Treaty puzzle not yet solved
The Irish prime minister is nothing if not expressive in his body language. During the summit I've seen him amid a throng of other leaders and suddenly left alone, turning from left to right, not seeming to know what to do. I've seen him talking to other heads of government, clutching his head and waving his arms. One can't help feeling sorry for him at his first summit as Irish leader. At his final news conference he said it was his responsibility to find a way to move forward and added "Is it possible, can I do it?"
If he doesn't know, I certainly don't. But what has this summit produced? Of course, more time for Cowen. Of course, no definite path. Had they come up with a cunning plan or given Cowen 24 hours to find a solution it would have been truly astonishing.
But given the gut French and German reaction to the vote a week ago today, the conclusions are bland and mild. It notes the result, notes 17 countries have backed the treaty and agree more time is needed to analyse the situation and agree to "Ireland's suggestion to come back to this issue" in October.
Brian Cowen has already identified eight issues which were behind the No vote. Some fears, like those over defence, might be soothed away by a declaration that the EU has no plans to force Ireland into a euro-army. Others, like the size of the commission, could be dealt with by the agreement of other countries. Some, like the Irish voting weight, could not be altered without reopening the whole thing - a horrifying thought all parties have ruled out. But, leaving aside the legitimacy of such a move, could enough be done to change the voters' minds?
Although everyone is being very nice and kind at the moment, they won't be if Mr Cowen returns in October and says "sorry, no can do".
But what of my benchmarks at the beginning of the summit? Deadline ...October is not a deadline, and those arguing for a rush forward have not raised their voices. But many want this over before next June's European elections and I think the autumn summit will have a greater air of urgency.
Franco-German position and enlargement: The French and Germans do appear united and are saying the EU cannot get any bigger without a new treaty. This is a traditional threat to aim at the eastern countries and the UK.
Czechs: In the end a special "footnote" was added for the Czechs, noting that ratification is before the courts in their country.
That's it for the moment: maybe more next week when the dust settles.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I have a feeling that Sarkozy and Merkel will soon be doing a U-turn on Croatia. If the probability is of a 2nd and even louder Irish NO, then they may conclude they need to transplant the changes they really want most (e.g. on voting weights and legal personality) from the carcass of Lisbon into an accession treaty for Croatia and have this ratified by the Irish parliament.
Complain about this comment
As I understand it all 27 member states have to ratify this treaty, and Ireland are the only country to ask its people.
It seems though that the people's 'no' vote is unacceptable to the EU heavyweights, who are now trying intimidation to get their way.
I was under the impression that the EU was a democratic organisation, yet it appears they hold democracy in contempt.
What next for the EU? Employ Robert Mugabe as EU special envoy to Ireland?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
"But, leaving aside the legitimacy of such a move, could enough be done to change the voters' minds?"
Are you questioning the legitimacy of renegotiating the treaty, or asking the voters to try again for a differnt answer?
Complain about this comment
Mark said about the Franco-German position and enlargement that "the French and Germans do appear united and are saying the EU cannot get any bigger without a new treaty. This is a traditional threat to aim at the eastern countries and the UK".
What interests me is whether the French and Germans share the views of their leaders. After all, the French gave a resounding Non to the constitution. And what do the majority of Germans think about all this?
Complain about this comment
''Franco-German position and enlargement: The French and Germans do appear united and are saying the EU cannot get any bigger without a new treaty.''
It seems to me the French and Germans are doing exactly the same they accused the Irish 'No' campaign of: fear mongering. Yes, the European Union can't survive without serious reform but do we need Lisbon to achieve that reform? The most prefered option to solve the current crisis is to reopen negotiations about Lisbon. The other, less prefered, option is to declare Lisbon dead and cut her in pieces: vital reforms will be included in the accesion treaties of Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey. This means these reforms will be ratified when Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey will join the European Union. We still have more then one option.
Complain about this comment
Today I found myself in agreement with the FN here in France, when they said (apropos the Irish "No" vote): "the people of Europe don't want a "eurocracy".
That, to me, is the crux of the matter. I believe in the EU - but then I was born before WW2 and witnessed the Blitz first-hand, so I would welcome a strong political union between the nations of Europe. Anyone in the UK born after WW2 hasn't felt the effects ( and after-effects) of 'total war', when everyone - but everyone - and everything is dedicated to the war effort; then paying for it.
The EU needs something better, neater, tidier, than the "Lisbon Treaty": but don't ask a politician to design it!
Complain about this comment
Does anyone really think that it is only the EU that keeps the countries of Europe from tearing each other to pieces?
Seriously, anyone?
Complain about this comment
Mark, EU leaders really don't see the chasm between them and normal people, do they?
Complain about this comment
"Brian Cowen has already identified eight issues which were behind the No vote"
You mentioned defence, size of the Commission and voting weights.
But what were the others please?
Complain about this comment
Re 7: "Does anyone really think that it is only the EU that keeps the countries of Europe from tearing each other to pieces?"
I don't think the EU is sufficient to keep peace, but it is certainly necessary. Had the EU been more swift in offering Yugoslavia incentives in the late 1980's the whole Balkan wars could have been avoided. On the other hand, a strong EU may allow its large countries such as Spain, Germany, UK, even France (!) to split along regional lines by granting more autonomy, if not outright statehood. Under an EU umbrella, you can bet this would happen more peacefully. At the end of the day, people want to be ruled by as local as possible entities. I don't see why an inhabitant of Galicia, or Scotland, would prefer Madrid, or London, to Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Mark
I do not see why it is a threat to suggest no more enlargement without reform. One of the reasons the EU has got into the mess it is currently in is precisely because it enlarged before reforming its institutions and precedures. It started during the run up to Amsterdam, continued to Nice and ended with the Constitutional Treaty -post enlargement. This was against the backcloth of the end of the Cold war and the EU expanding to 15, then 25 and now 27.
Nor do I see the issue of asking the Irish electorate again as being of dubious democratic legitimacy. On dubious political wisdom perhaps. On that logic we should question the legitimacy of asking the people to vote every so often in parliamentary elections. Asking the Irish to vote again is high risk not only from the perspective of those who might favour a yes vote but equally importantly it is very high risk indeed for the Cowen government putting it forward. In other words the political careers of the present Irish leadership. A gamble they will not take during the next couple of years at least. Forcing or pressuring the Irish to vote again in the near future is therefore unlikely to work and could result in yet another no which is not in the interests of anybody, including the French and German governments not to mention the other governments who see reform as imperative.
Temporary separation is the only politicially sensible solution. Law and political needs and realities in international affairs tend to have a close relationship.
Complain about this comment
No to political union, yes to free trade!
Complain about this comment
The Czechs have a great tradition of resisting megalomaniac empires. They resisted the Austrians in the First World War and the Nazis in the second. Some of them fought with the Afghans against the Soviets in Afghanistan. That we allowed the Soviets to have Poland and Czechoslovakia after WWII is a disgrace.
Czechs!!! Please help us now!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
How can these politicians be so obtuse? Do they really think that they can push this all through the back door and people will simply let it pass without any backlash?
Why can't Europe play to its strengths? The real benefits of the EU as seen by the citizens are due to the strong and binding ties between sovereign member states. What people object to really strongly is when laws are imposed on them from outside for no other reason than "harmonization", or because somebody who has never even been to the UK has decided that they know is what is best for UK citizens. The EU is invaluable as an arbiter between its members, smoothing negotiation and providing a set of trans-European rights.
The problem is that the EU has this strong desire to meddle in the domestic politics of the member states. This is where it is weakest and it is the issue that will turn the citizens of Europe away from the EU. The French and Dutch rejections of the constitution were clear: the French and Dutch don't trust the Euro-politicians to run their countries any more than we Brits do. Even our local and national governments seem out of touch with us. Why on earth would we expect what is essentially a foreign government to be more sensitive to our needs?
The more I think about it, the more the US model seems attractive: a small number of very specific powers are granted to a central body and everything else that isn't explicitly mentioned is solely the remit of the member states. There is no room for "rights-creep", without amendments to the constitution, so everybody knows where they are and where they are headed. Contrast that with the proposed EU constitution, in which the EU had a whole spectrum of different powers, from exclusive domain, through strong influence, right down to "some influence". The whole system was set up (probably deliberately) to allow a gradual migration of powers to the EU without requiring any structural changes. Everybody in the EU would be expecting EU powers to grow in areas which were not originally entirely reserved to the EU in the constitution.
What the EU-crats don't understand is that the people are not rejecting the constitution and treaty because of specific issues. They are rejecting it due to lack of trust. Nobody has really spelled out clearly where these agreements would leave us and more importantly, where they would leave us heading. Most people suspect (quite rightly) that the powers handed over to the EU now would only be the beginning of a gradual sucking of sovereignty away from the nation states. If the EU wanted to earn the trust of its people, it would have to draw strict boundaries around the issues that are handled at EU level and those that are handled by the member states, with an agreement that any moving of the boundaries would involve renegotiating the treaties. So far, this is something that they have been absolutely unwilling to do.
Complain about this comment
The Irish and the Czechs are not the problem. Brown, Blair, Miliband, Sarkozy, Merkel and their fellow conspiritors are the problem.
Complain about this comment
As a Irish citizen, I was delighted to be able to express my opinion on the Lisbon Treaty. I was originally in the 'Yes Camp'. However, I am against voting again. Should it come to that I will be voting against it.
I am insulted at the thought of some people suggesting a 'two-speed Europe'. It's the European Union, not the European segregation.
I agree that all countries should complete ratification but without any political bullying or fear mongering. This will help guide the EU forward in an uncertain future. And for once, the eurocrats should listen to the people of Europe for a change and for change.
Complain about this comment
StevieT28 wrote: "The more I think about it, the more the US model seems attractive:"
The American system saw the rise of Bush...
The Lisbon system will see the rise of Brown, Blair, Miliband, Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi, seemingly the Pope too (who by the way is very enthusiastic..)
The British system sees Brown apparently flouting the laws and constitution of Britain.
All three seem in dire need of amendment.
I think the Czechs should certainly not ratify while Austria give sanctuary to that Old Nazi general who killed thousands of their people!
They keep telling me this isn't the fourth reich; and yet the EU allows Nazi war criminals to live in luxury and bullies those who fought against Nazi tyranny into granting them sovereignty over our people.
"The Irish and the Czechs are not the problem."
No but the EU harbouring Nazi war criminals is.
The ECHR ruled that the English monarchy should be open to Catholicism; and yet does not think it best to put War Criminals on trial!
It seems that the 'Holy Roman Empire' is very much alive and kicking; and that we may perhaps be fighting for democracy in the wrong places.
Afghanis are not imposing a police state in the UK; it seems rather the EU backed British parliament.
There is a backlog of public enquiry
'Common Purpose' must be stopped!
This site was started in response to the reportedly covert take over of councils and institutions.
http://www.stopcp.com/cpsummary.php
Common Purpose is also trying to establish a presence in the USA.
Complain about this comment
I enjoy reading this blog, because of all the Eurosceptic crap you can read here (specially in the comments).
I tell you, it makes me laugh a lot, the non-sense, racism, ignorance and lack of vision of the anti-euro folks.
There is no 'puzzle', the treaty will be ratified even if the Irish, Czechs, poles or anybody else needs to be expelled from the EU.
I would much rather enjoy a political-military Union of only Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, Portugal, Denmark, Spain, Greece, UK and Finland. The Swedes, Irish, Czechs and Poles better stay out of the Union.
Complain about this comment
"There is no 'puzzle', the treaty will be ratified even if the Irish, Czechs, poles or anybody else needs to be expelled from the EU."
It's written in black and white, all 27 member states must ratify the treaty.
If Europe was to become a "political-military Union", I would also rather we stayed out of it too. We're not a war mongering state and we'd like to keep it that way.
Complain about this comment
cryptomate wrote: ''The Swedes, Irish, Czechs and Poles better stay out of the Union.''
Well don't hold anything back Mr Cryptomate, is there anything else you would like to get off your chest?
''There is no 'puzzle', the treaty will be ratified even if the Irish, Czechs, poles or anybody else needs to be expelled from the EU.''
No there is indeed, no puzzle.
But what do you mean by '...or anybody else'?
...do you mean Britain?
You would please the anti-EU crowd, very much, Sir.
Any more nations you would lke to exclude?
It is indeed laughable, that with one breath the pro-Lisbon crowd would expel x, y and z and still maintain that this is proposed to unite Europe.
And use insults, aimed at nation states, presumably to promote peace in Europe.
Interesting tactic.
Complain about this comment
The Irish vote against Lisbon is further vindication as if any was needed for Ireland's breaking away from the UK. Clearly the UK would not have represented the wishes of the majority of Irish voters. We don't know what the majority of UK voters would have, they haven't been given the chance to tell the government what they want them to do. That is the difference between democracy and dictatorship. In a democracy the people dictate to the government what it is to do, in a dictatorship it is the government which tells the people what they must endure.
Complain about this comment
This is an actual question:
Can the EU legally expand to more than 27 member states? Doesn't the Maastricht(?) Treaty limit the EU to at most 27?
[If this is a stupid question(s), be kind. :-)]
Complain about this comment
When France and the Netherlands voted no, everything ground to a halt. The treaty was re-written (although we know this is a total con).
But when Ireland says no, this is unacceptable and they are told they must vote again (until they give the right answer).
There's no point talking about a two-tier system. It seems we already have one. One rule for the big countries, and a different one for the smaller ones.
This shameful exercise shows us that this EU monster isn't just undemocratic. It's anti-democratic.
Complain about this comment
Elsewhere on this site I read:
'Yet that most definitely was Mr Barroso's message, reminding everyone that EU citizens are really concerned about the surge in food and fuel prices - and expect EU leaders to deliver. Citizens need an EU "bridge over troubled water", he said.'
Mr. Barrosso appears to be pretending to be interested in "citizens" concerns but the plain fact is that he ignores the wishes of the 80% of Brits who want a referendum on the Lisbon wotsit and the 70% who want to vote NO as well as the concerns of other "citizens" in other "EU" countries who don't want it and of those who don't want Turkey in the "EU".
So his "concern" for our concerns is probably just manipulative claptrap - a ploy.
One way to help "citizens" to deal with higher food prices would be to abolish the "EU" altogether so that the billions wasted could be spent on food by those "EU citizens." Mr. Barrosso could do something useful for once and go fruit picking.
As regards the higher fuel prices:
It is hitting my business but I welcome it. It will result in us all using less fuel.
As for: 'Citizens need an EU "bridge over troubled water" ' BULLFEATHERS!
We don't need the "EU". We don't need Mr. Barrosso. It has no moral right to exist. When it claims to represent us it does not. It is a monster out of control. We in the UK are the victims of a stealth-putsch. Although it has been less stealthy as late. They have become so arrogant that they think they can do without any serious subterfuge any more.
Complain about this comment
Are there any opinion polls available as to how the Irish would vote if required to vote again?
What about the UK and other countries? Has the staggering arrogance of Merkel, Sarkozy and others turned them even more against the "EU"?
Complain about this comment
Do they think we are going to defend it?
Complain about this comment
People tend to forget that the rejection of the previous treaty (Nice) by France and Holland was primarily a reaction against the enlargement of the EU. Enlargement was championed by Blair and British politicians in a move to scuttle any further integration of the EU-15 and downplay the EU role to a trading bloc.
The circle cannot be squared again. The Rome, Nice and Lisbon treaties require member states to move to closer integration but British politicians and press continue to campaign against this.
The majority of EU states have signed up for Lisbon. If the remaining countries (including the UK) cannot meet this requirement they should be relegated to a second division with limited membership. This will allow Europe to move on and play an influential role in the world whilst allowing Britain to remain safely locked up in its imperial museum .
Complain about this comment
StevieT28: The US model enumerated certain powers/responsibilities to their union, leaving all else to their member states or their people. Their union has had ever increasing centralisation since 1861; de facto “rights-creep” has happened either through high court rulings or through remuneration to member states for opting-in to union legislation.
cryptomate: Perhaps there are numerous Europeans who share the vision of ever closer union, but do not believe that this vision would justify any possible means to achieve that end ?
AnonymousCalifornian: Yes, the EU are able to expand beyond 27 member states. Title VII., Article O of Maastricht states that Any European State may apply to become a Member of the Union. You might have been thinking of one of the protocols of Nice, where once the EU had 27 member states, that the Commission would no longer be guaranteed at least one member from each member state.
Fifteen years on, reflection upon Title I., Article A of Maastricht could be worthwhile: This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen. Are decisions taken by national parliaments as close as possible to the citizen ?
Complain about this comment
15 StevieT28
You say it very gently and precisely .
Well Done !!!
Trust is the key word !!! The peoples lack of trust in the EU . As with a woman who says NO !!! Of course she means Yes , is the attitude of the EU .
The EU has grown into a massive organisation , with not enough to do , other than build itself bigger , stronger , all powerful . It has to take over the member states to justify and continue its existense in its present form .
The EU has become a runaway " Gravy train ". How would one ever stop it and completely restructure it ; to loosely combining a group of totaly self governing sovereign states , in friendship and freedom of movement within those states . You do not have to make every country the same . I was taught , " Do as The Romans Do ". I am widely travelled and respect the law , customs and way of life in the countries I visit , or live in . Such a restructure would probably cause the loss of a lot of jobs , the bureaucrats at Brussells , members of the European Parliament , the Commission !!! Sack them all , sell off or demolish all the EU buildings , let every country return to its own original money , return the gold from the central bank and close that down as well .
The EU should recognise that East European countries have not long ago escaped from the clutches of the Soviet Union ; they are not wanting to find themselves trapped and equaly without sovereignty in the European Union .
It is my belief that these countries see safety in western Europe , but ally themselves more to the United States of America .
I say again Trust is the key word , or Lack of it . If you give The EU an inch , it takes a mile . How long is a piece of string ? Thanks we'll take the whole ball !
Complain about this comment
19 Cryptomate
Please can you exclude the UK from your list acceptable members .
Complain about this comment
To answer #4: The Germans are massively against more nations who only join because they are after Germany`s money, but otherwise only add trouble. They are going to buy German products anyway.
The French certainly don`t connect at all to those east European weirdos who don`t speak French and eat disgusting stuff.
This is now heading for a core Europe. I won`t be surprised if we have a United States of Europe with 15-20 members in 10 years. I find this the only honest way out. Europe needs to unite and cannot be held hostage by some 150.000 Irish or 1 British judge (or whoever comes next). This system is broken and needs replacement.
It`s already clear that this crisis is bringing France and Germany even closer which must be the British europhobes`worst nightmare. The europhobes have clearly overplayed their cards.
And the Czechs may be difficult, but they are eternal appeasers. They didn`t fight in 1938, nor did they in 1946 or 1968. Their nation broke up in 1992 without a whimper. They seem to be only heroic when it doesn`t cost them and doesn`t delay them on the way to the pub. Let`s give them the price tag for this one.
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum1 #32:
You may think that France and Germany forging ahead together is the worst nightmare of the Europhobes (as you quaintly label the majority of the British people), but you couldn't be more wrong. By all means go your own way into some totalitarian nightmare, which like all such centrally-controlled political constructions has no chance of enduring in the long term, as I would have thought the Germans in particular would have learned from their history, but don't worry about us; we will do just fine. Perhaps you haven't noticed that Britain has succeeded throughout her history in spite of, not because of, her geographical position off the shores of Europe. We achieved this success often in direct competition with the countries on the continent like France and Germany, and did it rather well.
The ideal of a unified political Europe may appeal to many citizens like yourself, but the model currently on offer is, as you say yourself, broken, and in my view beyond repair. I doubt that the British people would vote for any replacement model either, our Island heritage has instilled in us a stubborn independent streak. A free trade association with our neighbours is about the limit of our ambitions in Europe, but our recent daliance with the EU will ensure that we check the small print very carefully indeed before signing up.
Good luck with your Prussian / Franco alliance, which if it actually succeeds will be the political marvel of the age. Please don't expect us to pick up the pieces when it falls apart though.
Complain about this comment
Post 32. At 07:57am on 21 Jun 2008, Gruenebaum1 wrote:
"To answer #4: The Germans are massively against more nations who only join because they are after Germany`s money, but otherwise only add trouble. They are going to buy German products anyway."
Not if the German products are priced out of their market. Protectionism is a two way street. German products look weak in the world outside the EU against revived Japanese and rising Chinese and Indian industrial efficiency. Manufacturing industry is not the place to be as a western country in the modern world.
"...I won`t be surprised if we have a United States of Europe with 15-20 members in 10 years.... "
A United States of Europe without the UK is a french dream. It's a German nightmare. You would be paying for the french agricultural sector on your own - or do you think the other net contributors like the Dutch (*no* to the Constitution) and the Swedes (opposed to all agricultural subsidy) will stay and help ? Good luck.
"...And the Czechs may be difficult, but they are eternal appeasers. They didn`t fight in 1938, nor did they in 1946 or 1968...."
Did they not kill Heydrich, the architect of the Final Solution ? I believe the Germans murdered a village full of Czech civilians in reprisal.
Then, of course, the East German uprising of 1953 was crushed by the USSR like the Prague Spring of 1968.
"...This system is broken and needs replacement...."
Partly right.
Complain about this comment
To chill0 (34):
"Not if the German products are priced out of their market. Protectionism is a two way street. German products look weak in the world outside the EU against revived Japanese and rising Chinese and Indian industrial efficiency. Manufacturing industry is not the place to be as a western country in the modern world."
That's not actually true. There is no reason why German or European manufacturing industries couldn't be successful and prosperous in global competition. There are also no reasons why Japanese, Chinese or Indians could manufacture something more efficiently than us Europeans. It's all about what you are manufacturing.
German and other European countries with strong manufacturing industries have more or less moved on from cheap and simple commodity production into high-tech and specialized products. High-tech in this essence means high metallurgical and material know-how, high design and embedded software and intelligence.
Now few examples of this in industrial products could be Rolls-Royce and Wärtsilä (motors and power sources), ABB (power systems, etc..), Siemens (automation and control, etc..), Aker (ship building) etc..
There are thousands of companies in Europe making high industrial goods and manufactures where the end price comes from their special know-how, insight in manufacturing and established network of suppliers and customers. It just is impossible to move a whole manufacturing network to another place. If you in example want to do luxury line ship building in some other part of the world, you have to grow the whole supplier network and that takes so much money that it's just isn't worth the trouble.
To me it sounds ludicrous to claim that there is no future for manufacturing industries in Europe or in other developed countries when what see is the contradiction of this. European manufacturers, especially companies specialized on industrial and infrastructure, are very competitive on global markets and many of them are leaders in their own fields.
Complain about this comment
R 33 MalcolmW2 wrote:
"Good luck with your Prussian / Franco alliance, which if it actually succeeds will be the political marvel of the age. Please don't expect us to pick up the pieces when it falls apart though."
Come on! go to back multimilionaire Wheeler and his judge or the Australian tycoon Murdoch, or ask to break Cameron's suspicious silence against Lisbon if he can, or build a weird bridge to Prague, but don't cross the Channel with such despective and patronizing ideas.
As a matter of politeness, we haven't mentionned Britain's role in the independence of India or Pakistan, the Apartheid in South Africa or Thatcher giving support in London to prosecuted ailing genocide Augusto Pinochet. That's all about past. We are talking about future.
Complain about this comment
Why is the failure of the EU integration plans to be accepted by the voting population used as justification for more integration?
Einstien defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
People request the EU to be more democratic and transparent. Well fine - I have nothing against that, but then the democratic decisions have to go hand-in-hand with the related responsiblities.
If the people of Ireland say no to the treaty, then they simply cannot be part of the EU as it will be from 2009 on. Thank you - you made clear your preference - good bye for now.
You let the people vote, you have to really take them serious. No means No means not part of it - which seems to be the wish of the Irish people.
I understand that the treaty currently does not forsee that only 26 states sign into it, but my best guess would be, that it should not be too complicated to reduce the number of members.
Greetings from Helsinki
Georg
Complain about this comment
SufforkBOY, calm down, you need to look at things from a more factual point of view.
1/ The EU do not decide if the UK holds a referendum, that's the job of the UK government. Research before you blame.
2/ The polling figures you claim are just made up in your mind aren't they? Struggling to understand how people could have a different opinion to you? That's the path to true ignorance. The BBC published some polling data the other day; I think the number of people here in the UK that wanted a referendum was in the 60s% (not 80% as you claim). The people who would vote ‘No’ was about 40% (not 70% as you claim) and yes about 34%.
Complain about this comment
To georgmayer (39):
Excluding or rejecting Ireland from EU because they don't accept the Lisbon Treaty would be unfair and more or less illegal under the current treaties. The Lisbon Treaty is and was about updating and streamlining EU, not being in or out of EU, thus Irish and Ireland have the same right as any other country to be part of EU.
However I think that the Irish No-vote has put EU in cross-roads. If the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified by all countries, there will be a new EU reform which will turn EU into many speed Europe. I myself think that any reform to turn EU into many speeds will lead into a situation where part of countries that won't want todays level of integration will have a de-evolutionary version of EU and those countries that want more integration will have a further evolutionary version of EU. The big thing here is that going to multiple speed Europe is the same as opening Pandora's box, nobody knows what it will have for us.
In any case, Ireland can't and shouldn't be discriminated because of their No vote to the treaty as that is not the way how EU has been built. EU is build on solidary, compromises and negotiations and thus extorting or threatening Ireland to accept the treaty is totally unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
I posted a short quote in German with my translation. The BBC will not allow me to include the German. This is my revised version:
The Wiener Kurier refers to comments by some "EU" bloke, Erhard Busek. My translation:
'On top of which we can't blame the Irish for everything . There are
other countries in which a referendum could have "gone wrong" according
to Busek.'
"GONE WRONG!!"
They know damn well we don't want it but they show no sign of
embarrassment. Not only must we get rid of the "EU", we must get rid of a whole
swathe of arrogant anti-democratic politicians which I believe means
new parties, different voting systems and more direct democracy.
Complain about this comment
betuli #36
"We are talking about the future."
Very true. But what does the future hold for Europe and for the world. IMO it looks rather bleak but especially bleak in Europe. Does it matter if 27 drowning people cling to each other or not if they can't swim? Either way they are still drowning and whichever side wins, the other will blame it for the consequences. We would have done far better as separate countries. We would have done far better as a single political and economic unity.
What are the problems facing Europe that the treaty and the EU superstate do not address?
Barack Obama says a demographic ticking time bomb. Europe's indiginous population is aging and declining. Countries like Italy face long term decline. BBC says 10% of Brits have left the country for good. the most ambitious and best young French leave for greener pastures elsewhere while the best that remain aspire to become mid level bureaucratic flunkies in the government. Meanwhile millions of mostly uneducated and even unemployable people continue to arrive in Europe in a flood, most illegally from other countries. France alone has 5 million Moslems from North Africa. Many are actually French citizens. Few can get a job, any job. What was viewed as tolerance is revealed as indifference and isolation resulting in compltele alienation. It isn't quite as bad in Britain as it is in France, Holland, and Germany but it is far from good. These people are not accepted as fully integrated members of European society and are therefore a very dangerous potential enemy within. European xenophobia and racism is far from dead. It's one dirty little secret Europe never talks about. That alone precludes it from being solved.
A vast bureaucracy, sky high taxes, and a culture which does not reward individual enterprise. When Britain had the presidency of the EU, Tony Blair said he wanted to make Europe the best place in the world to do business. In fact, in the industrialized word, it is just about the worst. Just ask EADS. It has every disadvantage you can think of. High material costs, high taxes, lots of expensive regulations, expensive labor you cannot get rid of when they are no longer profitable, and an entrenched indifferent bureaucracy and culture that will not allow it to change. The examples are all over the place. France can't put a cap on gasoline taxes even though it's killing them. French companies can't lay off unneeded workers. EADS is an example. When it wanted to lay off workers, there was a riot. It eventually agreed to only let go temporary workers, those it hired because the permanent work force couldn't handle the job of building the A380 and A350. Terriffic.
Against this backdrop what does the rest of the world have to offer? A job not seen as a right, an entitlement for life, a perpetual meal ticket that's part of a social safety net but as a temporary business contract to be broken when either side feels it is no longer to its advantage.
Competition for raw materials including energy, Europe is in a clearly losing position. It is at the mercy of Russia to a large extent, a wounded animal which is resentful of the way it's been treated and ready to use its new found power to exact revenge. China is grabbing up much of what were Europe's safe sources of everything especially in Africa. All it took was a sudden spike in energy prices and Europe is going crazy. It may just be the beginning. India is starting to come on strong too and Brazil will be wanting their share. How ironic that the Europeans who screamed that the world had to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels to reverse global warming, promised an 8% reduction below their 1990 levels under Kyoto, failed to even put a dent in that goal, are now forced to suffer the cutbacks they would have imposed on the US themselves. Funny how ironic history sometimes plays itself out. What did they think their insistance on sacrifice would mean, just more wind farms and solar panels?
A level playing field. Perhaps the most dangerous delusion is self delusion. Western Europe is under the misconception that its remarkable recovery from WWII in a short two generations was the result of its own efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Europe recovered quickly because the US did not want it to fall into the Soviet orbit. It wasn't just the Marshall Plan, that was just the beginning. The US government gave major American corporations tax incentives to invest in Europe creating jobs and opportunities while allowing European countries a one way trade relationship which gave them virtually unrestricted access to the largest single market in the world while allowing them protectionist tarriffs to secure their own domestic markets. With the explosion of the Soviet star that had held an intellectual attraction to that orbit among the naive supposedly intellectual Europeans, there was no longer any need for that "hothouse." It's been taken down and moved to China. Europe must now face the world on a level playing field, something it seems ill equipped to do.
A strong currency in a highly comptitive recessionary climate is a very negative asset. The US had both a strong trade surplus and tax surplusses just before the great depression. This makes Europe particularly uncompetitive. I make my assessment of this on the shelves of the local supermarket where European imports are priced far to high for me compared to their domestic counterparts. I'd feel the same way about a new car. Of all the European nations, only in Britain did the much despised Margret Thatcher make the much despised structural changes which kept Britain's economy relatively strong during the early part of this decade while the rest of Europe's floundered as the US economy experienced a short mild recession. Full integration with the EU would ultimately suck Britain right back to where it came from before Thatcher. Suits me fine.
Alienation against the the US was one of the most irrational of all of Europe's follies because it was totally unnecessary. We should remember that the anti-US card was played out in European politics BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, it was in 2002 when first Schroeder and then Chirac used it for their own cynical political ends. Iraq only made ti worse. And West Europeans resentful of the US have en masse blown up the bridge of people to people friendship they enjoyed. It will be generations before that bridge is fully restored if it ever is no matter what treaties are signed or policies are followed by governments. Chirac said openly he wanted Europe to confront America and now he's got it. What a stupid blunder.
For these and many more reasons, Europe's prospects look bleak to me, its current state along with China's growth unsustainable. The situation is very unstable. As China continues to grow, its enormous drain on the world's resources, its contribution to global warming, its polution of its air and water, its depletion of its own resources such as farmland, its aging population, its mercantile foreign policy, its fragile banking system, its bubble financial markets, and the increased pressure it will feel from its 500,000,000 citizens who live on $2 a day or less will cause it too to implode. The projections of economists based on recent trends extending out into the indefinite future are ludicrous.
And who will emerge on top after the dust settles? Just listen to the end of BBC's badly flawed series "America Age of Empire" for one opinion. Lots of people have bet against America before...and lost that bet every single time.
Complain about this comment
Le Figaro is carrying a "flash" news item right now (16.00 French time): Jean-Pierre Jouyet, French Minister for EU Affairs, claimes that "American neo-con money" was behind the Irish "No" vote.
Two questions. First have you any info that would support this claim, Mark? Second, why would US neo-cons want a "No" vote?
Maybe it's the fact that it was Ireland that set me thinking of WB Yeats' poem "The Second Coming": 'Things fall apart, the Centre cannot hold'.
And the MarcusAureliasII (43) reminds me that deTocqueville had quite a lot to say in criticism of over-centralistaion. But maybe that's a bit highbrow for this blog-chat? ;-)
Complain about this comment
@Wopitt (7)
No I don't think so. The reason we have all these problems now is precisely because of the existence of the EU. Without it we could have friendly relations, trade relations and countries could choose on which topics they wanted to cooperate. Now the Franco-German pseudo-Reich is trying to bully everyone else into submission and that is why there is friction.
@georgmayer (39)
Can we, Netherlands, leave too?
@need4reality (18)
the American system will also see the end of Bush in 7 months time. No such instrument exists over here where we are stuck with Barroso or whomever the political elite appoints as his successor even if we completely oppose it.
@dutchnemo (5)
Turkey will never be allowed in, so that won't be a problem.
@cryptomate (19)
please exclude the Netherlands from your list. The vast majority here is against more political integration.
Complain about this comment
To frenchderek (44):
Thank you for notifying about the article in the Le Figaro.
The first question after reading the article was what are their evidences, where they got them and what are they going to do with them. I suspect that they either got the evidence from the Frenchelon or by a secret operation. I would welcome if they announced their evidence as that would put the brakes to neo-conservative march.
For why American neo-conservatives or US intelligence agencies for that matter would engage to this kind of operation is A) they see EU as an potential adversary and thus want to stop it's development into a superpower and B) EU countries haven't given up their democracies and socially responsible market economies. I would say that to neo-conservatives as an ideological group that worships pure capitalism, it's more or less dangerous that there are successful and prosperous countries that can take care of their people and in the same time compete in global economy successfully.
On a note: 1) Lucinda Creighton from the Irish Fine Gael has questioned that the Libertas close relationship US intelligence services has been a factor in No vote. 2) John Bolton has commented that the Lisbon Treaty was against US and NATO interest.
I really would welcome if the French would reveal their evidences and the Irish goverment would investigate where the funding for the Libertas came. If it's true that Libertas and No campaign got funding from foreign governments or influential foreign nationals then.. well.. people have been called traitors for lesser reason than that.
Complain about this comment
The idea that the US would sponsor anti-EU propaganda is typical anti-US and EUrosceptic rubbish.
We now have a silly situation were some EUrophiles are claiming that the US supports and promotes a stronger EU (The famous Kissinger quote: "who do I call when I want to phone Europe?"), whilst other EUrophiles are claiming that this same US is sponsoring EUrosceptics....
C'mon make up your minds.
Besides, if the US were inclined to bribe anyone I'm sure they realise that most EU politicians are so cheap and so in love with their hefty expenses and 'lifestyle' that they could buy them by the dozen - so why go to the unreliable lengths of trying to 'fix' a referendum?
Complain about this comment
Europe is a far weaker and more convenient competitor to the US as a single EU superstate than as a large number of small independent nations. The Euro alone makes its monetary policy inflexible to accomodate the enormous regional differences in a far more heterogenious economy than the US where the Federal Reserve has trouble enough steering a safe course. It's not just a matter of making one call as sceptic Max reminded us in Kissinger's quip, it's one big target all moving in the same direction. Big, clumsy, utterly out of touch, numb, and indifferent to the consequences of its actions, the EU Parliament and Bureaucracy will invariably make the wrong moves just about every single time. How could the US hope for more?
frenchderek;
de Toqueville visited America in the 1820s nearly 200 hundred years ago and only a few decades after the founding of the nation yet even then, he could see the seedlings of what the founding fathers had planted, still in their early formative stage but he could already imagine the forest that would spring from them in future generations. The founders of the US believed that one day the fruits of their great experiment would take its place of importance among the great nations of the world but I think they would have been astonished that in just two centuries it would dominate them like no other nation dominated the world since Rome. Don't take my word for it, that's how BBC's series "America Age of Empire" assessed it.
Complain about this comment
About Lisbon Treaty, Mark Mardell, like alot of journalist, write "The French want" "The French think" etc .
They confound Sarkozy opinion , Sarkozy wish, with what think and what want majority of the french peoples.
An opinion poll that will be published tomorrow in the newspaper "Sud Ouest" will show that 53% of the french would vote No if a referendum was organized in France.
Complain about this comment
Disappointed at being unable to watch the Supreme Leader's closing press conference on the BBC website yesterday, I searched wider and have now discovered "The PM's closing EU Council press conference" at http://eusummit.govblogs.co.uk/?p=32 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCnou3Hzok
It's 6m 42s long and at last I was able to hear some of Comrade Brownedov's words for myself.
Most of it, as we have come to expect was delivered in his beloved tractor production statistics mode, which still beats Mogadon for insomnia. However, counter-revolutionary forces seem to have added the one word "referendum" at the very beginning.
At the end, Brownedov closes with the words "David and I will be happy to answer any questions" as he lifts his right arm in the traditional salute and the image fades.
One is left wondering what the scurrilous "referendum" at the beginning may have signified and also whether the Supreme Leader's words had the same soporific affect on the revisionist hacks as they do on the the rest of us or whether one of them posed a question unsuitable for the ears of the proletariat.
The capitalist running dogs at http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/home/index_en.cfm show much of lesser mortals at the summit, but nothing of our Supreme Leader for yesterday.
When they awake from their slumbers, can Mark and his euro chums enlighten us further?
Complain about this comment
To ScepticMax (47):
Our new word for today is patriotism.
You are right that there is such a thing as political corruption. You are right that in some EU countries there are high levels of corruption. However corruption is a one thing, treason is another thing. If you take money to in order to benefit some special interest group that makes you corrupt. If you take money from an foreign official or some one linked to foreign government you are making a treason not only against your goverment but against your whole nation. In the good old day treason meant getting in front of an firing squad which is in away a pity thought I object to death penalty.
Now before I go to why US and neo-conservatives would try to sabotage the Lisbon Treaty let's remember how UK has been a victim of neo-conservatives. My example is the Iraq war. It's been proofed that Rupert Murdoch's media was incremental on driving both people in US and UK government to war in Iraq. In UK and Ireland Newscorp is manipulating people and pressuring government via it's media holdings. Newspapers such as The Sun, News of the World, The Sunday Times, The Times and thelondonpaper are part of Newscorp. Also Newscorp owns 39% of BSkyB. How can you just sit back and not do anything to a fact that your media and goverment are puppets for foreign business man?
Now all people in the US are not neo-conservatives, the current regime however is. Henry Kissinger is not a neo-conservative thus his sayings are not the feelings of the current rulers. The current goverment of US has not liken the rise of EU, they fought hard and long to against EU building Galileo satellite navigation system. They also started the war against Iraq straight away after Saddam had announced that their oil will be traded in Euros. After the US invasion to Iraq that decision was changed quickly.
The thing is. There are neo-conservatives. They have financial muscle. They rule the US goverment. They include members that own large media assets. They use what ever they got to further their own political and ideological agenda.
To MarcusAureliusII (48):
I'm sorry your logic just doesn't work. The EU working as a one makes it more efficient and it's companies more competitive. By having a single market and by removing national bureaucracy and standards and replacing them with a one EU wide legislation, companies that operate in the EU have less administrative overhead thus meaning less unnecessary costs which translate to more competitive position in global markets. Having a single currency also helps companies as it in the same time reduces overhead and removes currency risks. We are also moving on to single Euro payment area which makes all bank transactions in the EU domestic. Because all of these measures, EU is step by step forming into a one big home market for all EU companies. These benefit far out stand all the negative effects that having a single market and single currency could possibly ever cause.
I should also add that the additional benefit of the Euro is that sooner or later commodities as oil and raw materials are started to trade in euros in public. As I have said before, this means that Euro countries can outsource their inflation to countries that are using Euro as trading currency. I would also like to remind you that having your currency devaluing itself continually is not a sign of strong economy but an economy in trouble. Euro is becoming stronger because markets believe that the Eurozone countries have more stable and stronger economies and thus investing to Euro and not US dollar.
EU is good European economy. EU is good for European power in global politics. These two are not wanted by those who seek to keep US as the only superpower and unchallenged in economy, military and political power.
Complain about this comment
I was disappointed by the Irish vote but the way EU is reacting is proving the the No camp was right about its arrogance. Instead of preserving the EU as such (keeping it from completely falling apart) the leaders are now empowering the anti-EU folks by antagonizing the Irish and keeping the dead treaty alive, against the black-on-white agreement that 27 states must ratify it.
This is the time to be most careful (if you are pro-EU) and act in the way that proves your principles - call the treaty dead and focus on implementing concrete parts of it. Or do nothing and let Euroskeptics run out of steam before moving on.
Why doesn't EU focus on concrete issues now and passes the treaty gradually in the form of smaller documents? This could work! Also starting to think about direct elected positions within the EU context wouldn't be a bad idea. Big packages like this treaty simply cannot pass anymore in Europe.
What is being gained by proving the Euroskeptics right and dismissing the sad outcome of the Irish vote?
Complain about this comment
Hi MarcusAureliasII: I know of de Tocqueville's history. I do wonder now what he would think about, not how such a "great experiment" would turn into such a super-power, rather how the great expectations of the founding fathers have been perverted. But that's the American story. Meanwhile, in Europe ...
... the Jean-Pierre Jouyet story has disappeared from the le Figaro site .... hmmm. Not the work of neo-cons, surely???
Complain about this comment
If you believe that it is in the US interest to have a weak Europe, then the best way for it to achieve it would be to leave the EU to it's own devices.
Complain about this comment
After 20 years receiving Billions of Euro's, Ireland decided to block the new EU Treat - The Lisbon Treaty.
Why? Probably they want more money.
Nevertheless, EU cannot stay blocked with such.
EU must move forward on issues as the External Relations Pillar, where for the first time and under the Lisbon Treaty the EU finally speaks at one voice, as well other paramount and crucial decisions that will equipped the EU face to the other main economical blocks. Let's rule IRELAND OUT!
Sign the petition
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dropireland/
Complain about this comment
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dropireland/
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum1 wrote: ''Europe needs to unite and cannot be held hostage by some 150.000 Irish or 1 British judge (or whoever comes next).''
It seems to me that no-one is being, 'held hostage'. There are court cases across Europe; not just in Britain. The only ones that appear to be forcing anyones hand in all this is the Pro Lisbon EU employees and their advocates in the member states...
Gruenebaum1 wrote: ''It`s already clear that this crisis is bringing France and Germany even closer... ''
Good. And may peace reign in Europe: But this does not necessarily mean that EU Commissioners and the opinions/agendas of heads-of-states who are pro-Lisbon reflect the wishes of their people. The peoples of Europe want co-operation and peace. Do they want Lisbon?
The Lisbon-lobby seem to want control and to speak on Europe's behalf. If they make legal their vision for this continent, perhaps their full purposes may be revealed; and further more the full extent their apparent contempt for those who would disagree with them.
Gruenebaum1 wrote: ''And the Czechs may be difficult, but they are eternal appeasers.''
Well thanks for this great insight into Czech history. Are there any other nations you would like to stereotype?
mcdv1975 wrote: ''the American system will also see the end of Bush in 7 months time. No such instrument exists over here where we are stuck with Barroso or whomever the political elite appoints as his successor even if we completely oppose it.''
The proposed EU system, as detailed in Lisbon, is most certainly less democratic and potentially very dictatorial indeed. I agree with you entirely.
Jukka_Rohila wrote: ''they [American neo-conservatives or US intelligence agencies] see EU as an potential adversary and thus want to stop it's development into a superpower ''
And yet their declared opposition, only goes to encourage many people in Europe to pursue knee-jerk Supranationalism. They all have a globalist agenda, ie work towards World Governance. The earlier disagreements were based more on commitment of troops and the authority of the UN.
They have a difference in approach (which may seem to be converging now...); but there is little evidence that they are opposed to each other in the higher echelons.
World Government institutions are already in place.
The Unions (meaning AU, EU, proposed Asian Union and the now established but little publicized NAU 'North American Union') are mere subsidiaries of it; just as the European Central Bank, Federal Reserve Bank, African Development Bank etc. are all subsidiaries of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Who the World Governors are, I am not exactly sure...
...but their Heads of state will be the EU, AU, NAU presidents presumably.
Does anyone know?
Complain about this comment
Now returning to the matter in hand, the EU:
They (meaning the Lisbon Leaders) seem to want the Constitution signed, done and dusted before June 2009 in order to get into the driving seat before the MEPs are due election into European Parliament.
This time around, the people of Europe will no doubt elect MEPs that the Lisbon advocates will find less co-operative to their agenda...
That is why it must be early 2009; and that they insist on resolution (ie ratification) by the October Summit, presumably for application January 2009.
This may answer the question: 'why the rush?'
Complain about this comment
I feel very sorry for Mr Cowen and the Irish as a whole. The EU is treating them badly.
The vote is "NO" which means that there is no path available for Mr Cowen other than the Treaty not being ratified or asking the Irish to vote again and again.
Seems the EU are saying it is a problem for the Irish and it is all down to them to sort out when it is in fact a problem for those like France and Germany. Why? Because Mr Cowen has the backing of a full referendum and the Irish people behind him. Should he return to the EU and say he cannot go on (which without a YES vote he should even though he may not believe in that course), It is something none of the other leaders in Europe can say.
If they want pressure on Ireland then lets all have a vote. Then the Irish can see if they are frustrating all of Europe's many peoples - or just their arrogant EU representatives and politicians.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII #43
Yes, because we all know America's future is so bright. Our economy has been declining steadily over the past 8 years, our dollar has been falling to record lows, and we are bogged down in a war that seemingly has no end in sight. I find your disdain for Europe and in particular the EU appallingly shortsighted and misinformed. America used to dominate the world market in areas such as auto industry (which today we lag behind both the Europeans and the Japanese), the aerospace industry (Boeing in the 80's had something like a 75% market share in the industry and nowadays struggles to deliver more planes than Airbus), and even the euro who most Americans thought it wouldn't work now makes up 26% of the world's reserve currency (at the cost of our very own dollar). Because of the EU, Microsoft has lost billions of dollars and yet they have had no choice but to comply with the EU's anti-trust laws. Because of the EU, mergers between solely US companies, such as the one between GE and Honeywell, have fallen through.
As an American living in America, things don't look as rosy as you yourself portray it. Crime is up, our education system is floundering, and we suffer from our own immigration problems, (Hispanics alone will constitute 25% of our makeup by 2050).
The fact of the matter is that at the end of WWII, America was a superpower by default. China was still in civil war, Japan, the Soviet Union, and the rest of Europe demolished by WWII, Africa and southeast Asia still primarily colonized, and most of South America considered third world. Today, Europe, Russia, Brazil, India, and China are all emerging and for the most part dynamic powers and economies, whose rise comes for the most part at America's expense, who once dominated the world market in practically everything.
And as for your shot at Europe attempting to take on the US, I seem to recall being astounded at the goodwill and sympathy that Europe showed us after 9/11. I still remember watching on TV as all of Europe came to a stop for a minute of silence out of respect for those that lost their lives on 9/11. I also seem to remember how NATO for the first time went into action invoking Article 5 which states that an attack on one is an attack on all, not in the defense of Europe ironically, but America's, as the French, British, Germans, Spanish, Italians, etc., all actively supported the US in their attack against the Taliban. It's not their fault this administration was so astoundingly arrogant as well as stupid to squander their goodwill in an unprovoked and useless (as well as costly to American lives) invasion of Iraq.
To sum up, your chauvinism mirrors this administration's, and look where this government has gotten us. What is more is that you are deluding yourself if you believe that a weak EU would be beneficial to the US. It is inevitable that we and the EU will have our differences and may not always see eye to eye, but such differences should be overcome, because Europe and the US share more in common than both sides would probably like to admit, and its only by working together, compromising, and respecting one another that we can achieve the most progress.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila wrote: ''EU is good European economy.''
And yet the EU audit has not been signed off for Thirteen (13) years.
The numbers don't add up.
Jukka_Rohila wrote: ''The current government of US has not like the rise of EU ''
Whether the Neo-cons are for or indeed against is irrelevant to the fact that the EU institutions are in need of some clean up before they should be made 'streamlined', ie have faster turn around of legislation.
Jukka_Rohila wrote: ''They also started the war against Iraq straight away after Saddam had announced that their oil will be traded in Euros.''
I doubt this was a coincidence. But the EU is now very pro-US in terms of world agenda; the heads of state very much support their actions abroad. And whereas trading Oil in Euros would have been disastrous for the US economy and currency, it was more the timing that was perhaps their biggest concern...
The Amero (NAU currency) is coming; and the EU statesmen who opposed the war (and were comparably liberal to their contemporaries) are gone. This was a turning point in the direction of Europe which changed Europe from an alternative to the US towards the same World Agenda.
Although the Institution is of the same name, the vision has changed.
The old divisions are gone (at least within the Elite).
I fear the people of Europe may have been left behind.
Open your eyes to who wins.
Open your eyes to who loses.
Above all: choose love.
Complain about this comment
To need4reality (61):
The audit of the whole EU hasn't been cleared in 13 years. The audit of EU commission however has been accepted. It should also be noted that 0.09% of EU budget is subject to fraud. Now, in many member countries, including UK, this would be an acceptable level an the audit would be accepted. However I do think that EU should work better in this front. The problem thought resides mainly in the member countries. To this date EU auditors only give per country information to Council of Europe and to EU commission. I would say that it would better if they would publish their whole report publicly so that member countries would have public pressure to keep the accounts checked.
I also do think that the EU does need clean up and more public scrutiny is needed. However I don't agree that we couldn't be doing these two things in the same time. It should also be noted that EU is the sum of it's member countries and so it's bureaucratic culture. After the Nordic countries joined up, we have tried to get EU working more publicly, but that ambition can't be archived if other countries, namely UK, doesn't step-up and work actively in the Union. To this day EU the Franco-German axel has been the motor of the EU and it actually shows in many ways. If UK would work and vision as hard as France and Germany, the EU would be much better.
If we go back to the oil, I would say that the emergence of Euro has been disastrous to the US. Before Euro US could print as much dollars as it wanted and trade them to oil and nobody would question the value of the dollar as it was the only real world currency. Now as US has over printed dollars, shipped them to China and Arab-states, the value of their currency has started to been questioned. If and when Arab states and China start openly trade with euros, the US dollars will fall even more and very rapidly and that will mean an end to an very big advantage that the US economy has had since the WWII.
On a note I do understand your point. There are many organizations including do engage on global integration. Global integration however isn't a bad end result, if it allows democracy, humans rights and national languages and cultures to prosper and survive. That target however will be hundreds of years from this point unfortunately.
Complain about this comment
@ 61
The EU fails its audits not because of the corruption on its end, but because something like 80% of funds are ultimately distributed by national governments, often with little accountability. As explained by your own BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7091043.stm
Complain about this comment
CRISIS? What crisis? No crisis at all, say the people who urged us to vote 'No', although by their own admission they did not know what we were voting about.
Some of us knew better all along. But we didn't know just how bad it would be. Now we know. Specifically, Brian Cowen knows. Four months to come up with a solution! One year to implement it. And whatever way the implementation is dressed up, it will amount to Lisbon Two -- or else.
Take no notice of the soothing words from David Miliband. They are par for the diplomatic course. The true feelings of our partners were expressed by the French minister who told us: "So long, it's been good to know you." That is what "or else" means.
What music to the ears of the clowns in green shirts, one of them complete with leprechaun hat, in the European Parliament! Probably you thought them a bit of a joke. Believe me, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) are no joke.
They are racists. They regard the Irish as, at best, an inferior people. As to persons of a different colour, these have, for UKIP, no business at all in their Sceptred Isle. One of their policies is a five-year ban on immigration into Britain. They want to break up the European Union and restore the British empire.
Yes, I know this latter ambition is crazy. I also know that total independence for any country is impossible in the present age. Any time I hear it mentioned, I think of Lord Copper, the batty press baron in Evelyn Waugh's 'Scoop', who wanted "strong, mutually antagonistic governments everywhere". But sometimes even batty people get their wish, at great cost to themselves and everybody else.
And the break-up of the EU is not just a pipe dream for loonies. It is a nightmarish possibility which terrifies European leaders. They cannot allow little Ireland, or the little Czech Republic, to turn it from a possibility, into a probability.
The Czechs are to some extent protected by their geopolitical importance. We have no such protection. Out here in the Atlantic, we could be cut adrift. We might have nowhere to turn but good old HMS Albion.
Anyone who thinks that fanciful should look at the lads in the green shirts and shudder. They may be idiots, but they have friends who are very much smarter. Some of those friends have never forgiven the Irish for wanting independence; and they know that our European Union membership has been one of our most important and successful ways of securing and exerting it.
It would suit them nicely to have us in a neo-colonial situation, in some ways more convenient for them than the United Kingdom pre-1921.
No awkward parliamentary votes to bother about, for example, except a handful from the North which they can buy any time they like -- just as Labour bought the votes of the Democratic Unionist Party lately and then, hilariously, denied it.
No, I don't think this worst-case scenario will ever become reality. But I thought it worth reminding everybody of what our new "friends" are up to.
And the last thing these leprechauns will bring us is a crock of gold. In case anyone has forgotten, we have already got many crocks of gold from Europe. Lisbon or no Lisbon, there will be no more.
We do not have to wait for the dust to settle in order to see what happens to fairy gold. What effect may last week's vote have had already on investment? We cannot quantify it, but we can be sure that it is adverse and will certainly get much worse, unless Cowen finds a solution in the short time he has been allowed.
During the referendum campaign, the Government and its allies did not dare to say things like that. They have got it into their heads that the punters do not like "negative campaigning". But even though they did not say them, they were still accused of bullying and scaremongering. The truth is that the bullying and scaremongering came from the other side, and they did not cease with the referendum result.
Surely a new record in the matter of bullying was set by the proposition that the countries which have still to ratify the Lisbon Treaty should abandon the ratification process in their parliaments.
This breathtaking piece of impudence coincided with the final stage of the British ratification measure in the House of Lords. I happen to think that the House of Lords, like the Seanad, should be abolished, but we are supposed to respect our neighbours' systems, just as they are supposed to respect ours.
Making that demand at the moment the measure was passed, but before it was signed into law, meant, in effect, asking the Queen of England to defy both houses of her own parliament.
Monarchs have had their heads chopped off for less.
But who cares about laws or parliaments or constitutional propriety, our own or anyone else's, when the opportunity arises for an orgy of self-indulgence which, heaven help us, looks like lasting for another year and could end with a worse hangover than the one we have nursed for this last week?
From the neo-cons to the self-deluded idealists, to those masters of falsehood and hypocrisy, Sinn Fein, the opponents of rationality will continue to wallow in one destructive triumph and the hope of another.
Cowen must show us a way to recognise the monsters produced by the Sleep of Reason for what they are. They are leprechauns, and the brightness at the end of the rainbow is not gold but ragwort. We must wake up.
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum1 (and many others elsewere) objects to the Irish blocking the efforts of the other 26 countries on the ground of their number relative to the size of the EU. His point is bogus.
Firstly, the EU rules required all countries to ratify. In this process, the Luxembourgois have the same weight as the Germans. Weird I admit, but those were the rules.
Secondly, The EU knew that the Irish would need to have a vote when they drafted the treaty. They accepted the need, accepted the process and now object to the outcome. Democracy doesn't work that way. The EU's take on votes seems to be that minority votes are fine when they agree, but not when they disagree. You can change the rules, but you have to do so within the limitations of the current rules.
The parlimentary democracy in the UK attributes 55% of MP's to a government that only got 35.2% of the vote on a 61.4% turnout. If we are to take the arguement that the Irish are holding back the other 26 countries, then the Labour party is holding back the political aspriations of the remaining 78.3% of the UK electorate.
Hmmm, interesting idea.
You could argue therefore, that not withstanding the fact that 11 referendums were promised, and only one held, the national parlimentary systems have had no mandate to ratify unless they:
1. Represent a majority of the popular vote
2. Represent a majority of the electorate
3. Stood on a platform clearly stating that they supported the Lisbon Treaty.
4. Stood on a platform that did not say that the Lisbon Treaty would be subject to a referendum.
And furthermore, to be legitimate, the final number of voters the qualifing countries represent should be greater than 50% of the EU electorate.
Anyone want to work it out?
Given that the EU and the treaty proponants are so keen to cite the parlimentary ratification in other countries as the legitimate express of the will of those countries, I am not sure that they can denigrate the Irish vote on statistical grounds.
Complain about this comment
The proposed EU budget for 2008 is 134.4 Billion Euros
Jukka_Rohila wrote: “It should also be noted that 0.09% of EU budget is subject to fraud.”
...giving, at this figure, 0.121 Billion Euros. Or 121 million Euros. (they do use 1000million to the billion now right... or is it 1000 times more? Surely not...)
£95,797,031 at current exchange (merely for illustrative purposes. Of course this is not direct from UK, for all the Eurosceptics out there... ;) )
Is this figure quoted from a report made by, Vice-President Siim Kallas, Commissioner responsible for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud?
Or is it independent?
Or the official audit?
How stringent; and which centralised or national institutions does this figure cover?
Jukka_Rohila wrote: ''I would say that it would better if they would publish their whole report publicly so that member countries would have public pressure to keep the accounts checked.''
Perhaps the makings of much needed transparency.
EthanThorn wrote: ''...80% of funds are ultimately distributed by national governments, often with little accountability. ''
That is a very interesting point.
Surely it will always prove very difficult for a remote (in terms of distance) centralised institution to guarantee these funds reach their intended destinations; and that these destinations have been correctly identified in the first place. Targeting funds to the remote provincial areas, seen as crucial in Brussels, may seem irrelevant to those locally; perhaps interpreted/ misinterpreted as fraud by their very nature.
Obviously from these figures it would be wrong to argue that centralised EU institutions or officials are necessarily directly involved in such goings on.
Jukka_Rohila wrote: ''Global integration however isn't a bad end result, if it allows democracy, humans rights and national languages and cultures to prosper and survive.''
'If' being the operative word.
World governance could be the greatest of Liberties; or indeed the greatest of Tyrannies.
Thank you for humouring my questions and correcting my mistakes without resorting to some of the name calling and other nonsense seen on these forums. It is good to have civilised debate.
Complain about this comment
I voted YES in the referendum last week. Having listened to a week of diatribes from various European politicians, IF there is a second referendum here i'm a definite NO voter.
This is regardless as to whether there are special concessions made to Ireland or not. I have never accepted a bribe in a personal or professional capacity and I will not now accept one as a voter.
I am Pro-European union, I am not a Eurosceptic and it behoves me as a European to ensure that (the people of) Ireland currently "the sole beacon of democracy in Europe" represents the 'plain people of Europe' - those citizenry whose governments ignore them.
Please support us. WE ARE YOUR VOICE
Complain about this comment
cryptomate wrote: ''And the break-up of the EU is not just a pipe dream for loonies. It is a nightmarish possibility which terrifies European leaders. They cannot allow little Ireland, or the little Czech Republic, to turn it from a possibility, into a probability.''
I can understand a great many of your concerns; and please remember that a great many of those who oppose Lisbon are neither UKIP nor indeed BNP members. The reasons for opposition are diverse. Please acknowledge that fact.
Is it not obvious that those who oppose the treaty most strongly will jump on the situation to further their cause. Thats what people do.
Also please remember the vote was about a particular treaty; not a vote on whether to dissolve the EU as it stands today.
cryptomate wrote: ''...it will amount to Lisbon Two -- or else.''
Now you are obviously rational enough to see that Lisbon as it stands now cannot legally be ratified; and that any 'or else' scenarios could well mean a Lisbon Three if a hypothetical Lisbon Two is also rejected; because it would, in your view, mean the expulsion of Eire from the Union and therefore a need for another redraft or a restart to ratification process, under the current rules.
You are obviously emphatically in favour of a swift resolution, apparently you say, to be proposed by the Irish PM, who was 'cold shouldered' at the recent summit; and possibly seemingly denied the support he needs to make the very changes you desire.
cryptomate wrote: ''We cannot quantify it, but we can be sure that it is adverse and will certainly get much worse, unless Cowen finds a solution in the short time he has been allowed.''
Out of curiosity; why is it Coven's responsibility?
Complain about this comment
"Post 35. At 10:54am on 21 Jun 2008, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
That's not actually true. There is no reason why German or European manufacturing industries couldn't be successful and prosperous in global competition. There are also no reasons why Japanese, Chinese or Indians could manufacture something more efficiently than us Europeans. It's all about what you are manufacturing"
That and what followed it was all very interesting. The problem I have with it is that you did not mention protectionism anywhere.
The impediment to EU countries competing effectively with low-wage economies is protectionism. Any country can - and will eventually, through partnership deals - come up with the necessary technology. At that point, the nation whose industry keeps costs down effectively, capital and labour costs - will sell its products.
The EU relies on a high cost social model sustained by protectionsim. The protectionist element allows industries to continue in an 'unreal' way even though they have been overtaken in the 'real' world. That means that they do not feel the need to move their methods and technologies on and keep a 'real' lead.
This model will be undermined when the low wage economies have industries so large that their economies of scale make their products desirable even against the protectionist barriers - which are not just tariffs. These large economies will also erect barriers against EU goods.
I remember, many years ago, a documentary about the penetration of Japanese electronic goods into European markets. The French pointed out that they had no barriers against such products but the Japanese had achieved hardly any headway in the French market.
The program showed a French customs post which was in the centre of the country, far away from any airports or seaports. All Japanese electronic products had to pass through this post.
Two can play at that game and the Japanese did. It kept foreign goods out of their markets for years until their own social model drove their economy down the toilet. Now they are recovering.
The reality is counterintuituve but historically obvious. Free trade promotes peace and prosperity among all those involved. It does not move the world on technologically as fast as war does but I am happy to forgo war for the steady pace of peace.
As for the protection of language and culture, I think they fit into the same evolutionary model as industry. People will use a language and involve themselves in a culture which suits them and their need.
Language and culture cannot be destroyed, just neglected. The converse is also true. They cannot be protected. They merely become a kind of art form subject to passing fashion.
Complain about this comment
EthanThorn#60
You either never learned America's history or forgot it. The problems facing America today are minor compared to what adversity it faced in the past and survived. Must I remind you? America was settled by the world's misfits and rejects, religous outcasts, people in debtors prisons, criminals. They faced imense physical hardship just surviving alone in a dangerous wilderness populated by barbaric tribes. They were slaves in the empire of the most powerful military force on earth yet they overthrew them (with help.) They fought a civil war which affected practically every family in the nation and there were times when it looked like America would not survive as a single country. The great depression lasted over a decade and only WWII ended it. As a weak military power at its outset, it looked at the beginning like it would lose that war and its independence with it. It spent almost 50 years fighting off a worldwide ideology which appealed to the poorest on earth who had nothing to lose fighting for it. There was at least one point when human life on earth almost came to an end. By comparison, most of today's problems facing the US are minor. I think it was Rockerfeller who said anyone who bets against America will go broke. And he was right. The only real danger ot our country is a nuclear attack by Islamic terrorists, something many Americans just don't want to face up to. Of course times are hard and they are going to get much worse before they get better. But the whole world will suffer and by comparison Americans will get off easy.
BTW, your analysis of America's position as an industrial power vis a vis other nations is badly flawed. I'm not going to get into the details but Americans still have the most powerful industrial and post industrial economy in the world by far. One example was cited by the secretary of the Treasury just a few months ago on C-span when he said the US still manufactures 2 1/2 times as much as China. Watch what happens to the price of food around the world as the cost of energy in the US goes up. At least we will not starve to death. Don't be surprised when famines hit other nations who have forgotten just how dependent they are on the US to eat. It might also interest you to know that would congress allow unrestricted drilling for oil, the US has all the reserves it would ever need and we have enough coal for over 200 years.
Complain about this comment
To chill0 (69):
"That and what followed it was all very interesting. The problem I have with it is that you did not mention protectionism anywhere."
In today the amount of protectionism is very low, it has to be because companies nowadays are global and their manufacturing and supply networks are global. In global economy protectionist barriers do more harm than good.
"The impediment to EU countries competing effectively with low-wage economies is protectionism. Any country can - and will eventually, through partnership deals - come up with the necessary technology. At that point, the nation whose industry keeps costs down effectively, capital and labour costs - will sell its products."
You forget that low-wage countries won't stay always low-wage countries. In time they will transform to high-wage countries if they manage to pull of the transformation, i.e. Japan and South Korea. Low-wage countries can also use up their resource poll, i.e. in India the wages of software engineers have risen so much that outsourcing to India because of cheap costs is not lucrative anymore. China is also feeling this as many local and foreign companies would transfer their production to India if it wasn't so bureaucratic country.
I would also like to remind you that having technology isn't just enough in these days. An high tech example would be Intel and AMD. Americans don't have any special technology that others don't have. What they have is 1) leadership in global markets, and 2) the most effective research and development network. Any company or country that wants to challenge these two companies would have to burn tens of billions of dollars before they would get themselves somewhere. The same is true in other ares too.
"The EU relies on a high cost social model sustained by protectionsim. The protectionist element allows industries to continue in an 'unreal' way even though they have been overtaken in the 'real' world. That means that they do not feel the need to move their methods and technologies on and keep a 'real' lead."
Untrue. EU countries and companies spend quite much to Research and Development, thought more would be needed (i.e. Finland and Sweden spend approx 3% of their GDP, Germany spends 2,5% and France 2,0%). I also don't agree that EU countries and companies are not developing their technologies and methods. They are developing, but apart from Nokia cellphones for a common man it's hard to see or understand changes in production networks or i.e. when more intelligence is added to products like power networks or transformers.
"This model will be undermined when the low wage economies have industries so large that their economies of scale make their products desirable even against the protectionist barriers - which are not just tariffs. These large economies will also erect barriers against EU goods."
Untrue in many ways, first of all because of WTO the tariffs have gone down, secondly as I said before it's all about what you manufacture. In example Nokia uses it's plant in Finland to develop manufacturing techniques and manufacture high end phones, it's new plant in Romania will produce high and medium end phones. The biggest mobile phone plant in the world that Nokia has in China produces low end phones because of the industrial espionage committed by the Chinese goverment. They also have large research and development facilities in China, but much of their work is done and caused by their efforts to satisfy Chinese markets.
It should be also added that nowadays we have global standards and global companies.
"I remember, many years ago, a documentary about the penetration of Japanese electronic goods into European markets. The French pointed out that they had no barriers against such products but the Japanese had achieved hardly any headway in the French market.
The program showed a French customs post which was in the centre of the country, far away from any airports or seaports. All Japanese electronic products had to pass through this post."
That was then this is now.
"Two can play at that game and the Japanese did. It kept foreign goods out of their markets for years until their own social model drove their economy down the toilet. Now they are recovering."
Japanese kept not only foreign products, but also foreign companies out of their market, but that was then this is now. It should be added that what drove Japan to long recession was their goverment bureaucracy and corruption that in the end wasted huge amount of monies to unnecessary construction projects and keeping ineffective banks and businesses up.
"The reality is counterintuituve but historically obvious. Free trade promotes peace and prosperity among all those involved. It does not move the world on technologically as fast as war does but I am happy to forgo war for the steady pace of peace."
Actually it's an illusion that war moves technology faster than peace the illusion is caused by quicker product life cycles and faster 'commercialization' of products and technologies.
"As for the protection of language and culture, I think they fit into the same evolutionary model as industry. People will use a language and involve themselves in a culture which suits them and their need.
Language and culture cannot be destroyed, just neglected. The converse is also true. They cannot be protected. They merely become a kind of art form subject to passing fashion."
Actually they can be, ever heard of a such a thing as kulture kampf? The only way to destroy a culture is to destroy each and every person of that culture by extermination.
I would also like to add that in my opinion culture and ways to do things are a manifesto of the language itself. Language itself alters how our brain and mind functions and thus those altercations, thought very minimal, cause large differences on how we do and see things.
PS. Too long comment. In short Europe is and will be competitive because of its social model that allows heavy investment to people themselves. European companies are competitive because they have access to large pool of highly educated professionals.
Complain about this comment
"Post 71. At 09:08am on 22 Jun 2008, Jukka_Rohila wrote
...
first of all because of WTO the tariffs have gone down, secondly as I said before it's all about what you manufacture. In example Nokia uses it's plant in Finland to develop manufacturing techniques and manufacture high end phones, it's new plant in Romania will produce high and medium end phones. The biggest mobile phone plant in the world that Nokia has in China produces low end phones because of the industrial espionage committed by the Chinese goverment. They also have large research and development facilities in China, but much of their work is done and caused by their efforts to satisfy Chinese markets.
It should be also added that nowadays we have global standards and global companies."
The allusion I made to the French customs post was meant to demonstrate that tariffs and even subsidies are not the only way that protectioism works. The French model - exported to the EU - is essentially protectionist.
It is interesting that you mention the WTO. If the WTO is making changes welcome to the EU, what exactly is Nicolas Sarkozy's problem with Peter Mandelson ? Also, what is the point of the EU whose budget goes primarily into interventionism of one kind or another ?
"....Japanese kept not only foreign products, but also foreign companies out of their market, but that was then this is now. It should be added that what drove Japan to long recession was their goverment bureaucracy and corruption that in the end wasted huge amount of monies to unnecessary construction projects and keeping ineffective banks and businesses up..."
I cannot say I heard much about Japanese corruption. They certainly kept ineffective parts of their economy working but is that not the EU model as well ?
"...ever heard of a such a thing as kulture kampf? The only way to destroy a culture is to destroy each and every person of that culture by extermination.
I would also like to add that in my opinion culture and ways to do things are a manifesto of the language itself. Language itself alters how our brain and mind functions and thus those altercations, thought very minimal, cause large differences on how we do and see things."
I had not heard of 'kulture kampf' but it seems to approximate to culture war which is familiar - although mostly unspoken - in the western world. I do not believe language alters our minds fundamentally, although it unquestionably does alter them.
It has more practical applications as well, like the Romans had trouble in certain aspects of engineering because Roman numerals do not lend themselves to long division.
Chinese numbers also are awkward compared to the Sanskrit numerals which the west uses. For that reason, some Chines people adopt and use western number systems. No doubt it will in time change parts of Chinese languages.
It is like the adoption of GM crops and death of inefficient industries. It is utility which decides these things, not argument.
I believe cultures have to accept outside influence in the same way as economies do. It makes them strong. Arguably it is the 'anglo-saxon' way at its heart. Diverse European characters such as Adolf Hitler and Charles De Gaulle have seen a purity in their culture which they have wished to protect. I believe it has caused only harm.
I heard some years ago that there were more English speakers in China than there are in the USA. For all that, I do not believe English will become some kind of world language - but something will.
If I came back to life in 3 or 4 hundred years, I doubt I would understand much of the language spoken in England.
"PS. Too long comment. In short Europe is and will be competitive because of its social model that allows heavy investment to people themselves. European companies are competitive because they have access to large pool of highly educated professionals."
All societies educate their peoples. What about those parts of the social model that are not investments at all ?
Complain about this comment
What has globalism got to do with this blog?
Title: "Treaty Puzzle Not Yet Solved".
No more red herrings please.
Complain about this comment
To chill0 (72):
The main points of the EU are development of Europe and creation of common markets. The EU interventions to markets and politics to advance these points.
Development of Europe is easily seen in the structural funds that divert funds from more developed regions of Europe to undeveloped regions in an aim to develop them. Much of these funds are used to develop infrastructure starting from local transportation systems to inter-country systems that connect different European regions into one and allow them to interlink themselves into to the European logistical and manufacturing network. The logic is that money used in less developed countries gets more results and as those results in the end make the whole EU grow, it's in the interest of developed EU countries to develop undeveloped regions.
Creation of common markets don't just mean creation of a common market or Euro, but it also means creating new markets and allowing market mechanism to take place. A good example of this is environment. If a manufacturer creates good an in the process pollutes environment, then he or her is externalizing the costs of pollution to everybody. Now in these kind of cases EU can intervention and create systems and regulations that either make reduce pollution or make the polluter pay. In example in China they are having larger and larger difficulties because of the damage done to the environment by not having regulation and regulator to make sure that manufacturers don't just externalize part of their costs to all others.
Now, there are parts of EU, like the CAP subsidies that are criticized very often, but there is a real reason why we have and have to have subsidies for agricultural products, it's the same as why we have armies: the cost of not having food security is just too heavy in a crisis. In example here in Finland the government has reserved a years worth of grain and other food items for the whole population, they also grain for an one harvest, and currently our country could produce 80% of it's food. The things is that if an global or regional crisis hits, not having those reserves and own agriculture ready to make an harvest can mean a difference of millions of people dying or not dying.
The EU and the member countries do intervene into markets, but they have in order to make sure that the markets work. The thing is that market economy is an means to an end, not the aim itself.
I would also like to add here a one important bit about our market and social model: balancing of timing differences. For a company the time frame it operates is in best in years, for an human the time frame is in tens of years and for countries the time frame is hundreds of years. If we let companies act free, like in the US, they will take advantage of their employees and were them out or replace them in a moment with someone elsewhere.
For the whole economy that is not beneficial as when people are overworked or work moved to some other place, the employees have to bear the cost of recover and integrate back to society. That's why there are barriers in many European countries to make sure that companies don't just think in short time frame but look on the future. Of course the barriers should not be too high as that will eventually lead to a situation where companies can't terminate inefficient operations are too afraid to make investments. There however can be a balance and that balance is been worked constantly in 27 countries, so as long we are willing to make changes to the balance things will work out.
It should also be noted that there are some projects that are not in the start financially lucrative, but they have to be taken in order to get the benefits in the future. Scientific examples of these are CERN and ITER. In engineering field the whole Airbus project raised European aviation industry to competitive and Arianne Space secured European commercial space sector to grow. It should be mentioned that these kinds of projects are not that unheard, in example Japan developed it's industries with the heavy guidance of it's industrial ministry, step by step, one industry at time. All countries more or less intervene into their economy to secure the development of strategic key industries and securing their place in the global competition.
Now not all societies follow the European model nor actually invest to their citizens. You say that all societies educate their people, but just look the US and you can find that they actually don't educate their people. What US has done and is doing is importing educated people to US. In the US universities especially in the engineering departments more and more people are not native Americans but immigrants. This system has worked to this day, but the world is changing and I really can't see the current setting working in the future. We are already seeing the harvest of not educating people in the cultural wars and in the push to include creationism in some states to their curriculum.
...
About cultures. I too think that having cultures interact and learning from others is a good thing and eventually makes all better and stronger as they can by benchmarking learn about themselves and others.
That however doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect our culture or language as protecting culture or language doesn't mean closing it from the rest of the world. Protecting culture means remembering traditions and our history on where we came. Protecting language is about using standardized and written language. I could have understood and spoken easily Finnish language 200 years or 500 years ago, the same applies to future even more as now we have standardized our language more.
PS. I don't understand your comment about France importing their protectionism to EU. The comment just doesn't make sense.
Complain about this comment
First of all, as far as the central issue is concerned, I entirely support the courageous struggle of the Irish people to sustain at least some rudiments of democracy remaining in the newly built Roman Empire of EU.
This, however, is entirely decoupled from another issue - the trade and economical policy of EU.
chill0 wrote:
"The impediment to EU countries competing effectively with low-wage economies is protectionism."
"Free trade promotes peace and prosperity among all those involved."
These ideas, although popular, are inconsistent with the facts of economical history, and common sense.
A fundamental question is: if a market competition is assumed necessary for a healthy economy, how big the market is supposed to be? Is Europe's market of 400 m. consumers not big enough for that purpose?
Let's look in the recent history. The US economical policy was strongly protectionist throughout all its history until the recent post-WW2 period. By contrast, the British were passionate proponents of free trade, for which they repeatedly organized military actions during the 19th century. The result was that the protectionist American economy grew faster, and overrun the British one, based on cheap labor and free trade, early 20 century, in terms of per capita GDP.
Complain about this comment
To Wopitt (73):
Well globalism is at the heart of EU and at least to me it seems that many voices in favor or against EU are more or less due to global reasons and thus in my mind having this kind of conversation is not a bad thing as it tells about the inner drivers of our reasoning.
At least to me, it's a great thing to see and hear about other voices and opinions about these issues, as it makes me to look at my own reasoning and seeing the reasoning of others.
Complain about this comment
To alll those still supporting the political elite that have organised the Lisbon treaty and it's predecessors. I spent Yesterday at a local PS sections (Parti Socialiste) day out in South Belgium, and yes they do know how to enjoy themselves. It was also interesting talking to these local activists and supporters who are very much Pro-Europe, almost all feel disjointed from the 'political elite' who are making such a mess of things at the moment, and most do not like the expansionist plans being sought. There was a sense of feeling that this 'elite' have lost sight of core issues in the search for more power and grandiose plans.
I found an interesting ditty from the 1953 Warner Brothers cartoon Upswept Hare about Nero's alleged involvement in the Great Fire of Rome, on the Internet that maybe sums up what our elite are doing to the Treaty of Rome as you can substitute the political elite for Nero.
Be it ever so crumbly, there's no place like Rome.
Nero, he was the emperor, and the palace was his home.
But he liked to play with matches and for the fire yearned;
So, he burned Rome to ashes and fiddled while it burned.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila wrote:
" EU countries and companies spend quite much to Research and Development, thought more would be needed (i.e. Finland and Sweden spend approx 3% of their GDP, Germany spends 2,5% and France 2,0%). I also don't agree that EU countries and companies are not developing their technologies and methods. They are developing, but apart from Nokia cellphones for a common man it's hard to see or understand changes in production networks or i.e. when more intelligence is added to products like power networks or transformers."
Unfortunately, the reality doesn't look that bright as you try to paint it. Europe is rapidly declining in terms of basic research, applied research, technological development, and education.
The fundamental research funding is declining. This reflects the general situation: European industry is interested in incremental adjustments of the existing technologies rather than in developing new ones. In Japan, companies support basic research e.g in electronics and materials science. The European ones are trying to use the state budget to do purely commercial development.
Less and less students are interested to study physics in Germany. A similar picture is observed in other countries. The standards in math are appalling, and keep declining. This has a clear impact the labor market. Germany has recently introduced special visas for foreign programmers and mathematicians. The described decline concerns Scandinavia as well.
It comes as no surprise that Ericsson is now moving not only its production but also research and the product development to East Asia, where the labour is getting better educated, although less cheap than it used to be. I presume Nokia will follow the suit (if it hasn't already done it). It is easy to realize that the budget support for the respective science and education in the concerned countries will adjust to the industrial trend. More students will study sociology instead of math and physics.
The future of Europe, as far as science and technology is concerned, appears to be bleak indeed.
Complain about this comment
To Jukka Rohila post 76 (reply to Wopitt):
I agree completely.
To fragility post 75:
"A fundamental question is: if a market competition is assumed necessary for a healthy economy, how big the market is supposed to be? Is Europe's market of 400m. consumers not big enough for that purpose?"
Interestingly, the examples Jukka Rohila cites of 'fostered' industries in the EU are Airbus and space, Ariane, etc. In both cases the EU is not a big enough market. Nor will it be for the volume car market.
The problem is that economies of scale work themselves out into price eventually. It may be that there is a limit to that advantage but if there is, it's not obvious.
Using your line of argument, is the UK economy not big enough ? Why have the EU ?
"Let's look in the recent history. The US economical policy was strongly protectionist throughout all its history until the recent post-WW2 period. By contrast, the British were passionate proponents of free trade, for which they repeatedly organized military actions during the 19th century. The result was that the protectionist American economy grew faster, and overrun the British one, based on cheap labor and free trade, early 20 century, in terms of per capita GDP"
The UK started the 19th century facing the Continental System. That was economic warfare not of the UK's making. It involved European powers trying to starve British trade as a method of conquest.
As to the USA: it became less protectionist after the Depression. The Depression was largely blamed on the absence of free trade. Before that it had been inclined to protect certain immature industries so that they could develop at all, not so that they could out-compete other nations.
To Jukka Rohila post 74:
What about the effect of EU interventions on other nations outside of the EU ? Subsidising and dumping strategies in the EU have caused death in the Third World.
You argue for the existence of regulation and I do not disagree that there has to be some regulation. Do you really think that regulating the size of courgettes is necessary ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7457218.stm
The problem is that when you give people a job to do, they do it. Many people in the EU bureaucracy have jobs involving EU wide regulation and harmonisation. It is all they do. It is not necessary. Why can each nation not come up with its own regulation and respect Kyoto or UN standards or some other global benchmark ?
This is not inefficient. EU nations have differing languages, industrial emphasis and geopolitical environments. Why would they not have different regulations ?
Any governing body intervening "...to make sure that the markets work..." is reminiscent of the command economies of the Soviet bloc. It did not work and it will not work.
I do not disagree with you about the problem of timing on economic planning but it runs counter to democratic change. As the EU becomes more democratic, its planning will become more short-term. Just like every constituent nation which brings me back to - what is the point of the EU ?
France has a history of protectionism. France and Germany have dominated the EU since its inception. I refer you again to the most recent example - what is Nicolas Sarkozy's problem with Peter Mandelson ?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila,
I am not sure that moving the discussion to globalism has any more validity than moving it on to abortion, neutrality or any other subject one could think about.
This forum is about the political, social and legal consequences of the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. Moving it to globalism might be interesting and illuminating, but this is not the place.
I agree that it is great to hear other voices, but as in all good debates we must try to remain relevant to the core of the debate. The moderators make sure that we don't say anything offensive (or in a language other than English!), it is up to us to make sure that we don't wander off the point.
Complain about this comment
To fragility (78):
You are in many ways correct, but I don't think that the situation is that bleak. The situation can go bad, but there is no reason why we can't reverse the direction and fix our problems.
A problem that you mentioned was decline of students and interest turning more to social sciences. That is partly true, thought in example Germany is in the PISA study over the average. The problem, at least in my opinion, is that your university system is a mess and there is not enough goverment oversight. In example here in Finland goverment sets how many people can study and what they can study. The numbers are largely dictated by what is seen needed for the Finnish economy. This in example keeps people studying social sciences enough low.
You are correct in saying that in Europe we don't fund too much basic research, but I think that the reason for this is that for countries, besides the larger member countries, costs of building state of the art technology laboratories is just too big and risky investment. In here I think that EU can in the future be an mediator between member countries so that large scale research projects could be funded and shared between member countries.
The example that you referred about Ericsson transferring their production and more development to Asia is not a problem. It's just a matter on moving on to making and manufacturing something else. Nokia too has moved and created large amounts of manufacturing and development to Asia, that however hasn't actually decreased much or at all of their personnel in here.
To chill0 (79):
Yes, I do know that EU countries have been dumping food to third world, but dumping food hasn't caused death, what it has caused is those countries loosing export income. What in this discussion is usually forgotten that African countries lack industrialized agriculture and transportation networks and powerless governments which in essence causes some places to have too much food and some places not having enough food.
I would also like to add that another thing keeping Africa down and people dying is that the governments there are not industrializing themselves. This can be seen by many countries having land reforms. Land reforms are good for balancing wealth, but they do nothing to grow the GDP. If African countries would target industrializing themselves, having subsided food from Europe would work for them.
---
The curvy bananas. Much of the standards and regulation are place in order for the common market to work. When we have EU legislation telling what is a banana, then we have two consequences: 1) people in different countries have the same definition on what a banana is and thus can trade with each other without seeing the goods first; 2) having an EU wide definition and standards make sure that national governments can't make their own definitions that would work as trade barriers. It's all about the common market.
"The problem is that when you give people a job to do, they do it. Many people in the EU bureaucracy have jobs involving EU wide regulation and harmonisation. It is all they do. It is not necessary. Why can each nation not come up with its own regulation and respect Kyoto or UN standards or some other global benchmark ?"
Overhead. If there wouldn't be EU wide regulations, there would 27 different regulations, thus that would need a company to make sure that it's product or service would complain with all those regulations. In essence when this is all about decreasing bureaucracy and administrative work. What we have learned from past is that if you allow 27 different countries to have their own regulations, they in time will become more and more different leading to more and more time and resources wasted on be in compliance with all the regulations. This is all about free trade and doing less paper work.
"This is not inefficient. EU nations have differing languages, industrial emphasis and geopolitical environments. Why would they not have different regulations ?"
We have different languages, but otherwise we don't have much differentiations. We share the same industrial and transportation and financial network with each other. Actually those networks that I mentioned are more or less global. If you even go to a small manufacturing or technology company, I can guarantee that if they don't have direct foreign customers or suppliers, their direct customers and suppliers themselves are international. Geopolitically we are also a one unit, share US, Russia, middle-east and China with each other and what those entities do affects us directly.
"I do not disagree with you about the problem of timing on economic planning but it runs counter to democratic change. As the EU becomes more democratic, its planning will become more short-term. Just like every constituent nation which brings me back to - what is the point of the EU ?"
Democracy and economic planing are not substitutes for each other. Actually having a strong and stable governments allow you to have long term economic planing and building. What democracy gives is to make sure that the planing and building is done with national interest in mind and having as less corruption as possible.
The point of EU is poll all the markets and resources together to develop and create prosperity EU wide in a level that member countries themselves couldn't.
"France has a history of protectionism. France and Germany have dominated the EU since its inception. I refer you again to the most recent example - what is Nicolas Sarkozy's problem with Peter Mandelson ?"
Maybe he just doesn't like him personally?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila "curvy bananas" are part of the symptom, as you say.
One of the features of the over-bureaucracy inherent in the EU (and at national level, too) is the seemingly unstoppable prescription of every last detailin Directives, etc. I recall John Major complaining of UK civil servants "gold-plating" legislation: ie once final drafting was in their hands, they couldn't resist making it less inflexible, more detailed, more easily "controllable".
As I've said before, there is too much centralisation and too much bureaucracy in the EU. And I believe I'm not alone in believing that.
It appears that people throughout the EU have lost trust in the EU - and are becoming more nationalistic (unless they are disillusioned in their own nations too!). Before the EU heads of state decide what to do about the Lisbon Treaty, they need to re-think these issues.
But then, which of them isn't a born centralist?
Complain about this comment
To Jukka Rohila (81)
We are getting too detailed here. I suggest that we both mean that there is a balance between national and international regulation.
You believe the EU has it broadly right, I do not.
I would go further. I would say that the EU falls into an unfortunate and obstructive place between (a) national or even more local government and (b) genuinely international organisations like the UN and WTO.
The EU is obstructing the WTO - as the USA is. It was this negotiation that Nicolas Sarkozy was complaining about. He appears to believe that Peter Mandelson is too much of a free trader. This kind of criticism goes well in French politics where the Constitution was voted down in large part because of its free trading elements.
In all of these things, it is hard to see where the EU fits. Education and similar planning can be done nationally - it sounds as though you have it well worked out in Finland.
Health and Safety and other standards can be worked out by other organisations like the ISO - possibly with an expanded role.
I do not believe it is realistic to blame all of the problems of Africa on poor governance and lack of industrialisation. They suffer - in many cases - from producing cash crops instead of food to feed themselves. They do this to get hard currency to pay for their development. They need better developed agriculture so that they can do both. The CAP prevents this.
I do not see why you need to define a banana to buy it. Most people know what a banana is and anyway they mostly come from outside the EU.
The problem of democracy is that the EU only has long term goals because it is undemocratic - many would say anti-democratic. It would have shorter term goals if it were more democratic because the elected politicians would look to do whatever they did within their term in office.
One way you lose, the other way you don't win.
Complain about this comment
fragility
"The future of Europe, as far as science and technology is concerned, appears to be bleak indeed."
It is. This is because the European culture favors building monuments and castles in the air rather than solving practical problems. It does not reward individual initiative or enterprise, it thwarts it and then if it succeeds anyway, it steals its fruits. The A380 is a perfect example of a castle in the air and a monument to ego. Perhaps a lot of people missed my point a few threads ago. American designers could have built just such a plane anytime they wanted to during the last 40 years simply by converting a military transport, the C5A into a civilian passenger and cargo plane but they saw no market demand for it. Besides, the prospect of loading and unloading 500 to 800 passengers on one plane is a horrible prospect for the passengers. Anyone who has flown into or out of Newark Airport recently kows that the hub and spoke concept which A380 depends on is doomed. It is not unusual to wait on the ground for an hour or more for takeoff with 20 to 30 planes ahead of you or to wait in an airport as far away as California for 4 to 5 hours for Traffic Control Clearance from Newark to take off because of bad weather. Newark is a major hub for Continental Airlines, other airlines have other hubs. Aware of this the 787 pursues a different model of point to point service with smaller planes while the Eurosaurus-rex can hardly be built. The European Space Agency was going to show NASA how to get to Mars at 1/8 the cost but the Beagle II was lost and no other attempt was made. The US has warned that if the EU launches Galileo, it will be shot down for American national security reasons. There's not much to worry about though, not only can't they get funding for it, they can't even get it to work so far. All of these projects are redundant expensive monuments to ego, not new trailblazing paths by innovators. Where is Europe's Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or the thousands of others in smaller enterprises all over America? Simple, they don't exist. The European culture discourages such people.
Complain about this comment
To chill0 (83):
You described it right, we are indeed talking about the balance between national and supranational. I would add that it's not just regulating, it's also about sharing and targeting common resources.
I do think that the EU more or less rightly build. The EU is an regional organization between local and global. It shares so much common together that there is need for it. If we don't have EU, we don't have the common market and other EU projects such Euro or Galileo. If we look at the global scene, I would say that either we poll our power together or we will be crushed in every negotiation by bigger entities such US, China and India. There is no option to turn back as the age of nation states went. This century will be the century of superstates. We can choose if we want to make an impact on world stage or not.
I would also like to note that EU seems and partly is undemocratic, but that is more or less because it's not yet a federation but for long time it hasn't been just a confederation. Todays EU is club for governments. If we want to make EU more democratic, have more decisions done by elected politicians or have our elected parliaments be part of that decision making, we have to continue to integrate and centralize towards federation.
The Lisbon Treaty is one of the steps to make EU more democratic. In example the treaty has article that states that national parliaments be informed and receive draft legislation from the EU. The next step that member states themselves should make is that parliament or parliamentary committee would give guidance to European Council meetings and also can set limits and veto their ministers voting. This way we would have federation, but we would also have more accountability and in the essence national parliaments would get more power back to them. If we want that, we first have to accept the Lisbon Treaty with or without Irish amendments and then make national governments to include national parliaments directly in to the decision making structure of the European Council.
To note once again, I don't think that having democracy interrupts long term planning. In stable democracy with educated public, we understand that we ourselves have to make sacrifices in order for the well being of future generations. We have wast project ahead of us: we have to transform ourselves from carbon based economy to nuclear/hydrogen economy, we have to solve aging and immigration problems, we have to solve the middle-east crisis, we have someday start building Africa and other undeveloped areas and integrate them to our economy. It's all about making well educated decisions, by well educated politicians elected by well educated public.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
73. Wopitt wrote: ''What has globalism got to do with this blog? Title: "Treaty Puzzle Not Yet Solved". ''
"curvy bananas.”, as mentioned often in both sceptic and now pro viewpoint posts, also seem like 'red herrings'; but as, Jukka_Rohila, rightly points out: ''It's all about the common market.'' and the buying of goods without seeing the goods first (a common and understood standard).
73 .Wopitt goes on to write: ''No more red herrings please.''
Indeed the so called 'red herring' of Globalisation is indeed tied up to a great many other so called 'red herrings' and is I would argue the cusp of the argument and not the side issue that some would believe.
The highly criticised and ridiculed policy of certain food classifications (the quality assurance controls and means of knowing what you have bought before you see it) are much more sensible in a common market situation than people commonly believe. And the common markets are indeed a big part of the Globalisation process: as I would argue (and personally believe self evident) is the centralisation of power.
World Governance is not a new concept.
Our transition from nation states to Trade Zones and superstates is essential to how any potential Globalised World Governance will manifest itself. Whether you are for or against Globalisation, or indeed think it is a 'red herring' or not; it must be acceptable that how we define our Trade Zones and potential Supranationalist/ Super States directly coincides with peoples vision for Globalisation.
The European Peoples' world view is very important in how they view the EU; as it directly effects how their world at large and their locality will be governed.
I think there are red herrings out there; but we must choose carefully what we label as such.
And to conclusde I would argue that Globalisation is an integral piece to the 'puzzle'.
Complain about this comment
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1105_brussels_exposed.shtml
Until they put a stop to this gravy train, for MEPs who aren't even real legislators we will not begin to fix europe's problems.
Complain about this comment
To lordBeddGelert (88):
News of the World, part of the Rupert Murdoch media empire. Journalism at it's highest.
I'm not saying that there are no problems in European Parliament, but that isn't hardly a news. If you want to fix things and not just moan about things, then write to contact your national parliament representative, make fixing EU and European parliament a topic that your goverment has to answer for.
It should also be noted that don't vote for this guys in the next elections. Vote for somebody else.
Complain about this comment
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6afc0772-405a-11dd-bd48-0000779fd2ac.html
In the Financial Times they talk about how Ireland and the Czech Republic can be kicked out of the EU and how it works legally.
This looks very promising.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohilla
"This century will be the century of superstates."
It is unthinkable that the American people would allow their sovereignty to be transferred even in part to Ottawa and Mexico City. If their government tried to pull a fast one they way European governments have, blood would flow in the streets. Utlimately, the US will not bow to extranational control. Every treaty the US signs has an opt out clause and there are many who would like to exercise them now starting with the UN and NAFTA. If a treaty is not for America's benefit, why should Americans agree to it? America does not exist for the benefit of others. If Britain wants to be forced to pay for building highways and bridges in Hungary, that is their business and if the UK government doesn't give its voters a choice and they passively lay back and get fleeced, well isn't that just too bad.
Complain about this comment
Oh my #90 cryptomate,
Maybe I thought the FT was once intelligent, but after reading the reference you quoted all I can say is that is long past.
ie "Dublin’s financial centre would be demonised as an offshore tax haven and treated on par with Liechtenstein."
Take a little look at current EU thinking and name one so called 'tax haven' that is not being attacked by the EU in their desire to increase their tax take, they've long spent the available funds so now they search for more throughout the world.
re "Oh, and by the way, Ireland would no longer be a member of the eurozone. The Irish could use the euro if they wanted to but this would be like Panama using the dollar – a little sad, really. There would be no Irish voice in the European Central Bank’s governing council warning that this is not a good time to raise interest rates. Leaving the EU involves a huge loss power and influence."
Please explain why if they are not controlled by the ECB they cannot raise their interest rates. They can, upwards or downwards, as any non EU country can that takes the currency Euro. As for the absence of a voice in the ECB, well that's a true laugh for anyone who knows the decision making of the ECB to control CB's.
As for FT's "The No vote put Europe’s most impressive economic miracle at stake, and the cards are not looking good." all I can say is what was the writer of this article taking, as it must have deluded him a great deal as the only miracle is that there is someone out there who has not seen what's happening and still thinks there is a miracle.
Complain about this comment
I think that holdin a referendum on the treaty (or on a treaty) was (is) wrong.
The issues are to complex,and they should be aproved or not by diplomatic bodies.
Mr Barosso was right to criticise the Europian leaders in saying that they commit to Europe and behave as Eurosceptics at home.They have shown a lack of backbone.
Europe needs some kind of clarity and stability as to the powers and rules of the union,in order to fulfill the enlargement and to face the very big challenges of the future united,by some sort of an constitution,(which by the way would not undermine the individual states or national identities) and that shall happen,I just hope that the sooner,the better.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion
I'm with you Named-Erion. Unilke Americans, Europeans are not smart enough to decide critical issues affecting their government for themselves. It should be put in the hands of an elite who knows better than they do what's good for them. If they don't like it....let them eat cake.
Complain about this comment
"Does anyone really think that it is only the EU that keeps the countries of Europe from tearing each other to pieces?".
No, not JUST the EU but it is an important component. Europe has now had the longest period of peace in thousands of years - that must mean something. Integrating peoples and economies so that the tribalism that has plagued our continent for so long is controlled (and left to the football pitch), is in all our interests.
The EU is one of the most remarkable political achievements of all time - the integration and cooperation of nearly 500 million people, battling against petty nationalism and self-interest, without a single shot being fired to achieve it; it is unprecedented in history. We should all be proud of what we have made. So there is beauracracy, so what? What large organisation doesnt have that? You should check out how many civil servants there are in Manchester council (!), let alone Britain, before criticising the EU.
Complain about this comment
Re #90 from cryptomate
All the FT link you quote says about the how is: "I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will."
This is hardly useful, although the extrapolations based on that premise may make interesting reading.
For this thread, surely the how is all.
Maybe there is the "political will" in France and Germany, but I question how much there is in the other member states. Regarding the UK, NuLabour might have the will but I do not believe that even Supreme Leader Brownedov could carry it through Parliament before a general election.
Complain about this comment
The FT column of Wolfgang Münchau mentioned in #90 has a number of very strange statements as well as "I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country's departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will.".
His comment about Ryanair not being able to operate it's low cost flights within the EU if Ireland left is absurd, there are many low cost airlines flying all over the world. It is also worth noting that Ryanair was hit by the EU over the last years for a number of things such as subsidies, so now their operation is simply commercial.
As for that statement about it being possible to eject a member, that goes against every comment I've ever heard about the EU, and it most certainly goes against the Lisbon provision that for the first time there will be an orderly way for a country to leave.
To MarcusAureliusII #94,
Now why am I not surprised about this post from someone that participated in electing a president whose most notable feature is the space between the ears. I guess you didn't see his speech the other day when comrade Brown announced he was sending more troops to Afghanistan, dear old Bushie couldn't remember at first which country he was in, and you could almost hear the creaking of the few cogs that are present in his mind. So if you are one of the happy-clappers that attend US election meetings and vote for these mindless politicians. I think it's time that US decision making was also put in the hands of an elite as it's clear the population are very easily led by empty words from brain dead politicians.
Complain about this comment
Further to my #96, and in total agreement with #97...
I have done quite a bit more research and can find nothing concrete to support the contention in #90 that: "Ireland and the Czech Republic can be kicked out of the EU".
It certainly isn't covered in the BBC's own Inside Europe or its linked Q and As (accessible within UK Politics). If the contention is true, it should be, and in words us mere mortals can understand.
Would Mark pass this suggestion on to his website colleagues? It would certainly carry more weight coming from him.
Complain about this comment
Mark you say that some Irish fears could be assuaged, e.g. "a declaration that the EU has no plans to force Ireland into a euro-army"
But thuis is a meaningless declaration, if Ireland has surrendered its veto - the other countries COULD (no matter how unlikely a possibility this currently is) vote to force Ieralnd into just such an Army,
Or to force all governments to allow abortion on demand
Or to abolish general elections and to have its parliament appointed by the EU
Now these all may seem ridiculously extreme - and of course they are - but there is absolutely NOTHING in the Lisbon treaty to prevent such abuses, short of a country leaving the EU
In fact, the treaty grants unprecendented powers to an unelected suprantional body to make or interpret law without recourse to national parliaments, and to impose that law upon unwilling countries by the means of QMV
Complain about this comment
#11. EverCloserUnion wrote:
"Nor do I see the issue of asking the Irish electorate again as being of dubious democratic legitimacy. On that logic we should question the legitimacy of asking the people to vote every so often in parliamentary elections."
EU supporters never do see a problem with 'ratchet' democracy - that you can keep voting until you get a 'Yes' then no more votes
It is the exact principle of asking people to vote every so often that is lacking in EU legislation
Do countries that have voted to join the Euro, for example, get to vote every so often on whether or not they want to stay in? No! Because this one-way path is NOT democracy
Complain about this comment
buzet...
"I think it's time that US decision making was also put in the hands of an elite as it's clear the population are very easily led by empty words from brain dead politicians."
Be afraid, be very afraid... when people start dissing democracy, it is time to head for the hills..
Complain about this comment
Re #101 from lordBeddGelert, well yes, but surely Buzet23's #97 was only poking a well-merited jibe at the sorry state of US democracy, where promises apparently carry as little weight as those in the 2005 Labour manifesto (unless the courts surprise us all and give Brownedov a kicking).
Off-topic, I suppose, but it's hard not to agree that the US system of democracy is in almost as parlous a state as the UK system.
Back on topic, it's a shame that the European Council/Commission doesn't have any democratic accountability at all.
Complain about this comment
lordBeddGelert #101,
Did you mean dismissing rather than dissing?
In fact, my own opinion is that I am a fan of democracy, but a hater of the situation now whereby many so called democratic parts of the world are led by either power mad elites or fools or a combination of both. That there is a vote every 4 or 5 years means very little if no notice is taken of the result and what the opinions of the voters were, or if there is little to choose between the parties standing. In such situations I guess you're right, it is time to head for the hills as the response to the Irish vote has shown us EU democracy is AWOL.
Complain about this comment
#46. Jukka_Rohila wrote:
"If it's true that Libertas and No campaign got funding from foreign governments or influential foreign nationals then.. well.. people have been called traitors for lesser reason than that."
It IS MOST DEFINITELY true that one side got funding from foreign governments and influential foreign nationals - the YES vote!
They were bankrolled by the EU, in a campaign paid for and (badly) managed by the EU, with many EU leaders calmouring for the Irish to vote Yes
People have been called traitors for lesser reason than that...
Complain about this comment
Nobody is against democracy,Government are choosen by the vote of the people.
But issues which are politicaly complex should be decided by diplomatic bodies and not a referendum.
It would be very easy to tell people that short term this treaty or that is bad for them,but is not very easy telling them about how good this treaty might be for the geopolitics of the union,how it would make europe ready to face the challenges it would have to face prety soon.
Wether nationalists wanted or not,the truth is Europe is about to get united and united more and more,is an unescapable fact of our globalised world.The sooner it does that,the better.
Calling for a referendum was wrong.
People are democraticaly rapresented in parlament and government ,and it is this institutions duty to deal with this complex issues.
Complain about this comment
Coming back to #23:
The Treaty in force (the Nice Treaty) implicitely limits the EU to 27 members. The answer given in #29 is wrong.
Sarkozy (and very surprisingly Merkel who effectively sells the Croats down the river, but I guess they already got a call from her) have made clear that enlargement won't happen without the Lisbon Treaty. Not that the Irish would bother, but the Czechs and Poles will. It's good old power politics again in Europe.
That's why I am confident that things will move forward. Germany and France won't abandon the European project just because a minority of the Irish electorate wanted to play poker (we are now seeing better the key motivations of the Irish nay-sayers. They just don't want to share funds with the Eastern Europeans and they don't want to give the countries with large populations a bigger say - so much for connecting to the core values of solidarity and democracy).
The insult that this will end in a Franco-Prussian dictatorship is just ludicrous and shows the xenophobic core of the europhobes' arguments. The relations between France and Germany cannot be reduced to the 2nd half of the 19th and 1st half of the 20th century, even if this is all what British kids learn in school. I concur with Jacques Lang that the Treaty of Verdun was a mistake (the treaty of 843 of course). It's about to be corrected.....
For the record: I have never claimed that the majority of the British are europhobes. The majority is just not very well informed about the EU. The europhobes are actually a small, but noisy minority.
Complain about this comment
In #105 from Named-Erion wrote: "Nobody is against democracy ... But issues which are politicaly complex should be decided by diplomatic bodies and not a referendum."
Tell that to the Swiss!
That's why the euro constitution needs to be written on at most 3 or 4 pages of A4.
Are you represented by a government of honest politicians elected by the majority of the electorate? Most of us are not, so is that democracy?
It was in order to retain the complexity of the euro constitution that was booted out in referenda that the EC came up with the fudged Lisbon Treaty. That's why the Irish sensibly rejected it, as many more would have, given the opportunity.
Until and unless the European Council and Commission are reformed root and branch, many committed Europeans like myself will be against this whole shabby process.
Complain about this comment
I was sad to read (le Figaro weekend magazine) an interview with Declan Ganley - he of the Irish "No" campaign. He claimed that 'all that is necessary' is to re-write the Lisbon Treaty in plain language that everyone can understand and it will be supportable. That's all??
I know he claims to be an EU supporter (as I am) but, either he was taking the journalist (and readers) for a ride, or he doesn't understand the Treaty as well as he says he does (he claims to have read every word).
Sadly, the mess that is the "Lisbon Treaty" clouds the reality that so much of what the EU does is so successful. Just note today's report on this BBC Europe News page about the Europol and Eurojust action against people-smugglers. Ther are plenty more success stories, if only the media would report them (no prizes for saying why they won't).
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum1 @ #106
Sorry to jump in here as reading all the opinions is/has been quite interesting - BUT - may I ask how you arrived at the following part of your comment?
You wrote: "For the record: I have never claimed that the majority of the British are europhobes. The majority is just not very well informed about the EU. The europhobes are actually a small, but noisy minority."
Are you confusing that the British quite like their neightbours in Western Europe (Goodness there's enough of us having escaped the UK for living in France and Spain and my sister lives in retirement in Vienna - where I love to visit!) with the almost universal contempt for the EU that, I believe, most citizens of the UK hold!
If you know that "The europhobes are actually a small, but noisy minority." and you mean, by the term 'europhobes', that they are anti-EU , then I would dearly like to know on what evidence you base your statement that they are a minority? Or is it merely your hope that they are minority?
Of couse, the only way we could actually judge the opinion of the UK Citizens would be to ask them the question directly - in a UK Referendum.
A Referendum is something which I think will happen in the UK sooner or later given that the UK Liberal Party are now promoting the idea and I believe the UK Conservative Party will eventually concede to the public demand for a membership vote!
Complain about this comment
holmdps :107
I understand you have a point.Your argument raises the issue of legality of governments.
The governments might not be elected by the majority of the electorate but ceirtanly they are elected by the bigest electoral groop,and the politicians in them might not be honest but they are the trusted ones to bring foward the policies.
Ither case,people have the power to elect whichever they think would best see the peoples interest,and they are able to do this every four years or five.
So there is no need to bring foward referendums on complex political issues,there is diplomacy in place to deal with that and a parlament should the need to put the decision on the vote arise.
Calling people on the referendum is in my opinion the lack of backbone by politicians who could not otherwise bring foward their pointless oposition to the treaty.Nothing to do with democracy.
If the people have spoken against the treaty then are you sure that most people who voted realy understood the importance of the treaty in its entire geopolical aspect,and the efect of their vote?
As i have said this only delays what is inescapable.Europe very soon has to complete the enlargement proces and come up with clear basic treaty on the powersharing,and the sooner the better.
Complain about this comment
Re #110 from Named-Erion: "The governments might not be elected by the majority of the electorate but ceirtanly they are elected by the bigest electoral groop, and the politicians in them might not be honest but they are the trusted ones to
bring foward the policies."
That's substantially true almost everywhere in the EU except the UK where our "quaint" electoral system has, like the 2000 US Presidency, produced majority governments voted for by fewer people than the party in second place. Even in places with less unfair electoral systems, coalitions are usually formed based on a whole raft of issues and not solely on EU issues.
When you say: "Ither case, people have the power to elect whichever they think would best see the peoples interest, and they are able to do this every four years or five."
That's the key to all this. At least in the UK you vote every four years or so for a single local candidate on his or her entire manifesto. But, and it's a big one, that manifesto covers the whole gamut of issues from repairing the parish pump to the deployment of nuclear weapons, with UK taxes and government spending being the key issue 90% of the time and the EU getting a single paragraph at most.
About the only thing a UK government cannot do, unless it is written into its manifesto, is to change our unwritten constitution, and even that's only a parliamentary convention. What they're doing here is to change that constitution by granting powers to EU jurisdiction to a much greater extent than they did in the original EEC entry, which was supported by our 1975 referendum.
As the employers of the governments we may grant them a fairly free hand in exercising their executive powers, but if they want to change the whole ground rules (ie - the constitution), then not only is it reasonable that they should get confirmation via a referendum, which in this particular case they actually promised.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (109):
I think that the probability of UK having a referendum on UKs continued membership in the EU is as high as price Charles becoming a king and returning UK to absolute monarchy. Won't happen.
It's all the same if you have Labour or Torries or Liberals in power, the goverment won't have EU referendum nor will it leave EU. The reason for this is that British economy and political power in Europe would just collapse if it wasn''t a member of the EU. Already now UK and especially City are suffering because UK is not part of the Eurozone. Note especially Frankfurt increasing its position as an international finance center more or less in London's expense.
My bet is that the day Tories get power in UK, they will put a Thatcherisque play in action constituting of "No! No! No!" and the result being something that everybody actually wants like giving up on Strasbourg having as EU parliaments second place and some other cosmetic changes. After this the Tories will just announce that EU is now fixed and all is good and UK will join the Eurozone and press full on with European integration.
Complain about this comment
Number 110
You portray the political systems as being an either / or option.
Either a parlimentary democracy when the politicians have unlimited power to decide on everything, or a pure democracy when a majority decision is required on everything. This pleasing simplicity might suit your argument that the constitition vote was wrong, but lets be honest, it isn't really that way.
Democracy takes many forms on a sliding scale between 2 extremes above, but with the overall requirements (amongt others) that:
1. the people decide how much authority to delegate
2. are regularly consulted on who should be given the authority to speak and vote on their behalf.
3. no alteration to the rules can be made by a process the falls outside the rules in place at the time.
In this case, the decision to hold a referendum was a legal requirement of the constitution of Ireland - not a cowardly decision by the politicians who surely would have avoided the vote by any means open to them. There are no legal grounds for a revote either in Ireland or in the EU, and any change to the treaty would require a re-ratification process in the other 26 countries.
The fact the decision of the people was counter to the wishes of the politicians is not grounds to either try to change the rules retrospectively, denigrate the process or the voters. Democracy doesn't work that way.
Many have espressed the opinion that the treaty was too complicated to be decided upon by the voters. Well the Irish PM (amongst others) admitted that he hadn't read it or fully understood it. In that situation the "trust me" approach is fatally undermined and voting no is entirely rational.
Finally there was no reason for the treaty to be so complicated. It was complicated because the politicians chose to make it so. The complicaiton was the consequense of the trade offs resulting from the politicians chosing to include the clauses regarding the transfer of power from the states to the EU.
The EU needed to be administratively reformed. It did not need to take power from the states. That was a choice.
A treaty that increased the democratic accountabilty of the EU institutions and smoothed out the administrive processes would have passed without comment - perhaps even a cheer! Obviously that would have meant forgoing the opportunity to smuggle through the constitutional bit.
It was not the Irish voters who were playing poker, it was the EU who bet the house on red, and it came in green!
Complain about this comment
Number 95
I accept that the EU has played huge part in keeping the peace in Europe, but I am not so sure that it really is needed for this reason any more.
The removal of the EU is hardly going to result in military agression between Western Europe countries.
The American Constitution still protects the tea drinkers of Boston from British taxes, but I am not sure that it really relevent any more.
Complain about this comment
Re #113 from Wopitt
Very well said, and absolutely spot on in response to #110. As good a summary of the story so far as I've seen.
My only quibble is with the EU in your last sentence. Surely it was the European Council and Commission playing poker rather than the EU as a whole.
Complain about this comment
Well done the Irish. I am normally in favour of the EU and I would have voted no to this treaty.
Complain about this comment
''It is like the adoption of GM crops and death of inefficient industries. It is utility which decides these things, not argument.''
It is not always Utility that decides. GM crops, which have been shown by independent review, to have stalled or reversed the increases in yields achieved by improving farming methods, are still being heavily promoted by both the industry and our top-flight politicians (Brown, Mandelson et al.)
This is not due to Utility; but big Agribusiness lobbying.
I would suggest rejection of Genetically Manipulated foods; and a return from Agribusiness to Agriculture.
Agribusiness means Mono-culture.
Named-Erion wrote: ''I think that holdin a referendum... was (is) wrong. The issues are to complex...''
Speak for yourself, Named-Erion .
chrisboote wrote: “...ridiculously extreme - ...but there is absolutely NOTHING in the Lisbon treaty to prevent such abuses, short of a country leaving the EU“
The adoption of Bush's World Governance policy: 'You're either with us or against us' by the EU.
How times have changed.
lordBeddGelert wrote: ''Be afraid, be very afraid... when people start dissing democracy, it is time to head for the hills..''
True.
The Oligarchs will come in their flying death machines to re-educate us regarding our misconceptions concerning democracy... like not accepting the verdict of referendums, the benefits of electronic voting in stealing an election; and how to cheaply install a tin-pot dictator who will ensure their ideas flourish and that the people are put in their place...
That is of course nonsense: they will send someone else to do it for them.
Named-Erion wrote: ''Europe is about to get united and united more and more,is an unescapable fact of our globalised world.The sooner it does that,the better. ''
Not even escapable by democratic vote. How very democratic of you... Ever thought of running for an MEP?
But then you're unlikely to get elected next June with that slogan.
Jukka_Rohila wrote: ''My bet is that the day Tories get power ... [they] will just announce that EU is now fixed and... UK will join the Eurozone and press full on with European integration.''
Yes because they will be bought by EU money.
While the UK home owners are having their homes repossessed due to the central banks calling in debts, they will no doubt be having big fat dinners; and having their mortgages paid by their defrauding of the public purse via EU lobby groups. The Labour politicians seem to be feeling the benefits of a more centralised EU; and not surprisingly call for us to trust their decision in proliferating the process to the extreme...
The gravy train may have been scheduled to leave the station; but as with most British trains has been delayed. And despite the fears of the economy class passengers regarding its destination, the track maintenance has been so bad that they can at least hope for a swift derailment and shorter walk home.
Lisbon is exemplary of all that is wrong with modern politics; and we must learn lessons from the process of it's demise.
Complain about this comment
#106 Gruenebaum1,
re "For the record: I have never claimed that the majority of the British are europhobes. The majority is just not very well informed about the EU. The europhobes are actually a small, but noisy minority."
I don't know where you live in the EU or who you know but try opening the eyes a bit, as the majority in the couple of countries I know don't follow your thinking. You have conveniently mixed being anti-Europe with being anti the current direction, they are quite different. It's hard to find anyone in the hotbed of pro-Europe South Belgium that is happy with what's happening, yet they are pro-Europe. Are they also not well informed or is it more truthful to say we are not wearing those rose coloured glasses and don't have our snouts in the trough.
To #105 Named-Erion,
re "People are democraticaly rapresented in parlament and government ,and it is this institutions duty to deal with this complex issues."
Sorry but anyone who trusts the current batch of failed politicians is quite frankly deluded. Their ability reminds me of a trick question when interviewing a potential accountant - "what is one plus one" the answer should be "what figure did you have in mind", the political elite are experts in this from the way they twist everything.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 #97
Seems to me that the UK run by the elites of politics did no better than the US run by us commoner riff-raff. Funny how over the last hundred years or so the UK lost its empire while by some accounts (BBC is one of them) the US found theirs.
And now for the sports.
It's EU regulators/gas tax 1, France 0
And in late breaking news;
EU fishing regulators 1, French tuna fishermen 0.
Why not admit what is so plain it's right on the nose in front fo your faces, the only thing that changed in the last few thousand years that kept Europe from fighting two or three more world wars since 1945 is that the US became THE major European power and put its foot down. Why just 9 years ago, Europe was ready to fight WWI all over again. Only American intervention prevented it. Personally, I'm for pulling out and letting them have another go at each other. Europe is so pathetic it doesn't even know how pathetic it is. They think they will escape the fallout of the coming US recession again just the way they thought so in 2000. What a bunch of maroons.
Complain about this comment
That's funny MarcusAureliusII, nine years ago in 1999 we were preparing for the introduction of the Euro and the advent of the year 2000. I seem to recall that the most concern was about the computer systems (mostly US IBM's etc) and package applications (often US) having been so badly programmed that they would cause the EU's economies to falter. As it was the Y2K bug didn't appear until February 28th when the US financial application I was supporting decided that the next day was March 1st. Is that the WW1 you are referring to and was the attack a covert attempt by the US to force the European countries into a new war debt, as there are many over here who have long memories about your profiteering during the wars. So this time forget it, we won't be bailing out your economy and ruining ours repaying a so called 'war debt', and we certainly won't be paying you for your wonderful leaders 'war on terror'.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''Europe is so pathetic it doesn't even know how pathetic it is.''
You do have some interesting and sometimes poignant opinions; but I think this rather lets you down...
The problem in Europe is not Europe itself; nor the people there from: it is the wannabe Musolinis, Hitlers, Stalins, Bushes, Mugabes et al. lurking in our political systems...
Practically every right-wing dictator in Europe has been born and brought up a Catholic - notably Hitler (though people have been told other myths about him...), Horthy, Franco, Petain, Mussolini, Pavelic, and Tiso...
It is true also of a great many of our celebrity politicians now, if you bother to check...
...and meanwhile the Bush family, who have been seemingly, in it for the money for some time now; are all falling over themselves to convert to the Catholic faith too...
Its a shame the fascist-chickens, who went unpunished last time, are all coming home to roost; and just in time for Christmas.
God help us.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
Oh how quick they are to forget. Y2K was 8 1/2 years ago. 9 1/2 years ago Turkey and Greece were ready to go at it with the weapons America sold them to defend themselves against the USSR but they weren't being considered for fighting WWIII, they were ready to pickup where World War I left off in 1918 in unfinished business. The fight was over Serbia, Kosovo, and the slaughter of Kosovars Milosevic and Serbia, and Company who were Orthodox BTW, not Catholic were committing. Have you forgotten the hundreds of thousands driven from their homes into the snow to die? Have you forgotten the rape of Kosovar women and the mass murders of Kosovar men and boys? Have you forgotten the gangs of Serbian thug aided and abetted by the Serbian army and police? HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN THE PICTURES OF THE KOSOVAR REFUGEES BEING FORCED ONTO THE TRAINS REMINDING EUROPE OF AUSCHWITZ AND THE NIGHTMARE IT HAD BEEN TRYING TO FORGET FOR OVER 50 YEARS? And have you forgotten how Western Europe begged President Clinton to do whatever he had to do to make it stop? No UN Security Council resolution needed then? They'd never have gotten one, not with Russia to veto it. Just go in and get the job done they told America. Only the weakness of NATO was that every target America bombed had to be approved by every government in NATO in advance. Some lousy alliance America is in. Some lousy allies it has in Europe. Just look at Europe's pathetic show in Afghanistan. 2 million men under arms and it can't field 30,000. Worthless rot! America is better of with them as enemies than as allies. That's what Chirac wanted, that's what Schroeder wanted, that's what much of the population of Europe wanted even before the invasion of Iraq. Now they've got it, they'll have to learn to live with it.
Complain about this comment
to #122,
You seem to be ignorant and rush. Firstly the mass exodus (ethnic cleansing) started in Kosovo only AFTER your precious NATO started bombing (which by the way only helped Milosevic, for peoples instead of hating him, hated the West); you confuse Bosnia and Kosovo, for only in the former was massive rape alleged. I will not take issues with your tacit bigotry statement, since, as it were, your are just making the point on the political influence of certain religions.
Now your point about the EU being military weak and relying heavily on the US is for all intent and purposes true, but precisely the stronger the Union is, the bigger it military power will be. For my part, this seem not be possible.
Complain about this comment
To 51 Jukka_Rohila
I congratulate you on your steadfastness and Patriotism to the EU .
In your address to MarcusAurelius you quote many reasons , why the EU should be good for us , like a strong home market . I read what you say , as if you were quoting from the textbook of what is intended to make Europe good . One of the problems is the home trade market , too many of the same goods , passing from country to country within the EU , instead of a concentration on exporting around the world . I believe the strength of the Euro has more to do with currency trading than the success and strength of the EU trading partners . Italy for example , has in my view made a great error joining the single currency . For many years Italy has adjusted the Lira up and down as necessary ; which has enabled them to market at lower prices and keep their economy alive . Now they are in grave difficulties an cannot do much about it . Tourism is a major industry , but they will be losing out there too . The theory of what you say should be right , but in practise is not .
You come across as someone from inside the EU , expecting to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow .
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
Rant, Rant Rant all you want, but for once try and get real, I fail to see how Greece and Turkey's little spat in early 1996 (not nine years ago) and part of their long standing Aegean dispute could be considered WW1 continued in any way whatsoever or in any way linked to the Balkans problems which coincidently ran from 1996 to 1999, I guess you meant WW1 continued was the Balkan war since that's where WW1 was started.
The only thing you got right was that Europe needed assistance to overcome the resistance of Russia to any action against Serbia, mainly since they were long time allies due to their common East Slav origin.
As for "Only the weakness of NATO was that every target America bombed had to be approved by every government in NATO in advance.", joke, it was Nato that bombed targets my friend not the USA, your aircraft were under Nato command as you are part of Nato, remember. Of course the Nato commanders had to vet the targets, just as happens in any of the current conflicts, the days of random carpet bombing and agent orange are long past, even for the US.
If there was one good come out of this intervention it was that ALL of the NATO members were involved to some degree, even Greece, despite publicly opposing the war, and it was the first time the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) had participated in a conflict since World War II. It showed that the European EU members in Nato can work together successfully.
Now all that needs to happen is for the political elites throughout the world to get back to core issues rather than concentrating on power and influence for their inflated ego's. We in the EU are overburdened by these inflated ego's at the moment, just as the USA is, probably since we share a common origin ie Europe.
Complain about this comment
For some reasons, my postings aren't getting through.
Complain about this comment
Wow do Europeans decieve themselves, they live in a fantasy world. They selectively forget history or rewrite it.
dzomba
Do you suppose President Clinton woke up one morning and said who can we bomb today and out of the blue picked Serbia? No, the US had no dog in that fight. The Balkins were no threat to the US except indirectly through the instability it was creating in Europe as a whole. Nato was a cover for US military action, the action of the other so called NATO allies was tokenism. Who do you think you are kidding. I watched it myself on TV and said when I saw the refugees boarding the trains OMG there's going to be a wider war after all and one way or another we're going to get sucked into this. The ethnic cleansing began almost immediately with the death of Tito when Bosnia and Slovenia pulled out of Yuogoslavia. That's about the time we started hearing about the Serbs creating a greater Serbia. Kosovo was the end of the war in the Balkins and Serbian ethnic cleansing (codeword for genocide), not the beginning. Not only is what you said wrong, it makes no logical sense. Why would Serbs ethnicly cleanse Kosovars if they were being bombed by Americans? BTW, a lot of Americans wanted nothing to do with that war including me. America had no direct reason to enter it. Your agrument is plainly a deliberate gross misstatement of historical facts.
Buzet23
Spat between Greece and Turkey, is that what you call it? Hardly. Greece had to be dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to NATO action. They sided with the Serbs. They were ready for war. So were the Turks. There was even a dispute over who could use the name Macedonia. The fear was that once started, old enmities would extend the war to a much wider regional war just as it had in 1914. The passions never changed. WWI ended not through resolution of the conflict but through mere exhaustion. WWII and the cold war were only diversions which when over allowed the conflict to start up all over again. This was a conflict that had been raging for centuries, maybe for over a thousand years. Who do you think you are kidding about NATO. NATO is a cover for the American military presence in Europe. The Europeans are there in it for show. In real battle, they contribute little if anything of substance. Look at their utter failure in Afghanistan. If America had to depend on NATO to defend it, it would be doomed.
Here's some pictures of what European did to each other in the late 20th century. There are thousands of photos of their atrocities you can choose from;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7470464.stm
This wasn't in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kenya, or Bruma, this was in Europe. As you recall, even with Dutch troops standing by right there, they did nothing to protect the Bosnians from the Serbs in Srebrenica. Google for yourself to have a look at the corpses.
Those mass graves aren't from Germany in 1945, they are from places like Bosnia in 1995. 8100 dead in this massacre alone. Now you want to tell me about a few hundred al Qaeda thugs being held in detention in GITMO?
Take your pick. Thousands of photos of it on the internet to choose from.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Much as I appreciate the views about who did what, when and to whom since WWI, is it possible for the BBC to examine the status of the Treaty from a legal perspective rather than just what sort of dodgy deal the politicians can get up to over the next few months?
I am aware that plenty of bloggers have expressed a view, but would welcome the views of experts either employed by the Beeb, or from external contributors. Perhaps you could even have a programme about it and invite Brown along.
You could start by asking When is a Constitutional Treaty not a Constitutional Treaty?
You could finish up with the question; whether the Irish can ratify the Treaty without a further referendum.
Perhaps we might have some illumination as to the intentions of all concerned at the end of the process.
Complain about this comment
To repeat Marcus AureliousII,
Now all that needs to happen is for the political elites throughout the world to get back to core issues rather than concentrating on power and influence for their inflated ego's. All our armies are hampered by these political elite and yours is no different, and I might add, not as good as you fondly believe. The ready availability of high tech munitions does not make a great army, but it can help an average unmotivated army appear good, and we all know motivation is a problem in the US forces.
It is an absolute disgrace that the forces from the UK and other EU countries in Afghanistan and Iraq are having to fight with one hand tied behind their backs by their politicians. Either they are undermanned, not to be used in dangerous areas, or as in the UK's case badly equipped with both poor quality munitions and insecure vehicles. It seems that our politicians would prefer to pay lip service to our courageous and motivated forces whilst wasting billions on their great political dream of a huge super state with them at the head of the gravy train. I would much prefer the money that has been wasted on the Lisbon treaty to have gone to support EU forces wherever they are placed for humanitarian reasons by the UN.
Complain about this comment
Re #128 from smfcbuddie: "I am aware that plenty of bloggers have expressed a view, but would welcome the views of experts either employed by the Beeb, or from external contributors. Perhaps you could even have a programme about it and invite Brown along."
Absolutely. Exploring the legal side of things is clearly the next topic of interest and a programme with the Supreme Leader would be great. If you can manage it, though, Mark, please try to get it shown on BBC World as well as domestically.
Re #129 from Buzet23: "I would much prefer the money that has been wasted on the Lisbon treaty to have gone to support EU forces wherever they are placed for humanitarian reasons by the UN."
I have some sympathy with that view, but if the fallout from the Irish referendum eventually produces a democratic EU it will have been money well spent.
Complain about this comment
To # 127,
perhaps in your world there is no difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing but in the real world there is. The reason there was war at all in Kosovo, is that the ethnic albanians wanted independency long before Milosevic came to power, or "Great Serbia" contrived. Check the beginning of the 80s and you will understand what I am saying - the war did not start in 90s. Since therefore they were not loyal citizens they had to fight with the authorities, resulting in their rights being hamperd. But, there were no mass atrocites, such as ethnic cleansing, before the NATO intervened, only then could Nationalist take the upper hand and go to pillage Kosovo.
It is true that the US had no dog in that fight, but only at the beginning, for once it became clear that after the fall of berlin wall, only vigilant communist left in Europe was Milosevic, and once Clinton discerned the chance of him getting the title of the savior of small, oppressed nations that would bolster his position at home (let alone the interest of war industries etc.), NATO bombing could start. N
Now it is not my view that the Serbs were great or something, but only that it is not simply malicious to praise NATO but also quit naive. Tell me, why didnt NATO intervened in Ruanda in 1995, you do remeber that there was a genocide and 500 000 people mutilated (comparing to 10 000 Serbs and Albanians total) ?
p.s. If I remember correctly you also saw on your TV the weapons of mass destruction in Irag, right?
Complain about this comment
Good news for democrats. The good people of Ireland have put the dark forces of federalism on the back foot. French European Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet said today that France will not try to force through the Lisbon treaty (though he clearly hopes the Irish will vote again). The Danish government is also re-considering holding referendums this year on abandoning its opt-outs from the Maastricht treaty! The main reason seems to be the expectation that the people will vote NO.
Complain about this comment
Bacon, Blondes and Bundles of common sense from Denmark! Oh joy! Got to love the Danish people!
In the event of yet another "No" vote from Denmark, there might be sufficient head of steam to see other nations thinking about holding referendums!
Czechoslovakia for one? Poland for another?
We might even see the United Kingdom reunited by asking the British what they think of the EU in a referendum!
Oh, the exciting times we are in!
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
You seem to believe that we are all bent on denigrating and deriding the USA and its achievements at every opportunity and you have made it plain that you feel that we are unworthy allies.
As you have explained elsewhere, you take part in these discussions only "to give Europeans a taste of their own medicine".
Since you have such evident disdain for us would you please consider changing your pseudonym from that of a very European historical character to, for example, "Uncle Sam".
I suppose it's too much to ask that you just withdraw permanently?
Complain about this comment
To Huameik (124):
The point about integrating whole Europe into a single home market for all European companies is that having a home market of 500 million instead of 50 million or 5 million makes huge difference in many ways. When you have a huge home market you can more easily earn scale advantage or become a de-facto standard in your industry that you can leverage in other markets. In example on of the reason US has so strong technology sector is that US companies have a home market of 300 million were to grow before even thinking about becoming international. If you compare the situation in Europe, our own companies, especially small start-ups suffer from huge overhead costs when entering other markets. It should also be added that in the US it's much more easier to get capital or venture capital as their markets huge size allows financial investors grater prospects to specialize. In Europe the financial markets at least in start-up and in SME faces are much smaller because our markets are more or less divided still and that creates a huge loss European economy.
I should also add that there is no point for European companies to not trade first in Europe as it's one of the largest markets and allows opportunity for companies to grow. For a small company with limited resources it's more or less ridiculous in a first stage to North America or Asia as taking those markets requires massive amounts of resources and capital.
--
If Italy wouldn't be in Euro, the interest rates for Italian government to loan capital from financial markets would be huge as their economy and especially political system have been in crisis for a long time. It should also be noted that having when currency is devaluated it means that the debt in foreign currency rises. Essentially it means the government pays the bill.
I would also like to remind you that countries such as UK or Italy are not safe from currency speculations. It's only about 16 years when George Soros made huge profits by speculating with British Pound. In recent times Iceland krona has been the target of currency manipulation by having large amounts of capital shorted against it. The thing is that only currencies like US dollar or Euro are safe from speculation as they have enough large backing behind them. To me it's better thing to have stable currency and stable interest rates than be afraid that the next morning I raise the interest rates have hit the roof.
PS. Have to disappoint you: not inside of the EU. Just an IT professional and entrepreneur, and no not government contractor :) I truly think we need EU because of economic reason and to secure our economic interest we need also political EU that can have negotiation power against US and emerging superpowers.
Complain about this comment
Mark
Fear is a the heart of those who cannot embrace the future. The EU is simply an excuse for that kind of mind-set. As a so-called expert I have been depressed at the fears our free fellow Europeans have expressed on this blog.
Complain about this comment
They fear a faceless being wants to deny their freedom. Insane frankly. They see a Soviet Empire springing up. Pure fantansy. Democracy they say. The EU will end it. My God. They should visit were our dead lie to understand what the EU is really about. They have understood nothing and will always find the outsider to blame. Sad really. The sow fear and distrust. The EU is made in the image of our hopes and our fears. That is why it so so difficult to grasp. You Mark have a responsibility. Rousing or feuling fears is not really objective journalism.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''America is better of with them [Europe] as enemies than as allies.''
Clearly this is not true.
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''That's what Chirac wanted, that's what Schroeder wanted, that's what much of the population of Europe wanted even before the invasion of Iraq.''
There was a feeling world wide that US foreign policy was turning from 'peace maker' to 'Empire builder'. The disagreement regarding Iraq, was expressed by those who dared to question the Bush administrations self proclaimed 'moral high-ground' and invoking of Gods name to start a war against a regime they created.
It seemed strange and scary to many people world wide (not in Europe alone)
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''Now they've got it, they'll have to learn to live with it.''
Got what exactly?
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''Do you suppose President Clinton woke up one morning and said who can we bomb today and out of the blue picked Serbia?''
No.
It is however widely perceived; perhaps you can convince otherwise, that the US involvement was indirectly (some say directly) supporting the push for a 'Greater Albania' (Albanian Nationalism) and the stalling of Serbian nationalism.
I personally lean more towards the latter. Preventing the proliferation of a larger Slavic state in Europe.
Europe is fully aware of the history of the Balkan region; and also aware whom has been supporting whom within the conflicts. Including the US support in Macedonia against Albanian extremism, which would perhaps remove weight from the 'Greater Albania' theory for US foreign policy there.
The need to be, at least perceived, as not in support of Albanian Nationalism, is the fact that Greater Albania was created by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, which would look bad for anyone; especially as the American and German airforces were involved, the lufwaffe for the first time since WW2.
Whether there is any credence to the theory that sites the Greater Albanian project as merely on the 'back burner'; and a promise encoded into the new Kosovar flag (2008) in the six stars... [this theory seems to have been removed from fotw.net (flags of the world), strange, so I shall have to elaborate rather than provide a link...]:
The flag has six stars above the yellow block filled map of Kosovo (see it for yourself here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Kosovo), the stars are supposedly to represent all Ethnic minorities present in Kosovo.
However, some argue that the stars represent each territory that extremist Albanians desire to fashion into a "Greater Albania", ie Kosovo, Montenegro (Podgorica, Ulcinj, etc.) , Southern Epirus, Republic of Macedonia (including Bujanovac in Serbia), Preševo Valley and of course Albania itself.
Further to this argument; some claim there only five ethnic factions in Kosovo [another flag that was decided against at last minute had only five stars, one of which was at the top and larger than the rest; which has added to the fears of sceptics... that this 'brighter star represented Ethnic Albanians...]
I will remind at this stage that the Ethnic Albanians, have been involved in mass ethnic cleansing themselves during the war years, which saw the mass deportation of Ashkali, Egyptians, Roma ... et al. During Nazi occupation.
It is also claimed that ethnic cleansing of Serbs (which has happened before) from Kosovo and Bosnia is backed up by more evidence than the so called Serbian Nationalist cleansing of Albanians (refugees from the conflict were often said to have been ethnically cleansed, erroneously...)
Incidentally, the colours of the Bosnia-Herzegovinan and Kosovar flags have the same basic colour schemes of the EU flag; which reportedly contains the Marian Seal of the returning Roman Empire (or Fourth Reich).
I provide this information as balance to the accepted and so called politically correct account.
I do not accuse foul play to the American people, as this is untrue; but the US administration in all its forms over the last century is perhaps another matter.
Although I'm sure their intentions were noble, as i would imagine was the decision by President Bush's grandfather to provide essential additives for the Nazi German aviation fuel used in the blitz of london; and American chemical companies in their decision to sell Zyclone B to the Nazi regime in time for the 'final solution'.
Zyclone B was marketed as 'pesticide'; but was infact nerve gas.
I do not think the people of Europe consider Americans their enemies; but it is arguable that the US administration has made enemies of both Europeans and Americans alike.
The truth is out there.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (135): Speaking as someone who works in the technology industry and has been involved in European and world technology standards, I think you are completely wrong. The time for European only standards was in the 1980s and now is long past. Technology start ups must and do address a global marketplace from day one or they will see themselves eclipsed by global-thinking competitors. In my (first hand) experience UK technology start ups certainly do not rely solely or even primarily on European customers. I would even say that credibility in the US marketplace is vital for any technology start-up and that it would be suicidal to ignore North America.
Complain about this comment
EverCloserUnion @ #137
"They should visit were our dead lie to understand what the EU is really about."
Whose dead? Germans, French, Belgians, Luxembourgers?
I personaly would be ashamed to use that phrase given the lfatal sacrifices that many non-Europeans from all over the globe made to free Europe from the tyranny of the German Jackboot between 1939 and 1945.
In 1945, it was NATO along with the close ties with Canada and the US that ensured that Western Europe remained free and that the Soviets did not encroach further west than the Iron Curtain.
The free trade zones and the eventual creation of the Common Market was permitted by the freedoms that had been won by the sacrifices of men from nations within the British Commonwealth, America and othe nations such as neutral ireland!
The EU is an abomination that has surreptitiously arrived in Europe without the free consent of the inhabitants and I mourn the sacrifices made by thos gallant non-Europeans who gave their lives to free the conquered people of Poland, Czechoslavakia (as was), France, the Low Countries, Greece and Germany and it's wartime allies in order to allow them to have freedoms that are denied them nby the EU.
Shame on the National Governemet Politicians who deny their citizens the voice and choice to say what they think about the EU as an organisation and state their choices.
And shame on anyone who denies the right of the British, who sacrificed many lives in order to return freedom to their European neighbours, from being fearful of the EU as an abomination arising from the very fears you decry!
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (139):
The point about standards is that if you can make a market of 500 million adopt your technology, you have much better chance on getting that technology or product adapted world wide. That's why Americans have been in many times very successful in the past as when they have come to oversees they already have enormousness amount of customers and revenues from them to finance international expansion.
I also don't think that having more or less European standards is a bad practice. In example Nokia seems to be making head way with DVB-H for mobile-tv, which is also supported by EU commission. In some cases having same standard for the whole Union can foster growth for European companies as it happened with GSM.
I do also think that technology startups have to be from day one global, but the further you go, the more it costs not only in money and time, but building your contact network and learning the local culture takes resources too. That's the point. If we can integrate our markets more then our companies can expand more easily, have more resources and in the end be more competitive in global competition.
Complain about this comment
I apologise for my typographic errors @ 139.
My excuse is my incandescent fury at the oversimplification, expressed by by EverCloserUnion @137, regarding the fears that people have of the EU.
Complain about this comment
Re 140
You prove my point. I invoked all those who died, without distinction, for our tragic, yes tragic, common history. We can distinguish between those who died for freedom anf those who did not. Incapable of seeing beyond the tribe is the problem Europhobes have. That is what the EU is all about, attempting to look beyond the tribe. How can you imagine for an instant that those who support the EU cannot distinguish between those who died to save freedom and those who died to extinguish it. The EU was and is about going beyond that. It takes a leap of imagination. I am proud of my culture and nationality. I do not see it as threatened by being a citizen of the EU. We have multiple identities. The town, the county, the region, the State. There is no conflict unless threatened by those who are not from the place you identify with. The beauty of Europe is its diversity. The challenge is to not allow those who fear diversity win the argument.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (141): I have direct experience in the development of European telecommunications standards. Although I was not personally involved in GSM, colleagues of mine were. GSM is the only success story in European telecoms technology, but it actually predates European standards, being mainly derived from the earlier Nordic Mobile Telephony system used in Scandinavia. It is no accident that two companies from that region (i.e. Nokia and Ericsson) still dominate mobile telephony. Their commercial success is not just due to their prior experience with NMT, but also due to the inability of slower national champions in larger European countries to react quickly enough to both the mobile opportunity and market liberalisation.
However since the time that GSM was developed ALL telecommunications standards that mean anything are global. Where there is a regulated interface (e.g. radio spectrum) the EU or one of the ex- monopoly phone companies can dictate technology but that is the exception and not the rule. I have first hand experience of how technology developed to European standards with a market of 500 million in mind is today very quickly crushed in the global market. The Internet is one example of this, but there are many others. Technology and market today are both global. Any company (even a start-up) that aims only for a regional market will eventually die because it will not be able to achieve the economies of scale in the global market that are available to its more internationally-minded competitors.
Complain about this comment
EverCloserUnion @ 143
Then shame on you for decrying my right to be fearful of the EU.
Your ignorance is an affront as you assume that anyone who does not like the EU as a an artificial political bloc created by politicians and not the people must be somehow inferior to you with your vivid imagination, non-tribal outlook and fearless mentality.
Whereas, I do not fear European Integration but I do resent that my hard-won freedoms being eroded by the existence of the EU as an artificial organisation created by politician but without the absolute consent of the people of Europe.
In the sense that you live in an Ivory Tower and see the EU with rose tinted spectacle but look down upon anyone who dares to criticise your wondeful EU, I find your comments regarding the people who criticise the EU as abhorrent!
Complain about this comment
Is it just me, or does anyone else struggle to undersand why the results of nationalism (war) between European states is produced as evidence of the need to replace it with a European Nationalism focused on the US and citing India and China as threats?
Complain about this comment
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''That is what the EU is all about, attempting to look beyond the tribe.''
In order to create a great big tribe.
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''The EU was and is about going beyond that [the fight for and against freedom].''
It was actually about uniting Europe by treaty rather than conquest; the two previous violent campaigns failed and were very costly to all involved... the aim is the same, the means have changed... softly softly.
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''The challenge is to not allow those who fear diversity win the argument.''
That is not correct.
The challenge is to resist those who would curtail our diversity; and suggest that anyone who would opposes their domination of the continent is some sort of barbaric racist or just plain stupid.
Those who impose a one size fits all policy, must hate diversity.
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''The beauty of Europe is its diversity.''
True. Let us keep it that way; and encourage co-operation, rather than domination.
Complain about this comment
The EU is a mechanism for managing our diversity. If the argument is about how best to do that. Then fine. But if you seriously believe that the EU is about taking your freedoms away then we do not live on the same planet. As I have repeatedly said nobody is forced to stay in. If you have an argument on that score vote for parties that want to take you out of the EU. Incidently why did Mrs Thatcher not leave the EU. I imagine you think she was duped by somebody or other. I have yet to meet anyone who supports the process of ever close runion who does not celebrate our diversity. There is no conspiracy to crush our freedoms. And yes, keep things simple so that people understand what the arguments are really about. There are no tanks ready to role in if we do not obey. The EU is imperfect. No doubt. But I prefer to argue about how to make it work better rather than indulge my fantasy by returning to a time when nationalism and deluded notions of sovereignty, which is not the same thing as wanting to preserve local decision making a close as possible to those it affects most directly, that I and others like me fully believe in. I am not disrespectful of our common history nor of the rights of people to voice their opinions but it is time that those who do not see the EU as the evil empire spoke up in its defence, warts and all. That is what I mean by leap of imagination. The problem in this country in particular is that our politicasl class has always lacked the imagination or courage to tell the truth. The EU does not threaten our freedoms and we are not the chosen people anymore. We can be proud of our history and achiuevements weout remaining stuck in the past. The world has changed. Get real my dear anti-EU bloggers. The EU is simply a symptom of your dislike of the glogal village we live in. The paradox of your argument is that if your vision came to pass we would be even less free -or sovereign to us your language -than we are now. Pride in being distinct, which we all value, is not the same as regarding ourselves as superior and so powerful that we can ignore, indeed impose our will on the world, or escape it.
Complain about this comment
Please Jukka_Rohila #135
Re "PS. Have to disappoint you: not inside of the EU. Just an IT professional and entrepreneur, and no not government contractor :) I truly think we need EU because of economic reason and to secure our economic interest we need also political EU that can have negotiation power against US and emerging superpowers."
Sorry , but as a fellow IT contractor from 1981 until four years back I have to disagree, the so called open and free market has been closed down to the extent where every country is searching desperately to find more funds having terminally raided the family silver. I don't know how many out there have seen Mr McClown's last stealth change but anybody living out of the UK and traveling in to work will fall foul of this "he's amended the residence rules, so that days of arrival and departure to and from the UK will count towards establishing residence."
Sounds innocent and unimportant maybe but it's a knife in the back as many throughout the EU are cross border workers, what one does other will follow, or already have. The message, mobility is dead, stay in your backyard, use your bike or legs, and be grateful for the scraps that Gordie and the other EU elite leave you in the next few years.
Complain about this comment
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''But if you seriously believe that the EU is about taking your freedoms away then we do not live on the same planet.''
Your planet has trial by judge alone? No thanks, I prefer Habeus Corpus.
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''As I have repeatedly said nobody is forced to stay in.''
But the EU keep buying our politicians; so actually we are forced to accept Lisbon despite the majority not wanting it.
The EU is a good thing, until it abandons reason for madness...
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''[Margret Thatcher] I imagine you think she was duped by somebody or other.''
No. I think she duped the British public; who for some reason still think she was looking out for their best interest in Europe back in the '80s.
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''Get real my dear anti-EU bloggers.''
I think you once again miss all points but your own... Most bloggers are not anti-EU as you claim, but anti-Lisbon treaty. This is neither the same thing nor are you shedding any light in this debate by such a simplistic evaluation of the argument.
If you have anything interesting to add, its about time you shared it with us.
EverCloserUnion wrote: ''Pride in being distinct, which we all value, is not the same as regarding ourselves as superior...''
Nobody has said anything about being superior; that is except the EU Elite who support the Lisbon treaty. They ignore democratic vote, the principal of Unanimity and insult those who do not support Lisbon: here is one of many examples...
"They [the Irish] are bloody fools. They have been stuffing their faces at Europe's expense for years and now they dump us in the s***."
- Nicolas Sarkozy, French President (Times, 20 June)
That, EverCloserUnion, is contempt.
The cusp of your argument is that the big decision has been made and that we must accept the fact that the Elite now govern our lives. Well your vision of democracy is, unfortunately for you, an unpopular one.
You have blind faith; or of course could well be on the Lisbon payroll...
Ever closer union = Ever fewer hands.
Complain about this comment
graypolyglot
"MarcusAureliusII
You seem to believe that we are all bent on denigrating and deriding the USA and its achievements at every opportunity and you have made it plain that you feel that we are unworthy allies."
You understate my case. About the only disagreement I'd make with that statement is where you say all. There are some people in Euope who are sensible, educated to the truth, and not mendacious so I'd only say most but the general drift is correct.
"As you have explained elsewhere, you take part in these discussions only "to give Europeans a taste of their own medicine". "
It's well earned and long overdue. Usually you only hear one side and it is invariably based on distortions, half truths, and lies. Most Europeans learn and know far less about America than Americans know about Europe.
"Since you have such evident disdain for us would you please consider changing your pseudonym from that of a very European historical character to, for example, "Uncle Sam"."
No, I see no contradiction or signifigance to a name. I was given a European name when I was born, that does not make me a European. If it offends you...too bad. That's one more thing you can't take away, the moniker I've chosen. Does it bother you? Good. Nice to see things go back the other way for a change.
"I suppose it's too much to ask that you just withdraw permanently?"
How typical of the European mind, to crush all opposition. Millions of Europeans march in the streets against America and bash it at will at every chance and that's fine but let one American give Europe a taste of its own horrific truth and that voice must be silenced. Europe is basically a place of intolerence, tyranny, and an irrational rejections of the facts. Your posting is just one of contless pieces of evidence I've encountered in my life. Sadly, I've met far more Europeans with your view than not.
If you want to argue the merits of one of my postings, then post a counterargument. Otherwise, as long as my postings are within the rules, I'm afraid you will just have to live with BBC's judgements about what is and isn't permitted. If it really bothers you, I suggest you refrain from reading anything I post. Nobody forces you to entertain a thought you don't already agree with. BTW, here's another typical example for you;
dzomba
"To # 127,
perhaps in your world there is no difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing but in the real world there is."
That's one way to rationalize genocide, give it a different name. Don't call it mass murder, call it something like "population re-engineering." That makes it sound so sanitary. "The final solution."
"The reason there was war at all in Kosovo, is that the ethnic albanians wanted independency long before Milosevic came to power, or "Great Serbia" contrived."
There were some Albanian separatists who fought the Serbs. That's reason enough right there to kill all Albanians, right? I wonder if the fact they were 90% of the population and were discriminated against might have had something to do with it.
"But, there were no mass atrocites, such as ethnic cleansing, before the NATO intervened, only then could Nationalist take the upper hand and go to pillage Kosovo."
I understand. all of those corpses were part of a Hollywood stunt to justify the bombing. It was all made up just like American landing on the moon. All those accounts by the Kosovars were lies just like the Croats and Bosnians.
Blah blah blah blah. Stick around graypolyglot, I'll give you some more. This place is a gold mine of gems like that.
Complain about this comment
maybe they can get a yes. if they bother their ar$e to explain the issues to the people.
the elites are so ignorant now the "democracy moment" isn't even given the basic attention.
democracy doesn't work anyway. its a momentary shell-game rolled out every 4 years. We all decide on what flavour of sausage we want and then we're left to get reamed for the forseeable.
great!
Complain about this comment
Wopitt @ #146
I notice this too.
Seemingly, the EU has 'saved' the Europeans from themselves. If it wasn't for the EU we'd be at each others throats apparently.
The threat of the growth of India and China as Trading Blocs is also used as a threat to induce us to all love the EU.
It was NATO with the support of the US and Canada that has maintained peace in Europe and been there to protect Europe from USSR encroachment past the Iron Curtain - if that were to happen.
The EU is a political organisation that is a 'johnny-come-lately' arising from the Common Market and has not been the instrument for maintaining peace in Europe that the pro-EU elite believe it is.
The fact is that the Common Market was a good idea and would have eventually led to a European Trading Bloc that would have been more than cabapable of dealing with the development of other global trading blocs.
I suspect that the politicians felt that they had little control of the Common Market once they had set it up and disliked the 'business-driven' nature of the EEC.
Thus the EU was born to provide politicians with the power they lust after - but it does not provide peace as it has no army and it does not maintain free trade as it is forever imposing politically motivated controls on trade.
Thus the pro-EU elite think they scare us with the threat of war or Indo-China commercial power but in fact the EU fails to deliver on all those counts.
Of course, the pro-EU elite would dearly love to have an EU army created to replace NATO and then they would say that it is the existence of the EU Army that maintains "peace in our time". That phrase was a grossly misleading phrase in 1938 and would be as insulting in future years.
Complain about this comment
@151:
what you are doing is called trolling, even if it's hidden behind fancy words and long texts.
But what's really sad is that basically you not only stoop to the level of those you profess to detest (the so-called anti-americans), but also manage to come over as a bit of a dunce when it comes to Europe (again something you lay at the feet of the other party when it comes to the US).
Personally I think you should go ahead and continue posting as I like a good laugh now and then. But it might help if everyone was aware of what's going on, in the spirit of International cooperation so to say.
Complain about this comment
BernardVC
Europeans can dish it out but they sure can't take it. Do you actually have something of substance to say or do you just resort to ad hominem attacks on people who say things you don't like? Do you interact with people in your real life this way or just on the internet?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote: ''I wonder if the fact they were 90% of the population and were discriminated against might have had something to do with it.''
You claim to know European history; and yet you are so wildly off the mark.
During the war [that is WWII for your info, MAII] Serbs and Montenegrins in Albanian occupied territory were brutalized by the SS "Skanderbeg" division which was made up of Albanian soldiers under Nazi German officers.
After the downfall of the Nazi's, thousands of Serbs and Montenegrins were prohibited from returning to Kosovo, and thousands of Albanians immigrated into Kosovo.
The continued Immigration of Albanians (many of whom were the most fervent Natonalist, ie 'Greater Albania') and emigration of Serbs, led to the much higher proportion of ethnic Albanians compared to any other (now minority) group.
When nationalist movements brought warmongering tyrants to power in the region (ie Croatia, Serbia and the declaration of an Albanian constitution in Kosovo), Bosnia was divided by the Croats and Serbs, in a similar action to the divide of Poland by Hitler and Stalin. I would be their first battle ground.
With tacit approval of the United States an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 Serbs were forced to leave Krajina; and they were not welcomed in Serbia.
Many of the Serbs that remained behind were tortured or killed.
Croatia and the Bosnian government made peace in March 1994 with the establishment of a loose 'Bosnian-Croatian Federation' (to this day it remains, though arguably in name only...). An influx of arms into Bosnia though Croatia for the use of the Bosnian government in fighting the Serbs ensued. This was done again with the tacit approval of the United States Administration.
The bombing campaign via NATO, brought the waring parties to the negotiation table.
1992, Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo were living in a virtual state of apartheid (virtually separate lives.).
1993, 400,000 Albanians had left Kosovo in response to deteriorating economic conditions...
An arms race begins (outside forces made a lot of money).
This culminated in the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) entering into a campaign of terrorism by killing Serbs in the refugee camps (the Kosovar Serbs dared not go to Serbia because of the treatment the Bosnian Serbs had received.). Serbian police, Border Guard and Military reprisals began; and war again seemed inevitable.
March 1997 civil government in Albania totally collapsed and anarchy resulted. The KLA filled the vacuum; and any attempt by the US to encourage the non-violent movement for peace, found little support from the Kosovar Albanians who once more chose the KLA.
Full scale civil war in Kosovo; and in October, 1998, NATO authorizes the launch of air strikes.
After a brief respite and 1800 UN observers now in Kosovo; the KLA sensing (assuming?) American support, intensify their campaign and peace processes break down.
NATO prepares to send in ground troops (mainly French and British): the rest is well documented, though often the facts are contested.
Now please, MarcusAureliusII, it is time to re-evaluate your one sided view of this conflict: it was very complicated and has deep roots in 20th century history and beyond.
Complain about this comment
need4reality
Once again someone missed my point entirely. I sometimes wonder if we not only don't speak the same language but that our languages are so unrelated it's impossible to understand each other.
I'm sure both sides felt they held legitimate grievances against each other in all of these disputes. They have long memories going back hundred of years. Don't the Serbs celebrate some famous loss in a battle about 600 or 700 years ago? The point is that the high and mighty Europeans with their superior moral values graypolyglot would have us believe in, is a pure myth. Even to this day, many of them such as those in the Balkins have some deep seeded hatred they feel justifies mass murder. The truth is that they don't have the moral high ground at all, they are no better than the Americans they perpetually bash. Frankly I personally don't care what Europeans do to each other and I am not generally pleased with the vast quantities of treasure and blood Americans spent in the 20th century to keep Europeans from doing to each other what they seemed to have a penchant for for thousands of years. That is exactly what President Washington warned against in his farewell address and what had been American policy until Wilson brought America into WWI. This may have made him the worst president in US history.
I suppose the only rationale for this American intervention into European affairs is that the bloodshed can spill over and eventually reach our own shores, better to fight and die there than wait until it gets here. That's what Roosevelt saw but could do nothing about it until Pearl Harbor.
And I suppose it is one rationale used to justify the EU, the existance of a supranational dictatorship of continental dimensions having usurped all power from individual national governments bringing an end to their own unique identities, the ultimate homogenization of their populations and their complete economic interdependence on each other being the only way inherently irrational people can finally stop killing each other without the external presence of a superpower the US and a mutual enemy to divert their attention. But go on and kill Kosovars if you like, in order to get your land back. Were it up to me, I woudn't try to stop you. For this I would not put Americans in harms way.
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum1: AnonymousCalifornian had two questions: whether the EU could legally expand beyond 27 member states, and whether Maastricht limited the EU to 27.
The answer to his first question is certainly yes, otherwise why would the European Council recognise Croatia, Macedonia, and Turkey as official candidate states to EU accession ? (Whether any or all of the candidates will eventually accede is another question altogether.)
The answer to his second question is no, and title and article from Maastricht were provided.
You had stated that Nice implicitly limits the EU to 27 member states. Certainly Nice has significant gaps concerning new member states, for example what their representation would be in the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, and the Economic and Social Committee, and how their votes would be weighted in the Council. Even so, these questions could be resolved in the accession treaty for each candidate state. Thus, I am curious to understand how you view Nice to limit the EU to 27 member states.
Complain about this comment
Need4reality.
Your facts are wrong.
Serbs and Montenegrins were not brutalised by Albanian SS Skanderbeg,for that was mainly an gost division.There is no historical proof of that division ever engagin in war.It wa a division simply created after the war,divisions such as this were created in every country ocupied by the Nazis.
Give me some credible sources please.
After the fall of the Nazis thousends of Serbs and Montenigrins were prohibited from returning in Kosovo?
BBy whoom,may i ask? Because after the fall of the Nazis the Serbs were the most powerfull element in Balkans,specialy in Yougoslavia.This simply does not make sense.Albanians had an extremely weak and powerless country on the other side of the Border,and an extremely poor population in Kosovo which was being victimised by Serb nationalist al the time.
If anything there was imigration towards Albania from Kosovo,today there are many Albanians that originate from Koosvo,but not many Kosovans that originate from Albania.
You are saing that the KLA terorised and killed Serbs in refugee camps before the war,could you give some sources please.
Which serb refugee camps??
It is true that the confict has deep roots,it starts with the fall of the Ottoman Empire,were Balkan territories were devided by arbitrary decisions by the big powers,and Serbia and Greece due to Russias insistence were the only Coutries to take within their borders regions that were not inhabited by populations of their nationality.
Albanians were the most unfortunate in this decisions,since they did not have big friends,more then half of the Albanian population ended up living in Neighbouring countries,were they were countiniously discriminated against.
The years 1912-1913
For more i would sugest respected scholars on balkan affairs,Misha Glenny,Mark Mazeover,Tim Judah.
Complain about this comment
Dzomba.
Was it not for Miloshevic's disastrous decision-making,Kosovo would still be part of Serbia.
It was not the Albanians that were ilegaly asking for indipendence in the late 80-s but it was Miloshevic wich ilegaly striped them of their Autonomy.
It was Miloshevic and his rethoric and actions against other ethnic groops in Yougoslavia,specially the Albanians.
After the Autonomy was Gone the Albanians with Ibrahim Rugova exosted all posible diplomatic routes,peacefull routes for a solution to the problem.
The west would have none of it,it continued to ignore the Albanian case.
It was exactly Miloshevic's Serbia that in a way Forced the International comunity into action,And it is exctly the autonomy that was striped by Miloshevic that is now on offer and even more by Serbia.
As for the crimes commited,i would sugest you take a look at all the NGO-s working with the women that were raped by Serb military during the war,they are in tehir thousends.So there was mass rape.
As for the crimes commited there is so much evidence that is no point to even talk about it.
Had the Autonomy not being taken from Kosovo then,but work on rights and integration was done instead we would not be at this point now.
Today there is a new reality in the balkans,everybody should accept it and look foward towards regional and europian integration.
As for teh term GREATER ALBANIA that you so much like to use,i would like to tell you that Albanians are the only people in teh balkans that dont claim teritory were their people are not the predominant inhabitants of the area,and have not historicaly been.Hardly extremism by any standarts known in history.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion wrote: ''So there was mass rape.''
Anyone committing such atrocities (now recognised at last as a breach of Human rights...), should be prosecuted to the full extent of the UN law.
My comments were to add to those already tabled. It is very easy (and I have seen it before), where it ends up a blame the Slavs and threats to chop parts of male anatomy off...
Unfortunately it is rarely those who commit the crimes that are punished. It is the civilian who ends up shelled into submission.
Both our accounts and points stand together to form a broader and more detailed analysis.
The main cusp of my argument was that the issue is more complicated than is often portrayed.
Nothing more.
I hope for peace in the Balkans and that they are all embraced by the international community.
Complain about this comment
Apologies, MarcusAureliusII, I spoke out of turn.
I value your contributions to all debate.
Apologies, Named-Erion, for I spoke as if I knew all there was to know of the subject; though that was not my intention.
The entirety of the regions history has an effect on the situation there now and throughout the conflict... I must admit I thought it was going to turn into a bash the Serbs session; and thankfully I was wrong.
I did make some statements which are infact claims and allegations; but I think all allegations should be treated with respect.
Again apologies for any offence.
Complain about this comment
need4reality.
No offence taken,at all.I love the debate and like you i always like to get to the truth.
Allegations should always be taken seriously,and should not be left without puting foward the facts and valuating the claim so that we can distinguish propaganda and allegations from hard facts.
Bit out of topic,but yeah,like you i wish that the region would now look foward to a future of regional and europian integration,and learn from western Europe,that in this continent we will never achive anything by means of war and hatefull nationalism,but only diplomacy and integration.
Complain about this comment
Ireland's "no" demonstrates: 1:26 = 27 losers
500 million Europeans are taken in hostage by 862,415 Irish (less than 0.2% of the European population) - in the name of democracy. According to the elitist representative democrats this is the direct democrat's fault, i.e. the "uneducated and unteachable people".
Because: in a democracy the tool democracy can only be always right. In Ireland it was however employed wrongly. For a pan-European concern however, only the pan-European referendum can be the correct means.
In the EU the sovereign are the 500 million Europeans - and not a slight Irish referendum's majority. Regarding the current archaic principle of unanimity it could even appear more bizarrely: even Malta or Cyprus could by their 315,000 resp. 500,000 eligible voters bring the EU to a final halt. Good gracious!
No matter whether for or against the EU: we should not be lead by a handful of nationalists. For important matters we do need a pan-European referendum! The Treaty of Lisbon would have given us this power! Although its fate is uncertain at the moment, we have to become active for the EU's future, i.e. our future. Let us demand a pan-European referendum for all important EU-matters, such as enlargement, environmental issues, the future election of EU president etc. There is the possibility to stand up in an organized way and to vote at the citizens' platform: www.we-change-europe.eu. Let's change Europe - now!
Complain about this comment
A simple fact of life is that the EU Parliament and its hangers-on, are so completely arrogant that they proport to represent the people of Europe, when they know full well that the people, given a chance, would scrap the whole sorry business in a flash.
Since the Irish "NO" we have heard rumblings of agreement from both the Czech Republic and Poland. Last Friday, Austria's prime minister, who is singularly as popular as Gordon Brown, and about as useful, announced that his socialist party would make a 180° turn on an EU Treaty referendum, even though Austria has already ratified it! Today Sarkozy says he will groom the people of Europe into loving the EU and his leadership.
What total arrogance is it that makes such leaders believe that they have a God given right to do as they want. It is nothing to do with racial hatred that people wish to retain their unique cultural lifestyle without the multi-culti clowns of Europe indoctrinating us into an EU culture that nobody wants. Those of us who live in countries which are net contributors and have an agricultural base which could be returned to common sense farming would love to see the back of this total shambles.
Complain about this comment
TEST ONLY
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS