination. More than it could use for centuries. I heard this in testimony before the House on C-Span by a Congresswoman the other day. Known reserves, 87 billion barrels of oil off shore and another 10 billion in ANWAR alone, 420 trillioin cubic feet of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico and one quarter of the world's coal, enough for about 200 years. And vast quantities of uranium. The energy shortage and need to import oil is deliberately engineered by refusal of the government to exploit these resources. They give every possible excuse especially environmental concernts. The size of the area to be drilled in ANWAR is about the size of Washington DC. I've been to Alaska. It is so vast you cannot even imagine it. ANWAR is a postage stamp sized dot on Alaska's landscape. The US could be energy self sufficient in about 10 to 20 years if it wanted to be. So to talk about how NAFTA benefits the US from Canadian energy is rediculous.
NAFTA like WTO gives up American Sovereignty to a supranational organization which forces it to conform to rules it doesn't entirely control made by people who do not have its best interests as its number one priority. I consider this akin to treason. I see no reason why the US could not return to bilateral trade agreements with every country using its huge economic power to its own best advantage. I see no reason why trade policies should be uniform or fair. The US government is supposed to be run for the benefit of the American people, not anybody else but I don't hear any of the candidates talking that way. Not when Senator McCain says that 12 million illegal aliens in our country are gods children too. They are criminals who came here illegally. What's to be done about them should be what is in America's best interest, not theirs. So he says he finally got it, Amerian's wants security along their borders. The way you train a mule is by first hitting him in the head with a two by four. That's to get his attention. That's what the NO vote agaisnt the Kennedy McCain bill was, America's two by four.
Complain about this comment
67. At 7:34pm on 28 Jun 2008, eusupporter wrote:
It is ironic that under the current EC/EU Treaties there is no possibility of a member state volunatarily leaving. Referenda on this issue would not remove the UK from its obligations. This is only possible under the Lisbon Treaty!
To "eusupporter":
I have read claims that under international law any country can withdraw from any treaty if it gives one years notice. I have read or heard that it is not that straightforward. I don't care either way.
I am not going to be Prime Minister, but if I was, I wouldn't be asking for permission to leave. I would be telling them that we were going to leave. By the time I had finished with them, they would be wanting us to leave.
Many continental "EU"-lovers would like us to leave now. Please help us to leave. Please, please, please!
I want the UK to have a friendly co-operative relationship with the "EU". The "EU" makes co-operation more difficult because it tries to camouflage integration to look like co-operation.
The "EU" causes tensions. Because I speak reasonably good German I have frequently had German women (Yes! Always a woman!) say to me "You are not one of these stupid English people who are against the EU."
No! I am one of these reasonably intelligent English people who are anti-"EU".
I have had Germans screaming at me for even mild criticism of the "EU". I once had a semi-circle of hate-filled faces all screaming at once. If you put it in a film, nobody would believe it.
I do want to get us out, but those "EU"-lovers who want us out because we are "trouble" are ignoring the fact that there is tremendous hostility to the "EU" in continental Europe. Their dream will still be endangered if we leave.
Somebody asked what we were going to do when we were out. We have several options. One would appear to be to b
have a relationship with the "EU" which is similar to Switzerland's.
Switzerland's relationship with the "EU" is not without difficulties. Maybe some bright young thing at the BBC could do a piece on this for us. As I understand it, Switzerland pays a lot of money to the "EU" in return for which the "EU" has tried to boss it about and tell the Swiss how to run their country when it is infinitely better run than the "EU".
Germans have said that if the UK leaves the "EU" they should not be gentle with us. I think that negotiations for some special relationship would be unsuccessful.
I strongly suspect that our best option is to leave and trade with them on the basis of WTO rules. Germans have said to me that we would not be able to get our goods into the "EU" if we were outside. I don't believe that. Massive amounts of stuff in the UK comes from China. China is not in the "EU".
If we did have a difficult period after we had left, then it would still be worth the price.
As for NAFTA: I think we would all want to know more before joining. We can live without NAFTA.
(As they can live with out us. I thought I had better get that in first.)
My guess is we need an area of fairly free trade encompassing NAFTA, any EFTA countries left, Australia, New Zealand and others with similar minds to ours. Freeish trade, no corresponding movement of people, no integration.
Incidentally, I think that trade has gone too far as can be seen by the lorries coming out of the port Felixstowe and the lorries on the motorway from Germany through the Tyrol into that part of Austria which is currently occupied by Italy, i.e. the South Tyrol and on into Italy. I don't want more trade. I want less. Trade is destroying the environment and has a massive down side.
Complain about this comment
76. At 12:40pm on 29 Jun 2008, fragility wrote:
To Named-Erion:
Some additional information on the history of the Roman Empire.
1. Diocletian divided the Empire in two in 285. This was much before the Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. The Church split occured many centuries later.
--CONSTANDINOPOLIS WAS THE CENTRE OF OTHORDOXY,AND ROME THE CENTRE OF CATHOLICISM,THE DIVISION WAS CLEARLY RELIGIOUS.--
2. The Greek was lingua franca in Rome 2000 years ago. The Caesar's last words were in greek: ?a? s? t?????. After the division, it became an official language in the East, and quickly disappeared from common use in the West.
-LINGUA FRANCA IN ROME WAS LATIN,BUT GREEK WAS ALSO SPOKEN AMONG SCHOLARS SINCE ANCIENT GREEK CULTURE AND ACHIVEMENTS HAD THEIR INFLUENCE ON ROME.AS FOR THE CAESARS LAST WORDS WE CAN ONLY GUESS.AFTER THE DIVISION IT BECAME THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH,THATS RIGHT.AND IT WAS NEVER COMMONLY USED IN THE WEST,THE ANGLO-SAXONS HAD THEIR LANGUAGES AND THE POPULATION OF ROME SPOKE LATIN,WHILE ROMAN PROVINCES SPOKE THEIR OWN REGIONAL LANGUAGES.--
4. What is the order parameter for the division of the two sides in the current Balkan conflict? It is obviously not the religion. Why did EU supported the moslems? Islamic trend among eurocrats?
--THE DIVISION OF THE BALKANS IS PURELY ETHNIC,AND IS EXACTLY WHERE THE GREATEST INJUSTICES WERE DONE BY THE POWERS IN DRAWING THE BORDERS AFTER THE FALL OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE,WERE SERBIA,BEING ORTHODOX WAS GIVEN LAND INHABITED BY DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROOPS,WITH THE INTERVENTION OF RUSSIA,WHO WANTED ORTHODOX SUPREMACY IN THE BALKANS,ALSO GREECE WAS ALLOWED BY RUSSIA TO EXPAND TO NEIGHBOURS TERRITORIES AS LONG AS THERE WAS ORTHODOX-CATION OF THE COUNTRY,WHICH RESULTED IN GREECE GETING READ OF ITS MUSLIM POPULATION,REGARDLESS OF ETHNICITY,AND CREATING A TOTALY ORTHODOX NATION.
THE EU DID NOT SUPORT MUSLIMS,ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU MAKE THIS JUDGEMENT?EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF AMERICA IN THE BALKANS EUROPE DID NOT WISH TO CONTRIBUTE TO STABILITY AT THE EXPENSE OF SERBIA,FEARING RUSSIA.
REMEMBER THE FRENCH ARMY GENERAL?AND WHAT ABOUT THE MEDIA BIAS IN EUROPE,I SUGEST YOU GO TO THE BALKANS YOURSELF,CHECK THE REALITY,AND THEN HAVE A LOOK AT THE EUROPIAN MEDIA.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion wrote:
--CONSTANDINOPOLIS WAS THE CENTRE OF OTHORDOXY,AND ROME THE CENTRE OF CATHOLICISM,THE DIVISION WAS CLEARLY RELIGIOUS.--
How interesting. A question. In your classification, was Diocletian who divided the Empire, a catholic or an orthodox?
Complain about this comment
Some historical remarks for the admirers of the Roman Empire considering it as a model of the European unification.
The division of the Empire in 285 was a very significant fact in the context of the present discussion. Indeed, the reason for the division was purely technical: Diocletian realized that the Empire became administratively ungovernable. In fact, Rome has been in existence as a united centralized Empire no longer than 300 years (starting from Octavian).
The following attempts to restore the Empire failed, which clearly indicates that the idea is unrealistic. Such an Empire is inherently faulty and will eventually collapse under the weight of its own administration. Any attempt to increase the European centralization, like the efforts to built a Eurostate that we are currently observing, will only render such a collapse more spectacular and rapid.
Complain about this comment
fragility
The evidence is already manifest, the cracks already showing. The irrationality that somehow a small trading bloc of similar economies can morph into a continental political superstate encompassing extremely diverse economies, cultures, and histories pure insanity. It's insanity I like. I live in a nation which competes with Europe. The bigger it gets, the harder it will fall. But they would fall anyway whether alone or together. Eastern Europe is only too happy to join to get the economic benefits it lost when the USSR disappeared. Western Europe is under some delusion that if it creates a large enough political entity with a large enough aggregate GDP it will be able to challenge the United States on equal terms. Both are false. At the heart of Europe's problems among so many of them is that it doesn't understand its own recent economic history. Sarkozy is an example. He wants to create some kind of fusion of American economics and French culture. What he fails to grasp is that this is not possible. American culture and economics are inseparable. He tells the French that they have to work harder for less pay. That will go over like a lead balloon. The French don't want to hear it. To tell them they must give up their lavish cradle to grave social safety net is political suicide. To try to keep it when it is beyond all possiblility of being paid for is economic suicide. What France and Western Europe fail to grasp is that the economic conditions which made their economies viable and allowed them this luxury was created by the US during the cold war to keep Europe out of the grasp of the USSR. With that threat gone and the playing field leveled, Europe is way beyond the pale. Only Margaret Thatcher saw it coming. She took whatever steps she could to mitigate this vulnerability in Britain until she was thrown out. Her accomplishments, limited as they were the reason Britain's economy didn't flounder during and just after the recession in the US earlier in this decade the way the rest of Europe's did. Tony Blair was the beneficiary but Britain just didn't get it.
What will happen to the EU? It will surely collapse both politically and economically. The only questions are when and what will be left in the aftermath.
Complain about this comment
ATNotts @ #51
Try telling the former English and Scottish Trawlermen that they should love the EU and be good free traders and they will laugh at your comment as you seem to be in ignorance of the existence of fishing quotas introduced by the EU to reduce the over-fishing of the North Sea and other UK home waters.
With the usual United Kingdom zeal for being law-abiding and toeing the EU line, the UK Government ensured that the home fishing fleet followed the requirements of the fishing quotas and over time the fishing fleet has progressivley been put out of business - as the quotas became smaller and more restrictive.
Meanwhile, these fishing quotas have largely been ignored by the French, Spanish and Portuguese Fishing Fleets and their trawlers have continued to strip the UK Home Waters bear. Often using trawler nets and/or techniques that had been banned by the UK for many years before joining the EU.
You suggest that the UK Fishing Fleet could have joined in with free trade and competed with the other EU Fishing Nations but it is the centrist regulation by the EU that has all but destroyed the Scottish and English Fishing Trade by not enforcing the fishing quotas that they imposed . . . free unemployment of the British Trawlermen to the detriment of almost-piratical actions by other EU Fishing Nations.
In fact, the UK Home Waters have been so denuded of prime fish stocks by other EU Nation over-fishing that the Portuguese and to a lesser extent the Spanish Fleets are now stripping the seas off the coasts of countries like the Sierra Leone. Do we see the EU trying to stop them - do we heck!
Free trade is only free if any restrictions are equally obeyed or enforced. Under the EU this is not the case!
Complain about this comment
Diocletian divided the Empire in two in 285.
AD 324, the last of Constantine's restraint disappeared and a Christian emperor (or at least one who championed the Christian cause) ruled over the entire empire.
AD 380 emperor Theodosius took the final step and made Christianity the official religion of state.
@Named-Erion, I think the actual historical texts of the era make it rather clear that Christianity was forced onto the Roman population as a whole and a new order instated; but it was still widely seen as an instrument to dominate and unite Europe as a passive whole, who were inclined to put their faith into one central church.
Rome changed from a multi faith cult based society which had eras of great persecution (notably with Nero, Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian [noted above for splitting the Empire]) to a single faith with suppression of so called Heresy...
...a much more efficient, 'streamlined' doctrine for control of peoples within a large Empire.
And please, don't shout EVERY word you type.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII
I agree. Let us formulate the situation in clear terms.
EU is not an economic organization by its original idea and its strategic goal. It is a purely political idea disguised as an economical one. Therefore, it is absolutely pointless to discuss the economic meaning of the EU policy.
Historically, Europe has been the most militaristic region of the World if measured in terms of intensity and the number of military conflicts. The post-WW2 period was unprecedently peaceful period of its history. The obvious reason for that is that within that period Europe was controlled by two superpowers neither of which was European. As soon as Europe was able to run its own policy with the end of the Cold War period, it returned back to the same old habits, at the same Balkans, the 3d time within one century. European militarism is immortal.
It is interesting, however, to look at the position of your country, who provides a military wing for the european political exercises in the form of NATO despite the obvious fact that EU regards USA as the main political and economical rival. Isn't it the danger of entanglement in the foreign conflicts that Jefferson warned about? Isn't it clear that technologically and economically it is the Pacific, and not the Atlantic, aspect of the American foreign policy that is expected to dominate? Too many europeans in DC?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''Western Europe fail to grasp is that the economic conditions which made their economies viable and allowed them this luxury was created by the US during the cold war''
True.
If there had been no Iron curtain; there would have been no welfare state.
And yet we are taught that the Iron curtain was a bad thing...
I would surmise that neither Capitalism nor Communism is a good thing; but as two existing 'oppositions' we get better socio economic benefits from those who would otherwise deny them.
We have changed from Soviet Comrades and Free-world citizens, back to peasants again... its just the people are only slowly realising this;an will hopefully realise before democracy is dismantled around them...
Funny old world, if you let power centralise itself too much.
The Earth strives for balance or equilibrium; but we now have little balance.
Choose love.
Complain about this comment
fragility and marcusaurelius
United Europe is not to recreate a roman empire,as the facts that many EU countries today have never been in the roman empire and that half of what was roman empire will never be in EU (mediterranian countries out of geographical Europe),
United Europe is not there to imitate or to challenge American power,but is a NECESSITY for all Europian countries.
Individual Europian countries face simmilar or the same challenges in the future,or actually they already do.
Economic stability,resurgent Russia,Imigration,organised crime,Eastern market power,(China and India),political stability etc etc.
And since this are all challenges to be faced anyway it is much better to face them united rather then devided.
Europian Union is having very good results in all those areas,it helps keep down inflation,it faces Russia united,it is united in controlling the borders and much more efective when its united,is united and having very good results against organized crime,it will have united policies with respect to trades with the east,it helps have political stability within the continent.
I really dont see what is wrong with cooperation.
But to be much more efective administration it must have a sort of consititution so that duties and responsibilities are clear to everybody.
Thats it.
Europian union is not a conspiracy,is clearly,very naturally and logicaly in the ever globalising world a need for cooperation.
Though Marcusaurelius i would like to say that i do agree that Europe must be more pro-American,it was American dollars that brought prosperity to Europe,it was American democracy that brought stability,it was American will that freed eastern Europe from totalitarian regimes,it was American intervention that saved another war in the heart of Europe.Simply put,Europe must realise that without America is going nowhere.
Complain about this comment
@Menedemus no. 84
Unfortunately this is how Empire works.
You must remember that most people in Europe will not have any idea what is going on wit the quotas; they will assume all is as it should be and fair in a system that works.
They will no doubt also be enjoying lots of fish to eat.
Its the same with the US with their oil. They use the minerals of others while sitting on some of the largest stocks in the world (oil and natural gas)
This is no accident.
MarcusAureliusII, although others would of course do the same the US also exports a so called ideal of equity and mutual prosperity through trade. Current events seem to contradict this.
Empire.
Complain about this comment
need4reality.
Sorry if i gave the impression i was shouting,i was merely trying to distinguish between my words and Fragility's which i had copy pasted to give a more clear answer to what fragility had posted.
Thats why my words are on capital letters and fragility's not.
I know using capital letters is the equvalent of shouting,but this is not what i meant,it was just to separate the Fragility's postings from mine.
Apologise to fragility if i gave the wrong impression as well.
Complain about this comment
@Named-Erion 90.
No problem; and between the impression and the intentional deed, lies yours innocence.
Named-Erion wrote: ''I really dont see what is wrong with cooperation.''
That is exactly the argument of those who oppose the centralisation of power; but argued from the opposite direction.
Named-Erion wrote: ''But to be much more efective administration it must have a sort of consititution so that duties and responsibilities are clear to everybody.''
Everybody has to include the public.
The Lisbon treaty was very vague and yet complex in composition (to the point that a lawyers interpretation is a necessity.) Many lawyers claim it can be interpreted in many different ways...
This [Lisbon] is hardly the basis of a clearly defined constitution.
Named-Erion wrote: ''Europian union is not a conspiracy... logicaly in the ever globalising world a need for cooperation.''
This all depends whether Globalisation is seen as a benefit to humanity. I see cause for concern. Conspiracy in the rush for Globalisation as a whole; and therefore the EU is perhaps merely part of that conspiracy...
A necessity, only if you agree with the Corporate, Centralised, Bull-dog science, Militaristic, Monetarist direction towards a so called 'realist' World Governance.
Complain about this comment
Hasn't this Euro-petulance gone on long enough ?
Wanting to leave the EU is an honourable choice, but far too many of my compatriots think that by stamping their feet and shouting hard enough they will make the Continentals realise the errors of their ways and beg to become more like the British.
Well folks, it ain't gonna happen !
I get the feeling that Britain is regarded more and more as as someone who spoils the fun for others.
It is seen as a one-product economy, the City, with precious little manufacturing left. It lectures us about its financial prowess and the disgrace of protectionism, while bailing out failed banks.
It seems happier to ally itself with an aggressive foreign power 2500 miles away than with its neighbours. It lives in the past with all this talk about the Commonwealth.
ATNotts 27 got it right, it's about time the UK grew up. Britain will not change the direction of Europe, and to think it could just shows an arrogance born out of ignorance
It's all rather sad really.
Complain about this comment
need4reality ¤84: where did you get the idea that the Iron Curtain caused the creation of the Welfare State? If you have read anything about the social history of the UK in the 1930's you will find that the welfare state was even then being framed - by politicians on the right as well as the left (the foundations go back even further)! OK, not formally, but with intention.
MarcusAurealiasII $83: I'm not sure where you live but I suspect your views on what is happening in France (where I live) are based on web or hard-copy newspapers. Whatever, they are biased, or narrowly focussed. There is a genuine, live 'social' economy in Europe, different from the jungle- economy of the US. In many EU countries they have embraced the need for greater workforce flexibility. In France, Sarkozy is achieving (Yes, achieving) the same: though without the "thrill" of Thatcherite union-bashing/thuggery. The French are conservative, but not Conservative!
Complain about this comment
parisnick wrote: ''It's all rather sad really.''
True.
But no one is asking Europe to become more like Britain. Those who would leave the EU altogether (I am not one of them) want all the nations to be themselves and co-operate on the moderate side; and no doubt there are some who cling to outdated ideas of Empire.
The problem is we are constantly bombarded with information which simultaneously paints a picture of disunity between the different European nations and composite peoples and culture, while also pushing for centralisation of power...
It is divide and rule. not a new or complex idea.
Europe needs co-operation; it also needs the people to be united in Europe's direction [not made united under a direction] and of course to make actual progress.
I am optimistic that the European people will unite through love and not be dominated by fear.
For a brighter future: choose love.
Complain about this comment
frenchderek wrote: ''...in the 1930's you will find that the welfare state was even then being framed - by politicians on the right as well as the left...''
True.
But the only necessity to provide this better standard of living was to show that the western powers were giving a better deal than the communist superstate that was being established throughout Russia.
The talk would have ended, as now, if the Russians had been defeated (ie the Winter had not come two weeks early and colder than average on the eastern front...)
Without the alternative (I refer t each being the alternative to the other) neither side would have had as good a deal for the common man.
After the Great war the 'home fit for heroes' did not materialise. They were dumped in slums with very basic conditions; and this harboured a left of centre mentality to grow in those disenfranchised after the hard fought and horrific conditions of trench warfare.
When it materialised that business and money lending interests were the big winners and the people left out in the cold. They saw the rise of the Soviet union as a mixed blessing more than a direct threat (though they were constantly fed propaganda that it was all bad...)
The obvious and only counter to this was to establish a 'home fit for heroes' as had been promised before...
Monoculture breeds a contempt for the poor; which is only suppressed by the necessity of keeping people on side when they are faced by alternative forms of government, mainly so they will fight and die for their masters.
Without alternatives we are once again peasants.
Complain about this comment
frenchderek
You are as delusional as Sarkrazy. I lived in France for two years. That gave me some understanding of it and Europe.
France's economy is going nowhere. It is stone cold dead. Of its two trillion dollar GDP, it spends half on medical care. Its best and brightest young people have either left to find real work in real careers elsewhere or have resigned themselves to the reality that the best they can hope for is a mid level management flunky job in the government or some large corporate bureaucracy. "Bonjour Paresse" Hello Laziness wasn't written in France by accident. It's a prescription for how to make money without ever working.
The only real money France earns is through foreign investments in places like China. Its domestic costs and bureaucratic restrictions are far too high to make it competitive. Its people are in a state of malaise from which there is no escape. They want change but they do not want to change themselves. Meanwhile they have 5 million alienated Moslems living among them whom they hate and who hate them. It's a danger they have no escape from either. Many are actually French citizens, the progeny of those brought to France to be exploited, the rest from impovrished nations France once exploited in its colonial empire.
Chirac and his friend Schreoder alienated America and found fertile ground in the disaffection and hostility among people all over Europe. The seeds of that insanity will bear a bitter fruit when Europe next comes calling on America for help as it invariably does.
need4reality
Free market capitalism in a democratic socitey is the greatest engine for creating and distributing wealth the world has ever known. Nothing else comes close. It does't guarantee anything except a chance. Eurosocialism is a guarantee of mediocrity which in this world equals failure. Perhaps one day Europe will try democratic free market capitalism, but not today. For now it will stick with its restricitive policies which thwart individual initiative and enterprise by stealing its fruits though taxes and thwarting its energies with endless regulations and restirctions. The best people will see the futility of it and move elsewhere like America. No matter how much or little they have to contribute, no matter how grandiouse or pedestrian their ambitions, they will surely find that Europe is no place to realize them.
fragility
The crimes against humanity Europe has perpetrated all over the world during the last 2000 years far eclipses everything else the rest of the world ever has done combined. Europeans are no ones to talk about crimes against humanity to anyone. Africa alone is one crime that will take centuries for them to atone for if they ever can.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII:
What are you doing here on this debate? You are American and in my view Americans have no business in the European domestic Politics or UK Politics. Unless of course you are the ENEMY of Europe/UK, working for one those fancy agencies of the USA we know very well?
As for your comparisons of Europe vs the US. I can tell you from my experience of living on countries such as France, UK and US. The most horrible place is definitely the US (I know over 10 US States). You Americans are delusional! Look at your economy going BUST very soon!
Complain about this comment
cryptomate #97
"Americans have no business in European domestic politics."
Tell that to Justin Webb who runs a BBC blog site about American domestic politics and the US election campaign.
I am your mirror. When you hear what I have to say, you are hearing what I hear when I listen to Europeans. You don't like it do you? Neither do I. Europe is the ugliest most detestable place on this earth. It's towns and villages, its cities billed as quaint by travel agents are to me antiquated junk, relics of an ancient past. Collections of miserable hovels retrofitted with indoor plumbing and electricity at low cost. Interesting for a short time as museum pieces but hardly anything anyone would want to live in or work in every day. Its cities were filthy, the rivers stank from sewage when I was there. Food was far too expensive. Narrow winding little streets designed for horses, hardly adequate for automobiles. It's a place of relative poverty where only a handful of people actually have any real money. Idle, inferior, a place of limited possibilities and still filled with ethnic hatreds and animousities. Just read what someone wrote here in one of these threads about the Kosovars. It could just as well have been the flemish and french belgians, the Basques and the Castillians, the Germans and turks, or any of them about the Roma we used to call the Gypsies. And so many of them hate the Jews and America which is Israel's number one supportor and guarantor. Even the Slovaks and Czechs couldn't stay together in the same country, how will they stay as one in a superstate.
In the last 400 years many tens of millions, possibly even well over 100 million Europeans have left that horrible place for America never to look back. My own grandparents were among them. Had they not left, I probably never would have been born. If they hadn't been killed in the first world war, they'd surely have been killed in the second. Migration from Europe to America may have been the largest single mass migration in human history.
European jealousy and hatred of America is so obvious it cannot be disguised. Just about everything good and decent that ever happened since America was formed happened because of America. It was all the Americans could do to keep Europeans from killing each other during the 20th century. I hope America doesn't waste the 21st century making the same mistake, the one warning President Washington gave future generations. And it was heeded until Woodrow Wilson, America's worst President by far.
A lot of people have bet against America in the past. And they went broke on that bet every single time. America has gone through far wose than what it faces now except for the prospect of a surprise nuclear attack by Islamic terrorists. Short of that, America will ALWAYS come out on top. And why shouldn't it. It's an irresistable magnet for the best people on the planet. It has everything it needs to be happy, prosperous, and successful without anyone elses help. Small wonder the envy is so intense.
Complain about this comment
ATNotts wrote at 27 "I don't understand why the EU generates so much ire amongst contributors to blogs".
He went on to say "It has brought considerable benefits in terms of free movement across borders (Schengen) - except of course for the UK; a single currency that has saved business and tourists millions in exchange conversion and bank charges - except of course in UK; and then there's the question of employee rights and benefits which EU citizens enjoy - except of course in UK!"
But what are these mysterious benefits that we don't enjoy in the UK? What benefits does Schengen bring? Having to show a passport when I travel to the EU is no hardship, is it?
And as for the single currency, we have benefitted from avoiding all the pitfalls of being blighted with a one size fits all interest rate and an overvalued currency. The rise of the Euro is costing jobs and businesses far more in euroland.
It never ceases to amaze me that those supporting the single currency say that the Euro has saved tourist millions. The cost is small and insignificant (most British people not travel abroad every year anyway or do so only once a year!) but when I travel to Euroland, I avoid conversion charges as my building society does not charge me conversion costs when using a visa cash machine! And other times I use a credit card which acts like a single currency for British travellers anywhere in the western world.
And what precisely are these universal employee rights and benefits which EU citizens enjoy which we don't? Do these EU citizens all enjoy free health care at the point of delivery like we do in the UK?
ATNotts went on to write
"It really is about time the UK grew up and worked out it's place on the planet - that's Europe, not hanging on to some phony "special relationship" with a country far away, on another continent, that only believes a special relationship exists when it wants something from it's European poodle".
That response is so typical of the "little Europeaner". Europe is just one part of the world nearest to our shores but there is a big world out there and that is where our place is. We have been a international nation trading throughout the world (not just Europe) for centuries and built a huge empire and trading links. English is THE international language because of this and our links are built on this and emigration/immigration to and from these islands to the commonwealth and the USA.
The EU on the other hand is an inward looking, highly regulated, unaccounatable, undemocratic and restrictive organisation which commands little or no loyalty or love, so it is little wonder the EU is viewed with deep suspicion by so many here.
Complain about this comment
To frenchderek #93,
I don't know the opinions of the whole of France but I do know some Northern French as I live in South Belgium. I'm afraid I've yet to speak to anyone who likes Sarko, the only thing most comment on is that he spends most of his time on Carla.
Like you I think that France has been living on borrowed time (and money) for a long time and urgent reform is long overdue. However I can't see Sarko being allowed to do anything that is really important and he probably won't last more than one term anyway. A friend of mine who was an IT director of a large French company has said many times that they have lost the art of management, and that the phase 'yet another disaster pulled from the jaws of victory' aptly describes French managerial style these days.
To busby2 #99,
I couldn't agree more and I've lived over here for 17 years and helped implement IT programs for the Euro in a central bank. Even at that time it was clear it would cause financial problems but as always the dreamers ignored all the potential problems in their endless quest for their failing vision. As for open borders and easy movement of cash, um, er, the current preoccupation with money laundering reminds me more of currency controls than anti-fraud, and I regularly see border controls on the French-Belgium border.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII message 99.
I was highly amused by your posting which reminded me of the superior isolationist American viewpoint that prevailed between the two world wars.
The problem with the USA is that it is a world power with absolutely no idea of how to use its power and influence in a productive way. There is no point in winning a war if you haven't planned how to win the peace. The Iraq war showed just how much the USA had regressed since the post 1945 Marshall Plan.
You wrote "Just about everything good and decent that ever happened since America was formed happened because of America". Is this, for example, how your American native Indians see things, or the black slaves prior to the abolition of slavery? They suffered genocide and the horrors of slavery. And don't forget that it was Great Britain that enforced the abolition of the slave trade from 1807 and abolished slavery decades before you did in the USA. It took a bloody Civil War for you to achieve that.
You wrote "It was all the Americans could do to keep Europeans from killing each other during the 20th century". That is nonsense in relation to World War II. Isolationism and the lack of support from the USA critically weakened the democracies of GB and France to stop Hitler before 1939. And when we had our back to the wall in 1940, the USA still did not come to our aid by declaring war on Nazi Germany. It took the Japanese and that "day of infamy" to bring you into the war to support the good guys over here in Great Britain!
But if there is one current overwhelming criticism I have of the USA, it is your abject failure to care for the health needs of your poor citizens. It is an absolute disgrace that the richest country in the world, the world's only super power, does not provide decent health care for all your citizens. That failure reveals a nasty selfish streak in the American make up. We are so superior to you here in the UK in that regard!!!
Complain about this comment
To #97
Yet how many Europeans engage in discussion of American politics, and how many of them have become Obama-obsessed?
I have no doubt cryptomate that you'll have been sitting around discussing with your friends how Obama is going to be great for the world etc.
The absolute insanity and downright disgraceful tone of your post is shocking. You are perhaps a worrying example of the "EU nationalist" that we hear about.
Get with the program, Sarkozy has set the example, America should be our friend.
Complain about this comment
busby 2
like all Brits I've met, you're wrong about everything on all accounts.
First of all, I didn't say that America didn't do a lot of bad things too. The difference between us and Europe is that we own up to them while Europe pretends they never happened until faced with incontrovertable evidence. Then they find some lame excuse to justify what they have done. Why don't you tell us how much Europe did for Africa or Latin America or China? Mugabe hasn't forgotten. Neither has Embeke or Mandella.
American power's only legitimate function is to protect American interests. It is not the savior of the world. It isn't supposed to be. Whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMDs will be debated for a long time but right now at least, Iraq is not a threat to the US. Mission accomplished. On to Iran.
You are also all wet about slavery. Some American colonies/states had abolished slavery before Britain. And while slavery was illegal in Britain at the time you say, trading in slaves by Brits continued legally for a long long time afterwards. What's more, Britain sided with the slave holding Confederacy in the Civil War. It hoped America would remain divided and weak. If it had, who would have bailed out the UK in WWI? They'd still be losing their best to the hedgerows and trenches to this day.
The Civil War was actually fought over the extension of slavery to new territories out west, not originally as a way to end slavery in the south. The cotton economy of the old south was created by Britain in colonial times and it depended on very cheap labor slaves provided. Slavery in the south was a legacy of Britain. It was the one issue the founders of the US could not solve.
You are also dead wrong about WWII. It was the British and French in their vindictive Treaty of Versailles that set the stage for WWII. It was Neville Chamberlain who did not want to arm Britain for fear of antognizing the Germans. He failed to discover their secret re-armament and he didn't need a Security Council resolution to do it. It was France with its idiotic Maginot Line which was supposed to protect it. Their engineering today is no better. It was not America's job to save Europe or Britain. America owes Europe NOTHING. America was created as a rejection of everything Europe was and still is. American's overwhelmingly opposed entry of the US into WWII in Europe. The only reason it fought there was because it was clear that if it didn't, eventually it would have to fight the Nazis on American soil and on American shores. This is the same reason we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should Americans care if Britain fell to Germany?
You don't know anything about the American health care system. Nobody goes without health care for want of money. If they did, there would be millions dying in the streets from injury and disease. What's broken is the system for paying for it. If there is one thing America doesn't want, it's the stinkeroo socialist system Europe and Canada has with its waiting lists, inadequacy of supply being the hallmark of socialism. America still has the best health care system in the world by far, the French notwithstanding. That's why when wealthy people are very sick, they usually come here. But go into any emergency room in any hospital in any city in America and you will see the poorest including illegal aliens lined up for the same medical care everyone else gets. And when it's incompetent, even though they are illegal, they also sue the hospital and doctors just like everyone else.
European ignorance of America even among its most educated like its former ambassador to the US Sir Christopher Meyers is appalling. BBC's pathetic lack of knowledge of it is hardly worth mentioning. Among the average European, it is nothing short of monumental.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII: I did not claim that NAFTA benefits the US regarding Canadian energy; I claimed that NAFTA gives the US government more leverage (e.g. regarding an assured supply of Canadian energy) than the lack of NAFTA would. Given that Congress have chosen not to prioritise energy self-sufficiency, the leverage that NAFTA provides does benefit the US, despite the corresponding loss of sovereignty through NAFTA.
One possible reason for uniform trade policies is that they allow terms of trade to be well-defined for all parties to a treaty. For example, the recognition of software patents in the US and the lack of such recognition in the EU would complicate the protection of intellectual property if uniformity be absent.
One possible reason for fair trade policies is that no one would gladly choose an unfair trading partner !
SuffolkBoy2: Any treaty can be unilaterally abrogated with no notice, although such action is typically viewed negatively by other parties to the treaty. Many treaties are written with a withdrawal clause, where notice of withdrawal is given to the other parties some number of months or years in advance; this helps all parties adjust to the upcoming change.
Two alternatives commonly mooted for a post-EU UK are to rejoin EFTA or to conclude a bilateral agreement with the EU (as Switzerland has). Both of these alternatives have required payments to the EU (substantial payments, at least in the case of Norway), and both the EFTA states and Switzerland are required to adopt a significant proportion of EU law, including free movement of people.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII #103,
You really should calm down or go and see your analyst, it sounds about time you went on one of those anger management courses, after all US companies love giving training courses don't they. It just a shame that US course tutors on average know little more than the attendees as all they do is read from a script.
Amongst all you said there which was the usual mix of rant, exaggeration, invention and dubious detail, one thing stood out "First of all, I didn't say that America didn't do a lot of bad things too. The difference between us and Europe is that we own up to them while Europe pretends they never happened until faced with incontrovertible evidence." I think I must have missed this owning up bit as I seem to recall all US scandals only get to be known after the incontrovertible evidence has been published somewhere, after numerous attempts to suppress it of course. Your wonderful politicians are no different from Europe's, money and the feeding trough rule above all else. As for the US pharmaceutical and tobacco industries owning up to anything, there's more chance of you and me landing on Mars.
Finally and back on the topic of this thread, don't forget that it's by no means impossible that if the UK left certain other EU members may decide to follow as well. There are a number that are more aligned towards the direction preferred by the UK and who also don't share the Franco-German vision for the EU. Every new intake has lessened the power base of the old members which is why I guess they came up with the Qualified Majority Voting system, as a previous poster expertly explained how it works and how it benefits France and Germany most of all.
Complain about this comment
104. At 03:14am on 30 Jun 2008, Jan_Keeskop wrote:
"Two alternatives commonly mooted for a post-EU UK are to rejoin EFTA or to conclude a bilateral agreement with the EU (as Switzerland has). Both of these alternatives have required payments to the EU (substantial payments, at least in the case of Norway), and both the EFTA states and Switzerland are required to adopt a significant proportion of EU law, including free movement of people."
Jan_Keeskop seems to be well informed. I would find the alternatives he describes unacceptable.
I don't want to pay a penny or cent to the "EU".
I don't want to have to accept "EU" - "law".
I don't want the same degree of movement of people as we have now. I want it to be freer than it was before we joined the "EU" but I do not want foreign drugs gangs in my home town as we apparently have now.
Incidentally, I want to stop British criminals going abroad too.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 @ #106
There are no British criminals, only United Kingdom criminals exist in the United Kingdom.
Oh. That is except the illegal immigrants who have committed crimes once they are in the UK having travelled through many European Countries to get to the UK safe and sound and partake of our NHS, welfare system and low wage economy only to commit crimes - some of which are abhorrent!
I have never understood how someone can sail to Gran Canaria and travel through Spain and France (or travel through Italy and France) to get to the UK to obtain political asylum? It baffles me why, the asylum seekers don't wish to settle in Spain or France or Italy - given that all these Nations are equal under the EU Laws and supposedly safe political havens?
Another of the benefits that the EU has provided the United Kingdom since joining the EU - porous borders and huge scale immigration into the UK!
Complain about this comment
I mentioned one possible negotiating aim for the UK before, i.e. an ?EEA with voting rights?, but it may be that something closer to the Swiss option would be better for the UK. As a number of people have mentioned, EEA membership has several unattractive features that led the Swiss people to reject it by referendum. The UK could follow the Swiss example by negotiating a special relationship with the EU consisting of free trade with the EU single market, but without being subject to the EU law-making machinery or the ECJ court system. Giscard D?Estaing has spoken of the desirability of such a special relationship for the UK so there is no reason to believe this would be opposed by Continental federalists.
If such a relationship could be negotiated, then only that part of UK industry involved in exporting to other EU countries would still have to comply with EU rules and standards. We would have recovered democratic control of our political system. There would also be an opportunity for the UK Parliament to revisit the 100000 pages of the ?aquis communitaire? to decide how much of it (if any) should be retained for the bulk of the British economy devoted to purely domestic consumption. Such an exercise would be entirely consistent with any Conservative manifesto commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on British business.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII:
I don't know why you are quite so anti-European, but your blood pressure must get very high!
Your knowledge of history is either defective through a poor US education system, or else you didn't pay close enough attention in class. Far from chosing to fight the Nazi threat here rather than at home, as you claim, the US didn't ever declare war on Germany, even after Pearl Harbor; It was the Germans who, in a masterstroke of ineptitude, declared war on you. That is why many of us find the constant American claims to the moral high ground about saving us from the Nazi evil sticks in our throats. The US contribution to winning WW2 was significant, but left to your own devices you would never have entered the European war, Holocaust or no - at least not until the German rocket that was being developed landed on New York while you were busy fighting the Japanese. During the 2 and a quarter years that Britain and her allies were fighting the Nazi menace before you got involved, voluntarily or not, you sat on the sidelines and made lots of money. Britain only made her last repayment of war debt to the USA last year - so whatever you did to help you were well paid for. Despite the two years notice that you were given, courtesy of British blood, sweat and tears, that war was on its way, you still hadn't managed to re-arm yourself sufficiently when it arrived. Poor show.
You owe Europe nothing? We had better not mention the free gifts you received from Britain then of radar or the jet engine. (You did know that they weren't American inventions didn't you?) How about access to the Enigma codes which were obtained by Britain? Did you believe the Hollywood version of history where it was brave American sailors that captured them? How about more recent times? Using British bases to attack Libya when every other European nation denied you airspace? Our thanks from a grateful friend? Thousands of cancellations by US tourists who were too afraid to visit in case of reprisals, which cost us millions. We took a slightly different position after 9/11 visting New York in our thousands to show support. You may not owe Europe much, but you owe Britain plenty.
Like most Britons, I am not in any way anti-American; we have far more in common than we don't, and most Americans I have met in the UK, in the US, or anywhere else in the world have been friendly and helpful. People like you are thankfully the exception. Oh, and one more thing - if you really think that Europeans are ignorant of American issues, take a long look at media coverage of foreign news in the USA. I once watched "60 minutes" whilst I was there and there was one -yes one - item from outside the US which lasted all of 90 seconds. Most Americans don't possess a passport, and couldn't put Iraq in the right region of the world when handed a map. At least not before they invaded it.
By the way - this blog is supposed to be about Europe.
Complain about this comment
suffolkboy2 and menedemus.
Are you serious?Immigrants are people to,and they like all people of the world,can be good,bad,clever and stupid.
There is not one single government or police statistic that actually shows immigrants commit more crime proportionaly then local population,even when government and police fear right wing anti-immigrant media to death.
the U.K does not have more immigrants proportionaly then the countries you mentioned.It has less then 1% of the worlds immigrants who flee their homes to seek a safe place.
The times when immigrants passed many countries to claim asylym in the UK is actually over as well,that does not happen,it has happened only for a few years when it was exactly because the UK industry needed this people,and they landed here not because they where allowed to by other europian countries,but because it was British Government policy to brink them to fill the gap in jobs.
Europian Union has had very good results in fighting the ilegal immigration and organized crime in Europe,and without that co-operation its imposible for the UK or any other country to stop international crime on its own.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
In reply to post 103
You?re right to say Iraq is not a threat to the US. But Iraq never was a threat after the first Gulf War! In fact the invasion of Iraq had the opposite effect because (a) it made Iran the undisputed regional power in the area and (b) it made Iraq a safe haven for Al Qaeda. The invasion of Iraq was a monumental mistake which our foolish Prime Minister went along with. We should have given the USA the same level of support that they gave us at the time of Suez (ie none). And now you say onto Iran! Who will save us from such idiocy?
Great Britain was by far the leading country in the world actively involved in suppressing the slave trade after 1807 and we abolished slavery in 1834 throughout the Empire. It was other nations like the Spanish and Portuguese who engaged in slave trading across the Atlantic to the New World at this time. And the reason that slavery was not an issue that the founding fathers could solve was because many of them were slave owners, like the first president George Washington.
We did not side with the Confederacy during the Civil War. We remained neutral despite the hardship and unemployment this caused to the Lancashire cotton mill industry which relied on imports from the southern states.
It was your president Woodrow Wilson who was the major architect of the Treaty of Versailles but the US had not the guts after the war to ratify the treaty. You washed your hands. The failure of the League of Nations can be firmly blamed on US isolationism because it left the League toothless. Great Britain and France were gravely weakened by WWI whilst the USA became far richer and more powerful. It was your isolationism that created a power vacuum by gravely weakening the western democracies and this greatly helped the rise of bolshevism and fascism in Europe.
You asked ?Why should Americans care if Britain fell to Germany?? Are you serious? It would have left you without an ally outside your hemisphere. If we had fallen to the Nazis and done a deal with them, that would have posed very, very serious threat to your borders.
You wrote ?You don't know anything about the American health care system. Nobody goes without health care for want of money?. If there was any truth in that statement perhaps you can explain why a study published in the policy journal Health Affairs in 2005 found that approximately half of people in the US who file for bankruptcy cite medical costs as a significant reason for their financial troubles. Based on a survey of 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers, the researchers extrapolated that between 1.9 and 2.2 million people were driven into bankruptcy because of health care costs in 2001. Based on these figures another 14 million Americans would have gone bankrupt for similar reasons since 2001. And if a fellow American has gone bankrupt because of medical costs, how can those Americans and their families receive the medical care they require to treat their long term illnesses?
When it comes to life expectancy, the USA is number 41 and is beaten by most of Europe, including of course Great Britain and your neighbour, Canada. Commenting on this Dr Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington said "Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries". The reason is obvious: it is the lack of proper health care for the 45 million plus Americans who cannot afford health insurance and those driven to bankruptcy because of medical costs to treat chronic and life threatening conditions. Medical bankruptcy is unheard of in the UK. We spend less than you on health care and live longer. Don?t you care that you are failing your poor and that the rest of your fellow Americans are paying through the nose for health care?
You are deluding yourself if you think free emergency care is the answer: it is not. Follow up treatment is normally required and only those who can pay receive that treatment in the USA. This was ably illustrated in the film ?As Good As It Gets? starring Jack Nicolson and Helen Hunt. Helen played a single mother with a son with chronic ear trouble. Her sons was continually in and out of ER but they failed to treat the underlying condition which remained untreated as she could not afford medical care. The cure was straightforward but was undiagnosed because of the failures of your health care system. This would not have occurred in our ?stinkeroo socialist system Europe and Canada? as you quaintly and inaccurately describe it. Her son would have received free follow up appointments and treatment to cure the underlying cause at a specialist clinic at no cost to the patient or his family, as costs come out of general taxation.
But back on message, this message board is about Europe and the growing divergence between our leaders and the electorate. How can there be a sustainable ?ever closer union? when our leaders dare not ask their electorates if that is what they want? How can there be an ?ever closer union? of countries that simply share the same continent but who have different languages, traditions, history, legal systems and religions to give just a few examples. You cannot create a United States of Europe or anything close to that which will be anything like united.
Complain about this comment
To my Americam friends in particular I recommend the book'The United States of Europe' by T.R.Reid. He is an American. In 2005, when I bought his book in New York on my way to L.A. and Las Vagas, he was the Posts bureau head in the Rockies. Before that he was bureau chief in London. I hope it is still in print ISBN 1-59420-033-5.
For my British friends I would also recommend 'Why europe will run the 21st century by Mark Leonard ISBN 0-00-719531-1
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @110
Your comments remind me of someone who looks at the world through rose-tinted spectacles?
Legal Immigrants are fine by me and are to be welcomed. However, my comment specifically used the phrase ILLEGAL immigrants and my point was that, if they commit crime in the United Kingdom they are not United Kingdom criminals but illegal immigrant criminals. A subtle difference but a difference from your LEGAL immigrants that you defend from me unnecessarily.
That notwithstanding your third paragraph "The times when immigrants passed many countries to claim asylum in the UK is actually over as well, that does not happen, it has happened only for a few years when it was exactly because the UK industry needed this people,and they landed here not because they where allowed to by other europian countries,but because it was British Government policy to brink them to fill the gap in jobs." is absolute balderdash!
There are still huge numbers of ILLEGAL immigrants queuing at Calais (and other Northern France ports as far west as Cherbourg) simply waiting to sneak into the United Kingdom. Did someone wave a magic wand and they mysteriously appear there or, is it more likely that they have travelled overland through France and other EU Nations to the East and West of France if not directly through France's southern ports. Whatever their route taken to Northern France, these immigrants are neither legal nor welcome in the United Kingdom but the other EU States are guilty of passing them through and onto the United Kingdom without offering them sanctuary as they perhaps should be - given the first sentence of your comment - or better still returning them to their countries of origin.
I'm astonished you even dare suggest that the UK wants ILLEGAL immigrants or has ever wanted illegal immigrants because the UK Industry wanted them! We are happy to invite EU (and rest of world) LEGAL immigrants to work in our country but we do not in any way want illegal immigrants to reach us let alone travel through the rest of Europe to get to us.
Complain about this comment
Backto the topic...
I think it is clear that a Tory government for the next parliament would only divide our peoplfurther from the rest of Euope, trough lots of empty threats and that they will no doubt push for low wages and little else.
We need Proportional Rpresentation before the next general election.
Not promises; but actual PR on the sttute before the election take place.
We are seeing the foly of elected dictatorship and have done for years. Although i doubt that (new) Labour will do the sensible thing, it is surely their only hope to have even a core showing in the commons.
Remember: landslides cause tidal waves.
Choose love.
Complain about this comment
>"Why europe will run the 21st century" by Mark Leonard
As I already own this, I'll throw a few of the choicest quotes out, in the interests of furthering the discussion.
"Europe doesn't flaunt its strength or talk about a 'single sustainable model of progress'. Instead, like an 'invisible hand', it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The British House of Commons, British law courts, and British civil servants are still there, but they have all become agents of the European Union. This is no accident. By creating common standards that are implemented through national institutions, Europe can spread its influence without becoming a target for hostility." p6
"Imagine a world of peace, prosperity and democracy. A world where small countries are as sovereign as large ones. A world where what matters is that you obey the law- rather than whether you are with us or against us." pp7-8
"The reason that Germany, France and Britain can negotiate trade as equals with the United States is not because they are in the G7 but because they are in the European Union." p82
"In his famous Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln talked of democracy as 'government of the people, by the people for the people'. What he meant was that democracies exist to hold the state to account, and to make sure that the policies that are implemented correspond to what people want. Set against those tests, the EU fares pretty well." p89
What a difference three years and a few failed referenda make...
Complain about this comment
Mark Leonard is currently the Executive Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a pan-European think-tank which was launched in October 2007 with offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Sofia and Warsaw funded by George Soros.
Previously, he was director of foreign policy at the London-based Centre for European Reform, and director of The Foreign Policy Centre, a think-tank he founded under the patronage of the former UK prime minister Tony Blair and the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in 1998.
He could not possibly be biased in favor of closer european cooperation. Could he?
Complain about this comment
98. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"A lot of people have bet against America in the past. And they went broke on that bet every single time. "
You seem to have forgotten the Vietnamese . Or am I mistaken, did you win there too? I await Hollywood's Soviet-style revisionist history with eager anticipation.
Complain about this comment
robcraufurd @ #115
I do not comprehend your use of the adjective "failed" as used in conjunction with "referenda" in your last sentence?
Of couse, to Mark Leonard, an idealist and former member of the Young Fabian Society (among whose allumni are included such august figures as Peter Mandelson, our current UK Commisssioner!) the results of these referenda would be, I suspect, a disaster and failure for hindering the progress of European Union Ideal/Dream.
On the other hand, many other people would consider the use of referenda in respect of the EU a successful tool of democracy; and that, in their use, at least some of "the people" of Europe were able to use their democratic rights, without failure, to derail the EU Idealist's Dream.
Complain about this comment
robcrufurd #115
This is a pipe dream. The reality is very different.
"Europe doesn't flaunt its strength...like an invisible hand....yada yada yada.
What strength? With two million men under arms in NATO it can't field 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's at war with China over markets and raw materials, at war with Russia over access to oil and gas upon whom it is entirely dependent, far behind even Japan let alone the US in technology, its inefficient small farms no match for huge American agribusiness, and it has entered into a trade war with the US. It is losing on all accounts. So what is there to talk about? A failed mission to Mars? A new version of a 40 year old American military cargo plane converted into a passenger plane? A redundant global positioning system that will be shot out of the sky if it's ever successfully deployed?
"The british house of commons, british law courts and british civil servants....have all become agents of the European Union."
What an admissioin. Startling in its frankness. Not agents of the British people but of an extranational entity to which they owe their true allegience. And so true. That's why there will be NO referendum.
"Europe can spread its influence without becoming a target for hostility."
Ha, that's the best one yet. How do the Moslems feel about France? What do the Chinese feel about it? How does Zimbabwe feel about Britain? What does Turkey think of Austria and France? And what does one American think of all of them! Even Castro denounced the EU recently. Influence? What influence? In Sudan? In Zimbabwe? In Iran? Where does the EU hold influence? Certainly not in Washington DC.
"Image a world...where small countries are as sovereign as large ones."
You mean not like where Ireland's No vote will be ignored because it is a small country?
"...where what matters is that you obey the law."
Like Germany and France obeying the Growth and Stability pact in Maastrict? Like accountancy books that are secret and couldn't pass an audit for over 10 years but nobody was even indicted let alone went to jail?
Do Britain, France, and Germany negotiate trade as equals with the US? I dont' know but if they do, it's time the US got better trade negotiators. That or pull out of the WTO.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people never has had anything to do with Europe and never will. That it why there are no referendums.
Malcom, your history of WWII is a joke. I don't have time to debunk all of your nonsense. Let's just say that when the US entered WWII in Europe, Britain and all all of the rest of Western Europe was lost. Without an American rescue, Britain was on the verge of complete defeat. Roosevelt and Churchill knew it. Why didn't America build up its military before WWII? Because it didn't want to get involved in Europe's or anyone elses squabbles anymore. But Pearl Harbor changed that. It showed America that two oceans could not protect it from foreign enemies anymore. That is why it MUST always have the most powerful military in the world and why it MUST destroy all credible threats before they materialize. Iraq was the right thing to do. Where America has made mistakes in the recent past was in not launching pre-emptive wars against Afghanistan before 9-11, Iran, and North Korea. These are the result of lessons forgotten and where I come from, we say that they will have to be learned again the hard way.
Busby 2
Your facts are also all wrong. I don't have time to debate all of them point by point. Do it yourself but here are some real facts. Britain abolished slavery in 1807 but didn't abolish its trade in slaves until around 1825 or 1827 and IT DID side with the slave holding Confederacy. We may never know if Saddam Hussein had WMDs in September 2002. The fact that they were not found after the invasion of March 2003 means nothing. Perhaps they would have been found in Iraq if America's government hadn't been stupid enough to wait six months while Tony Blair's government diddled around with the UN trying to get one more vote which was not even necessary.
I told you that the America system of paying for medical care was broken. That is entirely different from having a broken medical system like Europe has. Thre are no waiting lists here and there are no people dying in the streets en masse from lack of care.
As for life expectency, there is no reason to believe that there is a direct connection between health care and life expectency. Americans lead a more dangerous lifestyle. Just look at their obesiety rates for proof.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot
No I haven't forgotten Vietnam. Do you know what a pyrrhic victory is? You win but you lose. The US pulled out of Vietnam and the South Vietnamese government fell but Vietnam became one of the poorest countries in the world and stayed that way until it started changing to a more open market economy. Had they done that in the 60s there probaby would not have been a war. But even after 35 years, it is still a very poor country. What did they win?
Complain about this comment
I am gobsmacked!
I can still find no reference to the highly significant goings on in Austria on the BBC website. Have I missed it?
They think it is significant in the "EU"- "parliament". They think it is significant in Germany. Ex-German foreign minister Joschka Fischer thinks it highly significant. (Die Zeit online). He seems to be furious with the Austrian socialist party, which now wants a referendum in the event of Lisbon not going through and another treaty coming along.
I interpret it as a cracking-up of the united front of the arrogant, integrationist forces under the pressure of opinion polls and the anger of real people.
Fischer emphasizes the option of a core of "EU" states integrating further, especially Germany and France. I don't know how much opposition there is in Germany to Lisbon but there appears to be a lot of it about in the "EU" and I guess that there is a lot in Germany.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2: What would you describe as the ideal level of movement of people for the UK ? That is, how would you liberalise the pre-EU rules, or how would you restrict the current rules, to arrive at that ideal level ?
I found a number for the Swiss contributions to the EU via the bilateral treaties : for the seven years starting from 2007, the Swiss will pay about £270m (Fr. 550m) per annum. This amount is estimated to be 80 % of the cost of Switzerland being an EFTA member state, and one-sixth of the net cost of Switzerland being an EU member state.
Freeborn-John: Which areas would you include within ?free trade? ? Would you include membership in the customs union ? Which (if any) of the freedoms of movement of capital/goods/labour/services would be retained ? How would technical questions be resolved (e.g. how would an answer to the question what is chocolate ? be determined) ? If I remember correctly, the ECJ ruled in favour of the UK on that.
MalcolmW2: The US did declare war on Germany (and Italy), but only did so after Germany (and Italy) declared war on the US. All of these declarations took place on 11th December 1941.
Complain about this comment
I didn't want to get involved in the off-topic debate on slavery but in the interests of accuracy I feel obliged to correct Marcus Aurelius II's "real facts" on the abolition of slavery in Britain ie " Britain abolished slavery in 1807 but didn't abolish its trade in slaves until around 1825 or 1827 "
1. The Aboltition of the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807. It forbade the trade in slaves not the ownership of slaves in British colonies. Like drugs today, the trade carried on but it was illeagal and heavy fines could be and were imposed.
2. Slavery was abolished in British colonies in 1833.
3. Slavery in Britain itself was never abolished and there is still no law against slavery. That is simply because, in the eyes of the law, it never existed. The case of James Somerset in 1771 (it makes a very interesting comparison with the directly analogous case of Dredd Scott in the US) was ruled by Judge Mansfield in favour of the slave on the simple grounds that slavery was unnatural and could only exist if there was a law to cal it into being and as no such law existed in England then there could be no slavery and so Mr Somerst was free. A few years later the case of Joseph Knight established the same principle in Scots law.
If we are to have this debate then lets at least get the basic facts correct.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @117 asks:
"You seem to have forgotten the Vietnamese . Or am I mistaken, did you [the US] win there too? "
Well, Ho Chi Mihn City does have a branch of McDonalds, so you draw your own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
124. ScepticMax wrote:
"Well, Ho Chi Mihn City does have a branch of McDonalds, so you draw your own conclusions."
Hm. My conclusion would have to be that the US would have been off using quarter-pounders instead of one thousand pounders. ;-)
Complain about this comment
To #104 Need4Reality,,
You mentioned "We need Proportional Rpresentation before the next general election.
Not promises; but actual PR on the statute before the election take place."
After the various posts of yours I'm surprised to hear you say that. In the early 70's I several times organised for the Electoral Reform Society to speak to the YC group I was in and I heard all the arguments for as well as against. Since then I have always held the opinion that PR is great in theory but dangerous in practice since it grays out all possibility of change or reform. Certainly since I have lived in Belgium I've always felt that PR is a main reason for the corruption and problems that are present, the parties often get together and work out long term agenda's before any elections, which makes the act of voting almost meaningless. Power sharing is pre-arranged with only the fine detail left to the election, this is what PR results in when you have many parties holding seats.
Due to that I still think the clear blue water approach is more likely to provide some form of democracy, whereas PR, almost hung parliaments, or coalitions simply give compromises that help and satisfy few.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @126
I agree with you regarding PR. It is a recipe for paralysis, blackmail and corruption.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @ #118
In 2005, people were happy to talk loftily about the people holding the state to account. Once referenda started holding up the European "project", people suddenly began to talk about much more about parliamentary sovereignty and intelligent oversight- including the Labour party, who in 1997-8 held referenda on assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London and on the Good Friday Agreement. The truth is that Mark Leonard's version of the EU never really existed: it's just now that the facade of co-operation has broken down.
MarcusAureliusII @ #119
I really can't put up with your blatant misreadings of the early Victorian abolitionist movement any longer. The fact is that Britain acts vigorously and unilaterally against the slave trade. The Royal Navy is nearly continuously in action, whether stopping ships on the high seas or heading inland to blow up Spanish and Portuguese slave barracoons or conclude anti-slavery treaties with native kings. When Lord Palmerston becomes foreign minister, he supports these actions to the extent of casually informing the Portugese ambassador that he can declare war over the issue if he wishes.
Unfortunately, the sight of Royal Navy frigates towing empty slave ships into New York harbour would prove to be the downfall of this policy. Palmerston attempts to organise a Five Power anti-slavery treaty in 1841. The Americans refuse the Royal Navy the right to search ships flying the American flag (a right which they've previously exercised unofficially). Palmerston asks for the right to visit the ships, to ensure that they're registered as American and not simply hoisting false colours. The Americans refuse. They do, however, offer to station their own ships on the West Coast of Africa to search American ships: sadly, this contribution is notable for its ineffectiveness. Between 1807 and 1860, the Royal Navy West Africa squadron stop 1,600 ships; between 1843 and 1861, the US Navy Africa squadron stops 24.
As for your points that Britain sided with the "slave-owning" Confederacy, perhaps you'd take into account that a number of slave states- Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky and Delaware- remain in the Union post-1861 . The slaves living in these states are not covered by the terms of the 1862 Emancipation Proclamation, which frees only slaves in rebel territories- by definition, those that Lincoln can do nothing about. Public opinion in Britain tends to regard the Civil War as an extension of previous wars of independence on the American continent, and not as a conflict between slavery and freedom. Incidentally, how exactly do you feel about American support for serf-owning Russia in their 1854 war of aggression against Turkey?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII (post 119)
I too don't have time to correct your misinformation so I will concentrate on your response on health care.
If your views on helath care are typical of most Anericans then America is really in big trouble.
You said that "the America system of paying for medical care was broken. That is entirely different from having a broken medical system like Europe has. Thre are no waiting lists here and there are no people dying in the streets en masse from lack of care".
First of all you cannot have a medical care system without the means to pay for it. The costs of your system are growing in real terms every year and are unsustainable. You seem to have difficulty in accepting that.
Secondlly, we don't have a broken medical system in Great Britain. Our system covers the entire population. It is provided at far lower cost than yours and the benefits can be seen by greater life expectancy, the effective treatment of chronic conditions and treatment according to need and NOT the ability to pay.
You went on to write "As for life expectency, there is no reason to believe that there is a direct connection between health care and life expectency. Americans lead a more dangerous lifestyle. Just look at their obesiety rates for proof".
Health care is not just about life expectancy. It is about the general quality of health and the treatment of chronic conditions which are not life threatening. Your system does not treat your citizens if they suffer from chronic health problems unless they can afford to pay. Stating that there are no waiting lists in America is of no help to the poor and uninsured who need medical treatment for chronic conditions, is it? And even those with some health cover may be faced with bills they cannnot pay.
My previous example of the film "As Good as it Gets" and the role played by Helen Hunt shows just how important it is to treat chronic conditions. Untreated chronic conditions not only makes life more miserable for the sufferers but also prevents many of them from working and contributing to society. It adds considerably to poverty and ultimately increases your tax bill. Think about it!
I agree that obesity is a chronic condition which reduces life expectancy which Americans suffer from more than most. Sadly we are catching up but we are trying to tackle the problem as a public health and medical issue. But what is America doing about their growing obesity problem?
Finally, if as you say there is no direct connection between health care and life expectancy, why not dispense with all health care in America and see what happens to life expectancy then!
Back on topic, I see that the Polish President has said that there is no point in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. I fear however that EU leaders will continue to avoid reality and pretend that the Treaty is still alive and well, in much the same way that many Americans seem to believe that their health care system is alive and well and meeting the needs of all their citizens.
Complain about this comment
robcrufurd
First of all, you are only off by about 50 years. The Victorian era happened in the late 19th century. The abolitionist era in Britain was in the early 19th century. But then what's 50 years in the history of an Empire with so many centuries of crimes to its name?
About British warships stopping American ships, ever hear of the War of 1812? The British felt American Sailors were fair game and kidnapped them. That was one of the principal reasons for that war. Now what did the Royal Marines do when Iran Kidnapped their sailors in borad daylight last year? Rolled over and played dead, that's what.
Slavery was abolished by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution shortly after Lincoln's assassination.
You can't put up with....? That's really funny. My laugh for the day. I suggest if you don't like my postings, don't read them. OTOH, if you feel that everything ever said on this blog must conform to the way you understand history, you have a lot of typing ahead of you. I have no problem correcting your mistakes when then need it badly enough. The others...I just let pass by.
Complain about this comment
Marcus AureliusII
I know you like to make sure mistakes are corrected so I know you won't mind if I correct your post No. 130.
robcrufurd was only off by 4 years not about 50. (Although I must say that for you to pick up on that is a very cheap shot worthy only of a desperate person floundering to come up with a meaningful response)
In the interests of accuracy Queen Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837 and slavery was abolished in the British colonies in 1833. 1837 - 1833 = 4. Simple enough maths really. Of course the abolitionist movement didn't cease in 1833 as slavery still existed in many other parts of the world and so it the campaign continued well into Vctorian times.
If we are to have this debate then lets at least get the basic facts correct.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII @ #130
>The British felt American Sailors were fair game and kidnapped them
The British actually only target naturalised American citizens, which considering the large numbers of Royal Navy deserters and others carrying false papers aboard British ships seems a more reasonable action. However, what you've attempted to do is draw attention away from the real issue. All that the British want is the right to check the registration of ships to make sure they're not flying false colours, noting more. The Americans refuse that right for reasons of pure pride, then fail to make the naval contribution necessary to compensate for it.
Your point about slavery ending after the Civil War (four years, by the way, after even Russia, the most backward agrarian state in Europe, had finally freed her serfs) only further demonstrates the muddied waters between the two sides during the conflict. The Emancipation Proclamation is viewed as a cheap tactic by many sectors of British public opinion precisely because it fails to emancipate slaves over whom Lincoln has control.
I'm under no illusions that I'll change your mind over any of these issues. My comments are more for those reading, who might be tempted to accept your myopic views as the truth, rather than the product of a biased and inflexible interpretation. Incidentally:
>Why don't you tell us how much Europe did for... Latin America (#103)
Perhaps you'd like to investigate the role of the Albion Legion, or Lord Cochrane, or George Canning. Alternatively, you might accept the judgement of the 1926 Pan-American Centennial Congress that "there was no battlefield in the War of Independence on which British blood was not shed".
Complain about this comment
Dear God, do you think we could all stick to the point, which I believe was the very interesting question about the Tories position on Europe come the next general election? This prolonged slanging match regarding the deficiencies of one another's understanding of European / American history is pointless (though I sympathise with the corrections - most irritating to have history rewritten on either side).
My view on the matter at hand is that the media and indeed the Labour party are a little behind hand on the public mood. The context has changed and Europe is no longer the election loser that it was, say, ten years ago. The Tories can and will claim the moral high ground in a way they couldn't with Iraq.
I believe the Europe question will serve them Tories well at the next election. Not perhaps as a major issue in its own right, but as part of a wider point: the message will be that the Tories are against Big Government of all types; against the ever-increasing infiltration of the State and interference into our lives. Anti-the bin inspectors and the over-reaching powers of the even minor council apparatchiks. Anti-the authoritarian EU. Not all the individual issues might be vote winners, but it taps into a widespread fear about Orwellian Britain and the balance between civil liberties and authoritarianism.
In the Thatcher era, there was a sense of too much individualism post 'the death of community'. Now there is a growing unease at the lack of individual freedoms which would feed into a mildly Greater Euro - sceptic campaign.
A question, Mark: I am interested to understand what all these 'severely annoyed' leaders can actually DO to the UK or indeed a bolshie UK Government? Especially one with a massive popular mandate (assuming the Tories have one (I believe odds to be on my side)). If the EU are intransigent and we are intransigent...stalemate...or what? I'd have thought the Tories would have quite a significant power in their back-pocket simply by threatening to go to the people and ask them about Europe: Eurocrats fear disunity more than almost anything and there's nothing worse than someone not wanting to be in your club any more because it makes the club look, well, crap.
Moreover, by 2010, we might be in an interesting time in the cycle of European governments. Sarkozy isn't exactly Mr Popular over in France and with the worsening economic situation, there may well be national politics which have consequences for all the present incumbents at the head of Europe. It'd be great to hear a little future-casting in that direction.
Complain about this comment
RatchettPatchettII
It is of course our EU leaders who are off topic nowadays. They have refused to accept that the Lisbon treaty is dead and are behaving as though the Treaty can be saved.
I think the mood on Europe has changed. Labour and the Lib Dems have shown that they cannot be trusted to keep their word on supporting a referendum on the Constitution, simply because EU leaders have changed the name but not the substance of the document. This can play very well for the Tories at the next General Election.
I agree that the EU is not a vote winner for the Tories on its own: Labour are doing that job for them with their incompetance, their economic mismanagement and their betrayal of the low paid by the abolition of the 10p tax band. Labour have lost the trust of the British people.
As for how a future Tory Govt might play their hand with the EU in 2010, only time will tell. Much will depend on the circumstances of the time but they are likely to have strong hand.
Complain about this comment
Well said busby2, what happens in the next few years is truly interesting, I just hope that Cameron is not simply in the pocket of the morons currently trying to create their European dream at every bodies cost. We'll see as as the French and Germans still seem to want to export their WWII guilt in their bizarre attempt to claim compromise is the future, which it never has been.
Complain about this comment
113. At 00:01am on 01 Jul 2008, Menedemus wrote:
Named-Erion @110
Legal Immigrants are fine by me and are to be welcomed.
-----------------------------please then specify what you call illegal and legal Immigrants. And why are legal Immigrants fine by you and to be welcomed but illegal immigrants not? In most cases Illegal immigrants are the ones that are the most desperate ones to immigrate due to different social issues, such as war and extreme poverty. It is the racist media that picks up on the vulnerable, because they have no legal of social protection, where I seriously can?t see any humane reason, or logical why that should be the case.----------------------------------
However, my comment specifically used the phrase ILLEGAL immigrants and my point was that, if they commit crime in the United Kingdom they are not United Kingdom criminals but illegal immigrant criminals. A subtle difference but a difference from your LEGAL immigrants that you defend from me unnecessarily.
-------------------------------------------I was not defending unnecessarily the legal immigrants, but i don?t agree with the concept. legal immigrants also are people, and as such they to do have among them people who commit crimes. Illegal immigrants in UK don?t commit more crime than any other community proportionally, even though they are the ones that have the hardest life.---------------------------------------
That notwithstanding your third paragraph "The times when immigrants passed many countries to claim asylum in the UK is actually over as well, that does not happen, it has happened only for a few years when it was exactly because the UK industry needed this people, and they landed here not because they where allowed to by other European countries, but because it was British Government policy to bring them to fill the gap in jobs." is absolute balderdash!
There are still huge numbers of ILLEGAL immigrants queuing at Calais (and other Northern France ports as far west as Cherbourg) simply waiting to sneak into the United Kingdom. Did someone wave a magic wand and they mysteriously appear there or, is it more likely that they have travelled overland through France and other EU Nations to the East and West of France if not directly through France's southern ports. Whatever their route taken to Northern France, these immigrants are neither legal nor welcome in the United Kingdom but the other EU States are guilty of passing them through and onto the United Kingdom without offering them sanctuary as they perhaps should be - given the first sentence of your comment - or better still returning them to their countries of origin.
-----------------------------------------------------First of all since they are in France you can not consider them illegal immigrants of the UK, and secondly, the ones that do make it here, are not illegal immigrants, but asylum -seekers, there is a difference, when an Indian comes here to study and breaks the visa and starts working in the black market, then he is an illegal immigrant, but when someone from Iraq comes here, that is running from a war, specially one the UK contributes in, he is not an illegal, or unwelcomed immigrant, but he claims asylum and he then is legally allowed to stay in the country until his country is safe to return to.
But still France gets more than UK share of immigrants that come into Europe, and according to your theory then all Immigrants that run from war or extreme poverty should all stay in Greece or Italy, or Spain, cause that?s were they all first arrive in Europe.--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm astonished you even dare suggest that the UK wants ILLEGAL immigrants or has ever wanted illegal immigrants because the UK Industry wanted them!
-- --------------------------------------------------------Don?t be astonished at all, that was before Poland and other European countries joined the European Union, and the fact that all illegal immigrants found jobs in the UK means that the Industry needed them.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are happy to invite EU (and rest of world) LEGAL immigrants to work in our country but we do not in any way want illegal immigrants to reach us let alone travel through the rest of Europe to get to us.
-----------------------------------------------------------Again get your facts straight, you should start learning what is Legal immigrant, what?s Illegal, what's asylum seeker. And why do you talk in the name of WE, who WE?
An Illegal Immigrant, that?s for your information is someone who has come into this country with a Visa or legal permit to stay and overstayed the Visa or the Legal permit, and continues to work in this country.
The people you so much want out of your own (it seems ) country are people like I said that want to run from war and hunger, and they are by no means illegal, every country in the world has legal obligation to allow them to stay. And they do stay legally, not illegally, and they have no right to employment.
Where does such unwelcome feeling towards this people come from?-------------------
Complain about this comment
Rob Craufurd
Considering that many European countries existed for over a thousand years before America was born, the fact that it was only a few decades behind many of them in abolishing slavery is rather amazing. And it wasn't long afterwards that America caught up and passed all of the European countries in every meaningful way. Now they try to glue themselves together in some artifical construct to create some sort of continental entity that can deal with America on equal terms. How pathetic. And how futile. Europe will never understand why America has beaten it so badly. Even Sir Christopher Meyers showed in his interview on BBC that he didn't understand what America is about. That's the fun of it. As Americans we can watch Europe, but it takes stronger and stronger binoculars to still keep it in view and its din grows ever fainter. I'm probably among a small minority of Americans that actually bothers to pay attention to it.
Complain about this comment
126 Buzet23
I appreciate these concerns. I feel however that in our current political climate, the full story is not being told; and that there is not enough compromise...
What are your views on the Germn system?
Unfortunately, First Past The Post is giving the government so much leverage they can ignore the will of the people and renege on manifestoes.
Asking the politicians to clean up their act doesn't work.
So what do we do unless other parties are made viable? (rather than 2 or 3 party systems, which seem to be stagnating our politics of late...)
Complain about this comment
robcraufurd #115
More grist for the mill;
"Europe ... By creating common standards that are implemented through national institutions, Europe can spread its influence without becoming a target for hostility."
Then read this from BBC;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7482767.stm
"Mercosur condemns EU migrant law
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the Mercosur meeting in Argentina that Europe had "legalised barbarism".
But it was the EU rules passed last month that truly united the South American leaders in anger at the gathering in the northern city of Tucuman, says the BBC's Daniel Schweimler in Argentina.
In a joint declaration, they rejected "every effort to criminalise irregular migration and the adoption of restrictive immigration policies, in particular against the most vulnerable sectors of society, women and children".
The statement also noted "the necessity to fight against racism, discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance".
It was signed by the seven presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela, and ministers from associate Mercosur members Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa called the EU measures "shameful".
Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva branded the law "outrageous, ignominious".
Bolivian leader Evo Morales said the measures did nothing to combat racism.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said the law was inadmissible.
Uruguay's leader Tabare Vazquez said: "Nobody emigrates for fun, they do it out of necessity.""
Oh the EU has influence all right. It just alienated the entire continent of South America and central and North America up through Mexico.
Note, these condemnations are not my words but those of elected leaders of nations in Latin America. This as reported by BBC itself. Well Europhiles, what do you have to say to that?
Complain about this comment
I'm not going to defend the actions of the barbaric government of China but considering where it came from in just the last 30 years and the monumental problems it faces today, it has made remarkable progress. It has a long way to go but nobody can say things haven't changed for the better in many ways. Here's one more place BBC and Europe knows little about. Even less than it knows about the US if that is possible. Again from BBC;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7313998.stm
"But others said they thought the BBC displayed an anti-Chinese bias and a lack of cultural understanding."
"You BBC should know better about China," John Zheng from Shandong province wrote in.
"The reporters in China should learn more about Chinese social life, furthermore about Chinese culture. It is not complete just to explain things in your pre-formed point of view. Chinese society works better in our own way," he continued.
Do most Chinese feel this way towards Europe? Look at the recent reaction in China towards France. Well there's one more place Europeans have written off. Just 1.25 billion people, about a fifth of the population of the world.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius,
I see Europian Union as a necesity for Europe,as the best way individual Europian countries can face up to challenges of the future,by being united, but i see also that many things are going wrong.
The shamefull,racist,disgusting law that will allow authorities to lock up people simply for being Ilegal immigrants is not for human beings.
America is about Democracy,It was Americas Democracy that brought to humanity and established around the world the respect for human rights,freedom of speach,the choise of every individual to live their life the way they want protected by law,the respect and protection of the law for every minority,the comfortable life,by standarts never seen before,the endless fights and victories against totalitarian and dictatorial regimes,the spread of democracy to other peoples of the world,the spread of Democracy to Western Europe,which brought it out of poverty and to the best standarts of living,the help it gave to Eastern Europe to free itself from the chains of Communism,and the help is giving the Eastern Europe to strengthen its democracy.America is the Guardian of everything that is good about the values of democracy.
America is not Against Europian Union,it is in fact America that made Europian union enlarge towards the east,and is America that is giving Europe the best ideas for going sucsesfully foward.
Europian Union is not against America nither,Britain is Pro-American, Eastern Europe is Pro-American,even France is starting to realise the importance of America,with Sarkozy being very friendly lately.
Complain about this comment
Hi Need4Reality,
You mentioned "I feel however that in our current political climate, the full story is not being told; and that there is not enough compromise..."
You're spot on about the full story not being told, but I don't think it is the electoral system that is t fault, it's the politicians. In Belgium there are an amazing number of parties, split into the Flemish and Wallon, but excepting the obvious fanatics there is little difference between any of them. The only way to kick this club is to vote fanatic, which is bth abhorent and dangerous. At least in the first past the post system there is a small chance as long as there truly is a difference between the leaders of the parties.
"What are your views on the Germn system?"
I worked in Germany 11 years back but know very little of their electoral system other than everything they try to do is done by concensus, at work or esewhere. This can function but I found the concensus method a bit limiting at work as it was resistant to changes, especially if the direction decided on was flawed or new events happened. If their party politics is like this then it is the resistance to change part that will be it's down side. NB. a bit like the current EU direction problems I suspect.
Complain about this comment
@suffolkboy (121)
indeed, the news from Austria is very encouraging. At last politicians seem to wake up to the fact that (at least in 'old' memberstates) opposition to further political integration may well be an election winner.
Here's the slogan we should use: YES to friendship, YES to economic cooperation, YES to good relations, YES to democratic sovereignty and thus NO to further political integration.
Could the attempt to ram through the Lisbon treaty have been the high water mark of political integration? I certainly hope so.
Complain about this comment
Named-arion
America could no more make the EU expand to include other nations than a foreign country could make America accept Puerto Rico as a state. One nation does not MAKE another nation do anything except by military force.
The EU is not against America? It seems to me the EU is not of one mind. But it was clear from both what Schroeder and Chirac said BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ that they (especially the French government) wanted the EU to be a force which would "challenge" America. Well he got his wish. Don't think those millions of angry Europeans they incited marching in the streets didn't get noticed by Americans and cause a backlash. After the sacrifice Americans made during the 20th century to protect European independence and freedom, the anger at betrayal over Europe's cynical unwillingness to allow that America was going to protect its own security is a crime for which Europe will not be forgiven for a very long time. Remember, at the time, almost all governments believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDS. The then recent European words of sympathy over 9-11 rang hollow as many West Europeans almost seemed to want to see America attacked while their governments cynically turned a blind eye to some of their most prominent citizens raking in millions in personal profits circumventing the UN sanctions. As for Sarkozy, I don't trust him as far as I could throw the Eiffel Tower. When policy towards America and the invasion of Iraq was at issue, Chirac told the East Europeans who were at the time applying for accession that if they didn't either agree with him or remain silent, he would block their admittance to the EU. For people on a continent where grudges can last for many centuries, it shouldn't be expected that Americans would forget what happened after only 6 years even with their notoriously short memories and affable nature.
Like it or not, in many ways except militarily of course, Europe and US are already at war with each other. As allies in the war on terror, Europeans are of dubious value and questionable loyalty. In all other areas such as trade, their interests are antithetical. How nice to know that as time passes, they become an increasingly weak competitor with or without an EU constitution. And how encouraging to know that the weaker they get, the more deluded they become that they aren't.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
We supported the USA after the attacks of 11th September. That is why we backed the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan who provided the safe haven and go ahead for those attacks. Remind me, weren't we fully involved with you at that time? And at the same time remind me if there were any NATO allies who opposed the overthrow of the Taliban. By the way, I supported the action in Afghanistan.
The Taliban and Al qaeda, whom they protected and supported, were a real threat to the security of the western world. Saddam however was not. He was a busted flush after the first Gulf War and did not pose a threat to his neighbours or the western world. He had lost control of the Iraqi Kurdistan and the no fly zone kept him very firmly under control. It was all Saddam could do to remain in power which he did by suggesting to his people that he was more powerful than he was.
Saddam was also a secular muslim and a sworn enemy of Al qaeda. Iraq under Saddam was also a sworn enemy of Iran.
So how was Iraq under Saddam a threat to the USA, Marcus? Saddam had after all caved into all the demands of the weapons inspectors in face of the threat of war.
Millions of people like me opposed the Iraq war because we did not consider it to be justified.
It seems that millions of Americans are now of the same view.
The invasion of Iraq has caused a bloody civil war and insurrection that has cost thousands of American and allied lives. And for what benefit? The war has greatly strengthened Al qaeda and Iran and, above all, the invasion and the disasterous aftermath has resulted in the USA taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan. Al qaeda and the Taliban have taken the opportunity to regroup and attack in Afghanistan whilst precious resources, both military and financial, have been wasted in Iraq.
I was extemely thankful to hear that your top military commander speaking out against any possibility of opening a third front. With Americans like him providing sound advice like that, the world will be a safer place.
Iran is not a threat: they know if they do anything really stupid, they will pay the most terrible price. And they aren't stupid. It just remains for America to show common sense which they have so far.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
to comment 141
'America is about Democracy,It was Americas Democracy that brought to humanity and established around the world the respect for human rights,freedom of speach,the choise of every individual to live their life the way they want protected by law,the respect and protection of the law for every minority,the comfortable life,by standarts never seen before'
Wow. Are you crazy? Go back less than 50 years, in the states. Google the name Luther-King. See what the 'states' was not so long ago.
Complain about this comment
Marcusaurelius.
I did not say America forced the expansion of the E.U but America suported it ,and it was America that made it posible,Without America Europe would still be devided.
It was America that saved other posible world wars at the hart of Europe with its intervention in the Balcans.It is America that is sugesting the best options for the way foward,such us the inclussion of Turkey (which by the way is crossroads of all gas and oil routes to Europe,and market routes as well,and Europe is going to need Turkey even more then it needs Russia one day) into the EU for which there is no logical reason to oposse.
I must tell you that personally i am not even from a country in the Europian Union,and i dont wish my country to be part of the European union from my hart,but my logic tell me there is no other way foward for the Europian continent.
And if you think about it,without a strong Europe,there will not be a strong America.
If like you say that Europian Union is against America and already at war with America (which i totaly disagree anyway),i would like to tell you that you would be surprised how many Europeans (specially eastern Europeans) ,would be taking up arms for America and not the European Union.
And i would be one of them.
Complain about this comment
In the UK we have to accept the fact that the EU exists and we are part of it. I was shocked to find comments from people who thought that completely withdrawing from the EU would be good for the UK.
The EU will not collapse if the UK decides to withdraw, it will continue making policies that, although will not apply to the UK, will affect us indirectly, soley because of our geographical proximity.
Surely it is better to be a member in order to have some control over its direction. To be in a position where we can take what we want and leave the rest. That is more to our advantage than having no say and suffering the consequences of any laws the EU does pass that might effect the UK indirectly.
Even if you are in favour of disbanding the EU completely (i am not) surely it would be much easy to do it as a powerful member from within, rather than a lone, rouge state acting from the outside.
What is written above is my argument against the view that the UK should withdraw from the EU. My personal view is that although i have doubts over some aspects of the EU i feel that with the right guidance and correct desicion making, we (as Europe) can make it into something that could benefit us all without having to lose all national identity and become one nation of "Europeans".
Complain about this comment
To mcs503
The EU has no direction. It is pure flim-flam.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS