Autumn challenges for EU
After a weekend off I am back on the watch and wait in The Hague.
The team here, pathetically, eagerly consume every last scrap of news from our colleagues in Belgrade about the vagaries of the Serbian postal system and the intentions of Serbian judges. For its part, the European Union, after a meeting of ambassadors, has decided not to offer Serbia another carrot by helping with trade links: as I wrote last week, they are waiting for a signal from the prosecutor here. Still, my holiday is booked from tomorrow and it is my sad prediction that I will leave here without covering the story. You have to expect anyone based in Brussels to be very serious about their summer leave.
By the time I come back, Mr Karadzic will hopefully no longer be a story, although the hunt for his former military chief Ratko Mladic and the Serbian path towards the EU certainly will be.
I have just been bashing out a note to my bureau chief about what will be keeping us busy in the back half of the year. Here are some of the thoughts, although just as battle plans don't survive first contact with the enemy, templates for news and current affairs coverage are bent out of shape by first contact with stuff that's happening. Still, what the Irish government does about the No vote on the Lisbon Treaty must remain high on the agenda. Their plan for a special committee to look at reasons and perhaps solutions seems in trouble, with the opposition not keen to take part. The latest opinion poll points to another No if they were asked to vote again, and I can see this getting kicked into longer and longer grass. If that is the case, are the French and Germans really going to block Croatia and others from joining the club?
That means we have to keep a watchful eye if any parts of the Lisbon Treaty are implemented without the treaty passing into law. Diplomats are alive to the dangers of how this looks, but some will reason that just because something is in the treaty it doesn't mean it can never be achieved without the treaty.
A bigger concern for most of us, of course, is ever-rising costs and the gloomy outlook for the economy. Spain is really suffering from the collapse of the building bubble and I am interested in the strains that the different impact on the oil, food and credit crisis has in different countries and what strains that puts on the eurozone.
How will French plans for further defence co-operation progress? Whoever is the next US president, they want Europe to spend more on defence, and take up more of the burden, whether within Nato or the EU. If the US elects a president more amenable to Europe's political tastes paradoxically the argument could grow sharper.
In Turkey, if the party in power, the AK Party the majority voted for, is banned by the supreme court because of its Islamic roots and allegedly Islamic ambitions it will cause a crisis that will surely have an impact beyond Turkey itself. The secularist purists in the state and army establishment will see this as their chance to take control again, this time using the law instead of tanks. The supreme court has already issued a warning which translates as saying that journalistic and political arguments that it is part of the "deep state" will be considered contempt of court. But how would Europe and the US react to such a constitutional coup?
The European Parliament (here looking at the EU's performance in the first half of the year) will be busy, trying to cram a lot of work in before Christmas. With the elections in June of next year inevitably MEPs will want to spend much of 2009 in their own countries campaigning, so the autumn and winter of this year are the time to get through the remaining legislation, particularly things that the Commission is keen on.
Not an exhaustive list, but enough to keep us all thinking over the summer.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Forgive me being trivial but are you seriously telling us that you have had a weekend off, you are going on holiday tomorrow so Auntie has packed you off to The Hague for just one day?
Complain about this comment
Pheeew! it might not be an exhaustive list to you Mark, but there's enough in there to feed a blog for at least a month. Given the tone of your comments I think you should have simply stated: 'the world's going to end so I'm going on holiday'.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Yep. Lots to think about and discuss.
You mention that although the Lisbon Treaty is not law (and to be honest it probably won't ever become law!) "... some will reason that just because something is in the treaty it doesn't mean it can never be achieved without the treaty."
Is that not the route to illegality?
Surely, if something has to be legitimised and therefore inserted into a treaty to make it lawfully acceptable then it surely cannot be introduced through any alternate means - do do so would make it illegitimate and the perpertrators guilty of an unlawful act?
Or, was the Lisbon Treaty always a false flag and the Council of Ministers are really not that bothered knowing they will achieve their self-agreed objectives with or without a treaty in any case.
I sometimes wonder if the lack of democratic accountability assigned as a label to the EU as "having a democratic deficit" is accurately targeted or whether it is actually the Council of Ministers, meeting in secret and stealthily fashioning their vision for Europe in a secretive and underhand way that is the root of the problem?
Complain about this comment
Mark you are correct about the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. No-one in govt really knows what to do. I don't thnk a serious renegotion is on the cards (no-one else in Europe wants to play ball on that front) and a second vote without substantial change would have even those who voted yes previously asking if the democratic will is respected (the "what part of no don't you understand" argument). It looks like the issue may well be kicked into touch. Besides with Ireland being hit by the economic downturn the govt has enough to worry about without trying to fight another referendum. Lisbon may be allowed to wither on the vine - at least until new candidates qualify for entry and enlargement becomes a live issue again.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
The BBC pro-EU bias is not only how it reports each story, but which stories it chooses to report or bury. It is to be hoped that the BBC will do better in the rest of the year than it has since the Irish rejected Lisbon in June. Is it really necessary that a BBC license payer hears about EU protection for Cornish pasties from the BBC while having to read the French and Irish press to find out how the EU federalists are planning to overthrow the result of the Irish referendum?
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ 5
The BBC reporting of EU Protection for Cornish Pasties for UK citizens could be a problem in the UK with the 1944 Education Act and the quality of education thereafter.
Perhaps people in the UK are more interested in Cornish Pasties than they are the EU?
It's not so much the BBC dumbing down the UK public but that the UK public are so dumb that the BBC has to come down to their level to meet their needs?
Still when they give the Vote to 16 year olds in the UK then maybe the BBC can introduce topics such as the EU through Children's BBC and the children can decide our future for us!
Complain about this comment
About the Coup in Turkey?
The leaders in Europe and the US will be privately relieved that the theocrats were banned, but will publicly denounce the coup as undemocratic.
Sometimes the majority can be bone stupid ... and in this case the secular minority in the Turkish Army and judiciary is right.
The majority does not get to force its religious beleifs on others in a free society.
Just my $0.02 ...
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John,
Should the BBC report mere speculation? The Irish "no" is of course a big issue, but is it completely balanced to report a "federalist" conspiracy to "overthrow" the result of the Irish referendum?
The 'Le Monde' article you linked to in your comment on Mark's post about France's "nuclear future" (relevance?) talks about the possibility of rerunning the referendum based on a guarantee that the 27-member Commission remains in place. This would be quite a dramatic change to the terms on which people voted.
Given that the proposed reduction is an important issue for national interests, isn't it quite conceivable that for many of the 862,415 Irish who voted "no", the prospect of losing a guaranteed Irish commissioner tipped the balance in the original vote? I would only have taken 60,000-odd for this to be the case...
Don't misunderstand me, I disagree with the idea of a rerun in Ireland for a number of reasons; however, a second referendum based on revised terms is not "overthrowing" the original decision, nor is it in fact "overturning" it. Anyway, it probably won't even happen.
As for BBC bias, is it unkind of me to suggest that you are equating being fair to the EU with being pro-EU? And I like reading about Cornish Pasties!
Complain about this comment
Re post 8, you may be right and it may be a substantial change to the lisbon treaty which allows Ireland to vote again.
However if it is such a substantial change all the countries that ratified the unchanged Lisbon traty would have to go through the complete ratification process again as well. This would include Parliamentary scrutiny and any other stage of the ratification process. Bearing in mind how long it took last time this should take 18-24 months for all countries to ratify this changed treaty.
But time is not important as you say this is a "dramatic change" and one the countries that voted yes may well have voted no on if it had been in the treaty originally.
Complain about this comment
zakazaka @ #8
Why is it that the French think they can buy Irish votes?
Offer them back an Irish Commissioner, give them guarantees on neutrality, enshrine their right to maintain a ban on abortion, or whatever they might think might be 30 pieces of silver? How about ensure that the Irish do not lose any EU Subsidies to the East?
It's almost an insult to the intelligence of the Irish Voter to suggest their votes can be bought off in a second referendum.
Perhaps the majority of Irish Voters simply voted "No" because they see something inherently wrong with the way the EU is constructed and, if any voters throughout the other 26 member states were to be given a similar vote, they too might also have voted "No" as well.
Just maybe, the Irish Voters are astute enough to see that, despite protestations to the contrary, having a permanent President and Foreign Secretary of State means that the EU would become a Super State and thus have a constitution by default!
The fact is that only Ireland got the opportunity to vote and the remaining population of Europeans within the EU were sidelined, by the Council of Ministers secretive agenda, to being mere muppets!
I find it astonishing that the French, who were themselves the architects of the downfall of the original EU Constitution treaty through voting "No", should have the gall to scheme a confidence trick on the Irish . . . so much for being equal partners within the EU.
The French can treat the Irish like morons and the other 25 equal partenrs do not get any special favours because they have moved to ratifying the Treaty without the specific consent of their voters. What a stitch up that would be!
Complain about this comment
We, the peoples of Europe, have already experienced a coup d'etat. We have seen and continue to see a slow motion coup d'etat against national sovereignties and parliamentary democracies.
Then (say, approximately 1991 at the latest): directly elected parliaments make the laws, no government minister can legislate without parliamentary consent.
Now (2008): more and more legislative powers reside with the EU where Council and Commission can legislate without the need of parliamentary consent. Government ministers can go through Brussels with legislative proposals and thus bypass their own national parliaments.
In other words: coup d'etat. National parliaments who should normally be a check on the executive (government ministers) are now effectively subjugated to it. Transferring legislative powers from legislature to government ministers (who are members of the EU Council and through the EU Council enjoy legislative powers that can be considered greater than those of their own national parliaments) is not a new idea, it was also done in 1933. They called it 'enabling act' because it enabled the government with the powers of the legislature.
Complain about this comment
@zakazaka (8)
I doubt anyone voted no over any 'fear' of losing a commissioner. Most no voters I believe were well informed and instinctively knew about the deliberate undemocraticness of the whole EU setup. Most yes voters had no idea what they were voting for and voted for some vague idea of 'cooperation' whilst not realizing the true workings of the Brussels machine. I believe many yes voters might like to reconsider.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the Danish referendum to abolish the opt-outs will be announced this autumn and what will be the effect on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. So far it seems that majority of Danish voters favour abolishment, but this can change. Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_European_Union_opt-outs_referendum.
Complain about this comment
NikolayTzvetkov @ 13
I do admire the Danish for allowing their people to vote on the issue of abandoning the Denmark Opt-outs.
At least the Danish will have the choice.
I can imagine that some future UK Government with substantive parliamentary majority will simply slip such changes through our Parliament even though they will never likely have included this intention within their manifesto.
Our problem in the UK is that all three major UK parliamentary parties are, too varying degrees, essentially pro-EU. It hardly gives the sceptic UK electorate much choice on EU issues.
It's almost llike the EU Democratic Deficit for UK Citizens starts with our Parliamentary System!
Complain about this comment
Mark,
about the appeal request, it is in the post...
the bureaux chief, for the bbc--who you work under, must have love that email [or other
way of communication].
there are many other stories, that you could work on this summer for the bbc...
Complain about this comment
The EU needs to itself become more democratic and less bureaucratic. And it is ironic that the "democrats" in this small click are now demanding that Turkey violates its own constitution in the name of democracy. I would love to see an EU, but not in this form. This is a union not a federation.
Complain about this comment
anti eu is growunng all over europe not just in britain how long can the media praise the EO
Complain about this comment
Mark, I think the key thing you mentioned was "The European Parliament (here looking at the EU's performance in the first half of the year) will be busy, trying to cram a lot of work in before Christmas. With the elections in June of next year inevitably MEPs will want to spend much of 2009 in their own countries campaigning".
Anyone else looking forward to voting for the most bizarre candidates in next years election, as I certainly won't be choosing the mainstream parties. Maybe it's time for the monster raving loony party to open up offices across the EU, as they can't do much worse than the current bunch of buffoons.
Complain about this comment
''...rerunning the referendum based on a guarantee that the 27-member Commission remains in place.''
They did guarantee it, they voted no...
Complain about this comment
The only thing left to do with the Lisbon Treaty now is to disect it and keep the bits that people want, and throw the rest away. It will take time, and will attract calls of foul play but it has to be done.
However the BBC needs to up its game on the EU front, maybe then people in this country will stop viewing the EU as some sinister evil continental thing designed to destroy us. Why no mention of the new EU wide immigration policy Barroso is pushing for? Or more than one page on the freezing of Bulgarian subsidies? Or anything on the WTO talks and French refusal to accept argicultural concessions?
The problem with the EU in the UK media is that nothing gets reported until the very last second so everything looks as if it has been secretly drawn up behind closed doors and then thrust on the British public against their wishes. Front pages are devoted to White and Green Papers that will never make it out of Whitehall let alone into UK law, yet nothing is mentioned of EU consultations or policy direction.
Complain about this comment
andfreedom @ 20
The problem for the BBC is trying to identify what the majority of it's customers want and it's customers in the main are people in the UK - the majority of whom probably not only detest the EU but don't want to know anything more about the EU.
The typical majoritive UK intellectual interest in the EU is probably at a level of between "what is the latest doctrine from the EU for straight bananas" and "can pasties or pork pies be called Cornish or Melton Mowbray respectively".
For that reason, that is why I come to Mark's Blog and get an insight into other's views on the EU - I may be anti-EU (as it is) but I am European and therefore have an interest in Europe and am pro-Europe.
However, whilst Mark is on holiday (and Boy has he gone native going on holiday in August!) I'm all for discussing the various topics you mentioned. All worth reading up on and taking a view!
Complain about this comment
#20 andfreedom,
You said "The only thing left to do with the Lisbon Treaty now is to disect it and keep the bits that people want, and throw the rest away."
I think it not time to dissect just the Lisbon treaty, it's time that the existing treaties that have been rolled up to the current abomination are taken back down to a workable level. That's what most EU voters are upset about as they want a free and open EU, not a politicians paradise.
It's perfectly clear that despite all the rules and regulations there will never be a level playing field as long as the main power block of Germany and France only implement the rules they deem good for their economy. Vis a vis the WTO talks being partially sabotaged by France, that same country that criticised the Irish for rejecting the Lisbon treaty that the commission wanted, and then criticised the commission for it's WTO proposal saying they would veto it.
The conclusion has to be that increased EU power will not change this inherent malady in the Institution that is the EU, it will merely make it more entrenched. Only a reversion back to a common market or trading block can maybe achieve that as long as the greediness and ambition of politicians is kept in check.
PS. in the 2009 EU elections vote for non mainstream parties. It's time for new blood.
Complain about this comment
Re #14 Menedemus
"It's almost llike the EU Democratic Deficit for UK Citizens starts with our Parliamentary System!"
Too true, except the "almost".
Complain about this comment
To Comment 22:
this is best comment so far:
"I think it not time to dissect just the Lisbon treaty, it's time that the existing treaties that have been rolled up to the current abomination are taken back down to a workable level. That's what most EU voters are upset about as they want a free and open EU, not a politicians paradise.
It's perfectly clear that despite all the rules and regulations there will never be a level playing field as long as the main power block of Germany and France only implement the rules they deem good for their economy. Vis a vis the WTO talks being partially sabotaged by France, that same country that criticised the Irish for rejecting the Lisbon treaty that the commission wanted, and then criticised the commission for it's WTO proposal saying they would veto it."
WTO failed, France and other big members, look after their interests, and dont care about small members interests, but they need us so they feel big in negotiating table..as well as they play double game with WTO talks, they play it also inside EU. The EU offer was very acceptable for France, but they pretended it wasnt. But they can't fool noone. Did they asked what are the interests of other members, before saying they will veto the deal.. and when Irish veto something they start bullying ireland, France believes in the assumption that "EVERTHING IS GOOD FOR FRANCE IS GOOD FOR THE REST"
if is bad for france, france can VETO, but others cannot VETO if is bad for them but good for france.
Complain about this comment
Clearly we're loving this chunk of red meat you've thrown us to fight over whist you're on holiday, Mark.
As usual, a lot of the comments display a lack of knowledge about what the EU is about, how it works - even when it was founded!
Right from the start (over 50 years ago) the founder members agreed - willingly and with the support of their citizens - to give up part of their sovereignty in the best interests of the whole group. Since then every country has signed up to the same giving up of sovereignty (whether they asked their citizens or not was their own business).
New treaties have been proposed from time to time to "tidy up", add to and improve on some of the previously agreed Directives, etc. In between times, the (deliberately unelected) Commission proposes additions or changes, which are chewed over in the (democratically elected) Parliament before the heads of state decide. So, bits of the Lisbon Treaty could legally be enacted.
The Commissioners are deliberately unelected, to give them the freedom to think more about long-term, EU-wide issues than the latest national "in-the-news" problems. It used to be that the heads of state took the 'long view', too. Now, they're more concerned about their own poll ratings, it seems.
And what is "democracy"? Where do you get your information from? Most get theirs from a medium (newspaper, TV station) owned by a "press baron" intent on forcing his own prejudices on his audience. Hardly wide-ranging, certainly not unbiased.
Anyway, as Mark says, next year we get the chance to vote for our EU parliamentary members. Will you be voting? (Or will you stand on the side making disparaging remarks about the waste of time and money it all is)?
Any comments?
Complain about this comment
#25 - frenchderek
Your analysis is spot on but it does highlight a perceived problem - that of the democratic deficit. I imagine the Commissioners would argue that they are democratically elected in the sense that they are nominated by sovereign governments which are themselves democratically elected. In this way, the argument goes, individual nation states have a mechanism which mitigates against national interests being subsumed by the wider European project. The Parliament, on the other hand, would argue that they are the directly elected representatives and should therefore have the power to contain and, if necessary overrule the Commission. As it stands there is only one thing the Parliament can do - reject the budget in it's entirety and bring the whole thing to a grinding halt. Not, I am sure you would agree the most satisfactory of situations.
The tension has now been raised a notch by the prospect of a Commission in which some of the smaller nations are not directly represented at all. I do not believe the current status quo is sustainable. As a citizen of one of the most powerful members, living in one of the less powerful states, I am very much aware of this tension.
It is my belief that Europe must either acknowledge that the democratic deficit issue can only be adequately addressed by a significant transfer of power from the commission to the Parliament or make commissioners more accountable by requiring them to seek a democratic mandate in their own right.
Complain about this comment
Re post 25, no the citizens did not agree " right from the start to give up part of their sovereignity"
The Treaty of Rome was all about economic cooperation and creating a free market with certain Europan countries. It does call for ever closer union, but in the context of the rest of the treaty this can only be reasonably interpreted as economic union.
If any one can show me in the Treaty where it says ever closer political union please do. People thought they were joining an economic union and not setting out on a path to a Federal Union.
If that is what the architects of the Treaty wanted, it should have been spelled out in clear, unambiguous language. They did not, which means either they did not intend it to be read that way or deliberately chose to mislead the peoples of Europe, I hope it was the former.
Either way you cannot give up or share sovereignity without a clear and unambiguous mandate form the people. The Treaty of Rome cetainly did not do that.
Furthermore in the campaign for Britain to join the E.E.C., even then the pro Europeans riddiculed any suggestion of giving up or sharing soevereignity.
The issue I have with the E.U is that they are not open with people. Things are done behind closed doors and language is used to confuse people.
Perhaps a very simple referendum could be done across Europe with the questions-
"Do you want ever closer political union within Europe"
This would really tell us whether the current direction the E.U. is taken is supported or not by the peoples of Europe.
If the answer is yes, so be it. If no the E.U. and our Nations leaders need to seriously consider their next step, a return to the original aim of the E.E.C., a free market, no more no less
Complain about this comment
To frenchderek #25,
You mentioned "Since then every country has signed up to the same giving up of sovereignty (whether they asked their citizens or not was their own business).", the vote in 1975 in the UK was for a common market or economic community, it was not for giving up sovereignty in any way, that has become a much later add on by the ambitious politicians.
You also mentioned "Right from the start (over 50 years ago) the founder members agreed - willingly and with the support of their citizens - to give up part of their sovereignty in the best interests of the whole group.", since when has France given anything up in the interests of the community, it's lack of implementation of anything it perceives not to be in the French interest is legendary. It is the double standards of the main EU countries that upsets so many people in the EU, because so far they only pay lip service to the open border project. If you dispute that try either doing business or working across borders as you will soon see what I mean.
To #26 threnodio,
The prospect of a Commission in which some of the smaller nations are not directly represented at all is proof of the farce of this version of the EU. why should it be that every member must have an EU commissioner in the first place, that's merely jobs for the boys (or girls). The EU parliament is the elected body and every member has multiple MEP's who represent their own unique constituency. It is the parliament who should appoint the commissioners based on merit, not heads of state based on cronyism. In all governments the ministers are appointed by there being a need for a particular responsibility (in theory), in the EU, responsibilities have been created to give every member state a post, that is inherently wrong and back to front. This is one of the sicknesses that abound in the EU at the moment and I think the first part of your last paragraph says it all.
eg. "It is my belief that Europe must either acknowledge that the democratic deficit issue can only be adequately addressed by a significant transfer of power from the commission to the Parliament"
Complain about this comment
Threnodia (26): The EU democratic deficit problem should not be mistaken with its far more serious problem of democratic legitimacy. You could introduce more elected positions into the EU institutions, but this would actually expose the democratic legitimacy problem even more. The problem of democratic legitimacy is a direct consequence of the 490 million people that the EU now has serious powers over not considering themselves a united group who will be bound by the pan-European majority. In such a situation decision-taking by the result of majority elections is disastrous.
You could take political institutions of the highest democratic credentials (those of the USA for example) and apply them to the EU and the result would be one European nation or another refusing to accept the verdict of the majority in the EU equivalent of the US Congress. Without a united people (of which there is no prospect) the EU can only ever exercise power in relatively minor matters such that we do not see serious fractures along national lines. The problem we are now seeing is that the EU has already exceeded the threshold of political sensitivity above which its decisions are rejected by one or more nations. Unless powers in these politically sensitive areas is returned to national control the EU will break-up. Your suggestion to introduce more elected positions, could easily lead to the holders of those positions mistakenly assuming they have a democratic mandate to push unpopular measures through, which would only accelerate the break-up. Democracy is more than elections; it requires a people which the EU does not have.
When Mark Mardell took up his current role he said that the two stories he would most like to have covered in the 20th century were the rise of Hitler and the Russian revolution. Whatever small beer he is planning to serve up in the autumn it remains the case that if he sticks around he will get the chance to report on either the creation of an undemocratic super-state or a popular revolt to bring it down, or perhaps both.
http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2005/no3_mardell
Complain about this comment
Yeah, Freeborn-John, I'd certsainly like to see the EU break up! It's bullying reaction to the Irish people's recent referendum "No" vote makes it plain for all to see that the one thing that the EU really doesn't like is genuine democracy, where ordinary people decide rather than the euro-establishment of eurocrats backed by self-righteous national MPs!
Complain about this comment
It may very well be that enlargement is part of the answer rather than part of the problem. This could be one reason the British appear to favour this approach.
The smaller nations are beginning to show signs of no longer being willing to put up with bullying from their bigger brothers. Ireland has certainly shown the way but the Czech and Polish presidents have both indicated that they will not sign the ratification instruments for Lisbon, the Austrian Socialists, who are part of the ruling coalition have stated a preference for a referendum, the Danes - as NikolayTzvetkov has already pointed out - will have a referendum on the opt-out clauses.
The 'big brother' nations seem to be disregarding an important fact. Many of the recently joined nations were part of the former USSR, the Warsaw Pact or the Yugoslav Federation. These countries, as I have noted elsewhere, did not make their escape from multi-national monsters simply to be absorbed by another - one of the reason why here in Eastern Europe, the relationship with Europe is viewed with some ambivalence while the relationship with NATO has been enthusiastically embraced. These people cherish their new found freedoms and they will not give them up lightly.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion
is banned, no freedom speech.. BBC=EU propaganda voice
Complain about this comment
#29 - Freeborn-John
Good and valid points. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant to suggest an either or scenario. Either we move towards a more democratically accountable EU or the nation states begin to claw back power and the whole project becomes a looser and more flexible entity. I think we would agree that the current situation is unsustainable for any length of time.
Complain about this comment
To #33 threnodio,
re "Either we move towards a more democratically accountable EU or the nation states begin to claw back power"
I don't think any of the main power brokers ever gave any power away, it was always too easy to criticise the newer members, vis a vis the great fall guy the UK who stupidly implemented most of the directives, unlike France and Germany. As I've said many times here to those who wear rose coloured glasses, the EU is not an open market, there is no ease of work, business, social security or pensions across the borders, it is a despicable illusion meant to fool the naive.
Complain about this comment
Non-EU reader here. when an EU country's or several countries' economies is struggling (spain was given as example), does the rest of the EU suffer directly? Or not really? Or would it be less if the EU wasnt as closely tied officially? Is it enjoy the success together, but also suffer through hard times together?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
To the story from the Hague, he is in the custody of the international court of justice....
What is the next story, that you will be covering for the BBC
Complain about this comment
I think the Irish are pretty clever. They saw how the game was played. When they were poor, they were on the receiving end of the money train. Now that they are rich, the last thing they want is more members because they are on the sending end of the money train. It's one thing for German taxpayers to help build up Ireland, and quite another for Irish taxpayers to build Croatia. It seems to me they have learned their lessons about acting in their own self interest very well from their French teachers. The French should be proud of their student.
Sounds like for some people, the bloom of the EU is off the rose. No turning back now. The EUSSR is here to stay. If it goes down, so do all of its members with it.
Complain about this comment
To #35 save10,
You said "Non-EU reader here. when an EU country's or several countries' economies is struggling (spain was given as example), does the rest of the EU suffer directly? Or not really? Or would it be less if the EU wasnt as closely tied officially? Is it enjoy the success together, but also suffer through hard times together?"
There are truly two things involved here, firstly have the various directives caused any economic downturn to be more significant eg. higher labour costs, higher taxes, uncompetitive etc, maybe they have maybe not. The second thing affects those countries that are in the Eurozone as the introduction of the Euro meant that those countries lost one of the two traditional ways to adjust the economy, namely interest rate changes. The ECB in Frankfurt is the only organisation that can change the interest rates now, leaving the Euro countries only able to use taxation as a means of controlling inflation or to get their economies moving or be more competitive. Gordon Brown in the UK has the option of both taxation and Interest rates (yes I know it's the Bank of England now), and has been unable to avoid an almost there recession, probably bad stewardship in his case.
Therefore to that extent the Eurozone can enjoy success together, but like as now are also more likely to suffer hard times together, which is why there are growing calls on the inflexible ECB committee to reduce the interest rates in order to get the struggling economies moving again.
Complain about this comment
Re #37 MarcusAureliusII
I think you misunderstand the Irish. Whatever the No vote was, it was not a single issue matter. No doubt some voted no for the reason you quote, but the Irish people I know, most of whom voted yes, put that way down the list.
Having had to resort to armed struggle to achieve home rule, there is a fear among many of giving it up to Brussels, especially given the perceived non-accountability of the Eurocrats. The more Sarkozy or whoever goads them to think again, the more stubborn they are likely to prove. That reason is the main cause of the further swing towards the no camp in recent opinion polls.
The Roman Catholic church has an influence on Irish daily lives which Brits find hard to understand. Unless their concern over human rights legislation seeping down from Brussels and forcing changes in the very conservative Irish 'family' laws is addressed, that position is unlikely to change.
There is also the Sinn Fein position, which relies heavily on Catholic votes but also seems to want to finish reunification of Ireland and constitutional renewal before considering external issues.
Complain about this comment
Opting out from the Lisbon treaty will be the most lilkely solution for Ireland after its referendum.
The most eurosceptical country, UK, dared to pass the Treaty just after the Irish NO, which is a sign that Lisbon won't be dead.
The Czech Republic may follow this suit and can be with Ireland in the opting out side. This move will be a big concern for British eurosceptics, who appear to be very worried about Irish and Czech future.
Complain about this comment
TO #40 Betuli,
It has always been said that all member states must affirm the Lisbon treaty for it to be implemented. Any other solution such as you say goes against that rule and implies deceit, corruption, lies and the manipulation of rules and democracy to suit their ambitions.
If this deceit happens and the Lisbon treaty is implemented in certain EU countries then it will also be alright for the EU countries that approved Mandelson's WTO proposal to ignore the French veto and proceed without them, fair do's betuli, if it's good for Lisbon then it's good for any proposal that doesn't have full agreement and the result will be an even bigger mess of dissimilar rules and regulations that we have now.
Complain about this comment
betuli @40
Ireland opting out of the Lisbon Treaty is one possible scenario but it is less likely than the Council of Ministers simply deferring further decision in the Autumn at their next beano.
By the summer of next year, when it comes to their next get-together, their initial panic that they felt when Ireland's people voted "No" will have subsided with time.
The majority of the Council of Ministers really do not care what 'the people! think - they want the EU to succeed leaggly or by other means if necessary!
The EU Monolith will march on but, at the moment, cannot expand further unless they agree that the FNGs can also have Commissioners and the one thing that the EU has is a surfeit of Commissioners!
The 'Grand Scheme' to create permanent President and Foreign Secretary will not be authorised by legal treaty but has that ever stopped the Council of Ministers before? I bet we have those two roles voted for and enacted through the EU Parliament before too long. It will look like a democratically approved change but the mutton dressed as lamb is still sheep meat and the democratic dficit will persist!
The role of Permanent President of Commissioners will happen regardless of the death of the Lisbon Treaty. That is merely an administrative change.
Nothing seems to stop the development of the EU and nothing will stop it developing until at least one net contributing country has the audacity to revoke membership of the club!
Complain about this comment
#42 Menedemus,
Quite so, as I mentioned in an earlier post why should it be that every member must have an EU commissioner in the first place, that's merely jobs for the boys (or girls). The EU parliament is the elected body and every member has multiple MEP's who represent their own unique constituency. It is the parliament who should appoint the commissioners based on merit, not heads of state based on cronyism. In all governments the ministers are appointed by there being a need for a particular responsibility (in theory), in the EU, responsibilities have been created to give every member state a post, that is inherently wrong and back to front.
I think you're right in your final conclusion and the best placed country to do the most damage is good old UK :- "Nothing seems to stop the development of the EU and nothing will stop it developing until at least one net contributing country has the audacity to revoke membership of the club!"
When the rebate ends the UK will be the largest net contributor rather than the second largest.
Complain about this comment
#43 Buzet
The commiissoners are the top civil servants of the Commission. If you want to know how top civil servants operate everywhere whatever they are called, you could do a lot worse they rewatch the British series Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.
Menedemus
While I agree with your comments under (21) I think you have forgotten that the Danish Government as the Irish, the Spanish and the Russian Government to that matter are suject to Constitution that clearly set out the rules when and how a referendum may or must be held. Theses countries also have Constitutional Courts which are very quite to slap the wrist is the Gevernment tries it on.
As for all three British Political Parties being in favour of the E.U., why is not one of them promoting Open Borders, the Euro and all the other things that we on the Continent use and take for granted every day?
Complain about this comment
Old-Man-Mike @ 44
I am sorry, I am not sure of the context of your comment in the first paragraph (addressed to me) and how that relates to #21?
As for your second paragraph:
"As for all three British Political Parties being in favour of the E.U., why is not one of them promoting Open Borders, the Euro and all the other things that we on the Continent use and take for granted every day?"
Perhaps because the UK IS the most sceptical nation state of all 27 member states and although the Liberal Party, in it's naivity would (perhaps - no one really knows . . . not even the Liberals!) surrender such opt-outs, the two main parties that are most likely to manage the government of the UK know that to surrender the Maastricht opt-outs for Border Control and avoid implementation of the Euro would be a major task and highly unlikely to get voted through the UK Parliament.
The Lisbon Treaty was kept palatable for the UK Parliamentary MPs because it still keeps enshrined two sets of opt-out for the UK (one set for opt-outs also retained by the Irish and a second set of opt-outs that are also kept by the Danes).
It is my belief that, if the UK did not have these opt-outs, first of all the Maastricht Treaty would never have been acceptable to Parliament at that time and would never have been ratifed by the UK and secondly, and thereafter, other Treaties designed to bind the UK to "ever closer union" with European EU nations would not have been acceptable to the UK Parliament either.
On top of which Paliamentarians who simply ignore the electorate between General Elections, would have to justify the surrender of such opt-out to the great British public and they would have to know what would or would not be acceptable to the British Citizenry when it comes to the UK opt-outs. Suffice to say that many UK citizens would say that there are too many 'johnny foreigners' in the UK already (and taking advantage of the UK's almost too generous and 'ask no questions' NHS and welfare state) and, if you are of an age to remember the decimalization of the Old £sd to decimal coinage in 1971, you will remember the very conservative (with a small "c") difficulty with that change that the UK citizens went through - so a relaxed approach to border controls and another currency change (which I would find very useful!) is not very likely in the near future.
I may or may not agree with these views held by my fellow citizens of the UK but I can empathise with them!
UK Parliamentary MPs definitely have to empathise and be aware of the impact of their decisions at least every 5 years - the one saving grace for the UK's Parliamentary System!
Complain about this comment
EU PREDICTIONS OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS BEING UNDEMOCRATIC , FORCING IRELAND TO VOTE AGAIN THE BBC TRYING TO BRAINWASH THE PUBLIC INTO LOVING THE EU, BBC GET REAL
Complain about this comment
To #44. Old-Man-Mike
You said "The commiissoners are the top civil servants of the Commission. If you want to know how top civil servants operate everywhere whatever they are called, you could do a lot worse they rewatch the British series Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister."
Sorry but the commissioners are not and never have been civil servants, there may be the odd exception to that but they are largely ex political leaders of their countries, mostly who have passed their sell by date. If they were given their exalted status by ability that would be better, but they are not, their appointment is by cronyism alone and I stand by my earlier comments, they are not and have never been worthy of their status.
PS, I watched that series and it made me think how little quality there is in public service these days, it was hilarious whilst being sad that it was also reality.
Complain about this comment
Dear British eurosceptics (or europhobes, you choose),
Let the Irish issue aside, don't push backing the Czech President, both stances are a bit weird, and focus on you own country.
Once more we must remind that UK has passed the Lisbon Treaty, supported by the ruling party an the third one, the Lib-Dems. Even the judiciary backed the parliamentary approval against the desire of a mulitimillionaire,... And the other opposition party, the Tories, have given the silence as an answer to this "horible" Treaty, or the low-tune protest if you prefer.
So you've got a lot of work in order to pursue your aims, but you'd better off start trying to change the course of EU first within your own country.
There must be parties in the political British spectre that could fulfill your aspirations, or maybe Cameron just needs a shake-up. Or as a last resource, Parliament Square in London is always available for demonstrations.
Cordially, good luck.
Complain about this comment
Dear betuli,
I'm not sure which country you come from but I seem to recall Germany and Italy may have figured, so you also have got a lot of work in order to pursue your aims, you'd be better off trying to change the politicians nominated to the EU from within your own country as neither of those countries populations is enamoured with the current incumbents these days, especially Italy. A shake-up is really in the cards, just wait until 2009 when the next elections arrive, there will be a lot voting for the fringe candidates rather than mainstream, somewhat of a nightmare for a committed europhile wearing rose tinted spectacles, sleep tight.
Complain about this comment
betuli @48
Yes, you are absolutely correct. The UK Parliament has has voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
You are incorrect though as the Liberal Party actually abstained from the vote and the Conservative Party (apart from very few dissident MPs) voted against the Treaty being ratified. If the Liberal Part had not abstained, the Treaty would not have been ratified.
You may feel that this is worth a gloat at the expense of the many who doubt the credibility of the EU but just to rub the smirk off your face . . .
The Irish People have refused to allow the Irish Government to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
This means, absolutely, that Lisbon Treaty cannot become law as ALL 27 member states have to ratify the treaty for it to do so. The Irish Governmet cannot lawfully ratify the Lisbon Treaty!
This means the Lisbon Treaty is D.E.A.D.
It's not just lifeless - it is buried, it's sunk without trace and it's gone for a Burton!
The last laugh will be with the British Eurosceptics because when the British Taxpayer has to fund the UK membership of the EU (as the biggest net contributor in due course), I can very well see the UK Parliament actually demanding withdrawal from the EU as it will have become a club with outrageously too expensive fees.
When that happens the EU will disintegrate because it's source of funding will be almost halved overnight!
Complain about this comment
What would be the merits of the EU forming an Eurasian Union (and I'm not referring merely to the present one for Russia and Central Asian countries)?
Complain about this comment
whatisaidwas @51
Didn't they try that after WWII? USSR and the Easter Bloc was pretty much comprised of Eastern Europe and the Baltic and Slavic Nations.
Apart from Russia, those nations never really had a pot to do the proverbial in and even when they had surplus resources it was so badly manged that they still did not have any real wealth.
Now The EU is expanding to include the Baltic and Slavic nations those countries still don't have a pot - and the net European Contributors money will be going to them at the expense of previous western European net recipients such as Spain, Portugal and Ireland.
I just love it when other people spend my taxes on other countries when the UK has enough of it's own problems!!
Complain about this comment
Buzet23,
Germany and Italy are full of European flags everywhere, even more than in France or Spain. People in the four big countries in Western Europe can reclaim more democracy in the EU institutions or a EU closer to citizens, but barely no-one questions the need of a tighter European Union.
If you add to this strong group countries with proved Euro-enthusiasm like Portugal, Greece, Belgium, Austria, Eslovenia and Finland, and probably others, we should conclude the European project enjoys a very good health.
This doesn't happen in UK, we all know. The European flag is absent in the biggest island of Europe... Nevertheless the British government appears commited not to lose the "gravy" European train.
The big question remains if the last 2 enlargements towards Eastern Europe were precipitated. It would have possibly been better if the former 15 EU countries had resolved the institutional crisis before further extension.
Manedemus,
The British parliament wouldn't have approved a Treaty which is "dead and buried", as you defined Lisbon. Mr Justice didn't consider either the death of the Treaty, despite the Irish No.
Britain was the more interested EU country in enlarging the EU Eastwards. Now if UK becomes the first net EU contributor is a direct consequence of its previous stance.
Schengen and the Euro demonstrated that is possible (and desirable) a stronger European union, even without UK. If finally UK withdraw from the EU -a move I find very, very unlikely- nothing substantial would happen: the rest of Europeans are used to British isolation -it's an island, don't forget it!- even some would consider it as a relieve.
Complain about this comment
#52 - Menedemus
Your generally sensible comments seem to have become a bit clouded with disinformation. Which eastern European banks have had to announce massive write downs due to fall out from the sub-prime crisis? None. Which country has the highest growth rate in the EC on current figures? Slovakia. Which country has the highest rate of inward investment per capita? Hungary.
Statements like 'not having a pot' don't help. Perhaps you should rid yourself of the illusion of eastern Europe as part of the third world and see them as part of the solution.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @54
My comments were not intended to denigrate eastern Europe but were intended to denigrate the 40 years of communist restraint to which thye were subjected. I actually welcome the freedom of the former Warsaw Pact countries and them coming together with their fellow Europeans. Together we can do great things.
But I still hate the EU as it is!
And I certainly don't want to integrate beyond the boundaries of Europe and assimilate European values with those of Asia, Northern Africa or the Middle East or anywhere else that people's flights of fancy might take them.
Complain about this comment
To betuli #53,
It's very strange that about the masses of flags you see because I live in Belgium and travel in France quite a bit and the only EU flags I see are outside the hotel de ville's or in Brussels case, outside the various EU buildings and governmental offices. The only flags the people of Belgium display are either the Belgian flag or the Flemish or Wallon flags, in fact I know of no one here that even owns an EU flag, I have an EU umbrella that was given to me as a joke by staff at the Bank Nationale Belgique and it's become apparent that it was indeed a true joke.
If you consider that the European project enjoys a very good health then I'm afraid there's none so blind as those that can see is the saying that springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
betuli @ 53
"The British parliament wouldn't have approved a Treaty which is "dead and buried", as you defined Lisbon. Mr Justice didn't consider either the death of the Treaty, despite the Irish No."
The Labour Party Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his Cabinet sought to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon as it was before the House of Commons simply because Gordon Brown, in his role as Prime Minister for the UK, had agreed with the other 27 National Leaders within the Council of Ministers to have their countries proceed with ratification - without recourse to referendum. The vote in the House of Commons was a 3-line Whip which means that Labour MPs were not allowed to vote on concience but had to follow their political party through to the "Aye" lobby or face their party's censure.
It was done because this was a political stitchup by the Council of Ministers and it is the nature of the EU and this kind of political shenanigans of the Council of Ministers that makes me find the EU so reprehensible!
The problem for the Council of Ministers was that after the Council had agreed to push on with the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish Court deemed that the Lisbon treaty was indeed still a constitutional change to the Irish Constitution and therefore required approval of the Irish People in a referendum - this is a constitutional requirement I very much envy the Irish for having written into their constitution.
The UK Governement, in order to breach it's own manifesto promise to hold a similar referendum, stated that, in it's opinion, the Lisbon Treaty is not a treaty written to create an EU Constitution.
This was a fabrication as many other Leaders within the Council of Ministers have openly stated the Lisbon Treaty is merely a variance on process changing existing treaties instead of the 'new' treaty to create a constitution that was disapproved by French and Dutch voters.
On the basis of that falshood, the UK Government narrowly achieved a ratification vote approving the Lisbon Treaty on behalf of the UK.
You may recall all the plaudits and back-slapping that Gordon Brown received at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers. They were congratulating him personally on pursuing the stitchup for the UK despite the Irish "No" vote.
If you feel that the EU can work without the UK please feel free to work from your side of the fence and, if we can both achieve the revision of the EU to exclude the UK, I will be delighted!
However you may view it, the Lisbon Treaty requires ALL 27 member states to ratify the Treaty in order for it to become law. That cannot happen unless the Irish Government renege on their referendum result or hold another referendum. If latest polls in Ireland are to be believed, the outcome of a further referendum vote, as desired by France, would alienate the Irish so much that the "No" vote percentage would actually increase.
Without approval of the Irish the Lisbon Treaty is dead and buried. It cannot become law so it is at the same status of the previously spurned Contitutional Treaty - lso defeated by referendum.
Gordon Brown may have won kudos from his fellow Council of Ministers colleagues for stitching up the UK for ratifying the Lisbon Treay but he is doomed to either lose the next election as encumbent Prime Minister or, more likely, be deposed as Prime Minister before the government go to the people to seek an unlikely re-election. So much for a head of the UK Government who governs despite the UK people instead of on behalf of the UK people.
In my view, good riddance to him!
Complain about this comment
buzet23, I agree it's time the EU was updated. The original model was founded on the 1940's/50's fear of further war in Europe. Most of the current EU citizens don't know what what "total war" means. I lived through one, so was enamoured by the idea of "an ever closer union among the people of Europe" (to quote the Treaty of Rome) and for the hopes embodied in the original model.
But times have changed and it's time to change the model. The ideal of having some form of integrated union is as worthwhile as ever, whatever eurosceptics might believe.
Every international trading agreement requires giving up some sovereignty - eg rights over trade controls, import/export taxation, etc. However, the EU includes far more aspects than trade - and rightly so - eg fighting international terrorism, human rights, environmental issues.
What we now need is constructive ideas, please..
Complain about this comment
frenchderek @ 58
The Treaty of Rome was ratified in1957 - 12 years after the end of the war in Europe and the EEC it formed was never more than a free trade enterprise.
There was a pooling of resources and a freedom of movement but there was never any loss of sovereignty over any individual state areas of responsibility by the signing nations arising from that 1957 Treaty.
How can you possibly associate the EEC with being an anti-war mechanism? The maintenance and preservation of Peace in Europe was ensured by NATO which had been in existence since 1945 - at war end!
From 1987 (some 42 years after the end of WWII), the Treaty of Rome has slowly been transformed by the Single European Treaty, the Treaty of Maastricht (that did start to cede sovereignty) and other Treaties which have formed the European Community(EC) and finally created the European Union (EU).
The EU was born 'out of wedlock' through being designed and created as a political institution without popular consent and it is unacceptable to so many Europeans simply because it is detached, remote and not been created by ALL peoples coming together in harmony.
Because it has been imposed by done deal and without popular consent, the EU will always be reprehensible to too many Europeans for it to enjoy wide acceptance.
In my view, the simplest solution would be to revert the EU back to the status of the original EEC under the original Treaty of Rome of 1957 and then, by popular referendum, invite countries to join together in 'ever closer union' to form an acceptable political structure guaranteeing human rights, civil liberties and maintaining the freedom of movememt and free trade enshrined in the original treaty!
With the consent of the people 'ever closer union' would always be acceptable. As it is now, 'ever closer union' forced upon the people by subterfuge or deception is unacceptable to too many people who would otherwise be very responsible pro-europeans!
One of the EU structures that I, personally, would most like to see expunged is the European Parliament! It is a talking shop that has simply been provided to give semblance of democratic credibility but it is neither credible, efficient or worth the money it consumes.
Complain about this comment
really EU opions not shown by the bbc http://www.global-vision.net/Global1656.htm why dont you not support public opinion there was talk of the bbc get eu funding ???????
Complain about this comment
To #58, frenchderek
You said "I lived through one, so was enamoured by the idea of "an ever closer union among the people of Europe" (to quote the Treaty of Rome) and for the hopes embodied in the original model."
I think we were all in favour of that, in the 1975 UK vote I was not from the war years but I knew the effect it had on my families. It rests an abomination that it has been transformed by the politicians throughout Europe that so many old enough or young like my kids and their friends, regard it as useless.
Time for change I think and 2009 is approaching, I will see who the fringe candidates are in Belgium and vote for one of them, time for all to do that I think!
Complain about this comment
Can someone please explain how countries such as Turkey, a freedom of speech and a human rights violator and Serbia still harbouring and sympathetic to war criminals are already (or will be) candidates while Ukraine who won democracy peacefully, who is committed to human rights, cannot even get a potential status. I just don’t get this double standard.
Complain about this comment
laveni @ 62
It would appear that all you need is patience.
The EU is third name organisational name that the orignal EEC has had.
I think it is aiming to become the GEU or Gobal European Union and have every country on board.
I'm just not sure the UK Taxpayers can afford the EU expansionism and, sooner or later, Russia might want to militarily interject and suggest that further expansion eastwards might not be such a good idea!
Complain about this comment
#62 - laveni
Firstly, being candidates by no means indicates acceptance although it is the case that private soundings are taken before the public phase of any discussion begins.
Turkish membership is very much in doubt partly because of the questions you raise but also because there are signs that Turkish enthusiasm may be waning.
There is a wider political agenda in the Balkans. The EU wanted Kardzic and Mladic behind bars and threw tasty morsels of bait into Belgrade. So far they have scored 50%. They want to ensure that Kosovo and Monenegro do not fall back into Serb control so they are throwing money at these regions as well. The EU are quite blatantly trying to 'buy' the political model that they want for the former Yugoslavia. That being said, there is absolutely no reason for not admitting Croatia now.
As regards Ukraine, it is far from clear that their democratic credentials are impeccable. There is evidence to indicate interference from Moscow, ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches and corruption is rife. In fact, it is an export industry with specialist 'enforcers' from Ukraine doing a lot of the dirty work for their masters here in central Europe. Ukraine, despite what you say, is just not ready.
Complain about this comment
threnodio,
I was interested in you comments about the EU 'buying' the wanted political model for the former Yugoslavia. This is potential a major problem for the EU because it is no longer a trading partnership but has become a political entity in it's own right!
With the peoples of countries as far east of Brussels, such as Ukraine, even contemplating membership of the EU, where do you think the line should be drawn in the sand as to what is the EU's sphere of integration and what is Russia's sphere of influence?
I am very concerned that the almost religious fanaticism of the EU with its desire to spread the wealth around and impose it's idea of "democracy" upon the countries closest to Russia might become a trigger for Russia to start feeling that the EU as a political entity is pushing it's influence too far eastwards and that this could even trigger some kind of military intervention from Russia.
We see Russian interference in Georgia and issues with oil supply to the Ukraine as isolated incidents but, are they not Russia exercising influence in adjacent countries that the Russians see as part of their backyard.
I'm not sure that the NATO countries are going to want to defend Europe because of EU fanatacism to spread an EU 'political model' too far eastwards?
Complain about this comment
65 - Menedemus
I completely agree with your premise and recent events in Ukraine have thrown this into sharp focus with ongoing tension between the so called 'pro west' and 'pro Russian' factions. Much the same thing is happening in Belgrade with the pro west grouping currently in the ascendancy. On the one hand, all this is playing out against a background of apparently democratic arrangements. On the other, it is clear that both countries are part of a larger endeavour.
Regarding EU behaviour in the Balkans, there was shock and embarrassment that acts of genocide could still be committed on European soil which was matched only by a total inability to work out what to do about it. Remember that peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia was originally an EU project until they fell flat on their faces and the UN had to take over. So the EU has two policy objectives. 1. To ensure that the blood letting cannot happen again. 2. To ensure that they are not made to look as utterly incompetent as they were last time. To this end, they are, for want of a better phrase 'slicing off the tasty bits'. Slovenia has already transitioned, Croatia is next.
The EU's problem as I see it (and this is not fact, merely speculation) is that they cannot be seen to be applying political pressure in the region but equally cannot afford the process to roll back and have resurgent Serbian nationalism reassert itself. The one thing they cannot allow to happen is the reformation of an enlarged Serbian Federation so they are using the only weapon in the arsenal. They are pumping money into Kosovo and Montenegro to engender faith in a prosperous independent future while, at the same time feeding tasty morsels to Belgrade to try and bring them onside in the wider European project. They have been helped by the outcome of the recent elections. This is what I meant by 'buying' the Balkans.
Understandably the Russians do not like this one little bit but they have pretty much lost the Balkan plot. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania now leaves the Balkans completely enclosed geographically. They will not give up on Ukraine or Georgia so lightly.
I think there will come a crunch point in the not too distant future when Europe will simply have to either call a halt to its expansion or start to seriously consider the Gorbachev vision of 'one Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals'. It's a long way off, I grant you, but the philosophical and strategic decision may be less so.
The key in my mind is not what the EU does now but how NATO develops. If Ukraine and Georgia go down the NATO route, the EU option opens up for them. If they go the non-aligned route, it will be much harder for the EU to contemplate eastward expansion. Whether the Russians chose cooperation with their biggest trading partner or confrontation with a growing strategic competitor - well that's anyone's guess.
Complain about this comment
By way of a postscript, I have noticed that the EU is prone to navel gazing when it is not in expansion mode and it starts to dream up ever more improbable ways to integrate further. On that basis, perhaps we should just keep ggoing till we get to the Pacific:-)
Complain about this comment
please explain us how come GREECE is still member of European Union ????????
Amnesty International and the International Helsinki Federation are so concerned about the number of Human Right abuse cases in Greece that they have issued a joint report on the subject.
The Albanians, Turks, Macedonians, Romans etc. living in Greece, for example, were forced to changed their own personal names into Greek sounding names and are not allowed to change them back.
And these are very well documented by the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the Greek Helsinki Monitor and the US State Department.
Berit Lindeman, who works for the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, was part of a team that went to Greece to investigate Human Right abuses in Greece ; she said ;
"We are talking about regimes that torture people. We cannot accept this in the middle of Europe."
Complain about this comment
kubikubi @ 68
I do not know of the particualr human rights abuses to which you refer. If I visit Greece for holidays I find the greek people friendly, accomodating and welcoming - I cannot speak for how they treat their minorities?
However, the problem of human rights abuse is worldwide and not confined to Greece as an isolated instance.
If you look at the Wikipedia and plumb in "Human Rights in XXXXX" where XXXXX is any country in the EU you will find varying degrees of abuses of human rights have been identified.
I don't condone any abuse of human rights but I don't suppose that Greece is either alone or any different in many respects to any other EU Member States.
The EU would profess to be a shining example of fostering the welfare of all it's citizens going back to the founding days of the 1950s but, as long as the world is populated by humans, they will abuse one another's rights and privileges.
Greece is no different but could, arguably, be trying to improve it's record on human rights by having joined the EU.
On the other hand, I'm not sure the EU can effectively prevent individual states from perpetrating human rights abuses and, arguably, that is a failure that will doom the EU from being the success it so desperately strive to be in this area!
It is also very arguable that one man's human right abuse is another man's civilised behaviour and so I'm not always convinced that 'breaches of human rights' are always as criminal as the act may be portrayed to be by the 'alleged victims' or their 'representatives'!
Complain about this comment
To those writing about human rights;
British membership of the "EU" is an abuse of my human rights.
Complain about this comment
#68 - kubikubi
#69 - Menedemus
I do have knowledge of human rights issues in Greece, but Menedumus is right also to point out that Greece is not unique. The compulsory fingerprinting of all Roma in Italy is another instance. In fact the relationship between the Roma and other ethnic groups throughout southern and eastern Europe is a vexed question. This is one area in which I think the Commission could act more postively and this is something I would favour.
Complain about this comment
Re #71 and a few other posts, it may have escaped the notice of the media in the BBC but on the Flemish edge of Brussels it is now forbidden to speak any language other then Dutch when dealing with the authorities. It seems that you are obliged to take an interpretor with you. If that is not racist and Nationalistic I really do not know what is, in my Walloon area the francophone authorities are very happy to try and help anybody with language problems. In todays Newspaper it was said there are one million Flemish living in Wallonia, probably mostly in the Ardennes, they're either escaping the morons in the political parties of Flanders or leaving before the ship sinks. One thing is sure, their language fanaticism will not be tolerated here.
Complain about this comment
Laveni @ 62
as you can see from the posts that there are so many EU member countries that can be called "human rights violator"
human rights abuses in Greece against minorities, immigrants, asylum seekers etc., Racism and language ban on the flemish edge of Brussels, Anti immigrant policies and human right abuses, language ban and religious discriminations etc. in Germany and France , Problems in Italy and many more...
but as Menedemus @ 69 says ;
Greece is no different but could, arguably, be trying to improve it's record on human rights by having joined the EU.
and Turkey also trying to improve its record by being EU candidate and believe me in the last 8 years there has been a lot of positive improvements in Turkey.
same thing for Serbia, just because there are still some Ultra nationalists that supports war criminals, that doesn't mean Serbia can not be EU member in the future.
kkbarrett @ 7
About the AKP party in Turkey ;
the AKP (Justice and development party ) is not some kind of theocrats or talibans and i don't also believe the "islamic ambitions" thing that caused the temporarily crisis..
people voted for AKP because of their economic policies and success and their European Union ambition, today they are seen as most Liberal and democrat party in Turkey.
as in many countries ultra nationalists in Turkey also against European Union.
We see many right wing parties, organisations, newspapers campaigning against European Union all around the Europe, including UK...
so crisis in Turkey wasn't about AKP's "islamic ambitions or Anti-Secular activities", it was all about AKP's "European Union" ambitions...
Nationalists tried to get AKP banned, because AKP was Pro-EU, but Turkey's constitutional court has ended political uncertainty, voting not to close down the AKP.
Now again AKP leader and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan says that the AKP would now seek to push Turkey along the path of modernisation, to prosperity.
“This road will carry us to full membership of the EU,” prime minister Mr Erdogan said. “There is no way back.”
So a political party determined to be part of EU and Western World can not be a Taliban or theocrats at the same time.....!
Turkish people living with Secular democracy since 1923. And %99 of the population doesn't have problem with secularism.
Democratic, Modern, Secular Turkish Republic will benefit to EU and Western World and will be a good example for other countires in the region.
Complain about this comment
All of you trying to explain why Ukraine currently has no chance of joining EU made actually painfully clear that there is absolutely no logic behind it.
Threnodio – you raise “ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches” as one of the reasons Ukraine is not ready, yet disagreements like these are simply part of the democratic process, same as in any other EU country where there are diffierent parties with different points of views.
Turkrocks - Turkey deserves to be a part of of EU because their new ruling party wants it and is determined? You state that Turkey is “Democratic, Modern and Secular” Let’s not forget that Tukey banned “youtube” just this year for insulting “Turkishness” , but hey, according to EU, this freedom of expression violation is a lot less offensive than discussion and arguments in the Ukraine’s legislations?!
As for explaining Serbia’s acts of genocide and the harbouring of war criminals by trying to compare it to some incidents of racism or anti immigration policies in other countries, that’s just too offensive to discuss.
None of this explains at all why Ukraine is not even being considered for EU ahead of countries like Serbia and Turkey. The only plausible explanation is that - same as for memebership in NATO – Russia, or should I say Russia’s gas, still has a huge veto.
Threnodio – if EU is offering membership to Balkans in order to keep the region stable then why not apply the same logic to Ukraine. We can already see Russia’s military interference in Georgia and unless Ukraine has backing of NATO or EU, it is just a matter of time, when Russia will demand certain regions of Ukraine.
But, money will always speak the loudest and basically EU sold Ukraine (and Georgia) for some cheaper gas.
Complain about this comment
I am fascinated by the desire of people in the eastern half of Europe (and even countries that are arguably not even part of the European Continent) to gain membership of the EU whereas polls within the UK, arguably the most sceptical member state of the EU (although I'm sure the sceptism is universal across the EU!), would be wishing the UK to leave (25%) or for the UK change the relationship with the EU to that of trading partner (50%) with only 25% of polled opinion indicating a desire to remain within the EU or the usual "Don't knows/Undecided".
What is it about the current socio-political EU that atrracts eastern European but is detested by the UK people (of whom 75% originally voted to join the EEC as members of a Free Trade Bloc with benefits of shared resources and free interanl movement of peoples in 1973) because subsequently the UK citizens have been coerced by deception and subterfuge into being citizens of a socio-political organisation not of their choosing?
Is it a symptom of the "grass seeming to appear greener on the other side of the fence" or is it something more fundamental that produces this difference in opinion and view of the EU between citizens of would-be members states and existing member states' citizens?
I find it fascinating!
Complain about this comment
#74 - laveni
You have completely misunderstood me. At no time did I say that Ukrainian government institutions were undemocratic. I do not believe that. I do believe, however, that Ukraine needs to have the debate about which way it wants to proceed. Nobody will respect Ukraine any less for that.
What I did write is that Ukraine is not ready and I stick by this. Why? The Yushchenko poisoning, the Kuchma tapes, the Berezovsky connection, the Yukos involvement. All these things point to corruption at high levels in government and removing politicians from the game using dioxins is not normal European practice. I also indicated that engagement with NATO would promote the case. Membership of NATO is not a requirement of the EU as you know (Ireland, Finland, Sweden, etc), but it would indicate where Ukrainian priorities lie.
Sadly, Ukraine like Georgia is currently being used as a football in the wider political game for the hearts and minds of eastern Europe. It takes two teams to make a match and the Russians are every bit as involved as the EU. If, as you say, Ukraine is a mature democracy, it is well able to make up its own mind which route to travel.
#75 - Menedemus
Britain is unique throughout the whole of Europe in being the only country whose borders have not been violated or government institutions suppressed by outside invaders for many centuries. It is an enviable record and people understandably wish to protect it. It explains why people are suspicious that the EU is somehow trying to achieve by 'creeping absorption' what it could not achieve militarily. For it's logic, however, it requires prior acceptance of the 'us and them' scenario and I would challenge that mentality.
However, the British are entirely right to view the imposition of ridiculously petty rules on every day life from Brussels as risible. Actually, were Britain to adopt the continental approach of selective enforcement, this would not be a problem. Would French or Belgian street markets survive a clamp down on hygiene regulations, for example? Sometimes agreeing to everything and enforcing nothing is preferable to arguing the small print then enforcing it to the letter.
Complain about this comment
To #76. threnodio,
Your last paragraph says it all in that "Sometimes agreeing to everything and enforcing nothing is preferable to arguing the small print then enforcing it to the letter". This is maybe the only way to exist in the current EU climate but it is a very dangerous way of life. It would only take a change in mentality to enforce those regulations to the letter, so if a strong 'president' were to be elected, many countries would be in for a great shock as their businesses quickly become strangled and stagnated.
The UK is somewhat foolish to actually enforce the rules and regulations it signs up to, but most countries do not. The EU figures for 2006, which are the most recent published, do not break down the income from fines by member state, which is a pity as it would be nice to know who are the most Anti-EU project countries.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @ 77
Threnodio @ 76
You both wrote, respectively:
"The UK is somewhat foolish to actually enforce the rules...."
"Sometimes agreeing to everything and enforcing nothing is preferable to arguing the small print then enforcing it to the letter...."
If a rule or regulation can be selectively ignored then what is the point of having the rule or regulation?
I am quite sure that it is in the psyche of Britishness to obey rules - historically we are a nation of Barons and Serfs . . . if we do not have the blue blood of the aristocracy then we are Serfs by nature although our income and education may dictate whether we are low or middle class in attitude and behaviour!
But, if the British are the only nation to be so obliging as to adhere to all EU rules and regulations then why does the EU bother to generate any rules or regulations at all?
I am quite sure the British detestation of the EU would definitely be mollified if we did not have to obey the EU rules and regulations. This is probably the most probable root cause of why the British wish to disengage from the EU without actually really wanting to disengage from Europe!
Complain about this comment
#78 - Menedemus
Mainly because European rules and regs are Europe wide and if you were to write them in a way which suited everyone, they would be even more impenetrable than they are now.
'If a rule or regulation can be selectively ignored then what is the point of having the rule or regulation?'
You may as well ask why a policeman will warn one person off and march another off to the cells. It is a judgment call. There has to some discretion.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @79
That is a good analogy but is not the EU the Policeman and the nation states the law-abiding citizen or not law-abiding citizen as the case may be?
In a civilised society the imperative must be that all citizens obey the rules or else anarchy reigns supreme.
Of course, in any civilised society, there will be citizens who choose to disobey or ignore the common laws but they are criminals (and should be repressed to make them the minrity!) who should be brought to justice and penalised for their outlaw behaviour.
In the case of the EU, if one citizen obeys the law and all other citizens pick and choose which laws as they are going to obey, then the policeman (the EU) must either enforce the law or anarchy can become the norm and we are left with my question - what is the point of having any laws if they are selectively ignored or even disobeyed openly.
This is very frustrating to the British mindset and a root cause as to why the 'them and us' mentality has been confirmed in the minds of the British who see themselves (as "Us") trying to be good citizens but other Europeans ("Them") not being very law-abiding when it comes to EU rules?
This has been quite a thought provoking discussion. Thank you.
It makes me think that maybe the United Kingdom's citizens would be better off living outside of the EU and operating by their standards and not the standards of others who have a more cavalier attitude towards rules and regulations. Maybe the British are just simply too different from other Europeans to ever accept the continental laissez-faire approach to the EU's rules?
Complain about this comment
#80 - Menedemus
I would like to think you were right but the attitude that 99% of having a peaceful life is not getting caught seems just as prevalent whichever side of the Channel you are on.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that there is simply too much law. Nowhere is this more true than in the UK. The British could certainly argue the case for clarity and simplicity if they themselves had not long since left the principles of the Common Law to suffocate under the weight of a plethora of largely worthless legislation.
Complain about this comment
@turkrocks (73)
as long as you keep realizing that we do not ever want Turkey in the EU (and even prefer the EU itself to collapse because it is so thorougly undemocratic).
Islam is not and never has been beneficial to any area and has never brought any prosperity or progress anywhere. In fact, from the days the infamous warmonger Muhammad invented islam, it has been non stop violence against non muslims. Muhammad can be ranked amongst Hitler and Stalin as one of the worst warmongers of all time. Incidentally, islam brought slavery to Africa, almost a millennium before the Europeans. If I had my way, islam would be banned immediately. Anyone who worships a non-existant deity invented by a notorious warmonger should be distrusted.
The record shows, particularly the historic record of islam in India, that islam may well be the most murderous ideology of all time. And those are facts that simply cannot be disputed, much like the Armenian genocide which was well documented by officials of the Hohenzollern and Habsburg empires who were allied to the Young Turk controlled Ottoman government.
There is no such thing as a religion, they are all ideologies, and islam is certainly the worst of them all (though not by a great margin). There is no majority islam country which fully recognized women as equal or does not discriminate against other ideologies (aka 'religions') or cultures.
Complain about this comment
@menedemus
so in your opinion 'we must obey' the rules of the EU. Well, haven't we heard that before, I point you to 1933.
Since there was and is no popular mandate for any kind of political integration all Brussels legislation is by definition null, void and illegal as the power transfers that made them possible were illegal.
I shall not be bound by illegally made laws, made by an unelected anti-democratic crowd of EU politburo/commission kommissars and government ministers who never had a mandate to go to Brussels so they could bypass their national parliaments.
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975 @ 83
I think you misunderstand my point of view and, perhaps misinterpret my comments?
In my discussions with threnedio and Buzet23, it became clear to me that there is a disparity between the way that the rules and regulations dreamed up by the EU are adopted and obeyed by the UK and hpow they are viewed by the rest of Europe (to a lesser degree!). Europeans other than the UK seem to have a somewhat dilettante approach to rules in that they pick and choose which and when the EU rules should be applied.
Within the UK, EU legislation is picked over and almost fanatically applied by the UK Government, Local Authorities and Authoritive Quangos.
This over-weaning UK approach to the EU legislation sits as uncomfortably with me as it sound like it does to you.
It is my view, as I wrote before, that perhaps this over-zealous imposition of EU Law upon the British by the British Authorities is one of the reasons that the British detest the EU. It might therefore, be better that the British should withdraw from having to obey EU Legislation and only need to comply with their own laws, rules and regulations.
I think this would be a solution to the obvious detestation for the EU by the British but allow the British to return to their core values which is a wish to be good Europeans but work with their fellow Europeans from outside of the EU!
It seems to work for Norway; it should work for the UK as well!
Complain about this comment
O dear, censorship strikes again. Apparently we are not allowed to say that warmonger Muhammad was a warmonger.
What's next? We can't call ol' Adolf a warmonger anymore because it would offend neo-nazis?
I stand by my statement, islam is not and never has been about 'peace'.
Complain about this comment
#84 - Menedemus
Yes but we tapping into each others thoughts, not going at each other with lump hammers.
Complain about this comment
#85 - mcdv-1975
And the relevance of Islamic theology to the topic in hand is . . . ?
Complain about this comment
threnodio @86
And if you do get that website mentioned in Nick's Blog up and running I would be an early subscriber btw!
The details would be the clue needed to get there. (^>^)
Complain about this comment
#88 - Menedemus
You will be among the first to know :-)
Complain about this comment
Menedemus #75 -
It's not at all surprising that the Eastern European countries are eager to join EU and NATO - they simply view it as protection from Russia. After all, look what's happened to Georgia just weeks after they received a No from NATO - yes, IT IS really that simple.
It is easy to be a reluctant and sceptical member of EU when one's very existence is not threatened, when one is not given a choice between exercising a right to use one's own language and enough gas to heat homes through winter. Russia's economic blackmail of Ukraine is not only crippling Ukraine's economy, it is truly threatening its democracy. I find the paralles between this situation and the Stalin's ordered famine of 1932 very unsettling. In that case, the world also stood idly by.
Complain about this comment
#90 - laveni
If it is guarantees of security the eastern European nations want, they should look first to NATO. It is precisely the fear of the destabilising influence of Moscow on Ukraine's democratic institutions that worries the EU.
Complain about this comment
After autumn comes winter. I think for Europe it will be a very very long winter. It's been a long time coming. It's hard to say if spring will ever arrive there. One thing is for certain, if there isn't a fundimental change to the way Europe and Europeans view themselves and the world, the last thing they will have to worry about is global warming. It's far more likely it will be going through an ice age.
Complain about this comment
#84 Menedemus and threnedio,
With regard to the adoption (or not) of the vast array of EU directives, there are several issues. As you both mention most countries simply pick and choose what to obey whereas the UK governments under Blair and now Brown seem to almost relish the imposition of ever more regulation and control on the Brits.
That not only begs the question of how can the EU be either working or healthy when most directives are only partially implemented, but it also questions as to whether these directives should have been created in the first place. If there is no willpower to implement these directives then the EU project as it now stands is just an image with no substance, put in place solely for the personal gratification of politicians. I've already seen from my own experience how few open border regulations actually work, with caveats imposed everywhere by National Governments eg harmonisation of qualifications is a prime example.
As I've said a few times now, I look forward to the next EU elections in 2009, when I will be voting for a fringe candidate of some sort. If sufficient people also do that then maybe we'll not only give the elite a kick but maybe even elect a few MEP's that are not just interested in getting their snouts in the trough. Always assuming of course that firstly the EU still exists and secondly that my country Belgium still exists (a breakup could well happen).
Complain about this comment
laveni @ 90
I really am in admiration of the former states of the USSR and former Warsaw Bloc countries to throw off the yoke of Russian 'influence' and control but my musings at #75 was specifically about the EU.
Given the Ukaraine's desire to associate itself with "Europe" and in seeking to protect itself from renewed Russian oppression the route that the Ukraine needs to take is membership or associate membership of NATO.
As a trustworthy partner of NATO, one can then assume that patience would be all that was needed before the EU offered the Ukarine EU membership - provided the Ukraine met all the EU elegibility tests.
My musings at #75 was more about how the different eyes with which Britain and the 'would-be' partners of eastern Europe sees the EU.
To me, as an Englishman, it is an idiosynchratic organisation that has no democratic authority but delivers legislation and rules that Britain obeys almost fanatically. To the eastern Europeans it would seem to be an organisation that brings salvation!
It is that difference of how the EU is perceived that I find fascinating and really my point of writing #75.
In all other respects the Ukraine has my deep respect for endeavoring to become a modern democratic European Country and wishing to become an integral part of Europe. I wish Ukraine well and have no desire for them other than to see them succeed as a nation.
Complain about this comment
#93 - Buzet23
You are quite right. The problem is not, however, MEPs with their noses in the trough. It is the vast hoards of overpaid Eurocrats whose entire careers depend on creating ever more outlandish regulations that nobody wants. Instead of rubber stamping this stuff, it is really time that their political masters started wielding the axe.
Complain about this comment
#95 threnodio,
I tend to agree except that it's not just the EU civil servants, it's also the government civil services across the EU. Their whole 'raison d'etre' is to create more and more futile confusing legislation, safe in the knowledge that the more confusing and badly written it is then the more follow up legislation will be required, and so on.
Unfortunately these unelected 'fast stream' civil servants have a time honoured system of not only protecting their backs but getting rid of politicians that don't play the game. I can't see the political elite ever having the courage to take on the bureaucrats, it's too dangerous for them unfortunately.
Complain about this comment
#96 - Buzet23
Well I can only repeat what I have said before. There is too much law and most of it is bad law. If someone does not take a knife to the red tape soon, we will all be well and truly knotted.
Complain about this comment
To #97 threnodio,
I quite agree, in my IT field there was an old saying, 'keep it simple and it works, complicated solutions make complicated problems'. When it comes to Directives, Laws regulations etc it has gone far beyond the complicated stage and there is far too much overlapping. The legal profession must love it as it's a guaranteed income for them in exploiting the flaws and badly written texts.
It is indeed time for the knife on red tape, but I don't see any Thatcher type of politicians anywhere on the horizon, and that's the only type of politician who will do what's necessary.
Complain about this comment
Well done guys, good debate. But how does it work out in real life? I'm in a particularly poor area of an new member state, trying to help people who are left behind by the advances that EU membership has brought.
As one example among many such cases, we have here a young mother with a baby that turns blue everytime it coughs. An operation is available to save the child's life. Officially the operation is free but the doctor has asked for a GBP450 attendance fee - ie, about twice the annual income for this family.
Quite frankly, until those who are leading or forming the EU can address that sort of situation then the EU has failed to meet the ideals that its founders envisaged.
Complain about this comment
Hi ClaphamBusman,
What you say is a new angle on what we've been saying but it's one of those 'holes' that are left when poor countries enter the EU. It was apparent when Germany was reunified as well. The access to many services and opportunities that were not available under the USSR is not always a panacea, it can be a Pandora's box as well. Certain salaries and therefore profit taking will rise faster is some sectors than others. I guess the medical field is one of those most visible since many countries are short of doctors, and as we all know supply and demand rules.
Complain about this comment
ClaphamBusman @99 and Buzet23 @100
Far be it for me to defend the EU and in may respects this would seem to be a failing of the EU but it is actually human dynamics that is the problem.
People will always seek to better themselves so the free movement of people within the EU also means that intellectually adept and technically skilled people will be able to freely migrate to the territories of the EU where their skills and abilities will gain greater recompense than in the poorer territories.
Alternatively, they stay and seek rewards for their skills equable with the rewards they would get if they migrated.
I have never held the illusion of the EU being the salvation for Europe's ills. It's various peoples are required to be self-interested and should look after themselves first and I don't blame them either.
In fact, the expansion of the EU to encompass 27 nations means that the EU Funding Model is now broken and I await developments to see how the UK and other wealthier nations are going to be asked to contribute even more money to support the socialist concept of the EU to redistribute wealth as the EU expands and grows ever larger.
Complain about this comment
#99 - ClaphamBusman
If you are free to say, I would be interested to know where you are. Leaving aside my astonishment that any doctor would withhold life saving treatment for purely monetary reasons, there must be mechanisms for this eventuality. Here in Hungary you do need to be part of a valid insurance scheme to receive treatment but if the condition is life threatening, this requirement takes second place to providing care. For my first 6 months, I relied on the reciprocal arrangement (used to be the E.111), but when I decided to stay, I signed up to the state system here and have had no issues. Are you close to a land border? Can the child travel? That may be an option.
Complain about this comment
#101 - Menedemus
I don't think it is lack of medically qualified personnel, it is the very poor levels of pay. I met one doctor here who contracts out to a UK NHS Trust one day a week. Even with the air fares, that shift more than triples his take home pay.
Complain about this comment
For more discussion on this, I suggest you refer back to 'Queasy over health plans - Mark Mardell - 3 Jul 08 on this page. I see patient mobility - so called health tourism - as one way forward with patients going to where there is capacity for their particular requirements. This is fine for so called 'elective' procedures. I am afraid it is not a lot of use to the seriously ill like ClaphamBusman child situation.
Complain about this comment
Re post 99, I do not wish to sound harsh and do find myself defending the E.U., this is not the problem of the E.U., it is the problem of the individual country concerned.
It is up to the residents of that country and their Government to sort this situation out. The E.U. should be about ensuring free trade within Europe, not harmonising health provisions across 27 countries.
It is true, as a natural by-product of the process, countries, by being part of a large free trade area, should increase in wealth and prosperity. As a consequence they should be able to increase health provision. It is also true the E.U provides money to improve new members infrastructure to enable them to prosper and compete. This does not mean funding i operations or health care. That is not the E.U. role -
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ 101
I dare say you are right as I simply do not know.
However, a trip to any general NHS hospital in the UK will reveal the employment of non-UK doctors, nurse and other medically qualified staff who have come to earn a living in the UK working within the NHS.
This presence in the UK of these migrant medically qualified staff means that there must be shortage of such qualified personnel elsewhere.
The only reason that this shortage may not be critically obvious in one particular country may simply be because the doctors, nurses and other qualified medical staff are coming from all areas and countries within and from outside of the EU.
I don't blame these people for seeking better remuneration for themselves. Needs must and self-interest cannot be wrong - it is a normal human condition.
My blame lies with the UK for (a) making it too easy to migrate and ply one's trade in the UK at the expense of provision of good medical care back in the migrant's home country (For new EU states this would be like plundering the new EU nations' intellectual personnel) and (b) the UK citizen's reliance on the NHS to provide cradle-to-grave medical provision without regard to the less fortunate citizen's of the world who happen to live outside of the UK.
Complain about this comment
@jordanbasset (105)
except that the EU is not a free trade area. It is a customs union.
And the claim that the EU provides money for anything is patently false. The EU has no money of its own.
@ClaphamBusman (99)
The socalled founding fathers of the EU only ever envisaged one thing: to either destroy or sideline parliamentary democracy and establish rule by decree by an unelected mutually appointed elite. And why should western Europe pay even more taxes so eastern Europe can have better healthcare? Do Britain and Netherlands (who combined have over 50% of Europe's private pension holdings) also have to give eastern Europe part of our private pension moneys? That will happen over my dead body.
@Menedemus (101)
You are right about technically skilled or intellectually adept peoples. For them, the EU system is great. For those from eastern Europe who don't have the means to travel west or those in the west who are 'less-than-averagely-skilled' however the EU has not been beneficial at all, quite the contrary. A less than averagely skilled workman from basically any (north-)western EU country has actually suffered because of the EU. More peoples come in from the east, willing to work cheaper so the western workman is out of a job.
Furthermore, it is he (the western European workman) who has to live amongst all these immigrants from eastern Europe and also non-western immigrants (who frequently bring their malign ideology islam with them). The elites tend to live in almost exclusively white elite dominated areas. This is breeding widespread resentment. I know because I lived for 2 years in such an area of a major city not too long ago.
Everything EU is tailormade for politicians, bureaucrats and university educated elitists. It was always exclusively designed to appeal to those groups. As it was the plan by the founding fathers (particularly Monnet, who was opposed to democracy) to create a new sort of aristocracy who would 'rule Europe' between them, without the need for elections (at most, people would be allowed to vote for meaningless and powerless parliaments). And now the elites find out that the masses (particularly in western Europe, the east will follow in a few years time) who have not benefitted in any way, are increasingly against the EU.
They are reaping what Monnet and co sowed in the 1950's and 60's. The fact that the lower middle classes were screwed with the Euro currency doesn't help either. Although prices did not increase faster than before, incomes did (relatively) decline. Only one country did actually meet the entry criteria.
Ever wonder why the EU is so undemocratic as it is? This didn't happen by chance, as I explained, it was most deliberate.
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975,
In so many ways I agree with your synopsis of the faultlines of the EU.
Hence my original self-question as to why it is that the new eastern Europe countries see EU membership as a form of salvation where the UK would be the country that is most likely - if it were ever actually given the chance of a referendum - to withdraw from the EU and seek to adopt a similar relationship to the EU as Norway.
Unfortunately I don't ever see the UK electorate getting a referendum on membership of the EU - the UK politicians are sitting pretty in a 'rotten' parliamentary system that allows them to rule autocratically!
Complain about this comment
#106 - Menedemus
Good points but I was actually saying the opposite. I cannot speak for all Europe of course but certainly here, notwithstanding that many chose to work in Western Europe, there is actually no sign of a shortage of very highly skilled staff. It might also be worth noting that, while doctors' qualifications may be highly portable 'transnational', nursing qualifications are not. However well qualified locally, nursing staff going into the NHS do have to qualify as SEN or SRN.
#107 - mcdv-1975
Surely one of the objectives of the National Minimum Wage was to prevent cheap labour from undercutting. If it is not working, that's the fault of the enforcement agencies, not the EU.
Only a very tiny minority of eastern Europeans are Muslim. Most UK Muslims are actually 2nd or 3rd generation Brits and those who have migrated have come from elsewhere. As to the description of their belief system as 'malign', I shall treat that with the contempt it deserves.
Complain about this comment
#108 - Menedemus
There was a referendum in 1972 about accession to the Treaty of Rome and another one in 1975 about staying in. How many refernda do you want?
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ 109
I only surmise from personal experience of the NHS that the NHS is supported by migrant health employees to such an extent that the reality must be that some parts of the world are plundered by emigrant health workers leaving for a better life in the UK.
I would be very surprised if this were not only true for the UK but also true for health workers in many of the more wealthy and higher GNI countries of the EU.
In an earlier post you intimated that Hungary and The Czech Republic were good examples of solvent nations. These countries may, therefore, have sufficient GNI not to see too many of their healthcare intelligentsia leaving for pecuniary advantage elsewhere in Europe. Can the same be said for Bulgaria or Romania or Poland?
It also may be true that the higher GNI EU countries plunder their requirement by unspoken quotas so that they are not seen to "drain the brains" from specific countries but do create a brain drain on a global basis so that the numbers of migrant healthcare staff are huge but on a per nation basis relatively unnoticable!
Complain about this comment
111 - Menedemus
Yes I think that is entire possible as regards third world countries. There are signs that some African countries are suffering badly from medical brain drains. I am not aware of any EU countries where this is the case. Bear in mind though that we are talking commuting distance. It is perfect possible for a European GP to also do locum work in the NHS without disrupting his practice. Per nation basis? Yes absolutely possible.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio @ 110
That is strange?
On June 6 1975 I voted in the the one Refendum that asked the question, "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?". It was a very straightforward question. I voted "Yes".
1972 which was the year I began my professional career so it is a well remembered year as far as I am concerned and yet I don't remember any referendum that year?
I do remember that on January 1 1973, the UK joined the EEC.
Perhaps I can now have the second referendum you think I had in in 1972 now? That sounds fair to me!
Perhaps the question could be exactly the same (bar the name of the community)as the 1975 referendum: "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Union?".
I think you and I both know what the UK's majority answer would be this time around.
Complain about this comment
Actually #73, Menedemus, I think it was 1974 that the UK entered the Common Market, which was when Ted Heath got kicked, I seem to recall it was the New Socialist government that one year later wanted the referendum to which we voted yes, what fools we all were and oh how I think most of the UK population would like the current Socialist to repeat that once off listening to the people.
Re 112 threnodio,
I think the days of commuting are disappearing fast, especially in the UK, one of McClown's changes was to make days of travel count towards residency, so there may be a lot less commuters from offshore once they get his tax bills.
Finally, what do the people still in the UK think of todays news about Northern Rock, is it once more looking after his Scottish mates and Labours heartland or is it the last desperate sign of a Captain who refuses to go down with his sinking (or already sunk) ship. One thing is for sure, he and Captain Darling have shown that they can't organise the proverbial p**s up in a brewery.
Complain about this comment
#113 - Menedemus
That will teach me to rely on my memory. I could have sworn Heath called a pre-accession referendum but I did not check my facts and you are absolutely right. Perhaps I was thinking of the '75 referendum as the one they should have had in '72. Shame on me.
The answer to your substantive question, in my opinion is no, absolutely not - for three reasons. Firstly, nations cannot simply slip into and out of treaty obligations whenever the mood takes them regardless of the state of public opinion. Secondly, this would be a referendum for retrospective action. There may be exceptional circumstances where you may ask the people directly about something government is planning to do. Asking them about undoing something which has already been done is a totally different ballgame. This was the fundamental flaw of '75. Finally, of course, there is absolutely no point in having a referendum on an issue which you will never get through parliament. Parliament will no more vote in favour of withdrawing from the EU any more than they would the restoration of capital punishment, no matter how great the public appetite.
There is only one mechanism which will take the UK out of the EU and that is vote into office a party which is committed to it. If that day ever dawns, you will have to get it past me and people like me whose passports state that we are citizens of the European Union and have no intention of letting anyone take that away.
Complain about this comment
115. At 10:53pm on 05 Aug 2008, threnodio wrote:
"...
There is only one mechanism which will take the UK out of the EU and that is vote into office a party which is committed to it. "
Threnodio! You are wrong again!
There are other mechanisms which could get us out of the "EU":
1) We could annoy the continental "EU"-lovers so much that they throw us out.
2) We can work continuously for the destruction of the "EU" itself. Once it is destroyed we shall be out of it.
Further:
"If that day ever dawns, you will have to get it past me and people like me whose passports state that we are citizens of the European Union and have no intention of letting anyone take that away."
I have picked up my "EU"-passport off the floor where it normally resides so that I can step on it. I cannot see that it says that I am a citizen of the "EU". I am however aware that there are those who claim I am a citizen of the "EU". I am not. I am a prisoner of the "EU"-dictatorship. I was never asked if I wanted to be a "citizen of the 'EU'" . I don't.
As for getting it past people like you: About 80% wanted a referendum on the Lisbon wotsit. About 70% wanted to vote "NO". It appears that the reaction of the "leaders" in the "EU" to the Irish NO-vote has driven people who previously voted YES into the NO camp. My guess is that this applies to the UK as well.
Are you saying that if a majority of the population and "their MPs" want to get the UK out of the "EU" then you will not accept it in some way. In what way would we not be able to get it past you? Would you be standing there with a sub-machine gun? Would you be attempting a military coup? Would you be collaborating with an "EU"-Army which was trying to invade the UK?
Do you understand democracy? Do you want democracy? Do you respect democracy?
Complain about this comment
It strikes me that whichever side loses the debate on the EU Constitution in whatever guise it is in will blame the other side for Europe's ills when the economies go really sour and other plans start to fall apart. It seems to me an argument over which end of a leaking boat will keep you safe. Personally, I put my money on the Constitution being passed one way or another. Those who are determined to enact it no matter what the objections to it are seem as determined as ever. I don't think its opponents can hold out indefinitely.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @ 114
Just as a memory jog, I find the BBC News Website very helpful: On This Day
threnodio @115
Yes, it would take the political Party in government to (a) call a referendum and then (b) propose an Act of Parliament to withdraw form the EU . . . . but then the Parliament would have a majority Party available to vote through an Act of Parliament rescinding treaty obligations under the current Treaty of Rome.
I dissent from your opinion that treaty obligations cannot be rescinded by a Treaty Partners. Please see the Wikipedia:Treaty for the information on Withdrawal from Treaties and a link to Denunciation of Treaties where withdrawal is not permitted by the contract.
Harold Wilson's Labour Government called the 1975 EEC Membership Referendum and would have rescinded membership of the EEC - if the vote had retrospectively required his Government to withdraw from membership of the EU. They were obligated to do this by the likes of some very heavyweight Labour Party politicians who had to resign to canvas for a "No" vote but as both the Conservative and the Labour Parties chose to canvas for a "Yes" vote the conclusion of the Referendum was pretty much foregone!
At that time I was very pro-European and voted "Yes" to remain in the EEC.
Although I remain pro-European, I object to the politicization that has changed the EEC to an EC and now an EU without clear consent of the people! From that perspective I am drawn to the anti-EU lobby and would vote for withdrawal from the EU - if a membership referendum was called in the UK.
The 1957 Treaty of Rome does NOT specifically forbid withdrawal so, for the United Kingdom and any other member state wishing to do so, this is merely a procedure allowed under international law.
Some of the Contracting Parties might not like the UK leaving the EU but the procedure is a standard process of withdrawal. Denunciation of the treaty would be more serious a step but if the EU Partners cut up rough over UK withdrawal then the UK could resort to denunciation of the Treaty of Rome.
However, your offer to resist the democratic will of the majority vote for a political party whose manifesto included an offer of a membership referendum and withdrawal from the EU is somewhat unnecessary, as I restate my view at #108:
It would seem that on the fact that Parliament will never accede to the majority wish of the people to withdraw from the EU is something upon which we can agree.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII @ 117
I would not dissent from that opinion.
I think the EU as a Continental State is inevitable. Any state needs to have a constitution and, ultimately, all sovereign powers including fiscal tax-raising sovereignty and control over defence.
I would simply like to see the EU become truly democratic - unless it does so I think the "Boston Tea Party" will seem like child's play as the the call for "No Taxation without Representation" is as true today as it was back then!
If the day dawns that the EU can tax the 455 million people of Europe AND the EU still has an unelected President and unelected executive (as proposed by the Lisbon Treaty) then the people will revolt.
Complain about this comment
Re: the 1975 referendum, and the suggestion that all we were voting for was a about being be part of a 'free trade bloc' and nothing deeper. After a bit of digging, I found the text of the official government pamphlet urging a 'yes' vote in 1975. It seems clear reading this document that, even then, we were being asked to vote for more than just a trading agreement. I quote…
"The aims of the Common Market are:
• To bring together the peoples of Europe.
• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
• To promote growth and boost world trade.
• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
• To help maintain peace and freedom."
Now, you can argue whether or not these aims have been achieved, but only in name could you interpret the above as just a trading agreement.
On the issue of sovereignty, the text sounds very familiar..
"Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels. What are the facts? Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own. A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world. Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund. Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament. The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments. It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto."
Still mostly true, although of course there are now 27 Member States and the veto has gone in many areas (I've never thought it very democratic that a single Member State can hold the other 26 to ransom)
The 'No' campaign was claiming that Britain would be merged with France and would become a minor province of Europe, and we'd all be forced to eat European bread and drink European beer (those, remember, were the days when we were eating Mother's Pride and drinking Watney's Red Barrel). It would have come as quite a surprise to many people back then that, after 35 years of membership, 'la difference' is still as great as ever, we still have the Queen, we still ask for pints of beer in English and pay for them in pounds and pence, and we can still ride on double-decker buses on the left hand side of the road and travel in miles per hour, and we still have the power to make (sometimes misguided) military interventions across the world.
Oh yes, and we still buy bent bananas in Sainsbury's.
Complain about this comment
To #118 Menedemus,
I stand corrected, it was indeed 1st Jan 1973 that the UK entered the EEC, but I notice that the article is a little bit one sided. The two paragraphs below are pasted from it.
Among its achievements, the community has been responsible for establishing the Single Market in 1993 and launching the Euro in 2002.
Former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, who died in July 2005, regarded his greatest achievement as securing Britain's entry to what was the Common Market in 1973.
Firstly, has anyone actually found the single market yet in either goods, services, social mobility, I haven't. Secondly, there are a lot of people not now believing the Euro was a great idea, it solved the speculation problem but it's created an inflexibility problem in times of recession as only the ECB can change interest rates, that leaves taxation as the only mechanism a country has to lift a recession. Finally no mention is made of Greenland, which technically joined at the same time as the UK, leaving the EU in 1985.
To #120. Iantownhill,
That text is roughly as I recall and as I've said before I voted yes partly because of the single market and partly because there was to be no loss of sovereign responsibility. There is a big difference between the idea of 'Bringing together, raising, helping etc' and the current implementation of a corrupt undemocratic dinosaur that is beginning to resemble a dictatorship.
Maybe the next EU elections in 2009 will be the last truly free elections before the controlling of election results is quietly slipped in. After all is it relatively easy to manipulate boundaries and seats per population numbers, all that is needed now is for the parties standing to be restricted to only those who are approved, just as in the old USSR.
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill @120
Your pro-Yes Vote pamphlet is merely reiterating the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome and I have never ever had a problem with "ever closer union" and the principles of close cooperation with Europe outlined within that treaty.
I live in Europe, I am European as well as being British. I am also English to further distinguish me as an individual.
What I object to is the subsequent amending Treaties that have entered the UK into "ever closer POLITICAL union" and seen the evolution of the original Treaty of Rome which simply created a 'Common Market' with freedom to move goods without tariffs and customs charges and also allowed for the free movement of people. The original treaty also merged the 6 countries' resources into collective and shared resources.
In 1973 the UK joined this collective and, in 1975, I voted to remain in this collective - there had been no ceding of areas of sovereignty and there was no intent to have the EEC straighten bananas at that time.
However, since the 1980s, the EC and then the EU has been evolved and this is no longer a 'common market' but a socio-political organisation that has been granted political control over areas of sovereignty for which I have no democratic voice or choice.
Nevertheless, this is all very moot as the UK is stuck with membership of the EU unless some future UK Governmemt has the strength of will to grant a new UK referendum on EU membership and agrees to withdraw the UK from the Treaty of Rome and Amending Treaties - if the electorate gives them the mandate to do so.
Complain about this comment
In my previous post I forgot to mention my comment about "Former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, who died in July 2005, regarded his greatest achievement as securing Britain's entry to what was the Common Market in 1973.". I still recall the old jokes about him and how an "apple a day keeps the Grocer away". The comment regard his 'greatest achievement' should maybe have read 'greatest disaster', as he certainly made an awful lot of mistakes, including going to the country in 1974. Maybe that's what Gordon Brown is/was afraid of as he seems to be very much in the 'Heath' mold.
Complain about this comment
Sir Edward Heath was the epitomy of liberal conservatism and bland leadership.
My fear is that the UK will ditch Gordon Brown (or Milliband?) at the next General election and the UK gains another liberal conservative in the shape of David Cameron.
Another "be I ever so 'umble" Conservative Leader is not what the Country needs right now!
We could well do with someone like the Grocer's daughter but they are in such short supply and, unlike apples, they don't grow on trees!
Complain about this comment
There are a lot of things here. People have been busy overnight:-)
#116 - SuffolkBoy2
With the greatest respect, you are falling into quite a common trap on these blogs. Because you have strong opinions on this subject - for which, by the way, I have the utmost respect - you are assuming that the argument is won. I would suggest that it is by no means clear would win because such research as has been done has been with comparatively small samples and focus groups. There is a great deal of discontent in the UK regarding the way in which the EU works and the extent of the powers it has acquired but this is so Europe wide. If there were to be a vote for root and branch reform or even retreating to a free trade arrangement, you are probably right. You would win decisively. Out and out withdrawal - I would be quite surprised.
Where does my passport say that I am a citizen of the EU? On the front cover above the UK name and again on page 1 at the top of the premable.
It is then that you lose the plot. Nobody is talking about manning the barricades with AK47s. There would be so many legal challenges both to the High Court and to the European Court that it would take years to sort it out. What would I do about it? I have said before that everything I know about freedom and democracy I have learned from my British experience but if I really was forced to choose, I would with a very heavy heart chose Europe.
Do I understand, want and respect democracy? Far too well to prejudge the outcome of elections, allow myself to be bullied by preaching lobbies or to take lessons from you.
#117 - MarcusAureliusII
I entirely agree Marcus. There has to be a supranational framework of some sort. This is inevitable. Whether the Lisbon process is the right one is open to question. There will always be objectors and it may be that they will force a schism. Suffolk may even be right that some nations will eventually withdraw, though I doubt it. Either way, the remaining nations will have a constitution.
#120 - Iantownhill
You are right to say that the vision has changed and that the EU is far more powerful than the original EEC. All I can say to that is, throughout this process, Britain has remained a parliamentary democracy and decisions relating to Europe have been subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny as all legislation. If you disapprove of parliament's decisions, you have to look much closer to home than Brussels when searching for the democratic deficit. And any process that can rid the world of Red Barrel cannot be all bad.
Buzet23 at several posts.
We are broadly in agreement. Clauses in treaties allowing for or prohibiting withdrawal are in any case worthless. There is nothing in international law preventing sovereign governments from repudiating any treaty at any time. There are lots of anomalies relating to offshore territories. Special arrangements are in place in relation to the Channel Islands, the IoM, the Canaries and so on. Greenland is, as you know, Danish. I confess I did not know it had withdrawn from the EU.
Menedemus
Lots of interesting stuff as usual which we could chew over at length but I do not think we are going to agree about the fundamental question. I have set my face against UK withdrawal but - before Suffolkboy beats me with that stick - I am also aware that it does not follow that I will get my way. All my instincts tell me that the EU project is unstoppable and that the eurosceptics are wasting valuable time and effort on the withdrawal agenda when they could be using it constructively to shape the eventual outcome.
Complain about this comment
#124 Menedemus,
I think you're right, there are no true leaders out there with the guts to make a difference, they are all shades of the Bottler, I still recall Heath was the first real 'Bottler' in his collapsing against the strike. Now the UK has Brown, who just like Heath is a control freak. When they are ditched what will Cameron be like, probably more of the same liberal, semi green rubbish. Even Sarko in France has proved to have little substance, he looked like he would be a Grocer's daughter type of president but so far he bottled out of doing anything really meaningful in France, preferring to be seen as the Bush replacement on the world stage.
Complain about this comment
Althought logged in - for some reason I cannot post on this blog
Complain about this comment
Could be a parse error. You did not type an ampersand? That will blow it every time.
Complain about this comment
To #125. threnodio,
For Greenland take a look at Wikipedia, it was given 'home rule' in 1978 so is an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark and has the Danish Queen as head of state, a bit like some of the old UK's former colony's I guess. It seems there is to be a new referendum in November to decide whether and how to maintain their association in the Danish State.
I just wonder how much the mandarins of the EU would like to get their hands on Greenland, as it is an Arctic country and we all know the current furore about the untapped oil reserves there, plus it also has reserves of Uranium and other expensive ores. I think the Greenland people were very clever to leave in 1985 as it's saved them from having their fishing industry decimated and their resources plundered in the name of 'redistribution of wealth'.
Complain about this comment
@threnodio (109)
so in your opinion I should not be allowed to use the word 'malign' when referring to an ideology which is responsible for more killings than (probably) any other ideology? An ideology that still treats women and those people not of the ideology as 2nd class (at best)? An ideology which is monocultural, intolerant to the extreme, agressively expansive and has no history of anything good coming out of it?
An ideology which was founded by a man who can at best be described as a warmonger and slave trader? Draw a cartoon of this man, publish it and you are in for countless death threats, and your countrys embassies in the region in question will probably suffer arson. And all of this because of some peoples fanatical belief in something that simply does not exist (the 'supreme' being). Just when we had finally told those christians where they could stick their nonsense, these people and their at least equally malign ideology show up and demand we give it respect.
Since communism and fascism decidedly killed fewer people than the ideology I am referring to, perhaps those 2 ideologies aren't 'malign' either?
Complain about this comment
The toughest challenge the European Union will face this autumn is how to cope with the Irish 'No' on the Lisbon Treaty. Negotiating a new treaty is not an option because it would take to much time. I'm against Sarkozy's plan of letting the Irish vote again on a 'renegotiated' Lisbon Treaty. The European Union should respect the Irish 'No' on Lisbon and decleare the treaty dead. In my opinion Brussels should include some of Lisbon's most necessary reforms into the accession treaties of Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey. This seems to be the only acceptable option left.
Complain about this comment
Re post 130, would be interested in knowing what information you are using to back up your claim that Islam have killed more than nazism and communism.
Rough estimates put the figures at 50 million dead due to Naziism and the communism not far behind.
I am not aware of any death figures that are remotely comprarable due to Islam. I am not talking about wars between countries where one happens to be muslim, but deaths as a result of Islam.
Would be interesting in knowing your figures and of course the source/reference for them.
Complain about this comment
Re post 120, there is nothing in the aims you have posted which would make me think the then E.E.C. would mutate into the E.U. Rather the complete opposite
Fact two states -
"no important new policy can be decided...without the consent of a British Minister..."
Your statement that this is still" mostly true" is bizzarre., do you really think that with QMV and commisioners this is really the case?
Also to suggest that you did not think it democratic for individual countries to have the power of veto is also strange. That was exactly what the pamphlet said countries would have, a right of veto.
The pamphlet went on to say say if the British Public voted yes the consequences would be -
".. in or out of the common market, it will be tough.... we will be in a stronger position..if we stay in the market......we remain part of the world's most powerul trading bloc...inside the market we can work to get more European community money spent inside Britain" etc etc
In a fairly short pamphlet the words 'common market' or 'market' was mentioned over 30 times. No where was ever closer political union mentioned. It does say we would get millios of pounds back from the E.E.C., I suppose you will say that is still mostly true as well?
Thank you for drawing my attention to this pamphlet, I am glad my memory was not defective. It is clear the Government sold the E.E.C. on false promises, what we now have cannot be compared to what we were promised.
Complain about this comment
Re post 120 please see the below -
"Treaty of Friendship Between the United States of America and the Republic of Kiribati
The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Kiribati,
Desirous of maintaining the bonds of peace and friendship traditionally existing between the people of the United States and the people of Kiribati...
Conscious of their mutual interest in a stable and peaceful Pacific;
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
The Government of the United States recognizes the sovereignty of Kiribati over the islands of Kiribati named in the preamble as a part of the territory of the sovereign Republic of Kiribati.
ARTICLE 2
The two Governments, in the spirit of friendship existing between them, shall consult together on matters of mutual concern and interest in time of need, and, in particular, to promote social and economic development, peace, and security in the Pacific region. Any military use by third parties of the islands named in the preamble shall be the subject of such consultation.
ARTICLE 3
Any future use by the Government of the United States of facilities constructed by it on Canton (Kanton), Enderbury, and Hull (Orona) shall be in accordance with agreements to be negotiated between the two Governments. The Government of Kiribati agrees that these facilities shall not be made available to third parties for military purposes except with the agreement of the Government of the United States.
ARTICLE 4
The two Governments recognize the interest of their peoples in close cooperation for their mutual benefit in economic development relating to fisheries off their coasts. The two Governments agree to consult directly, and/or through appropriate regional organizations to which both parties, regarding matters relating to the conservation, management, and utilization of fisheries of mutual interest. They agree also to encourage and facilitate cooperative arrangements and fishing ventures of mutual interest and benefit. For the purpose of entering into such arrangements the two Governments shall promote discussions between their nationals and appropriate governmental entities.
ARTICLE 5
The Governments of the United States and Kiribati will use their best efforts to encourage cooperation between the two countries in protecting the unique natural and cultural resources of Kiribati, and, for their mutual benefit, to encourage and facilitate scientific research activities and cultural exchanges.
ARTICLE 6
The Governments of the United States and Kiribati agree to encourage joint utilization of facilities constructed by the United States on Canton (Kanton) for the mutual benefit of their nationals and/or appropriate governmental entities. "
This treaty uses much of the language contained in the pamphlet you referred to, it is common language used in treaties betwen independent countires. Not a road map for ever closer political union. I repeat nothing in the pamphlet you refers to makes me believe people were agreeing to anything other than a free trade area.
Complain about this comment
To #133. jordanbasset,
What you said triggered a memory, if I recall correctly the UK was at the time the sick man of Europe, partly due to Union power supported by Harold Wilson's previous reign and partly due to the war debt. Heath bottled out of the chance to correct the Union excesses and then Wilson took over once more, oh my do I remember him, out of the frying pan into the fire. My memory is that Wilson was like Brown in the sense that he had to find money from somewhere in order to fund his Socialist dreams and friends in the USSR, in Brown's case he simply has milked the cash cow to extinction.
PS. to those who think his communist links are fallacy think of this "In the 1945 general election, Wilson won his seat in the Labour landslide. To his surprise, he was immediately appointed to the government as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works. Two years later, he became Secretary for Overseas Trade, in which capacity he made several official trips to the Soviet Union to negotiate supply contracts. Conspiracy-minded commentators would later seek to raise suspicions about these trips." Ah Ah, does TSR2's cancellation spring to mind, albeit later on?
Complain about this comment
129. At 11:17am on 06 Aug 2008, Buzet23 wrote:
"I just wonder how much the mandarins of the EU would like to get their hands on Greenland, as it is an Arctic country and we all know the current furore about the untapped oil reserves there, plus it also has reserves of Uranium and other expensive ores."
You're right, it's much better Europe leaves Greenland in American hands, it's what admired Ms Thatcher would have done.
Wallonia can wait for better times... At the end of the day they continue going on thanks to the welfare state, don't they?
;-) Good night.
Complain about this comment
I like conspiracy theorists. They're always good value and liven up this forum no end. However, sometimes I think they need to get out a bit, take a walk in the park, smell the flowers and listen to the birds sing. We do not live in a dictatorship. Zimbabwe is a dictatorship. If we want to kick out Gordon Brown in a couple of years time, then we can (if his party hasn't done so already). If we think that withdrawal from the EU is more important than issues such as the economy, the NHS, crime, education and transport then we can vote for Robert Kilroy-Silk and his ilk. I do not accept the argument that our Parliament is hell-bent on further integration no matter what. People join Parliament because they want to make a difference, and even if you have the most cynical view of MP's, they would not vote to make themselves irrelevant or impotent.
Re #133, yes I made clear that the veto had gone in many areas (although even if Lisbon were implemented, the veto would remain on topics such as common foreign and security matters and taxation). But in some of the less sensitive policy areas (tourism for example) it is common sense to look at limiting the veto. The EU now has 27 Member States rather than nine; thus whereas it might have been easy to make decisions with nine Members, even with a potential veto, once you have 27 Member States and one of them can use a veto to block the wishes of the other 26 (the Commission doesn't have a vote) then its difficult to reach agreement. The more Member States you have, the more necessary some form of democratic reform becomes. In this sense, I agree with #131.
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill @137
You're comment seems somewhat belittling of people who hold different opinions to yourself? I'm not sure that is necessary?
If I think that withdrawal from the EU is important then I can state my case in this Blog. If I want to discuss the importance of domestic issues such as the economy, the NHS, crime, education and transport then I can post my comments on Nick Robinson's Blog. All topics and different opinions can have equal importance as far as I am concerned.
I did not know that Robert Kilroy-Silk was still around and involved in politics? As to voting for him - no thank you.
Meanwhile, if you don't mind, I'll continue to comment in this Blog for changing the UK-EU relationship and trying to revert it back to a 'common market' relationship which is what I voted for in 1975.
If a UK Referendum for withdrawal from the EU is necessary to achieve that revision then I will argue for that to happen as well.
I think I'll go play some golf now and get out a bit, take a walk, smell the flowers and listen to the birds sing. Oh, but I was going to do that anyway.
Complain about this comment
137. At 09:23am on 07 Aug 2008, Iantownhill wrote:
"I like conspiracy theorists. They're always good value and liven up this forum no end."
In about 1984, just after the Labour Party had changed its policy on the "EU" I was a delegate helping to choose a Labour candidate for the next elections to the "EU"-parliament. One of the candidates had been the candidate at the previous election. He stated quite openly that he had always been pro-"EU" but had toed the party line and claimed to be anti-"EU" the last time out. I presume that loads of Labour candidates did that. That amounts to a conspiracy to my mind. He wasn't even ashamed. He was proud.
Here's another one. In about 1990 a senior Tory MP told me to my face that an Englishman could not get justice in a French court. If it came to an Englishman versus a Frenchman in a French court then the Englishman would always lose.
That man then voted for the Maastricht Treaty. How could he do that when it meant giving more powers to "EU" courts containing French judges? Is the fact that he subsequently got a "good job" the reason or a I just too cynical?
I believe there is a whole load more that will come out in future.
Complain about this comment
#138 - Menedemus
You have an absolute right - which I for one will champion - to do so. However, I do think Iantownhill has a valid point. The whole political establishment in the UK has set it's face against withdrawal. Whether or not to agree with them is almost academic. The harsh reality is that to achieve the objective, you have to replace a significant number of them with people from outside the establishment before you stand a chance of realising it. That is not an opinion, it is a harsh reality and to this extent, I think he is entirely right.
Complain about this comment
Re post 138, I agree with what you have said. There is a disagreable element which sometimes seek to put those who do not agree with the current direction of the E.U. in an extremist pigeon hole.
I also wish to see the E.U. return to what it originally was and not this bureacratic system which is intent on taking on more power and responsibility. I do not want to leave the E.U. but want it reformed to give us what was originally voted for.
But, like you, I do not seek to use derogatory words to describe those who disagree with me. When you have to result to such behaviour you have lost the argument.
Oh and for the record re post 137, no I would certainly never vote for Kilroy-Silk
Complain about this comment
Re post 137 and your statement -
"If we think that withdrawal from the EU is more important than issues such as the economy, the NHS, crime, education and transport then we can vote for Robert Kilroy-Silk and his ilk."
As above I do not to withdraw from the E.U. but I do want it reformed. The reasons are precisley those you have quoted above -
NHS - I think the new E.U. drive to take powers in this area will see the gradual destruction of it
Economy - increasing E.U regulations are making us less competitive
Crime - the drive to get rid of borders by the E.U. will not help us
Education and transport - if we did not pay so much money into the E.U. to shore up the C.A.P. we could spend more on these areas.
In addition to this I suppose I have always thought of myself as liberal (with a small L) and do belive that across Europe peoples democratic rights and responsibilities are being taken away from us piece by piece by the E.U.
I would never suggest you are part of an authoritarian grouping intent on taking these away from us, but do me the same courtesy and agree that people can oppose the current E.U. without being a right wing zealot
Complain about this comment
threnodio @140
I entirily agree with your suggestion that, currently, the "... whole political establishment in the UK has set it's face against withdrawal.".
I am not so sure that (and I refer to iantownhill @ 137) "People join Parliament because they want to make a difference, and even if you have the most cynical view of MP's, they would not vote to make themselves irrelevant or impotent.". Some yes but definitely not all!
power_to_the_ppl's comment #325 on Nick Robinson's last Blog entry is quite illuminating as to the quality of parliamentarians we have in the UK.
However, I won't surrender my right to believe that at some stage there will be a call to consider withdrawing the UK from the EU.
The Maastricht Treaty was a defining point in the history of the development of the EU when the member states surrendered some areas of sovereign power to the EU. The UK, the Danish and the Irish retained some opt-outs but the surrender of any sovereign powers is to cede parliamentary authority to another organisation. This was, for me, a critical moment when my democratic voice and choice was removed from me and passed to an undemocratic organisation through a 3-line whip in the UK Parliament.
We now have, on the horizon, the prospect that the Danish, in a referendum or referendums (however their Governmemt wants to play it to achieve their ideal result!), will give up their opt-outs altogether.
How long will it be before the UK Parliament - despite "not voting to make themselves irrelevant or impotent" - votes to give up the UK's Maastricht (or Lisbon - if ever ratified) Treaty opt-outs.
Also looking to the future, the EU is currently funded by receipts of Customs Duties paid on goods imported from outside of the EU + 1% of all VAT receipts received on sale of goods and services within each member state. Currently the UK gets back the biggest abatement on the UK contribution but only sufficient to reducing the UK to second largest net contributor.
Tony Blair allowed the Council of Ministers to reduce some of the the UK's abatement in 2005/6. He wanted to tie the reduction in the UK abatement to the French agreeing to reduce the amount of EU funding for the CAP. He failed to get the French to agree to such a tie-up but surrendered some of the UK abatement nevertheless. The UK abatement does sit uncomfortably with the other member states and sooner or later the demand will be for the UK to surrender this abatement.
In all honesty, the UK abatement is as fair to the other EU member states as having Scottish MPs in the UK parliament being able to vote on English-only matters.
At some stage the UK is going to have the UK's EU funding abatement removed and the UK will then become the largest net contributor to the EU. At that point in time the UK will have to face the fact that it cannot match domestic spending in the magnitude that it can currently afford, e.g. 600mllion pounds sterling for the NHS, AND fund it's membership of the EU. I think this alone will concentrate the minds of parliamentarians and the citizens of the UK. I know to which organisation the UK MPs and citizens loyalties will lay!
If that doesn't introduce a change in the UK's Establishment view of the EU then let us look even further into the future when, at some stage, the EU will be granted tax raising powers.
Now this may be a right to raise a percentile tax over and above national income tax rates in each member country - similar to the right of 3% additional income tax that can be levied by the Scottish Parliament (albeit that this 'right' has not been utilised simply because of the benefits of the Barnett Formula!) or it maybe, even more likely through the desire to see the EU achieve Continental Super State, that the member states will surrender their sovereignty over fiscal matters to the EU and all 'citizens' income taxes will go the EU.
I have every confidence that at some stage the cost of being a member of the EU will become the deciding factor as to a change of heart by the UK Establishment and a reversal of the"... whole political establishment in the UK ha(ving) set it's face against withdrawal" will occur.
I therefore live in expectation and not merely hope that there will be a UK withdrawal from the EU.
Complain about this comment
To #136 betuli,
You mentioned "You're right, it's much better Europe leaves Greenland in American hands, it's what admired Ms Thatcher would have done." I guess from you're comment that you can't stand the though of Greenland opting to work closer with the US than the EU, tough, as a self ruling province of Denmark they can align with whom they so wish, and if the EU because of it's lurch from democracy is not the best for them then that's the fault of the EU mandarins. It is also fact that Greenland is a lot closer to the US than to Europe.
You also mentioned "Wallonia can wait for better times... At the end of the day they continue going on thanks to the welfare state, don't they?", You are right about the welfare state bit but that is changing, the Flemish majority forced many companies to relocate in Flanders, now some are returning South, and when Belgium splits there will be a lot more companies setting up bases in Wallonia. As we all know it's swings and roundabouts, Wallonia was once very wealthy and prosperous, now the old ancient industries have been largely replaced with new factories and industrial units. Somewhat similar to what happened in the UK in the 80's, if the politicians in Wallonia are clever the future will be good, if they maintain the current 'old pals act' then the future is uncertain. Many here think that if a break up happens a lot of the current politicians will be replaced by the new generation.
Complain about this comment
@Buzet 72:
I'm sorry to report that your francophiliac assault on Flanders is quite wrong.
1. The administrative language of Flanders is Dutch, just as that of Wallonia is French. As such all administration is to be done in dutch. The city of Vilvoorde, which is the one where the translator thing originates from, doesn't require people to bring a translator when they don't speak dutch well, but allows them to if they think it'll be easier. City officials will try to help in non-dutch languages when possible, with the proviso that all paper-work is done in Dutch, as the law requires. The notice regarding the translators was put up in 6 languages. Btw, while the walloons might also be willing to help people in other languages you need to keep in mind that only paperwork in french will be of legal value. That is the law.
(a little history: when in 1932 flemish politicians proposed making the entire country bilingual the francophones refused because they feared that Wallonia would have to accomodate dutch-speakers!)
2. Whereas Flanders executes the provisions of the language-facilities to the letter the same cannot be said about the Walloons. They refuse consistently to execute their end of the bargain: i.e. the financing of dutch language-facilities in those communities where the law makes provisions for the them. Even in Brussels, which is the capital of the country the francophones love so much, or so they claim, they still don't succeed in holding up their end of the bargain. This for over 40 years now.
3. It's not the Flemish part of the country demanding an enlargement of one part of the country at the expense of another (Brussels vs. Flanders) or coming up with cockamany plans like corridors (how very hitlerian)! So who's the nationalist?
4. It's also not the Flemish going about and using every and all means possible to blacken the reputation of one part of the country in an attempt to gain territorial or financial advantages over the other. The francophones on the other hand leave no opportunity unused to tarnish flemish reputation, happily ignoring that it is the same Flanders that is the economical powerhouse of the country (even brussels, where the economy runs thanks to the many flemish who work there because of their language skills).
Despite decades of abuse, despite being treated as second rank citizens for most of belgian history Flanders still transfers vast sums of money to Wallonia, enabling that region to basically exist as a non-3rd-world place. Despite all most Flemish do not wish to seperate from Belgium and are willing to maintain solidarity with the less well off Walloons, because they're our countrymen. However, the flemish are no longer willing to tolerate that those same francophones piss on the flemish and use the veto-enabling arrangements of Belgium to block flanders from executing needed policies.
The flemish are, in other words, sick and tired of the francophones pissing in the proverbial bowl of cereals that keeps all of the country afloat.
So your misinformed and insulting post at the adress of flanders is not only not appreciated, but also a sign of the continuing arrogance of the francophone community (even if you're not necessarily part of it) towards Flanders and the dutch-speaking belgians. And that needs to end!
Complain about this comment
# 142
I was poking gentle fun. I wasn't calling anyone a right–wing zealot. In fact, one of the major protagonists in favour of a 'no' vote in Ireland was Gerry Adams, and I wouldn't accuse him of being a right-wing zealot.
At the same time I would want to be depicted as a pro-EU zealot. You won't find me defending the CAP and I'm not convinced it would be right for the UK to join the Euro or sign the Schengen agreement. However, the point is that nobody's forcing us to do these things. Some of the posts above are depicting the EU as a dictatorship. If it is a dictatorship, it’s a dictatorship with a lot of opt-outs! Also I'm not convinced about these arguments on red tape. Take cars for instance. New mass-produced cars are now subject to one set of regulations across the whole EU, not 27 different sets of regulations. This, of course helps manufacturers because they can get a type-approval in, say, Spain and sell the car everywhere from Poland to Portugal. But it also helps the buyer. Buyers in the UK used to pay the highest prices in Europe, and it was difficult to shop around in other countries because the legislation was different. Now the technical standards are common (although there may be preferences regarding the position of the steering wheel) people have been able to shop around and as a result, car prices in the UK are cheaper in real terms.
Complain about this comment
To #145. BernardVC,
Your comments are the usual words of the Flemish community and they lack substance on the ground. Don't assume that by repeating these insults that they will be believed eventually. The Wallon are a very tolerant people with a typical Latin laid back approach, but they are also very capable and it was no accident that Wallonia subsidised the Flemish part for many many years, now since some years the table has turned and it's the other way round. Due to that we get to the current aggression from Flanders over funding.
Re point 1. That relies on the official not being a Vlaams Belang supporter or similar, I have experienced the unwillingness of Flemish Dutch speakers to understand even English, something I have never encountered in Holland.
Re point 2, Sounds like the old Flemish claim that Dutch is not taught in schools, a falsehood as my grandchildren will have to learn Dutch in Wallonia, even though I prefer them to learn English as their second language.
Re point 3, It's your Flanders that wants to annex francophone Brussels from Wallonia, and their forcing the language boundaries to be changed in the 80's (or early 90's) makes a corridor necessary were Brussels to remain with Wallonia. It could however be an entity in it's own right, either of which would of course be a disaster to Flanders as the tax revenue of their Brussels workers would be received either by Brussels or Wallonia.
Re point 4, why is it that almost every post on these BBC blogs or HYS are from Flemish blackening the Wallon, not the other way round. As for the language skills, well I notice that it's long been compulsory to speak Dutch in many job adds and French desirable, vis a vis why Anglophones like me now find it hard to get work in Brussels as English and French is not enough even in the Banking world. That my friend upsets me and I've never had language problems down here, only when venturing into Flanders or with Flemish controlled companies in Brussels. I could detail a lot about my experiences over the last 18 years and I'm sure you won't like them one bit, but they are my personal experiences, not what is written in newspapers.
The only true comment about the current status quo is that the politicians who run Wallonia are pretty awful, but then that also stands good for Flanders. When the split comes, and I'm sure it will, life will not be so rosy as you think as a lot of companies will re-evaluate their situation. Antwerp (originally funded by Wallonia), is a good money earner for Flanders, an independant Wallonia could easily use Calais or Dunkirk instead as a good large canal system connects them to Wallonia. Likewise do you expect an independent Wallonia to keep using Company's based in Flanders when French speaking France will be more friendly. Your very last comment about the rubbish needing to end is correct as there is plenty of Bu***hit from both sides at the moment, but if you find my personal experiences of Flanders insulting and misinformed then I think you've proved the validity of my comments.
Complain about this comment
To #146. Iantownhill ,
You said "Also I'm not convinced about these arguments on red tape. Take cars for instance. New mass-produced cars are now subject to one set of regulations across the whole EU, not 27 different sets of regulations. This, of course helps manufacturers because they can get a type-approval in, say, Spain and sell the car everywhere from Poland to Portugal."
A Belgian friend of mine who is domiciled in France recently bought a new Peugeot, built in France. He bought it in Belgium and then registered it in France, was the European certificate of conformity of a French built car, bought in Belgium accepted in France, sorry NO it wasn't he had to get a French certificate of conformity. So the rules you mention are often not implemented I'm afraid as there are numerous examples of the failings in the single market.
Complain about this comment
I cannot help but reflect somewhat ruefully that the
'An ever deepening union of nation states'?
#143 - Menedemus
Given the current state of the British union, I wonder whether your attention might not be more gainfully focused on whether there will be a Britain to withdraw from the EU in the coming few years. Scotland, Wales and NI benefit proportionately much more than England from EU investment and I do not sense that the appetite for withdrawal is especially strong there. Euroscepticism seems to be a largely English preoccupation. Given that many English folk are rightly very aggrieved at the democratic deficit that devolution has bequeathed them there are signs that concerns about the future of the union may be focused on the wrong union.
If you throw into the equation the fact that EU currently comprises a part of the former Yugoslavia (with another about one come aboard), both bits of the former Czechoslovakia, three chunks of the former Soviet Union, a quasi-autonomous Catalan region, a rebellious Basque region, a Scotland that is embarking on an independence referendum, a Belgium which is close to collapsing into its component parts and an Italy with a powerful political party campaigning for autonomy in the north, one might be tempted to ask - nation states, what nation states?
Complain about this comment
threnodio @149
Excellent riposte. ;o)
But does not this actually highlight an issue that the EU will have to address itself?
What you describe is correct, Nation States are breaking up into tribal or ethnic groupings and one can see from the discord highlighted by the comments from Buzet 23 and BernardVC that the divisions can be language, or in the case of Scotland and England can be historical or in the case of some of the eastern European separatist movements due to ethnicity or religous divisions.
Maybe mankind is not even supposed to exist happily in anything but tribal or small territorial collectives.
If this is true then it makes the future of the EU even less likely to survive the turmoil and tribulations of the ethnic and religous differences between the various groupings within the the terrritories covered by the EU.
As to my own situation and view of the Scotland and English Union . . . perhaps I have a unique insight into the nature of the Scotland-England mutually assured destructive relationship (MADness I call it!) as I am a Campbell by descent, born in Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland with family relatives living both north and south of the Tweed.
I think that there will be an eventual parting of the ways between Scotland and England - Devolution was the first step down that road and, in many ways, I think that the 5 million Scots will initially love their independence but come to rue the day that they brought about the divorce.
The problem is that the Scots actually need the English more than they would ever dare admit and it was that need that, historically, led to the Act of Union of 1707 in the first place - the Scots have always thought of the Union as a takeover but, in fact it was a merger with a bankrupt country.
The fact that Corporate Great Britain was a success as a joint-venture was because of funding from the English - in many ways that English subsidy remains the case today and will be more so once the North Sea Oil (which is dubiously claimed by Scotland as theirs) runs out.
Still, we live and learn by our mistakes and historically, that has always been the case.
Complain about this comment
Re 146, Ian, I do enjoy lstening to your views and it helps me to question my own viewpoint from time to time.
I do not think we are being forced into doing things , if we were there would be wide spread resistance and the end of the E.U.
It is more subtle than that, we have had several treaties where each time we have ben reassured it is just a tidying up exercise, will enable the E.U. to function with more members, will devolve power back to nation states etc. But after each one we find a few months later that actually the E.U. has taken more power to the centre. More decision making is taken away from Parliament and given to commisioners and the E.U judiciary. If the E.U. and National Governments had ben open from the start and told us the full consequences of all new treaties I would have no issue. I have just heard on the BBC news that the new proposal is to create a central intelligence unit for all of Europe and a central police service. Early days and may not happen but am I the only one who feels worried that the E.U. is taking on more and more the nature of a state.
For the first time however I am starting to feel confident. People all across Europe are starting to question the E.U. The propsed E.U. constitution was killed off, the Lisbon treaty is dead, it just does not know it yet. National parliaments are also waking up to this and I think it is highly unlikely any further atempts to 'tidy up' by way of new treaties will be succesful.
n.b. Gerry Adams is not much better than Kilroy-silk, try Tony Benn! - best wishes
Complain about this comment
Just popping in (the grandchildren are here all August, so am properly involved with them).
Some enjoyable stuff going on - wish I could join in for a fight over the details.
Quickie to Buzet23 at ¤148 - your friend should go straight to the EU court: they have a strong record on cases just like this. (Their landmark judgement of 1962 ensured the small guy could always take on her/his own government if that government's attitude was counter to EU law).
General view. To those who moan about the fact that any UK party would elect to stay in the EU - read Iantownhill's post ¤120 again.
The world is now such that no nation state can hope to stand alone. The major problem with the EU it seems to me is that national leaders dare not now admit it. They camouflage their unwillingness by blaming the EU for failures, whilst at the same time pushing onto the EU problems they find too difficult to face up to at home.
I now accept that the Lisbon Treaty was their attempt to divert our attention from their own pathetic performances. Oh dear, why do we vote for these b******s? (Sorry, you can see why I've escaped the kids for five minutes!).
Complain about this comment
#150 - Menedemus
Interesting thoughts. As far as the UK union is concerned, I came to the conclusion a while back that the best of all possible scenarios would be federation - a greatly slimmed down Westminster responsible only for foreign, defence, national security and macroeconomic policy, everything else devolved to the regions. Westminster could be funded by indirect taxation and the regions by direct taxation (the rates would need tweeking).
Opening up the debate about the British constitution could provide a window of opportunity for both sides of the EU debate. The UK government could quite legitimately say to Brussels that the UK was examining all it's constitutional options and that it would be inappropriate for them to commit to any further sovereignty issues until the domestic agenda had be set. This would allow time for an open debate about the way the nation perceives it's future both in terms of it's internal make up and it's international role.
It is a paradoxical side effect of out and out independence for Scotland that, were that to occur, you would for a time have a rump UK comprising England and Wales - the paradox being that Scotland, which almost certainly does want to within the European project would need to apply whereas England and Wales, which may very well not, would remain de facto members. The federal approach would keep this decision within the remit of Westminster but the changed constitutional arrangements would open up the European debate and possibly settle it once and for all.
The one thing of which I am convinced is that the ambivalent attitude that is prevalent in the UK is not sustainable for much longer. You are absolutely right about the UK rebate but it is inexorably linked to the antiquated and wholly unjust CAP. The failure of the global economies to agree anything substantive at the Geneva stage of the Doha round has yet again given the EU the chance to return to it's standard position of navel gazing on the CAP question.
For now, the best hope is the forthcoming European Parliament elections. If ordinary people rebel in sufficient numbers, you may end up with a parliament that will keep sending the budget back until the Commission mends its ways.
Complain about this comment
I am starting to feel like Paul on the road to Damascus the only problem is that I'm on the wrong road and took a wrong turning some way back!.
If the EU is to change then the only people who can change it are the Council of Ministers. The people can repeatedly express their disapproval in referendums (if they ever get the chance!) but that seems to carry little weight - it didn't do anyhting for France, Denmark, the Nederlands and it isn't doing very much for Eire.
The Council of Ministers meet in secret and no one really knows their agenda form one meeting to the next?
In the UK, no one political party will openly stand up and say the EU is fundamentally flawed and needs to change. They don't even have the courage to admit that they probably could not change it now - even if they did have any ideas or solutions.
To my mind the only real threat to the EU is if the people of current member states create such a clamour that withdrawal were to be sought by their government. That would that concentrate minds enough to change the EU from flawed monolith to democratically acceptable form of supernational government.
What is one to do when so many people argue that they accept the EU is a busted flush but they don't want to waste their time being sceptical about the way forward and/or don't want to go back to pre-1986?
Am I blind like Saint Paul or am I simply on the wrong road?
Complain about this comment
#154 - Menedemus
Neither. In fact you have precisely hit the nail on the head. I have been banging on for ages about the EU becoming less and less credible not because the devil is in the detail, as some seem to think, but because the lack of democratic accountability. Europe seems currently to be run by people who are incapable of taking 'no' for an answer. Their response is simply not to put the question and the outcome is increasing scepticism.
The response of individual member states is huddle in corners endlessly dotting 'is' and crossing 'ts', becoming less and less accessible, and playing the whole thing out like a game of chess when what we actual need is a damned good scrum down. We are totally agreed that the system is not working. Where we differ is that you increasingly seem to want to leave the field of play whereas I want to play the match out. If that means kicking the officials into touch and throwing away the rule book, so be it.
Complain about this comment
149. At 3:21pm on 07 Aug 2008, threnodio wrote:
"a quasi-autonomous Catalan region, a rebellious Basque region"
You're quite right, but partially only. Catalonia and Basque country are two nations which both are in Spain, but also in France.
French Catalans or Basques cannot even dream of the autonomy level that enjoy their co-nationals further South in Spain.
France must recognize the several nations living inside the same state, in one of the most centralistic ones in the West. Bretons, Corsicans, Catalans and Basques, maybe also Alsacians and Occitans, should have a certain level of self-government. It's a democratic right and also it's a very dynamic system.
The federal government has been a great succes in Spain since it was established in 1978. Basques have the greatest level of autonomy in Spain and probably in Europe. They are virtually independent, except for Defence and Foreign policies.
Complain about this comment
#156 - betuli
I hope I did not inadvertently give the impression that I was criticising the Spanish federal system. On the contrary, I admire it and thing it would be an excellent model for the UK to follow.
Complain about this comment
On the Austrian Radio website I read that the "EU" along with others is threatening Mauritania. When the "EU" does this, it does not represent the people of Europe whose opinions it despises. It wants our money but not our opinions. It represents an arrogant clique.
Those in power in Mauritania have promised that there will soon be a return to democracy. They are ahead of the "EU" which makes no promise to carry out the referendum we in the UK were promised.
I am against dictatorship in Mauritania and in the "EU".
Complain about this comment
157. At 11:28pm on 07 Aug 2008, threnodio wrote:
No, threnodio, you didn't give me that impression at all. I just wanted to underline that France should be involved in the Basque and Catalan cases, and also in other nations under the French state: more decentralization is needed.
On the other hand, the Spanish system, although it fonctions as an asymetric federalism, is not called "federalist". Spain is divided in 17 "comunidades autonomas", that's the official name.
It seems the word "federal" is taboo in Spain, with a long centralistic tradition before 1975, when Franco died. The former centralistic Spanish structure was a copy of the still current French model.
Complain about this comment
To #152. frenchderek,
You're right in principle about my pal but where does it stop, that is the least of his problems in trying to return to his country whilst being unemployed. Quite frankly all the countries try to encourage someone unemployed to work abroad, why, simply to get them out of their system, yet another of the great benefits of the single market I think and very well appreciated by low life politicians who have looked only after themselves. This is one of many examples of the double standards existing.
ps. The French system is actually very good for anyone aged 57 as they can still retire at 60 after having 3 years on the dole, unless Sarko changes that of course.
Complain about this comment
6 Menedemus
You got precisely !
The British are more interested in Cornish Pasties , than they are in the EU .
Complain about this comment
Ah, the Cornish Pasty. Savory one end, sweet the other, screwed up in the centre, insulated in a bland casing and half baked. Sounds familiar.
Complain about this comment
#151 Jordanbasset
I agree with you in the sense that there are limits to integration that will largely be decided by public opinion. I think most us will agree that, in the majority of cases, politicians want to keep their jobs and governments want to be voted back into office. Therefore any government that wished to pursue a course of action that was (in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby) 'very brave' then they would have to think very carefully. For example, if the UK government wanted the UK to enter the Euro without a 'yes' vote in a referendum - that would be 'extremely brave' and I can't see any UK government doing it. Other Member States also have issues where it would be very brave of politicians to agree to extending EU competence on anything that might touch on an issue that was sensitive nationally (such as Ireland and abortion). Regarding a central police service, I have no problem with an intelligence coordinating body, but I don't think people would be happy with uniformed 'Europlods' patrolling the streets of their towns, so I suspect that national politicians would have to be very brave to support such an idea.
#154 Menemenus
'The Council of Ministers meet in private' Correct, although when the Lisbon treaty comes into effect the meetings will be televised. Sorry …if, the Lisbon treaty hadn't been scuppered, they would have been televised.
#153 Threnedio .
An interesting point about Scotland as a Member State in the EU. If Scotland joins as a 'new ' Member State then it will possibly not benefit from the opt-outs agreed with the UK. For example, I think all new Member States would be obliged, as a condition of entry, to join the Euro after a set period of time. Food for thought for any Eurosceptic Scots Nats.
Complain about this comment
#163 - Iantownhill
Scotland is potentially a very interesting case. The UK as a whole has a very small agricultural sector as a proportion of GDP but a large one in terms of output because the UK farms very efficiently and quite profitably, which is why the CAP mitigates so unfairly against it. This is the reason for the rebate. An independent Scotland would almost certainly be a beneficiary of CAP because so much of its agricultural land is of limited productive value. It would not therefore need the rebate. The real problem would be England because, relatively speaking, it would be even more efficient, even more unfairly treated under CAP. The rump UK would presumably inherit the rebate. Opt outs would probably be less of an issue in Scotland.
The Euro would, I think, have to resolved prior to Scottish independence. The idea of the British Isles - apart from the Republic - being multi-currency is frankly absurd. I do not accept the idea that referenda are necessary in each instance when a country opts to join the Eurozone because in central Europe, local currencies are considered a nuisance, Euros are almost universally accepted and most governments have in any case been elected on a mandate to join as soon as divergence criteria are met. The only question is the rate at entry. This has already been agreed in the case of Slovakia, which is due to join next year. I do not know if a referendum is planned (anyone else know?).
In the UK, it is a highly contentious issue and any party which contemplated membership without a referendum would be committing political suicide. The pound sterling remains an international trading currency and the ramifications go way beyond the British Isles.
On policing, there is certainly a case to be made for cross border policing for matters such as drug enforcement, people trafficking, arms trading and cross border pursuits. A European equivalent of the FBI could undertake such a role. However, much greater harmonisation would be necessary before a Europe wide fraud or corporate crime squad could be effective. On counter terrorism, my main concern would be whose laws are adopted. Britain, France and Germany have already adopted quite draconian but also quite different powers. Were you to roll these up into one package, you would be in real danger of a police state.
Complain about this comment
Just to throw another log onto the fire!
Scotland are able to hold a referendum on withdrawal from the Act of Union but only the UK National Government at Westminster can vote to enact dissolution of the Act of Union!
The Scottish Parliament is specifically unable to vote upon and enact Scottish Independence.
I think it will be many, many years before the Scots get their own individual nation statehood despite their being many, many English who live in hope of such separation and want to migrate to Scotland and become 'Scottish'!
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the EU and NATO are very near to their Munich Moment with Georgia viz a viz Chzechoslovakia 1938?
For annexation of South Ossetia one can see great similarities with the annexation of the Sudetenland.
More "Peace in our time" do you think?
Complain about this comment
#166 - Menedemus
No comparison. South Ossetia is sovereign Georgian territory. If the Georgians get heavy handed it will, on one level, be no different from the Russian action in Chechenya only on a smaller scale. It has nothing to do with the EU but NATO will be edgy about the possibility that Russia will intervene. The failure of Georgia to resolve the Ossetia problem is probably at the root of their failed application to join NATO. My guess is that all the time it remains local, there will be a lot of rhetoric and nothing else. If it goes regional, it could all get very dangerous. But I am no expert.
By the way, what you say about the Scottish Assembly would also be true of an EU referendum. Parliament at Westminster would have the final say.
Complain about this comment
Oh I see what you mean, Menedemus. The Russians have intervened beyond their remit. I have no idea what will happen TBH.
Complain about this comment
I just wonder as more Russian Tanks and troops have entered South Ossetia (Georgian Territory) and, having provided Russian Passports to most of the South Ossetians to support their "we are only protecting our people" ruse, there does seem to be great similarities to the annexation of the Sudetenlands "to protect the ethnic Germans" ruse used by Hitler in 1938?
France and Great Britain sacrificed all their honour to accomodate the Germans in 1938.
I just wonder if NATO and the EU have any honour to support Georgia in their time of need or whether the energy supplies of Russia are perhaps more important than Georgia's territorial integrity?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As regards the UK Parliament and the final say on EU withdrawal. Absolutely so and hence my last paragraph of #122. ;o)
Complain about this comment
#169 - Menedemus
'France and Great Britain sacrificed all their honour to accomodate the Germans in 1938.'
That simply is not true. Only when Germany committed significant resources to Poland did it begin to look practical. I will be happy to argue the case if the moderators permit but it is way off subject.
As to S.Ossetia and Abkhazia, there were large numbers of ethnic Russians left outside the territory of the Russian Federation when the Soviet Union was dismantled. I am open to correction but I believe that these people were allowed to chose Russian citizen status at that time for all sorts of reasons including pension rights for former Soviet armed service personnel. The Russian passport holders are almost certainly genuine. Also, Russia has a policing role in these regions under the terms of a ceasefire some years back.
It looks as though both sides have broken the ceasefire terms although who started it is not clear. Strange timing though with Condoleezza Rice in Georgia. Medvedev is getting quite good at wrong footing the West - for a beginner.
Complain about this comment
BBC News Russian affairs analyst Steven Eke has a different take on the passport quetion you raise (Read it here). Maybe I am mistaken although there will certainly be some genuine cases.
Complain about this comment
I would not dream to think that Russia has been fermenting this separatism of South Ossetia from Georgia as a tit-for-tat reaction to the creation of Kosovo but the Western Countries are rather hamstrung by that process having a mirror in the desire for autonomy and self-determination of the South Ossetians.
On the other hand, as Winston Churchill said so eloquently, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last."
One has to wonder, if Georgia is sacrificed on the alter of appeasement of Russia as Czechoslovakia was in 1938, how the Ukrainians will feel about their future security.
As I said peviously, for Czechoslovakia one could equate Georgia's current position; perhaps the Ukraine will become to be seen as the potential 21st Century Poland of 1939?
Complain about this comment
@jordanbasset (132)
There is the matter of the invasion and occupation of India by islamic warlords. They invaded approximately 712 AD and occupied India until 1657 when the British arrived. Many seek to further the myth of hindu/muslim unity before 1657 but this is not quite the case, to put it mildly. The islamic rule over India was brutal and is estimated to have killed between 70 and 90 million people (mainly hindus).
http://www.hinduholocaust.com/Articles/islamicgenocide.htm
Arabia and Egypt experienced similar but less numerous genocides at the hands of conquering islamic warlords. The Ottoman rule of the Balkans was also most brutal. Especially Serbia, which suffered under a 500 year occupation by islamic warlords, and was decimated in the process. The founder of islam himself, Muhammad, frequently led mass slaughters of peoples who just happened to get in his way. Islamic scriptures point to at least 75 such campaigns, of which Muhammad led at least 71. Don't take my word for it, read the islamic scriptures.
Many people have pointed to European led transatlantic slave trade, which was indeed brutal and lasted about 300 years. The founding fathers of the USA abolished the transatlantic slave trade but could not agree on abolishing slavery itself. This matter had to be settled some 70 years later in a bloody war between the USA's own states.
Less well known is the fact that Arab muslims brought slavery to Africa more than 700 years before the Europeans ever did. As still visible today, Arab muslims treated black Africans with contempt. In Darfur, the Arab government of Sudan is trying to ethnically cleanse the Sudan. In Mauritania slavery is unofficially still allowed and not coincidentally, always practised by descendents of Arab invaders against the descendents of the indigenous black population.
The media has frequently (and rightfully so) pointed out the ills of christianity. Yet the inquisition was comparatively mild when compared to certain islamic warlords. The massive numbers who killed or died because of the conquistadores in South America (some 50-60 million) have been mentioned many times. Yet the media for some reason seems to refuse to mention the same thing when it concerns islam. A matter of political correctness? Not necessarily, I believe that moral relativism has something to do with it.
@ian
Complain about this comment
(120)
...there are now 27 Member States and the veto has gone in many areas (I've never thought it very democratic that a single Member State can hold the other 26 to ransom)...
And I do not consider it right that 20 net recipients can basically outvote 7 net contributors. It's like having all your neighbours vote that you have to give them money, and them claiming it is a democratic vote and you have to abide with the results. It's like 20 bankrobbers outvoting 7 bank clerks to go ahead with the robbery, and telling the clerks to go along with it because the vote was 'democratic'.
Countries voting has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is about people voting, not countries. And certainly not countries' governments who ignore the wishes of the majority who want an immediate end to further political integration.
The ability of 1 country to block a proposal is good because it is a matter of national sovereignty which no politician has been given the right to cede to any degree. No country should have any measure imposed on it that it doesn't want.
How is it democratic that an entire countrys people and parliament could be against a law, yet they could not block it because the unelected crowd in Brussels had approved it? Please explain that to me like I'm a 5 year old.
Complain about this comment
#172 - Menedemus
The Russians may be unpredictable and, as one commentator put it this evening, dangerous when angry but they are hard headed and realistic. There may be some very heated exchanges, both verbal and physical over South Ossetia but they know full well that any attempt to subjugate all of Georgia would result in a catastrophe of possibly global proportions. If they confine their activities to S.Ossetia and Abkhazia, they will have some claim to the moral high ground in the sense that it is clear the majority of both populations want autonomy. They may also have achieved a short term objective of ensuring NATO perceives Georgian membership as being too big a risk to take.
There are superficial similarities with Kosovo but the differences are more evident. Kosovo with a population of 2.1 million is just about big enough to be considered a country whereas S.Ossetia has about 99,000. It is the equivalent of Hertfordshire declaring UDI. Kosovo was more or less the last act in the endgame of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia and with it, any chance of a greater Serbia, whereas S.Ossetia is a tiny element in a pattern of instability running throughout the Caucasus region.
For these and many other reasons, I simply cannot accept any parallels with Czechoslovakia in 1938. It is potentially very dangerous there are no madmen trying to take over the world.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought #174 mcdv-1975, what is the difference between your 20 to 7 vote and the UK government which being Labour and supported mainly by the North of the UK and Scotland votes for their Northern supporters (net recipient) to receive a disproportionate amount of money from the 'rich' South (eg net contributor).
The redistribution of money can be justified on a local scale when it is your own country, but once it gets into a more global scale as in the EU or even wider into areas like Africa then the mandate has ceased, and your comment about the ability of 20 recipients being theoretically able to control 7 contributors shows the unacceptable face of what could happen. What next, African despots voting in the UN that the UK should line their pockets even more.
It seems also true that the QMV voting system was built as usual to favour the Franco-German block, who of course will be more than happy to distribute the UK's money elsewhere (assuming there is still some left after Brown). A previous poster on another blog gave a detailed explanation of how QMV works and how it favours France and Germany.
Complain about this comment
@145 Buzet:
I see you are spouting the typical francophone lies. I can only weep at your indoctrination.
1).Wallonia didn't subsidize Flanders, ever. Studies by Juul Hannes have proven that over the course of Belgian history Flanders has always provide more money than it got. This first due to the way taxes were calculated (on income of land, rather than industry), later on due to the transfers.
2) an argument based on individual encounters. Useless in other words.
3)has absolutely nothing to do with the facilities I'm talking about. You avoid answering that point, which I will ascribe to typical francophiliac denial. The walloons are obligated by law to provide full facilities in dutch in several communities along the language-frontier. It is a fact that in more than one of those communites they are not upholding the law: the mot poigant example is the Dutch school in Komen/Comines. So again, wether or not all walloons have to learn dutch is beside the point.
4) Nonsense, there is no flemish policy to make Brussels into a neerlandophone city. Typical francophone (FDF) nonsense spouted to fool people like you. Besides, Brussels was a Dutch city not even a 100 years ago. If you are even one bit honest with yourself you will not deny the fact that it ARE the francophones that are demanding the expansion of Brussels.
re. Blackening: you're the only one blackening here by spouting FDF agitprop. This compared to the facts I've provided (i.e.: Flanders' contributions have always outstripped the amount of money it recieved, francophones refuse to implement the dutch-facilities correctly in those communities where they are commpelled by law to do so, no flemish policy to dutchify brussels exist even though the city was originally flemish). No, the reason is that the francophones don't need to bother as their government makes sure Flanders is blackened at every turn on every level imaginable (from the EU all the way to the UN), and that it is the french press that is read all over the world and thus putting forth the basically anti-flemish viewpoint (which is oftern borderline racist).
And your threats about splitting and possible badtimes don't impress many people here. Just think: it'll beworse for the walloons having to live without their free billions.
Complain about this comment
btw, don't think that the french will be jumping to subsize that region, and don't think your local politicians will make abig impression in Paris. Wallonia will be just a poor region far away from paris, and Madame and Monsieur NON will not be able to play their pervert political games there.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, at ¤164 you mentioned the unfairness of the CAP towards the UK. I suggest you have a look at www.farmsubsidy.org to find out just who gets what. It's not tthe farmers who get the jam - it turns out to be food manufacturers - who know how to lobby .... ; o.
Complain about this comment
frenchderek @179
I am probably being obtuse but I could not see where the linked website demonstrated that the food manufacturers get the most benefit of the CAP payments.
I did see an article suggesting that CAP receipts to Germany had been identified as having been paid to cruise ships and airline companies. This was on top of subsidies having been identified as having been paid to golf courses, pony clubs and railway companies the previous year. This simply highlights that fraud is a europe-wide and a massive problem.
I did find the page on the rankings of which country gets the most CAP per person quite illuminating (Snapshot of CAP spending per citizen). One can immediately see why certain countries are very reluctant to see a reduction in the CAP subsidies.
Complain about this comment
#179 - frenchderek
There are certainly some very large corporate beneficiaries. Having said that - and I was not clear about this from the linked site - I assume that the EU decides which country gets what but how it is shared out is presumably decided nationally. I also looked at the figures for Hungary out of interest since I live there and it struck me was that separate figures are given for Budapest which are all corporate. Mind you, iy you can find a farm in Budapest, you are a better man than I am. Looks like they are all at it.
Going back to the UK, I was also struck by info that was not given and especially that 'The government has refused to give address information for Nestles UK Ltd'. Odd that since it takes about 25 seconds to get the info from the Companies House web site. A government dept. refusing to give info that another one is obliged to by law. When it comes to paranoia, this lot really don't do it by halves do they?
Complain about this comment
Dear #177. BernardVC,
There is and was no indoctrination as I came here 18 years ago and worked mainly with Flemish people due to the way the workforce is organised, Flemish managers mostly only employ Flemish workers and likewise for the French side. I also visited many areas in both North, Brussels and South due to a sport that I played competitively. The companies I worked for had an English only policy to avoid the bul***t of language Nationalism. One thing that struck me very early on was the deep rooted jealousy and need for vengeance that your 'innocent' Flemish had when the conversation switched to Belgian history, something I've very rarely heard in Wallonia.
You should bear in mind that almost every family in Wallonia has somebody that originated from Flanders, and thankfully all the people of Flemish origin I know, and it's many, do not share your views. It seems that one million Flemish live in Wallonia so when you criticise the Wallon you are also tainting your own people with the same brush. I know my own daughter in law and her mother would be aghast with your last words as it proves a total intolerance of any views other than your own.
My advice to you is to stop believing the media and the fanatics and actually look at the truth, like me you may not like the FDF and FN but then the Vlaams Belang, NVA have 47 seats in the chamber compared to the 1 of the FN so who is really fanatic. These are the facts that make other countries wonder what is happening in Flanders, not the French media or the BBC, it's your own voting patterns that prove the stories.
As for the rest of your points I could indeed carry out a detailed research and refer you to the outcome but I doubt that you would accept it as it is clear your views are cast in stone like a number of other people from the North that I've met over the years. When an English speaking stranger like me gets the same treatment as a Wallon francophone why would you expect me to accept that attitude as being normal in any way. Put it another way, by alienating neutral people like me, you've shot yourselves in the foot.
Complain about this comment
AS Mark's Blog Title is "Autumn Challenges for the EU" and given current events, I thought this article was quite interesting by James Sherr in the Daily Telegraph.
Does the West abandon the Georgians' aspirations to be a fledgeling democracy and allow it to fall back into the sphere of influence of Russia or does the West need to make a stand and face up to this enormous challenge with a united resolve.
Is the author correct? Is the West now a divided house and that the EU, NATO and the OSCE are all really incapable of interfering in "the Kremlin's determination to reclaim control over former Soviet states".
As I surmised earlier, the author sees Georgia as strategically important to both Russia and to the EU but the next country on Russia's agenda of reasserted influence will be Ukraine.
After Georgia, the Ukraine? Then, what about Poland, Romania, Bulgaria or Hungary?
Do we keep appeasing Russia so that the EU countries are like "one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last?". Or do we draw a line in the sand now?
Complain about this comment
#183. Menedemus,
True, it's an interesting article and I've long thought it unwise to trust this particular crocodile. The way Germany and France tend to politically back the current Russia is also of concern and it looks after this week that the Polish were right to raise their concerns over Russia. If the EU continues it's appeasement politics then it sends the green light to Moscow.
I think it is absolutely necessary now for countries to draw their energy plans up without including Russian supplies above a very low critical limit, as it's clear no reliance can be attributed to their continuance. This will be the only way any EU country can negate the possibility of energy blackmail.
Complain about this comment
@threnodio (175)
but what about Kurdistan (population 40 million), Tibet, Taiwan, Darfur etc... who all have populations far greater than the still current province of Serbia known as Kosovo (not a country according to the UN)?
O wait, it doesn't suit the UN, EU etc... to have those independent. No sir, democracy only for those we consider 'worthy' but not for others who just happen to be provinces of countries that we like.
Complain about this comment
@threnodio (170)
actually, the UK and France were competing in 1938 as to who could appease ol' Adolf more.
Both UK and France (especially the latter) were treatybound to guarantee the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia. They broke it not once, but twice! First they forced Benes to sign away the Sudetenland to Germany, then half a year later nothing but meek protest when Hitler took the rest of Czechia (Czech for Bohemia/Moravia) and made Slovakia an 'independent' state (effectively a puppet state, much like Croatia would later be).
France was actually also treatybound to prevent the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936. They did nothing (and a small preventive war would have prevented the large one that was started in Europe 3 years later). As of late 1935, it was nothing but appease, appease, appease.
The appeasement mentality has certainly returned. We see it all over the planet now. China is being appeased as 'we' need the trade, Arabia being appeased as 'we' need the oil, Russia being appeased as 'we' need the gas. And Iran was so impressed with the EU's soft power it slowed its nuclear programme down for a massive zero seconds.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus ¤183. At a meeting earlier this year, NATO could not agree on offering membership to Georgia. The US was for, Germany and others against. Germany was fearful of Russian sensitivity to such an offer. Apparently they have offered membership at some future date (as yet unspecified).
EU membership is reckoned to be given "no chance".
Interesting to speculate what might have happened if membership had been granted .... It's clear, though, that Russia is putting the West under pressure in some sort of power-play, not only by invading Ossetia and Georgia (according to latest news), but has been bombing close to (aiming at?) an oil pipeline to Europe.
Complain about this comment
Thinking of "Autumn challenges for the EU", as Mark asks:
The biggest - the only - challenge is the role of member states, and of their leaders in particular.
International institutions such as the EU are established when nations feel the need to work with others in the face of an international problem, or to make greater progress than they could do alone. But there has to be some element of trust between the nation-members of the institution for it to work. There can be no room for nations trying to be the one who calls the tune; nor for nations to join together in clans, or special interest groups, in order to enforce their view over that of the best interest for all.
Whatever the cause, both of these problems seem (to me) now to be the norm in the running of the EU. And it's the nations and, especially their leaders, who are at fault.
They continue to lay the blame on the institution itself: hence the proposed new Constitutions, hence the budget cuts (which actually make the running of the EU more difficult).
I suppose the real problem is how do you - how can you - tell these rampant egotists that they are the root cause of the problem?
Complain about this comment
Re 173, haaving looked at the author for your source, Elst, I found -
"Manini Chatterjee, in a review in the Calcutta Telegraph, called Elst's book Ramjanmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid a "very bad book".[51] She also said that it was marred by miserably tentative terminology, like "maybe" and "possibly"
Thomas Hansen described Elst as a "Belgian Catholic of a radical anti-Muslim persuasion who tries to make himself useful as a 'fellow traveller' of the Hindu nationalist movement”[54] Ashis Nandy criticized the alleged dishonesty and moral vacuity of Elst.[55] Meera Nanda has criticized Elst and claimed that he holds Semitic monotheism responsible for the crisis of modernity.[56]
Sarvapalli Gopal in the book Anatomy of a Confrontation calls Elst "a Catholic practitioner of polemics" who "fights the Crusades all over again on Indian soil". He also says that it is difficult to take serious an author who "speaks of the centuries when there were Muslim rulers in India as a bloodsoaked catastrophe".[57]
There are many more critical of him and a great deal of dispute about the figure of 80million dead by other notable historians, in fact some sources quote the population as rising by £35 million in the time the article refers to.
I suggest that Elst is not a reliable or fair source and certainly suspect as a historian. His right wing views have tended to cloud his judgement, similar arguments could be made about David Irving.
This is not to say attrocities did not occur, of course they did. This was a period between 500-1300 years ago, nations all over the world were slaughtering other peoples. But to suggest from that, that modern Islam and muslims are on par with the nazis is strange
Complain about this comment
#185 - mcdv-1975
I am not sure whether you are actually reading what I post or are deliberately misinterpreting me. My point was simply that with population of less than 100,000, South Ossetia could not seriously be considered a viable nation and that Kosovo is significantly larger. I made no assertions as regard it's legal status, I made no moral or legalistic arguments about the right of either region as to entitlement to independence and I certainly did not raise any red herrings about territories outside of Europe which I thought this blog was supposed to be about.
With regard to your #186, your argument regarding the Rheinland and France is perfectly correct. Since it was the French who insisted on the redrawing of the boder after the first war, it was their responsibility to police it and they failed spectacularly. But the world by 1938. I do not argue that Czechoslovakia was not betrayed. It was. I do suggest that neither Britain nor France was in a position to do anything apart from embarking on an unwinable war. Morally, you are entirely right, startegically it made sense. The Georgian situation is, however, entirely different.
#183 - Menedemus
#184 - Buzet23
Two things have happened in recent hours which might show which way this is going to go. Firstly the Georgians have - or at least claim to have - withdrawn to their positions as at Aug 6. This was the main Russian demand. If verified, the Russians will have achieved their stated objective and there is no reason not to cease fire and return to negotiation. If they do so, one has to assume that Abkazia will also be on the agenda and the Georgian initiative will have backfired badly. On the other hand, the undisputed region will remain Georgian sovereign territory. On the other hand, if the Russians seek to push home their advantage, their agenda will be transparent and the west will have to adjust their approach accordingly.
The second thing is that Ukraine has indicated it will blockade the Black Sea facilities of the Russian Black Sea fleet to prevent them returning to port or resupplying. This may or may not be gesture politics but it certainly suggests how easily a local conflict could turn into a regional one.
Here in Hungary, outwardly everything is calm though behind the scenes there will be full involvement with NATO and EU efforts. There would be much nervousness in Ukraine became involved. It is worth remembering, however that Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary are members of NATO and at the heart of the treaty is the principle that an attack on any member is an attack on the alliance as a whole. The Russians know this and, while they might be belligerent, they are not mad.
Complain about this comment
@frenchderek (188)
you argue from the false premise that the EU is an 'institution'. It most decidedly not an 'institution' but a form of government. An embryonic supreme government of Europe at that.
The root cause of the problem is not the national governments being egotistical. The root cause of the problem is the utter lack of support for anymore political integration. Which is most clearly felt whenever they put something up for a vote. Modern day politicians do not seem to be representing their peoples anymore, because the moment they get to Brussels, they abandon al pretence of serving the interests of those who elected them, and instead prefer to serve the interests of those around them in the Brussels' setup.
@jordanbasset (189)
the comparison isn't strange at all. The muslim literature contains all the seeds for genocide. It repeatedly refers to non-muslims to be inferior and that they are to be 'besieged and fought' whenever possible. The muslim 'prophet' had people bumped off for even the slightest criticism and ordered entire villages to be razed if they happened to get in his way.
Remember the crusades? It wasn't the European christians who were the invaders, no most decidedly not. At the time, Assyrian Christians and Egyptian Copts were the majority. It was the muslim Arabs who were the invaders, destroying every civilization they came across. Considering that muslim violence against non-muslims began early 7th century with the notorious warmonger Muhammad, the fact that the first crusade didn't come until late 11th century, the reaction to muslim violence was quite reserved indeed.
Indian leaders like Gandhi and Nehru were chief amongst the negationists and desperate to deny the muslim holocaust against the hindus, in order to preserve at that time the myth of hindu-muslim unity. Gandhi was chiefly responsible for the partition of India (which the British used him for to get). Many Indian scholars simply chose to follow this line, chiefly through the Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Also, it's strange to compate a negationist like Irving to someone who exposes part of islam's long and dirty history. What's with that 'right wing' slur anyway? Fascism most decidedly belongs on the centre-left side of the political spectrum). Fascism was big government (leftist), welfare state (leftist), although they clearly excluded certain groups (leftism loves picking on minorities it doesn't like, like kulaks).
Fact remains, islam has never made any contribution worth mentioning to civilization.
Complain about this comment
Re 191, do not want to get too deep in this as not sure relevant to the E.U., except for perhaps the large number of muslims that live in Europe, the vast majority of whom are peace loving.
Re making no contribution worth mentioning to civlisation - what about
"Trigonometry, Sine, Tangent, Co-Tangent
The Arabs developed these functions in trigonometry and Ibn Moosaa's work Hisaab-Al Jab-Wal Muqaabala (The Calculation of Integration and Equation) presented 800 examples in the 8th century CE.
Algebra and Geometry
Muhammad bin Moosaa Al-Khawaarizmi is considered to be one of the founders of Algebra. The word ‘Algorithm’ or 'Algorizm' is a corruption of his name or the name of the town Khwaarizm (Kheva), in what is now Uzbekistan, where he was born. He adopted the use of ‘cipher’ (zero), that was devised in India some centuries earlier, a numeral of fundamental importance, leading up to the so-called arithmetic of positions and the decimal system. The very word ‘zero’ is a derivative of the Arabic ‘sifr’ or ‘cipher’. His pioneering work on the system of numerals is well known as "Algorithm," or "Algorizm." In addition to introducing the Arabic numerals, he developed several arithmetical procedures, including operations on fractions.
Physics and Chemistry
Kamaaluddeen examined the refraction of sunlight in raindrops and offered an explanation of the genesis of primary and secondary rainbows. The story of the invention of the pendulum and the presentation of a water clock to Emperor Charlemagne by Haaroon Ar-Rasheed is well known.
The great historian Gibbons wrote in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Volume 5) that the science of chemistry owes its origin and improvements to the Muslims.
Science of Mechanics
The development of the science of mechanics in Islam is an act of genius. Moosaa bin Shaakir described one hundred pieces of mechanical equipment in his book of artifices. Other outstanding Muslim treatises included Al Kitaab Fi Ma`rifat Al-Hiya Al-Handasiyyah (The Book of the Knowledge of Ingenious Geometrical Contrivances) by Abul Fiaz bin Al Raz and Al Kitaab Meezanal-Hikmah (The Book of Balance and Wisdom) by Al-Khazini. He also did work on accurate weighing, and determination of the specific gravity of substances.
Camera Obscura
In the field of optics, Camera Obscura was invented by Ibn Haytham in 1038 CE.
Theory of Relativity
Qaadhi Abu Bakr had developed the theory of relativity in the 8th century CE in terms of time and space by means of mathematical equations and astrophysics. Imagine, Einstein was not even born in the Western world, who propounded the same theory of relativity much later in the 20th century CE. "
Yes, you can argue some texts of the Q'ran can seem hateful, but so can texts from the bible, for example -
"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure. "In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist. (Zephaniah 2:12-15 NLT)"
Or howabout "You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. If you do, they will trap you. Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?' But don't be afraid of them! Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt. Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them. You saw it all with your own eyes! And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt. The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear. And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little. You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you. But the LORD your God will hand them over to you. He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed. He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all. (Deuteronomy 7:16-24 NLT)"
But to suggest from these quotes that modern day christaina and Jews are blood thirsty murderers driven on by an evil God is riddiculous. It was a text of it's time, as was the Q'ran. I repeat the very large majority of all religeons are on the whole good, as are the majority of the population. Ther are extremists who will latch onto any cause from all presuasions.
I do not intend to post on this subject again, I do not think we will ever agree but I hope you ar least consider some of the extreme language you use
Complain about this comment
threnodio @190
You wrote:
"On the other hand, if the Russians seek to push home their advantage, their agenda will be transparent and the west will have to adjust their approach accordingly."
Well clearly the Russian now seem to want to see Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili deposed. That is interference in a democratic country and nothing other than seeing regime change.
There were bad tempered exchanges between the American and Russian ambassadors to the UN during the emergency Security Council meeting on Sunday. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US envoy, asked Vitaly Churkin, of Russia: "Is your government's objective regime change in Georgia, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Georgia?"
"Regime change is an American expression. We do not use such an expression," replied Mr Churkin. But he added: "Sometimes there are occasions, and we know from history, that there are different leaders who come to power, either democratically or semi-democratically, and they become an obstacle."
I think the Russians have nailed their true colours to the mast.
Complain about this comment
I remember posting on the issue when Kosovo was recognised by western countries, that it was wrong and would end in tears. In particular I referred to the Ukraine and Georgia and what was to stop sections in those countries who wanted to be part of Russia doing likewise, as did many other posters.
It happened, those others who were jubilant with Kosovo's independence may now start to understand the consequences when a country's borders are not respected.
Russia was looking for an excuse, it now has it. In the short to medium term this will be bad for Georgia and the region in general. However Russia should now take it's victory and get a settlement. If it goes on it will not bode well for any of the countries in the area, Russia included
Complain about this comment
#193 - Menedemus
I saw the exchange. I do not think we are going to know until the fighting comes under control. Churkin's position did not, as far as I can tell, echo anything coming out of Moscow. In fact, he seemed a bit lost at times.
There seem to be as many theories as there are pundits. Paul Reynolds is suggesting that the operation may be for home consumption:-
'In a revealing interview with former BBC Moscow correspondent Tim Whewell earlier this year, an adviser to the then President Vladimir Putin, Gleb Pavlosky, said that the Russian leadership had concluded after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that "this is what we faced in Moscow, that they would try to export this to us, that we should prepare for this situation and very quickly strengthen our political system..."
Others are now pointing to the strategic importance of the Caspian oil pipeline (see Paul Mason's blog). The Times is talking about a massive build up and a pssible invasion of Georgia itself, The Guardian is talking about hostilities nearing an end.
The Russians are right to say it is normal for belligerents to strike military and economic targets behind the front line. NATO did this in Serbia after all. It is also the case that not all ordinance ends up where it is supposed to as we have seen from Iraq most recently. NATO forces have actually become quite adept at killing each other instead of the enemy. The idea that you can conduct a campaign of this sort without widespread collateral damage to civilian targets, tragic though it is, is inevitable.
What is clear is that Saakashvilli miscalculated badly with his sudden onslaught into the breakaway regions and Moscow is exacting a big price. How big remains to be seen.
Complain about this comment
#194 - jordanbasset
I stand by my remarks regarding Kosovo. The Serbs and the Russians were on a hiding to nothing when they objected and, when the Serbs elected a pro-west government, it became a done deal.
As I say above, the outcome has yet to be seen but one thing is clear. NATO has developed a habit in recent years of running around the planet getting involved just about anywhere that takes its fancy. There has been a somewhat arrogant assumption that Russia is a spent force. The message to the west is clear. If you are going to unleash the dogs, make sure they don't stray into our back yard.
Complain about this comment
I don't think that anyone apart from Georgians would think that Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili has played his cards very well but I feel very pessimistic about the future.
If Russia were to allow the North Ossetians and South Ossetian full independence as the West has achieved with Kosovo that would be one thing but at the moment it looks like it is entirely a land grab or annexation by another name.
I think that Russia may have made a similar mistake in arrogantly assuming the West is a spent force. (to paraphrase your comment that "there has been a somewhat arrogant assumption that Russia is a spent force."
If the Ukraine is given membership of NATO, which is what I suspect may be the next move by the Western Allies, then I think we may be in sight of the Ukraine becoming the country that will determine the outcome of a political struggle that has been a long time in the coming since the 1945 Yalta Agreements between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
Complain about this comment
197. At 2:59pm on 11 Aug 2008, Menedemus wrote:
"I don't think that anyone apart from Georgians would think that Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili has played his cards very well but I feel very pessimistic about the future."
I totally agree with this statement. The Harvard graduated president of Georgia should look carefully at the map: this country is not located in Europe, although he always appears with the EU flag at his back and, what is worse, Georgia is the neighbour of the Russian bear, with two breakaway regions whose most citizens hold Russian passports.
I'm very sorry for the civil victims of this crazy war. Politicians are to blame, starting with pro American Georgian government.
This ongoing tragedy has proved it was a clever decision not to immediately admit Georgia inside the Nato until this country solves its internal problems: South Ossetia, Abhazia and even Adzaria.
Russian-Georgian talks are imperative more than ever.
Complain about this comment
#197 - Menedemus
I think that, at least for now, we are going to have to get used to the idea that Germany and possibly France will block any attempt by Ukraine to join NATO. Similarly Turkey and the EU.
What is apparent is that NATO may wave big sticks at smaller nations but when it comes to the other 'big boys', they are powerless to do anything - not that they show any sign of knowing what to do anyway.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @199
The Ukaraine Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) as set down by the NATO Alliance to progress membership has December 2008 as the target date.
At the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania both Georgia and the Ukraine were given memorandums of undestanding that "they will eventually become members".
I don't think that membership of Ukaraine can be singularly blocked by France (given it's past rocky relationship with NATO) nor by Germany which is a relatively new member of the Alliance. NATO is not like the EU where individual governments can veto expansion - NATO is an alliance with explicit joining criteria.
If France or Germany were to object to the mebership of the Ukaraine they could do what Greece did when Turkey joined the NATO Alliance . . . leave!
But no doubt they would want to rejoin NATO a.s.a.p. (Just like Greece did!).
The bottom line with NATO is that the United State has a preponderance of military muscle and, if the US and Canada and the UK think that Ukraine should join NATO then, as soon as Ukraine's IPAP requirements are met by the Ukraine they can join.
The problem with that is that this will and must inevitably trigger Russian reaction.
It is this reaction of which I am very pessimistic as (unlike your comment "not that they show any sign of knowing what to do anyway") I think NATO has always and still is designed to fight Russia as the main protagonist. The NATO nuclear power sharing accords and locations ofr nuclear war theatre arsenals are still in place and availabe to the eliglble NATO allies in the event of war with Russia.
Western Government may be weak, indecisive and in dissarray but I think Russia's over-zealous and clearly pre-planned reaction to Georgia's misconceived and ill-timed effort ot seize back South Ossetia has show the Russina Bear is not just belligerent but actually expansionist in nature.
I am feeling very pessimistic as to the future of Europe and Russia that is now badly affected by the heavy-handed over-reaction by Russia to what was, in essence, an internal Georgian Affair given that the South Ossetian UDI has not been Internationally recognised by any other country other than Russia.
Complain about this comment
Apologies for the tyopgraphical errors in my comment at 200.
A spell checker is on my Christmas List . . . . if we get to Christmas!
Complain about this comment
@jordanbasset (192)
First of all, there is no such thing as religion. Religions are nothing but ideologies which claim special status. Since there is no supreme being (aka bearded guy in the sky) and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any such thing exists, so by default there are no religions. The key mistake people like you here make, is to give these ideologies that call themselves religion special status and consideration. I shall not do so, ever. In my belief, it should be freedom from religion, not freedom of.
Maybe you should inform us as to why every single majority muslim country is backward to some degree. I assure you it is not coincidental. The muslim concentration within a population is directly proportional to the decline of scientific achievement.
Now, we only need to look back as far as 1970 to the then East-Pakistan (now Bangladesh) when muslims attempted to exterminate the Hindus in the region, resulting in 3 million dead (mostly hindus). I shall not reply to any negationism.
And I see you've been to a muslim propaganda site because those lies you copypasted about islam and science can be easily debunked (and do read very familiar).
Algebra: Babylonians, 1800-1600 BC. Predates islam by at least 2200 years. The algebraic concept of zero was invented by a Hindu, not a muslim. Hinduism also predates islam by a significant # of centuries.
Geometry: Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Egypt (starting 3000 BC), predates islam by at least 3600 years. Most advances claimed by muslims can actually be contributed to Menelaus of Alexandria (whose life predates islam by, you've guessed it, several centuries).
Chemistry: strange that a historian writing on the fall of the Roman Empire (which predates islam) mentions that chemistry was invented by muslims. A claim that is not only patently false, but outright laughable and contemptible.
Trigonometry: Arabs, yes thats right. Arabs, not muslims.
It is certainly true many of those advances came from the region which is NOW majority islam. But each and every discovery you mentioned either predates islam by 100s if not 1000s of years, or was done by non-muslims living under muslim occupation.
And there is a direct correlation between the regions there becoming more islamic and less scientific and cultural. The #1 reason why the Middle East is no longer the cultural leader in the world is islam. There can be no other explanation. Science escaped islam, it most certainly didn't ever thrive under it.
I will admit that what is now the west sees a thriving science despite the best efforts of the church to curb science. The ironic thing is, the west was saved from islamic barbarism both in the 7th century (Al-Andalus/Spain) and 17th century (Vienna) by the very advances the church had so fervently strove against.
Complain about this comment
I would not worry too much about Europe in this. If Russia continues on this path, the result will be war, but in the end this has to finish as an unconditional Russian surrender. The end game to the Cold War.
In the last couple of decades people have forgotten what was gained by winning the Cold War. People in the West and even in the liberated countries formerly under Russian occupation started to fondly recall and justify what the USSR did, reinterpret history. The development of Russia as a democracy was neglected by the West, and the country was allowed to slide back into dictatorship and now imperialism. Yet again, except for some voices, Poland and say the Baltic states, the lessons of history were forgotten. US got bogged down in un-necessary and mismanaged wars, while the Russians were allowed a free reign.
Now is the time to pay the penalty for the mistakes. The likely outcome is an eventual war with Russia. The appeasment of Russia will not work, as it has never worked with anybody. Let's finish the Cold War properly this time, with a decisive victory over Russia. Let there be no mistake, in the end Russia will lose such a conflict.
NATO and the West needs to be united and decisive, appeasment and squabbling now will only result in harder and more painful solutions later.
Complain about this comment
@jordanbasset (194)
I fully agree with your comment. I too was one who on this blog (and other blogs/forums) warned that the illegal recognition of Kosovo (still a province of Serbia) was a Pandora's box.
And now it has come true, I would like to gloat but shall refrain from doing so because deaths are not something to gloat about. Western diplomats/progressives/media simply do not learn, and do not understand history. They live in a fantasy world of their own. As Lyndon Johnson once said: "Those Harvard types will believe anything out of a diplomat". They see reality as something they'd like it to be, rather than what it is.
And it won't stop at Ossetia/Abkhazia either. Russia is on the rise again. It has no debts, no deficit and now it has again confidence. The USA is heavily in debt and has massive deficits. European countries have a different problem altogether. Particularly Germany and France. Both have a welfare/state pension system which has promised people so much in future payments, they'll never be able to make good on it. France simply leaves a huge chunk of its future obligations (in terms of amounts to be paid out) off its balance sheet, so it can pretend its national debt is only half of what it really is.
One thing I do enjoy, I must admit, is seeing the utter powerlessness of the Brussels crowd.
Complain about this comment
The Russian state ignores the concerns of the world. The "EU" ignores the concerns of its "citizens."
Russia is pretty well the sort of thing the "EU" appears to be trying to create:
1) An enormous superstate with
2) a pseudo democracy and
3) one army and
4) a megalomaniac agenda and
5) Amazons of manipulative bullproduct to justify its misdeeds. This bullproduct is so bad that anybody can see through it except those who don't want to. They must know we can tell if or what it is, but they don't care.
6) All this supported by peoples with a history of fascism consisting of
6.1) A substantial minority who are fascist and
6.2) A majority which may not want fascism but has not shown the understanding or the backbone to resit it.
By its actions on the Lisbon Treaty the "EU"-junta have made themselves look even more like Putin and his comrades.
I am confident that many will agree with the above assessment.
If the "EU"-junta wants to stop themselves looking like Putin and his mates they should cancel the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and listen to the people inside the "EU" .
They should listen and not merely pretend to listen.
Complain about this comment
We probably have the answer to our speculation with Medvedev's announcement this morning. This, it seems, was about S.Ossetia and Abkahzia but the opportunity to teach the Georgians a lesson they would not forget in a hurry was just too tempting. It is pretty safe to say that control of the two regions is lost to Georgia.
#200 - Menedemus
The IPAPs were, I think, intended to signal that membership for Georgia and Ukraine was available. The fact that they fell short of an invitation such as was extended to Croatia, Albania and Montenegro suggests that there are still benchmarks to be met. These would certainly include security concerns of some European allies. Gas supplies to Germany and some other eastern European countries would probably figure in that calculation. So now would whether NATO could realistically apply it's 'all for one and one for all' policy post Georgia. West Germany, by the way, joined in 1955 - not exactly latecomers.
#201
Change browsers, my friend. Firefox has spell check plug ins for many languages.
#202 - mcdv-1975
I share your view that there is no God. I too am an atheist. I am also open to the possibility that I may be wrong and absolutely insistent that people are no less intelligent and decent simply because they do not share my philosophy. The academic exercise which you and jordanbassett are engaged in is interesting but not really relevant. When jordanbassett writes at #191 'the large number of muslims that live in Europe, the vast majority of whom are peace loving', he hits the nail on the head. To tar an entire faith system and it's many millions of adherents with a single dismissive brushstroke is frankly contemptible.
#194 - jordanbasset
#204 - mcdv-1975
I do not disagree that Kosovo was a high risk strategy which may yet come back to haunt us. The alternative, however, was to disregard the wishes of the vast majority of the people. Pretty much what the Georgians did in S.Ossetia and look where that got them.
#203 - Rob_Hob
'If Russia continues on this path, the result will be war, but in the end this has to finish as an unconditional Russian surrender.'
Is this before or after we have all been reduced to burnt toast?
Complain about this comment
Threnodio, if diplomacy works with Russia, it should be used. If it diplomacy does not work, Russia SHOULD NOT be appeased. What do you suggest? Perhaps that the Russians should not be pressured or fought because people might get hurt in the process? I say appeasment leads to bigger carnage later on - it is better to take the pain earlier. We are now witnessing where coddling Russia and its imperial ambitions has gotten us, and if we continue to do so, do you think things will get easier? Or harder to solve?
Yes, the possibilities are nasty if this escalates, but doing nothing or pretending nothing needs to be done will only postpone the conflict probably to West's disadvantage.
Or are you suggesting there is no problem with Russia? That we do not need to do anything because Russia will stop with Georgia? ... yeah right, and Santa is real.
Kosovo WAS the wrong decision to take. The wishes of Ossetia and Abkhazian people are written up in Moscow. Georgians were ethnically cleansed from those territores back in the 90s, so now the Russians can claim the people there want to leave Georgia.
PLUS, those regions in Georgia DO NOT want independence, they want to join Russia. This is not a fight for freedom. It is a Russian territorial grab via proxy.
The strategy against Russia should be long term, energy independence for EU, squeezing them economically and politically, liberating the territories they annex.
Complain about this comment
Re post 206, Threnodio, I do agree with much of what you said. I would like to expand my reasons for believing the way Kosovo was handled was poor.
Some time ago, Serbs went into Kosovo to re-establish control by military means (as Georgia did) Nato, rightly in my view intervened and prevented what could have been a blood bath by military means. Russia says she has also done this.
An autonomous region was set up within Kosovo under NATO protection, but still within the country of Serbia. The situation was stable, there was no hurry, we could and should have expended all diplomatic avenues before any changes were made.
Kosovo declared independence, having already got the nod Nato would not allow Serbia to take action. We should have made it clear to them that we would not have supported such a move and all funding would be withdrawn. If we had of done this it is highly likely Kosovo would not have declared indpendence at that time and a longer term diplomatic solution could be worked on.
Serbia has elected a fairly pro western Government, it is a democracy, how much better to have achieved a negotiated solution. Yes it may have taken years, look at Northern Ireland, but the result would have been more stable and prevented feelings of bitterness. As it is large numbers of serbians have since left/been forced out of Kosovo.
Now we have given Russia a blue print for action. They will probably delcare the disputed territories under their protection. It may then move onto becoming a self Governing autonomous region. At some time they will be a referendum and it's residents will say they want to be independent or part of Russia. Job done, territories become part of Russia.
Our actions re Kosovo make it difficult to criticise Russia. I am not defending Russia, far from it, but we do reap what we sow.
Complain about this comment
#207 - Rob_Hob
The problem with the Russian bear, like all powerful animals is that it is at its most dangerous when trapped and injured. Make no mistake, the Russians are frightened. There is real concern in the Kremlin that they will not be able to keep the lid on internal pro democracy movements for much longer and that a soft revolution of the kind which took place in Georgia and Ukraine could easily happen in Moscow as well.
The economy is overheating. Gas and oil are wonderful 'get rich quick' cards but all that spending power is getting through to ordinary people and it is driving up inflation. Fears about the Caspian pipeline were ill founded with oil prices hardly reacting, whereas the rouble took a hammering during the crisis.
They are surrounded in almost every direction by NATO and its allies - hence the new found affection for China and basically all they have going for them is gas, oil and the military. Leave the wounded bear alone and it will either recover and slope off or it will die. Take it on and it will fight you to the death
Complain about this comment
#208 - jordanbasset
I think broadly speaking, I would accept your proposition about the potential impact of the Kosovo decision on future comparable scenarios. If it had not been S.Ossetia, it would have been somewhere else. Where I think we will not agree is whether NATO should act on the basis of possible future effects elsewhere or do what it thinks best in the specific circumstances of a single event. In that regard, I still think that the west was right to react as it did. Not everyone was happy about this. Hungary recognised Kosovo 'with a heavy heart' and there were grave misgivings in Romania and Bulgaria. In the end it was a question of bowing to the inevitable.
You write:
'Our actions re Kosovo make it difficult to criticise Russia. I am not defending Russia, far from it, but we do reap what we sow.'
You are right except that I am not sure I want to criticise Russia on the substantive question. They overreacted certainly and they should not have strayed into the territory of 'regime change', but their basic premise that the Georgian's precipitous actions in S.Ossetia were the root cause of the problem do stand up to examination.
Complain about this comment
threnodio at 200
Being somewhat pedantic, yes, WEST Germany joined in 1955 but this was already fairly late in the day (Even Greece and Turkey had joined NATO before West Germany!) and EAST Germany was not admitted until German reunification was well progressed in 1990. In my view the reunified Germany did not join NATO as a unified country (and thus with new state constitution. etc. allowing membership of NATO) until 1990.
But enough of the pedantry.
I think you have previously alluded to the Russians adeptly wrong-footing the Western Allies. Arguably, the Russian response to Georgia's reckless 'provocation' has been stated, by the Russian side, as justified - and this despite the obvious zealous overkill employed by them!
However, I think the long-term losers in all this will be Russia as the West will now see Russia with clear sight and without the myopia of seeing Russia as a potential friend. The belligerent and quite exceptionally massive invasion of South Ossetia AND the apparently unnecessary invasion of Abkhazia are certainly enough to open the eyes of the West.
I am now sure that the West will see that it is Russia that is the threat to European peace as Putin and his lapdog Prime Minister (who I must say has looked somewhat uncomfortable in his role during the past few days?) have asserted that they will now invade any country in order to "protect Russian Citizens wherever they are".
Effectively Russia has, by use of military force, kept open the Caucus to allow them, to invade Georgia at a later date and capture or destroy the main oil pipeline that runs through Armenia into Georgia and on into Turkey. The NATO allies will now see that the pretext of "protecting Russian citizens" was a deliberately planned and well executed ploy.
This means that Russia is also, in particular, throwing down the gauntlet to the Baltic nations (who are already aligned with NATO!) and Ukraine who all have sizeable ethnic-Russian populations.
I do not doubt that the West, in particular the US and the UK (the latter because of the BP ownership of the Georgian pipeline), will now treat with Russia in a very much different light. This could end up having been a miscalculation by Putin and his regime.
If there is conflict with Russia in due course (and I will be pleased if there isn't but I am pessimistically expecting there to be conflict with Russia sooner or later!), then let us not forget that 70% of ALL global spending upon Defence is spent by the NATO alliance partners and not, as I (for one) would have imagined by Russia, China, North Korea or Iran. On a dollar for rouble exchange rate NATO is outspending Russia by a vast amount despite all of Russia's carbon-fuel wealth. Russia is modernising it's military capabilities now but will not have completed it military upgrade until 2015. The Russian 400 billion dollar upgrade is a shadow of the NATO countries' spending that occurs continuously year-on-year and NATO will still have outspent the Russians considerably by 2015.
I think we can expect the modern equivalent of the GLCM cruise missiles and Pershing II theatre nuclear weapons, etc to make a return to the European side of the Atlantic fairly soon!
Complain about this comment
I do not think I was being pedantic. East Germany was not so much reuntited with West Germany as absorbed by it. There was never any question of the 'new' Germany not being in NATO so 1955 is the key date.
However, if we are being pedantic, the pipelines to which you refer in your para 5 do not go through Armenia (see map). This was at the insistence of Turkey. It is 30% owned by BP with the state oil company of Azerbaijan owning 25%, US company Chevron 9%, Turkey about 6% and another 7 companies owning less than 10%. You can useful information on this in Paul Mason's blog here
I am interested in your idea that the Russians may be 'throwing down the gauntlet' to the Baltic republics. There is belligerence but the fact that they are now NATO members limits Russia's options. This is precisely why Russia does not want Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.
I understand that there is concern about Russia beefing up it's military capabilities but if you were in the Russian defence ministry and you were asked to believe that a proposed missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic was targeted at 'rogue states', you would probably laugh out load as well.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio @212
I think the construction of a European wing of a missile shield installations for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System WAS intended to defend Europe against rogue states despite Russian rhetoric to the contrary. NATO planning had been looking to the middle east and near east as the potential source of ballistic missile threat to Europe. However, recent events have clearly reawakened US and European fears of Russian belligerence.
I can very well see that the re-aroused mistrust of Russia will now mean that the previous vocalised reluctance of the Polish and the Czech Republic governments to definitely commit to such a missile system deployment will now become less pronounced - self-preservation is only natural after all is said and done!
I would also expect the Russians to raise their concerns about the construction of missile shield installations of a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System even more vocally than before but, to be frank, the Russians have just sowed what they will have reap, in regard to being even more mistrusted when it comes to their intentions in regard to 'defending' their citizens.
And despite what you write about the Baltic nations being out of the equation because they are now NATO members, I can well imagine that Russian passport applications from Baltic and Ukrainian ethnic Russians are already in the post to Moscow or may already have been issued by Moscow - as we discuss this issue!
Complain about this comment
#213 - Menedemus
The Ukrainians themselves will admit that there is significant pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea and that has the potential to become a further flash point. Paradoxically, it may also be a factor mitigating against Ukrainian accession to NATO short term. As regards the Baltic states, there have been problems with lower income ethnic Russians who have paid into the old Soviet system and now expect social benefits from the new states. I would expect the states not only to welcome the passport applications but to provide free transport to the frontier. But being serious, I do not take the Baltic states out of the equation. I merely say that any Russian military adventures in the region would spark a chain of events possibly leading to world war and, while the Russians are undoubtedly in aggressive mood, I repeat that they are not mad.
I am no authority on the technical aspects of missile deployment and bow to your superior knowledge. What I find faintly odd is that anyone is interested in expanding missile capability given that NATO and Russia are so far advanced of the perceived threat. Unless, of course, they are worried about each other. Peace dividend, what peace dividend?
Complain about this comment
Threnodio @ 213
You wrote: "Unless, of course, they are worried about each other. Peace dividend, what peace dividend?"
I think your two sentences just about sum up the prevailing mood.
Russia was undoubtedly worried about being encircled and Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Systems being parked too close for their comfort but now the West must be equally worried about Russia fermenting and and supporting the autonomy of ethnic Russians in all adjacent countries as they undoubtedly have done with Abkhazia and South Ossetia viz a viz Georgia.
The last 5 days shows that Russia is not afraid of resorting to overwhelming force on what will undoubtedly turn out to be the South Ossetians leading on the Georgians into mounting an attack, i.e. the Russians had the South Ossetians bait the trap and the Georgians walked right into it!
If that IS the real politic of Russia in the 21st Century then the West has to be very wary of all dealings with Russia as of now.
As a consequence, any "Peace Dividend" with the detente that seemed to be cemented when Putin visited Bush in the United States during George W. Bush's first term in office, has just evaporated in the past 5 days and we are back to a cold war as of now!
I believe an arms race will soon commence as the Russians have been threatening to withdraw from their obligations under a Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States for some little while now. When that happens, the "Peace Dividend" will be gone for good as I don't believe there will be a second bite of the apple!
Complain about this comment
the olympic games are underway the EU wont like that , because it points to national identity. Next stop EU in the olympic games.Dark times ahead for as long as we are in the EU
Complain about this comment
#215 - Menedemus
On a slightly different but related tack, did you notice that, while Putin and Bush are playing hardball, Medvedev seems to be trying to make life easy for Sarkozy. Are the Russians signaling that they take Europe seriously or is it just a cynical game, I wonder?
Complain about this comment
jaws1912 @ 216
They would be dark days for Britons if it was EU participation in the Olympics.
Britons probably wouldn't make the EU Team as Britons always seem to lose to Germans, French Italians and Spanish athletes and sportsmen and women!
Britons could even only come third to Germany in the Olympic Equestrian Events so Germans would probably represent the EU in what is arguably a very "English" sport!
Dark days indeed.
On the bright side, Britons probably would not have to endure two terrestrial TV Channels broadcasting Olympic events and tittle-tattle 24 hours a day for nearly a fortnight every 4 years . . . . so every dark cloud has a silver lining! ;o)
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ 217
Medvedev has looked distinctly uncomomfotable during the past 5 days. There is no doubt in my mind that the real power in Russia still remains with Putin.
As for the Medvedev/Sarkozy press conference. I think that the EU Plan is a forgone conclusion as being acceptable to all sides: The status quo ante will be restored but the Georgian military forces will not be allowed within 15 miles of the territorial borders with South Ossetian and Azkhazia . . . . . . . if that is "recognising Georgian territorial integrity" (something demanded by the US, NATO, the OSCE and EU) then Georgia is very much left as Czechoslovakia was after the Sudetenland annexation in 1938!
Personally, I think the Russians have this half of the game won.
However, the match is not over and I think that the Russians will regret stamping their feet in South Ossetia and Abkhazia so beligerently when it comes to the Ukraine and their aspirations for NATO membership.
As a by-the-by, NATO today reaffirmed that Georgia's aspirations to join NATO in due course remain very much available to Georgia to aim for. That is definitely sending the Russians a message about the way the game is going to be played by NATO.
Complain about this comment
#219 - Menedemus
I agree with all of that. I was cynically amused at the idea that the Russians would stop at nothing to have a pop at the Americans, even if that involves elevating Sarkozy to the role of world statesman.
Complain about this comment
@threnodio (206)
The vast majority of members of the nazi party was neither radical nor in favor of any kind of genocide. The crimes were carried out by people who constituted a few percent of Nazi party membership (10% of the Germans was a member). I now understand, we shouldn't blame the crimes of a minority of nazis on their ideology fascism. After all, the majority was peaceful.
Well, not quite, obviously. Based on what they told Bush senior once, I now say: it's the ideology, stupid. It doesn't matter that the vast majority doesn't believe in genocide against non-muslims or relegating them to second class status. The ideology most specifically prescribes death, destruction or slavery to anyone/anything not part of the ideology. And that, in the end, is what is important. Nazism was destroyed, and not just the small minority of radicals.
@jaws (216)
Indeed, I'm surprised the EU hasn't demanded that every member state puts the EU flag in the corner of its own flag, and that the socalled EU 'anthem' is played instead of the regular anthem. I'm sure we'll be revisiting this discussion within 20 years time (the timetable for full political integration, although being delayed because of popular opposition, has not been abandoned).
@menedumus (219)
I think not. There's a sizable Russian/pro-Russian minority in the Ukraine (40-45% at least). Particularly in the industrial Donets basin, and in the Crimea also. There is little doubt what Russias goal is. Who would step in and prevent Russia from protecting their peoples in the Ukraine and annexing nearly half the country? It wouldn't exactly be against the will of that section of the peoples. And there are a few others with Russian minorities.
Kind of reminds me of the EU. The EU promises tax-free jobs for which you don't need to be elected to politicians of countries outside the EU. Those politicians nearly always line up to get those jobs. The university educated (usually 'progressive') elites of said countries also stand to benefit and also support the accession.
The vast majority of the peoples however, more often than not doesn't benefit at all. But for the EU: mission accomplished, empire expanded. Undermining national sovereignties and undermining the loyalty of politicians to their countries, encouraging said politicians to be loyal to the EU instead (and ignore any wishes of their peoples against political integration), so far it's worked every time.
Complain about this comment
By selling Ukraine and Georgia to the Russians, EU and West will gain nothing, but what it's fearing for. EU let Russia punish eastern europe and now EU soon will rip what it saw.
Betryal is worst of worst ever things the EU and NATO has done, and it will pay for it dearly.
Geopoliticaly and economicaly Georgia's interests are for a cooperation with Russia, and making a monopoly to oil and gas supplies to EU, but Georgia choose EU bc people were fooled easyly,
Complain about this comment
If you could have good relation within your neighbour, then why you need with some which is far away? Georgia could share the profits with Russia in blackmailing EU, but they didnt. Georgia has been misscalculating for so long. People paid the price, this war was not necessary, this was not a war about Georgian people, rights, freedom, but OIL security to EU. This was first EU-proxy war. Which of course failed as EU is failing day by day, bc of the incompetent, corrupt, family inhereted elites running Brussels corporation.
Complain about this comment
#223 - karolina001
The idea that Georgia and Russia would collaborate in 'blackmailing' the EU can possibly be put down to an unconventional use of what is clearly not your first language. But the idea that it was a proxy EU war is absurd. Europe's leaders were so completely taken by surprise that it took them three days to come up with any kind of reaction beyond cries of horror.
Complain about this comment
The truth is, that France president Sarkozy was a failure in front of the russian President Medvedev, he knows that if he stands up to russians he will see a mashroom cloud over Paris, as a sign of a NEW WORLD ORDER.
can NATO/EU do anything? NO, NEVER.
anyway the bear as a favour will eat France last.
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975 @ 221
If the Ukraine is given expedited membership of NATO then I think that subsequently any similar invasion of the Ukraine by Russian Forces as we have witnessed in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be punished very swiftly by NATO. NATO does not have to wait for political authority as long as the US is the master of the Alliance. The US President will be advised by the UK Prime Minister of the day.
For the thoughts of the future Prime Minister of the UK, please read this Daily Telegraph Article written by David Cameron.
According to the Ukrainian Census of 2001, ethnic Ukrainians make up 77.8% of the population. Other significant ethnic groups are Russians (17.3%), Belarusians (0.6%), Moldovans (0.5%), Crimean Tatars (0.5%), Bulgarians (0.4%), Hungarians (0.3%), Romanians (0.3%), Poles (0.3%), Jews (0.2%), Armenians (0.2%), Greeks (0.2%) and Tatars (0.2%) . . . . thus I am not sure where your figure of 40-45% arises?
The flashpoint is likely to be the Crimea and access to Sebastapol by the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The Crimea is due to be returned to Ukrainian sovereignty (agreed by treaty with Russia) in 2017 but the vast majority of the Crimean population is ethnic Russian.
If, and this is only my suspicion, Russia supports a separatist movement in the Crimea and the Ukraine decides that it does not want to cede autonomy to the Crimeans - then the Russians will have recourse to the same recent pretext (as used in South Ossetia) to enter the Crimea to defend the native Russians. I am sure that they will all have Russian passports by then so the pretext for annexation has already been proven to work for the Russians and there will be a "Gleiwitz incident" or an apparent over-reaction by Ukrainian forces that will be used as the pretext for Russian intervention......
If, as I surmise that the Ukraine has NATO membership, the difference will be that the Ukraine does have a much more efficient military than the Georgians so Russian invasion will be very bloody AND because the Ukraine will be a NATO member (and I do believe it will be by that time!) then NATO will have to react to defend the integrity of the Ukraine.
This will be the punishment of Russia that some european countries leaderships have already called for in the Russian handling of the South Ossetian issue.
As threnodio has intimated within his comments, he does not think the Russians are mad or stupid enough to take on NATO over the Baltic States but the Ukraine is Russia's Poland of 1939 and the Crimea is the "Danzig Corridor" issue . . . . I think they cannot avoid an issue with the Ukraine over the Crimea and port facilities for the Black Sea Fleet.
Complain about this comment
#226 - Menedemus
The Black Sea fleet issue may be susceptible of a Kaliningrad type solution - the creation of a small Russian territory to facilitate the management of the Baltic fleet.
The two questions that interest me in the medium term are whether NATO is more or less likely to embrace Ukraine and whether the present Russian view that Yeltsin's treaty commitments are not worth the paper they are written on extend across the whole spectrum of foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
karolina001 @225
As it happens, Medvedev and the Russians have accepted the 6-point EU Peace Plan and Sarkozy is in Geogia now to sell it it to the Georgians.
The likely sticking point for the Georgians are the two Russian demands that there be a 15 mile buffer or demilitarized zone around the territorial borders between Georgia and the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia AND that Georgia must forgo all and any furture use of military force in those two territories.
I suspect that this will be, albeit reluctantly, agreed.
However, in regard to your rather cataclysmic thoughts with regards to NATO being inactive in the future and your proclamation of intent with regards to Paris may I invite you to consider the following events.
In November 1983, NATO manoeuvres simulating a nuclear launch caused panic in the Kremlin. The Soviet leadership, led by General Secretary Yuri Andropov, became concerned that the manoeuvres, codenamed Able Archer 83, were the beginnings of a genuine nuclear first strike upon Russia.
In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in East Germany and Poland were placed on alert.
Though at the time the Russian response was written off by U.S. intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believe that the Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.
I don't think the fear of first strike by NATO has gone away from Russian thinking or planning but let us not be fooled by our own individual bravado. If Russia or NATO resort to the use of nuclear weapons then we are all toast as threnodio so eloquently put it in an earlier comment . . . . if we are not dead then life in Europe AND Russia and all surrounding countries will not really be worth living.
So, when I say I am pessimistic about the future at the moment, please do not think it is because I am afraid that Russia might try pre-emptive strike, I actually think it will be NATO that goes nuclear first and Russia will retaliate but it will be triggered by Russian military aggression which in some ways is epitomised by the rather aggressive tone of your post at #225.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ 225
I was thinking just that earlier and why Russia would want to tie up Abkhazia as part of their current startegy in regards to the Georgia solution.
Abkhazia provides a direct outlet to the Black Sea for Russia and has an existing port: Sukhumi - could this be developed to become the new Black Sea Fleet base? I don't know but it exists and is idealy located were the Black Sea Fleet prepared to relocate.
Of course, the politics of oil and the the existence of the three pipelines in Georgia (The South Caucusus Gas Pipeline, the BTC and the WREP oil pipelines) being now much more readily subject to Russian interdiction will, I believe, still be a major part of the Russian strategy.
Complain about this comment
As per Russian nuclear retaliation... this is precisely why we need the missile shield, much expanded beyond the current proposal. The irony of this is that origianlly the shield was meant against the "rogue states", but due to Russian actions it is now likely to be expanded to be able to deal with a Russian nuclear strike... precisely what the Russians feared. This is assuming the US and the rest still have enough money to proceed with it... one can only laugh that people never learn from history... not even the Russians, as they have not drawn the right conclusions from their last attempt at imperialism and the collapse of the USSR.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, I know we discussed the Czechoslovakian Sudetenland Crisis of 1938 and that 'solution' and the current Georgian crisis.
However, I read the Daily Telegraph Article "Russia annexes a fifth of Georgia and still find myself drawing the conclusion that Russia has annexed a part of Georgia (and just like the Munich Agreement another Frenchman is going to cede away the territories of another sovereign state!) in a very similar fashion to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938?
I'm sorry, but it still looks to me as though, even though it can be argued that Georgia brought this calamity upon themselves, the similarities between 1938 and 2008 are too great to ignore. The only difference is that Georgia is going to be asked to sign away it's own territory - The Munich Agreement simply instructed Czechoslovakia to do so!
Complain about this comment
#229 - Menedemus
Certainly gas worries them far more than oil because there are multiple sources for the latter, whereas the gas line cuts their European near monopoly from under their feet. Having said that, they clearly do not intend - or maybe realise that they can't get away with annexing all of Georgia. Their pilots and equipment are pretty good and I would think it was no accident that they dropped some ordinance near the lines without actually damaging them. The message was clear enough. Possibly the Russians realise that a confrontation over the Crimea would be too risky and they are looking to Sukhumi as a belt and braces exercise?
Complain about this comment
@menedemus (226)
an interesting theory indeed. As to your % of ethnicity in Russia, I need to point out that one does not have to be an ethnic Russian in order to favor Russian government over that of the Ukraine (which in the east of Ukraine is seen as collaborating too much with the 'west').
Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that Russia, at some point in the not too distant future, does decide on some 'solution' to the Ukrainian question on the lines they've used in Georgia.
So NATO would step in. But how exactly? With ground forces? Not likely. Bombing Rostov, Astrakhan or perhaps Volgograd or St. Petersburg? I doubt there is a single NATO commander who'd have the guts to do that. Especially not one who is European.
A Russian reaction could involve interfering in the Baltic states to prop up Russian minorities there and maybe carve pieces out of those states to be annexed to Russia. Or alternatively, the Russians could bomb Paris, Warsaw, Prague and Vienna. NATO may have been designed to take on the Soviets, but nowadays, I can't see it do anything to countries like Russia who do have a sizeable armed force. They'll do Serbia or Afghanistan, but not Russia, take my word for it. Russia and China might well form an alliance. USA unilateralism is over anyway.
Complain about this comment
threnodio at 232
Purely in a moment of jest.
I certainly hope they aimed to miss the pipeline . . . . if it was bad aiming and they actually missed the target with 51 bomblets (as was reported!) then heaven help Switzerland if the Russian do target Paris as karolina001 suggests at #225.
Complain about this comment
#231 - Menedemus
With the greatest respect to the usually reliable Telegraph, this is not their most distinguished piece of work. They refer, for instance, to Moscow's 'willingness to use force to prevent a former Soviet republic from joining Nato.' but later quotes David Cameron about 'accelerating the path" to membership Georgia and Ukraine (of Nato). Either they believe that Russia's anti Nato tactic has not worked or they are saying that the man they want to see as next UK PM is a complete jackass. The piece also seems quite reliant on 'an observer' for it's core argument that Russia deliberately provoked the confrontation. Even the headline 'Annexed' is tempered to 'effectively annexed' in the body text. Long on opinion and short on substance this time, I fear.
Complain about this comment
#234 - Menedemus
LOL - and risk losing all the oligarch's bank records? Paris has just been reprieved. God help us in Budapest :-)
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975 @233
In some respects you may be correct. It is definitely easier for NATO to attack insignificant countries like Serbia. It is decidely harder to'police' countries like Afghanistan where soldiers can be blown up by terrorist one minute but the next the terrorist is part of a 'wedding party' comprised of 'innocent civilians'.
On the other hand, if the Ukraine has joined NATO AND if Russia is mad or bad enough to invade the Ukraine's sovereign territory, then NATO Policy is clear - retaliation must occur. There are no ifs or buts, there is no waiting for political authority, there is no waiting for appeasement by lily-livered politicians . . . . NATO is obliged to mobilise and come to the aid of the alliance member immediately.
Your faith in the Russian military might is interesting. Russia is currently undergoing a 400 billion dollar military spending round which is due to complete in 2015 (2 years before the Crimea reverse back to full Ukrainian sovereignty!). This a relatively small spend given the billions of dollars income that Russia now has but in many respects, Russia still very much an agriconomy. It's industrial capacity is still somewhat dated and ill managed.
Meanwhile, the NATO countries will have spent an equivalent ongoing spend upon their various NATO forces an equivalent 1800 billion dollars (very approximately). You can buy a lot of technical superiority with those kinds of figures.
NATOs original plans for dealing with a Soviet invasion of western Europe was a rolling fallback and the first strike use of battle theatre nuclear armaments. That policy will not have changed since the cold war.
As regards to your theory that 40-45% of the Ukrainians would oppose their nation fighting Russia - I find that somewhat bizarre. If there is one thing the Georgians can take from their recent drubbing at the hands of Russia, it is that their sense of patriotism and nationhood demonstrably outweighs any previous split in opinion as to whether their President was right, wrong, good or bad or indifferent . . . . the Georgians have rallied together and are very proud despite knowing they have been trounced by a bully.
I believe that, if Russia comes to interfering with Ukraine's sovereignty, that the Ukrainian's sense of nationalism and patriotism will far outweigh any sense of being pro-West or pro-Russian. Bombs and bullets dont care whether you are pro-West or pro-Russian they will strike Ukrainians . . . and that is a great spur to patriotism.
The whole idea of NATO being ready to counterstrike Russia in the event of hostilities is that it is a prelude to mutually assurred destruction. The idea is that Russia must be mad or bad enough to need to be punished for any incursion into the territory of an alliance member nation - it was always assumed it would be West Germany or a direct nuclear strike on the USA in the days of the USSR - at the present time it is Poland and in the future it will be the Ukraine. Either way NATO must and will retaliate for any Russian aggression.
Let us all hope that your pro-Russian Ukrainians, once the Ukraine has joined NATO, do take into account that they might be biting off a bit more than they chew if they want Russia to come to their assistance . . . . unlike South Ossetia where NATO has no remit to defend Georgia,an attack on the Ukraine would open a can of worms for Russian and NATO - as a direct consequence neither Europe nor Russia would ever be the same again.
Looking on the bright side of things, the EU would be finished. There's always that to look forward to!
Complain about this comment
Let me say this though.
I do not think the Russians are mad or bad enough to risk invading the Ukraine AFTER the Ukaraine has joined NATO.
I think that the Russians are like any other nation of peoples . . . they are proud, patriotic, nationalistic and most are good and some are bad. Just like everyone else in the world.
The problem for the Russians is that they were rebuffed from aligning with NATO in the 1960s when they were the USSR and Gorbachev and Reagan were believed to have agreed that in the event of the end of the Cold War that the then EC and NATO alliances would not expand eastwards . . . . . Gorbachev felt that he was tricked by Reagan on this particular issue - not that Reagan would really know what would happen in the future.
I, personally, think that we have got to somehow build bridges with Russia and work with them instead of against them.
Personally, I believe that the Ukraine joining NATO would actually deter Russia from invading Ukraine and then as the Ukraine would eventually be considered for suitability to join the EU, then Europeans could engage with Russia to see if we can be partners rather than opponents.
That is why I think the Russians actually made a mistake with Georgia - they have made Europe fearful and that has set Russia joining with the rest of Europe in a partnership of prosperity back a decade or so!
It is such a shame!
Complain about this comment
#238 - Menedemus
Reagan could have offered to use his influence to limit eastward expansion of NATO but he could not have given any undertaking regarding the EU. Remember it was Gorbachev who spoke of 'one Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals' and I believe he meant it. He genuinely foresaw a vision of a greater Europe of cooperating and collaborating powers. If only!
I do not often use these threads to state the case for individual politicians but I do believe that Gorbachev was and remains a visionary of great wisdom and that we - including the Russians - are the poorer that he has effectively been sidelined.
Complain about this comment
THE BATTLE FOR TBILISI?
EU leader is misscalculating all time long..
There are two choices on table, either you stand up to russians and live/die with dignity, or live under russian "blackmailing" with fear like a coward. Betrayal of allies to save your skin is EU slogan.
EU allways has choosen the second.. why do you think Ottoman Empire lasted for nearly 500 years, unchallenged by countries of Western Europe..
Russia is same
Complain about this comment
#240 - karolina001
If you must resort to irrational abuse, at least have the grace to get your facts right. The EU is not a military alliance. If you want to take your anger out on an alliance, it should be NATO.
Complain about this comment
karolina001 @ 240
With the greatest of respect this is not an EU issue.
Georgia may want to seek EU membership but that is so long off and in the future that it's not even close to being considered by the EU.
President Sarkozy is offering his services to Russia and Georgia to try and create a truce and ceasefire. He has taken this responsibility upon his own shoulders as France currently hold the Presidency of the EU.
However, the real power brokering between Georgia and Russia will be the OSCE. The OSCE is more likely to achieve post-conflict solution than Sarkozy.
As an aside, Sarkozy is really presenting the EU as a peace broker because France (and I don't necessarily mean the people of France) see the EU as an organisation over which it has more influence and as a means to negate the power of the USA in European influence - this being typical French Diplomatic raison d'etre since the days of Charles de Gaulle.
As the US President has announced that humane necessities and relief supplies will be provided to Georgia by US military aircraft and Naval Vessels in the next few days, I can see that US and Russian militaries will be as close together as can be . . . I just hope the Russians in South Ossetia or Azbkhazia (or perhaps more importantly their 'ally' rebels with Russian passports!) do not take it into their heads to 'accidently' shoot down a US Military aircraft or try to sink a US naval vessel. That would certainly cause a serious escalation of US anger in this particular game of chess.
It looks to me like the US President is simply ignoring the EU President's activities on behalf ot the EU and is going to make sure that the US presence in Georgia is reasserted. Watch this space for US Troops to be deployed in force in Georgia some time soon.
Games of political chess can be very dangerous!
Personally, I never saw that the Georgia-Russia 'War' is/was anything to do with the EU and, frankly, I think, that President Sarkozy was being somewhat arrogant to put the EU forward as the peace broker.
The real battle of wills is between Russia and the USA . . . it has been since the end of WWII and it is not over yet. Europe is merely the playground and the EU a plaything to keep European minds off the fact that we're stuck in the middle of this US-Russian chess game.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus,
''It looks to me like the US President is simply ignoring the EU President's activities on behalf ot the EU and is going to make sure that the US presence in Georgia is reasserted. Watch this space for US Troops to be deployed in force in Georgia some time soon.''
The United States has dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Paris and Tbilisi to show support for French diplomatic efforts and Georgian resistance to the Russian invasion. He also said he was ordering Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin air and sea delivery of humanitarian supplies by the U.S. military.
Complain about this comment
#242 - Menedemus
The British in the 18th century managed to shape the face of European politics by the simple but very effective mechanism of ensuring that she held the balance of power between other potential belligerents. Europe could fill the same role now in a wider global context if only it had the collective bottle to take an independent stance.
Of course, Britain had the twin virtues at the time of supreme self confidence and wide public support in its conduct of foreign policy. The EU needs to remedy its internal issues, especially regarding over regulation and democratic accountability and take some of the wind out of the Eurosceptic's sails so that it can get on with the business of not being the 'playing field'.
Far from letting the USA and Russia play out their games, I think the time has come to put both the so called superpowers firmly in their place. The only respect in which either are superior to the rest of us is in their capacity to destroy civilisation as we know it and, while I would certainly not encourage them to do so, neither do I consider it a satisfactory basis for world domination.
I see no evidence that the OSCE is any better qualified to sort out Georgia than any of the other largely irrelevent international 'jobs for the boys' organisations that the nations seem so keen to sign up for. The problem is not getting a peace keeping force together, the problem is getting the parties to agree a mandate for them. That ought to be a job for the UN.
Complain about this comment
#243 - DutchNemo
'to show support for French diplomatic efforts and Georgian resistance to the Russian invasion'
Coupling those two concepts in a single sentence gives new meaning to 'contradiction in terms'. It is astounding even by Bush's standards.
Complain about this comment
I urge anyone particularly interested in the Georgia conflict to read This piece in the Financial Times.
I think it sums up my view precisely and far better than I could.
Complain about this comment
DutchNemo @243
My guess is that Condoleeza Rice will be telling President Sarkozy what the US are going to do in Georgia.
My other guess is that the US has had a few days to plan their reaction to the Russian incursion and, despite, most commentators suggesting that US options are limited, my betting is that the US is deliberately using military forces to deliver aid to Georgia as a suck-it-and-see operation. If, heaven forbid, an accident happens to a US Military operation somewhere in Georgia airspace then the wheel comes off the wagon.
It's as good as the US Rolling up it's sleeves and saying to the Russians "withdraw or let's take it outside!".
If nothing untoward happens then Georgia will definitely become a US outpost now and the South Ossetians are going to miss out on all that lovely US rebuilding lolly that's going to then flood into Georgia.
As an aside, Ukraine has apparently ordered that any Black Sea Fleet vessels that return to port having been engaged in Azbkhazia operations must seek Ukrainian approval to return to Sevastapol. This is a Presidential Decree signed today.
The screws are being ratchetted up on Russia and they will be feeling very much cornered now!
How they will react is anyone's guess. If they move to annexe all of Georgia then it is "Czechoslovakia 1938" revisited and war must become inevitable!
If they react adversely to the Ukrainian interference then we have the "DanzigCorridor of 1938/1939" situation and the West will find itself sucked into a war as it did in 1939.
It's really wierd. I always thought it would be the former Yugoslavian enclaves that would have drawn Russia into a war with NATO that's been a long time coming. It now looks like it will be the former Warsaw Pact country's that will do the ensnaring but that will be the price of defending democracy.
Complain about this comment
threnodio,
''Coupling those two concepts in a single sentence gives new meaning to 'contradiction in terms'. It is astounding even by Bush's standards.''
I think the approach of the Bush Administration to the Georgian-Russian War is two-sided: they hope a 'Tiblisi Airlift' will pressure the Russians enough to accept Sarkozy's peace plan. The next couple of days we will discover if the Bush Adminstration was right, or not.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus,
''It's really wierd. I always thought it would be the former Yugoslavian enclaves that would have drawn Russia into a war with NATO that's been a long time coming. It now looks like it will be the former Warsaw Pact country's that will do the ensnaring but that will be the price of defending democracy.''
I don't think it will come that far. Russia knows they can't beat NATO, not yet. The Georgian-Russian War will not lead to the final confrontation between the American-European Alliance and the Sino-Russian Alliance.
Complain about this comment
To the guys who made a point above about simmilarity between the Kosovo conflict and South Ossetia,well,there is no paralels to be drawn at all.Is not simmilar politically,demograghicaly,historicaly,DE JURE or DE FACTO.
Situation i Kosovo was the Military campaign by the Serbian army on the pretex of fighting a few guerrilas (or terrorist as they called them later) and ending up comiting ethnic clensing and mass murder and mass rape on a territory with more then 90% non Serb population.
Had this not hapened,then Koosvo could have well been today part of Serbia.But this hapen,and the pain inflicted on this people by the brutal Miloshevic regime is real and felt today in thousends missing and thousends traumatised and thousends seeking help (pchycological and physical) with numerous NGO in Kosovo.Whats worse is that they never got an apology,nor sympathy froma country that continues to spread hate propaganda.
Someone above was talking about how the west should have dealt with recognising Kosovo's independence and wether it was the right time and so on.Completely ignoring the most important factor in the situation,that was the people of Kosovo,who would rather die then live under Serbia again,so there is no other solution,this is the new reality,that should be accepted and was rightly accepted by the bigest democracies in the world.The people in Kosovo were runing out patience,and the government of Kosovo could not go on any longer without declaring independence.
Even though it has signed an pact of good neiughborhood with Serbia,which it refuses to sign,and in its constitution,guaranties the bigest rights for ethnic minorities from any other Europian constitution.By eastern European standarts it has held model elections,free and fair,and the political elite has shown responsibilities and good will for stability and prosperity in the region.
AS for south Ossetia Region,they are not fighting for independence,but union with North Ossetia wich is in Russia.And Russias intervention is a unilateral intervention of a big Country against a small neiughbour,with complete disregard for the territorial integrity,and sovereignity of a member of the UN.Is nothing short of a CLASIC INVASION OF A COUNTRY.
The situation is alarming,its the first time that a Democracy is being invaded.
European Union failed misserably.
Un failed misserably.
USA is hangin on there and i hope they will take the necesary steps.
As always Europeans can not be trusted,and are not able to sort out trouble in their own continent,they simply lack balls.The only European country with courage seams to be Great Britain.
Does it always have to be America to come and sort out the mess in Europe?
And then also listen to the rubish of the Anti-Americans in the European media and pseudo-lefties.
Complain about this comment
Dear #243. DutchNemo,
I'm sorry but anyone who believes that the French can broker a peace deal is quiet frankly pissing in the wind. The only thing the French ever do is look after their own backsides and business, vis a vis why Sarko is there now. I think the comments that Bush will send relief to Georgia are far more realistic and if the 'ex' communists 'accidentally' make a mistake and shoot down a plane or whatever then all bets are off.
Like other comments here it will be the last rites of the current format of the EU and thankfully the French are not yet NATO members otherwise it would simply be what French industries rebuild Georgia.
Complain about this comment
250. Named-Erion,
You are right, if it was not for US, the so-called EU and NATO would be a complete joke.
As well as the eastern european states should be less hateful and resentful of russia, and should not try to always escalate the situation and missuse their position inside EU for personal revenge.
As well as some Troyan horses inside EU, should stop blocking common interest policy of EU.
Complain about this comment
To calm the situation in Georgia, US and West must stand up to the Russians forcefully, but also to be fair they must remove Georgian fail president, he must be recycled, incompetent leader like him, who makes hate speaches against another country should not be protected, he is like Iranian president speaking about Israel, georgian president is infamating the situation and his speaches are not helping the peace, but increasing hate. He is not a politican, but a clown which brought death and destruction to his country by his criminal actions and undiplomatic language.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion I will not get into a full discussion of Kosovo, but to point out that Albanians also conducted ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. This is why there are so few Serbs left there right now. You can not blame one side for the same thing you permit the other (justify it for them). So the obvious question becomes why the Albanians arenot punished for ethnic cleansing but the Serbs are?
The "mighty" KLA is not a small terrorist organisation, but supposedly (according to the Albanians), it has won the conflict against the Serbs.
Complain about this comment
There was not an Albanian regular army or government decision making to ethnicaly cleanse the Serb population,as it was with Serbias case.
The ethnic clensing of the Serb population in Kosovo hapened only after the refugees came back home ,to find everything looted,destroyed,ransaked and raped,their lives turned upside down by the brutal military machine of Miloshevic.
Thats how this two actions can not be compared,a popular revenge action is not the same as cold bloded government decision for mass rape,mass expulsion or genocide.
It was not the KLA who did the expulsion of the Serb population but KLA,America or anybody could not halt the inevitable,that people would come back in Kosovo and take revenge on the perpetrators of a brutal war that left a society in ruins,emotionaly,culturaly and physicaly.
The KLA is the only guerrila grup in the world not to have used killings of civilians in another country for a political goal.(as every terrorist organisation has,does and by definition of the word will do).
KLA has operated exlusively in the areas inhabited by the population it suports.
KLA enjoyed during the war the suport of nearly 100% of the population.Almost every person able to fight in Kosovo registered their name on the lists of the KLA volontary force.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that KLA was involved in killings of civilians as a matter of policy,since all charges against them has been brought down for lack of evidence.
The only person to willingly go to the Hague to face war crime charges was the former Kosovan prime-minister who was a comander of the KLA.He resigned from the post to go to the Hague,convinced he was innocent and he is today free.
As for simmilarities with the Ossetian Conflict i have explained above they are different in every respect.
Complain about this comment
karolina001
The president of Georgia was elected not on very good elections,and Georgia is still a young democracy,but is a democracy nonetheless,and Saakashvilli is a democratically elected president.I to dont like him,and i find him politicaly imature,but wether he should be president of Georgia or not is a question for the Georgian people,they are the ones who elect their leaders,and is not the duty of Russia or the West to decide who should govern Georgia.
Russia should not have crossed into Georgian territory,whatever the circumstances,it has attacked a democracy,and whatever the arguments their is a price to pay for that,as it well should be.What the price is,we dont know yet,its the first time a Democracy has been invaded,and we will see what happens.
There is absolutely no argument whatsoever to justify Russias actions this time,and no precedent nither.
And i also think that Eastern European countries are right to use that kind of language with Russia,because they are the ones that know full well the Russian mentality and propaganda.Listen to them,cause they have been there and done that.
Soviet Union was a mass prison of nations.And is exactly dreams of Soviet Union that Russia is creating now,black mailing Europe with Gass,and blocking Ukrain,Georgia and others from joining NATO,thretening Poland and Lithuania,and blatantly asking for the West not to spread democracy and security on Russias borders because is its own area of influence.So the question is ,do the people want to be under Russias influence?I think their actions,and their votes speaks volumes.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob by the way,Albanians are fully aware of the help they got from America,and Britain to an extent-
(even though they see Britains intervention as righting an historical wrong,since it was in London in 1912 that it was decided by European powers under Russias terms to include Kosovo into Serbia Borders,never before had Kosovo been an administrative part of Serbia,and it was exactly to preserve Russias influence in balkans via the Orthodox domination,that the most powerfull balkan countries and the ones profiting from neiughbours lands had to be majority,and in the case of Greece later with the population exchange exlusively Orthodox)
-and you see this everywhere,but they are also aware of the war of the KLA who with little light weaponry had to confront the 4-th
largest army in Europe and hold its own untill the world woke up to the realities of this brutal conflict and act on it.KLA fough and till the end it was the only ground force against the Serb army.And i dont see why anybody is asking a population not to be proud of their war for freedom and democracy,or as was the case at one moment in time,-
(when international NGO's were asking the west to arm KLA so that is equiped to protect the civilian population from the army)
-survival.
Complain about this comment
The war in Kosovo cannot be compared to any other conflict in the world. This just for the simple fact that Albania never intervened on behalf of Albanians in Kosovo to protect them military as Russia did with Ossetia or Abbkazia. So, international law has been respected by Albania at every time. This is why they got all the support from all democracies around the world.
I am checking at Albania's history and there is not one mention of ethnic cleansing done by this country, meanwhile Serbia or other neighboring countries have done "population exchnages" = ethnic cleansing of their population based on religiuos beleives, that's why today Serbia, Greece, etc, can claim to be 100% orthodox christians.
As a country i find Albania had more western values in that time than any other country in there. Even today it seems and clearly there is a distinction which makes Albania more European than other countries in Europe.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing commited by Serbia doesnt give them or thier ally Russia the moral ground to keep Kosovo, which is a lost cause for them, and total humiliation.
They should be ashamed of their actions, and make an apology to the victims as a sign of reconciliation. By behaving as nothing has happen they can never be taken seriously by international community.
To conclude, by joining EU all the disputes in this region will be a thing of the past, nobody can complain his country is divided, instead we will be in one country the so called EU, which for the moment is not up to its duty.
Complain about this comment
The 100 % orthodox policy,in my opinion was nothing else but a strategy of preserving Russian influence in the hart of Europe.Look at Greece today and Serbia,which are two countries unable to make a dinstiction between ethnicity and religion.Because as a matter of Government policy they have come to be 100% Orthodox they belive they are 100% ethnically pure countries,which is absolutely scandalous in every sensible ,rational thinking inhabitant of the world,let alone in front of a amateur or serious historians eyes.
Nowhere is this more obvious then in Greece where historical ethnic devides are very obvious,let alone the fact that they are historicaly documented facts,and at the same time we have a country which until lately had to put the religion of its citezins in their Passports,when at the same time one could not be a citezin if not Greek Orthodox, and the only parlament in the world which has a permanent seat for the Church inside it.
Anyway like you i hope Balkans will start looking at the future of European integration,live behind stupidities of ethnic devides which belong to the past,and accept the new realities,that every people should have equal rights,regardless of religion or ethnicity.
I dont have a particular admiration specially for western European countries,in regard to their historical decision making,and treatment of their fellow Europeans from the east who looked up to them with big enthusiasm after breaking free from the chains of Comunism and were let down at many ocasions.
But European Union is a necesity,and the only means for a prosperous future for the peoples of this continent,wether they like or hate each other,they should super glue it in their minds that cooperation is the only solution in solving future challenges which can not be otherwise solved by any individual countrie in Europe.Ego and Arogance,and looking down at eastern Europeans has already cost a loat,lets get moving foward,lets vote the treaties,they are gona be needed for a better functioning system,and the sooner the Better.
Ps. And the Balkans should very quickly join the European Union,as it is more expensive to keep them out as they are now,then to open the door quickly.The moto of the European union should be THE SOONER ,THE BETTER.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion,
Are you suggesting Europe should take up arms against Russia? The European Union depends on Russian oil and gas to keep te economy running. Taking up arms now would be a very foolish decision.
''As always Europeans can not be trusted,and are not able to sort out trouble in their own continent,they simply lack balls.The only European country with courage seams to be Great Britain.''
What about the European soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Did they 'lack the balls' to defend the Afghan people? I don't think so.
It seems to me you know nothing about Europe at all.
Complain about this comment
The revenge excuse is not good enough. This is similar to what Milosevic said about Kosovo, that the Serbs were standing up for themselves after being opressed by the Albanians. Whoever is guilty should be punished without exceptions, whether Serb or Albanian. All refugees and people ethnically cleansed from Kosovo should be able to go back, i.e. it should be practical for them to do so, they should be safe, welcomed, and their property returned. Some kind of compensationfund should be set up by all responsible (this includes EU, NATO and the US). This should apply equally to everyone. Otherwise blaming Serbs alone for massive crimes (not all specific crimes, just general accusations, some of which may not even be true) just sounds like propaganda.
The same currently applies to Geoorgia, all ethnic cleansing of Georgians from Abkhazia and Ossetia should be reversed on the same principles as above.
Everyone should be equal under the law.
Complain about this comment
@Named-Erion (259)
No the EU is not a necessity. I experience it as a burden and in my business and those businesses around me would be better off without the tons of stupid rules which were EU inspired, serve no real purpose except to keep bureaucrats busy and only cost money many businesses don't really have (ie driving many smaller businesses out of business in favor of the larger corporations who can afford the EU rules, the larger corporations, not unsurprisingly are constantly lobbying for more so they can destroy even more smaller businesses).
It'd be much better to dissolve all political integration, so to end all the recent political squabbling and so that countries are once again free to sign on only to those things they like.
I for one do not want to give up parliamentary democracy. The sooner the anti-democratic unelected crowd of kommissars is gone, the better.
And regading your post 257, how dare you call the KLA freedom fighters. The KLA were (islamic) terrorists who committed many crimes. And the lack of evidence has to do with the fact that the witnesses are dead. And don't get me started on that horrendously biased tribunal. War criminal Wesley "we will not tolerate countries that refuse to be multi-ethnic, unless they support us" Clark backed by president "I'll bomb anywhere I can without asking anyone's permission" Clinton.
Furthermore (re: post 256), the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia clearly do want to join Russia. And the west isn't spreading democracy, the EU is killing parliamentary democracy by transferring powers from directly elected national parliaments to unelected kommissars who are not subject to meaningful parliamentary control.
@karolina (258)
Albania, with the help of their allies Nazi Germany, annexed portions of what is now Kosovo (not recognized as country bu the UN, so therefore still province of Serbia) and Waffen-SS unit Skanderbeg (name sound familiar) did some serious ethnic cleansing.
Complain about this comment
What about the European soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Did they 'lack the balls' to defend the Afghan people? I don't think so.
Afghan and Iraqi people of course.
Complain about this comment
DuchNemo,the fact that Russia is suplying gass and oil does not mean that it should be the dictator of Europe.When Russia takes up arms against European Democracies,then i sugest Europe stands up to Russia,in any way it can.Thats before its to late.
AS i said ,Europe expects everything from America.
Only Britain has done significant sacrifice for the Afghan conflict.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob
I am not saing that revenge is exusable ,but is inevitable in such situation.
And the collective action of many civilians,and iregular armed groops can not be punished,it can be condemned,and i condemn it,like does and should do every sane human.
But Government or regular army decissions of mass murder,or expulsion or ethnic cleansing are not only to be condemned but punished,because this are actions that have been taken on the orders of few people in power.
Thats the difference.
Of course i am not claiming that only Albanians suffered,or that only Serbs comited killings,of course not.
As for your question on the refugees you cant talk about compesation of the Serb refugees without talking for compesation of the Albanian refugees who were 10 times biger in number,and the first victims of the ethnic cleasing game started by Miloshevic.
Refugees have been encouraged to go back in Kosovo,and there has not been attacks on Serbs there,and they are protected by the laws of the constitution,and will enjoy more rights then any other minority groop in Europe.And i hope they do go back,but i am afraid that the ultra-nationalistic politics in Serbia have other plans about that.
As for the Ossetian conflict,again i tell you,there is no paralels to be drawn between that and Kosovo conflict exept the fact that they are both conflicts,but they different in every aspect,Legal,Political,Historical,Demograghic very different.
Of course i am sorry for any civilians killed in Ossetia,just as the ones killed in Georgia, but Russia is wrong to Invade an independent democratic country.
And to draw paralels between that and Kosovo then Russia by the actions it has taken in Osetia should therefore aknowledge the Independent Kosovo,and congratulate the West for the intervention.Is that what they sugest?
No,they at the same time acuse the west of geting it wrong in Kosovo and then say that they are right in Ossetia,because it is simmilar to what the west did in Kosovo!!!!!!!!
Can you now see who is using the double standarts here?None other then Russia.
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975
Iam not gona answer all your post,but exept yours calling KLA islamic terrorits.
First of all,how can KLA be considered Islamic terrorists when many,if not most of their comanders were Roman Catholic Albanians ?Second,Albanians are not Religious and the Conflict,as far as Albanians were concerned had no Religious apects whatsoever.
And most Importantly,KLA never claimed to have any Religious motive.The Albanians are overwhelmingly secular,in fact ireligious i would say.Unlike their neioughbours Serbia,Albanians never had for comfort Priest or Imams in battlefield.
It was first Terrorist ,and after september 2001 Serbia started calling them Islamic Terrorist,playing on the fact that most Albanians identify themselves as Muslims,even if they themselves dont know why.So it would suit the Serbian propaganda to call them that,given the current negative opinion and media bashing of the muslims in the west.So Serbia has started to play the Christian Drama now.
HOW LOW AND PATHETIC IS THAT,and how pathetic of you.
The KLA political wing have now won the elections in Kosovo and have aproved a modern European constitution for a Secular republic.Religion in Albanian world does not have any influence culturaly,legaly,or socially,so what was your point exept making the Serbian propaganda here?
Pathetic,pathetic, pathetic
Complain about this comment
262. mcdv-1975
As far as reliable source tell me, Albania as a country was on the allies side throughout the WWII, and came out to be victorious.
By the way, they even save 100% all the Jews which were living or came in their country. By far this was a great example of european solidarity, which even in Europe was missing.
Such *sci-fiction* allegation you make about Albania as a country cannot hold water, and cannot be true based on the above facts.
As regarding Kosovo, which was given to Serbia in that time, Serbs comited genocide and ethnic cleasning. Albanians in Kosovo were never incharge of Kosovo and never had an state army or power position or recognized as such, so any allegation you make is dissmised.
Therefore as long as there had never been a recognized Albanian authority in Kosovo, they cannot be falsely accused as a country or state, Serbia was incharged.
When in the time Kosovo had autonomy there were no reports of ethnic cleansing or genocide, as soon as Serbia unilaterally revoked it, genocide and ethnic cleansing started to enforce this unilateral decision by Serbian state.
Even today, when there is an Albanian recognized authority in Kosovo there is no reports of such accusations.
Rob_Hob
There was no Albanian authority in Kosovo after Serbia's defeat but a caotic situation of expeled people coming back to their country, thus no allegations can be made to Albanian goverment of Kosovo. Check your facts on a time line based.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion,
You're right, Europe has to react on the Russian provocation in Georgia but taking up arms won't work. Europe won't risk open war with Russia. In my opinion, Europe and America should invite Georgia to join the Membership Action Plan of NATO (something Russia want to prevent at all cost). Russia can win a war with Georgia but a war with NATO they can not.
''Only Britain has done significant sacrifice for the Afghan conflict.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan
Complain about this comment
@menedemus (247)
considering the fact that the US deficit is bigger than ever before and the debts larger than ever before (without even taking into account the $ 200 billion housing market bail-out) I wouldn't be so sure of that 'rebuilding lolly' flooding into Georgia. Plus the fact that a large plurality (if not outright majority) of the US population doesn't want to be 'policeman of the world' anymore and wants the troops home as soon as possible.
Not that Europe is so well off, in many ways financially speaking it is even worse off, but that's a different matter. The hubris that will bankrupt the USA shall visit Europe first (as it always does, Europeans love crying about that fascism is about to strike in America, but when it does strike it's always in Europe).
@namederion (250)
European Union failed misserably
Yes I know, isn't it grand?
And last time I checked, Georgia started this (encouraged by whom, I wonder? EU countries or the USA hoping to drum up support for 2 things that should never happen: Georgian membership of either EU or NATO).
But NATO should not be disbanded, as long as it exists the EU will waste many energies trying to copy the NATO. The supranational EU has always looked upon intergovernmental organizations as threats and applies the same modus operandi every time: duplicate the work that the intergovernmental institution does, and then try to marginalize or take said institution over. This happened to the WEU, is happening to the CoE and the EU would love to do it to NATO as well.
Complain about this comment
#268 - DutchNemo
'In my opinion, Europe and America should invite Georgia to join the Membership Action Plan of NATO'
You must first clearly define what is and is not Georgia in the light of the new reality on the ground. The Action Plan is, as far as I know, still on the table but I would put a sizable bet on it being nothing more than a plan since the Germans and French will continue to have problems with it.
There may, however, be a case for 'fast tracking' Ukraine before events on the ground closes that window of opportunity. I know I have expressed a slightly different opinion earlier in this exchange but the thread has been running since before the Georgia events and I think that has changed the landscape. Ukrainian membership would undoubtedly cause the Russians to think twice before playing the 'Crimea card'.
Complain about this comment
threnodio,
Maybe you're right. France and Germany will probably continue to oppose a Georgian MAP membership. Fast traking Ukraine sounds good to me. After the Russian succes in Georgia they might turn up the heat on Ukraine next.
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975 @270
You may be right about most US citizens not wanting their country to play "Policeman of the World" but I think you underestimate this attitude when it comes to Russia.
The US population, much like Europe, is an ageing population and much of them grew up as children during the Cold War years when the 'big bad wolf' was USSR (or to Americans it's always been Russia).
They may not want to be involved in 'protecting Europe' but they will want to face down a militaristic Russia that has nuclear weapons. The deployment of the missle shiled silos on Polish soil has been agreed today so I would not count out US v Russian confrontation continuing.
They may not care to be involved in Iraq or Afghanistan but if it's Russia - mark my word well - Russia is the US Nemesis and they will always support a President who is prepared to keep Russia in it's place.
Much is made of the American "debt" but I would not worry too much about that. They will always find the money when it's needed and the US is still the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. They are just not too tight with their money as the countries that make up the EU are but I'd still put my money on the diversified ecnonomy of the US against the carbon-fuel fed economy of Russia.
Complain about this comment
On a frivolous note, I checked the CIA' country profile of Georgia and learned that it is in Southwestern Asia. Intrigued, I turned to the UK Foreign Office profile which says it's in Europe. I wonder if NATO might manage a more joined up approach if they could actually agree where it is?
Complain about this comment
threnodio @274
Actually, it's not that frivolous.
I have often asked myself where does Europe end and Asia begin.
For example, I do not think that Turkey is in Europe despite their wish to join the EU,
Poland is in Europe but is the Ukraine European? What about Belarus? The definition of Europe is so vague that maybe this is something that creates the present conflict and can trigger other similar conflicts with Russia in the future.
In some respects I am not surprised by the agressive but necessarily assertive behaviour of Russia as I do believe that they are entitled to feel that, as a global power, they should have a sphere of influence in the countries adjoining their territory.
I not sure they are right to think this but I am sympathetic to their feelings of steady encroachment by NATO, the EU and the US into countires that they see as being their backyard.
Complain about this comment
''US and Poland sign defence deal''
This is good news. The United States is already pressuring Russia to accept a peace deal. The seperate defence treaty between Poland and the United States is also good news for the European Union: it ensures us of American support in a possible conflict with Russia.
Complain about this comment
#275 - Menedemus
There is no question further north. The rough line follows the high peaks of the Ural Mountains leaving everything to the east in Asia and everything to the west in Europe. So Moscow, for example, is very much a European city. Obviously Belarus, being even further west is Europe. Further south it gets much more complicated, some taking the Ural River and the Caspian Sea as the border. Wikipedia's article on Europe covers it well.
To be honest, I am not sure it really matters. After all, theoretically Japan and Israel are on the same continent but they might as well be different planets. And is Cyprus in Africa or Europe?
Complain about this comment
#262 mcdv
Nice to have support for Scottish Independence from you. Unfortunately others on this blog are less sensible.#150,153,163,164,165,167 threnodio and Menedemus
For intelligent people, you show a remarkable degree of ignorance and a reliance on assumption.
To pick out only two of your errors - Your Act of Union is your problem. Scotland and England were united by a Treaty of Union between two independent states. The Scottish body politic has never ceased to exist, and should we decide to rescind the Treaty, that's it! A remarkable assumption, which is not based in legal fact. There is no precedence for this situation within the EU, and Scotland is perfectly free to rescind the Treaty of Union with England, but retain the treaties making us part of the European Union, while we were part of the UK.
The actual ruling would, of course be political not legal. The other members of the EU would have to take a decision from the following options -
1. accept all constituent parts of the former UK as members
2. require all constituent parts of the former UK to re-apply
3. differentially select between the constituent parts of the former UK.
To assume that the rest of the EU would prefer to have the eurosceptic English is a somewhat arrogant assumption.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @278
Given the current turmoil in the world I hardly think that a desire for Scottish independence is that high on the agenda of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
I have never suggested that Scotland cannot hold a referendum. They can hold as many referendums as they like as far as I am concerned.
In 1999, after almost three centuries, a Scottish Parliament was opened after a referendum in Scotland. The new parliament was opened with the words "the Scottish Parliament, adjourned on the 25th of March in the year 1707 is hereby reconvened." As a devolved institution, the new Scottish Parliament does not have the same powers as the old parliament with issues like defence and foreign policy being reserved to the UK parliament. Scotland remains a constituent member country of the United Kingdom and the Parliament may not pass laws to change this.
This is my thesis and your criticism that I show remarkable degree of ignorance." is merely your opinion and I happen to hold your opinion in as much esteem.
Scotland can hold a referendum and the population of Scotland could vote for independence but the dissolution of the Act of Union of 1707 requires the United Kingdom Parliament to grant Scotland full independence.
As it happens, I would like to see Scotland gain it's independence and am happy to go up the the River Tweed with my spade and widen the width of the river. One thing would be for sure, when Scotland starts taxing it's demos and see the costs of the benefits of independence rise then the Scots will squawk like stuffed pigs.
Unfortunately, as much as we would both like to see Scotland gain it's independence, I cannot see the United Kingdom Parliament ever giving Scotland full independence as it is Westminster that must vote to repeal the Act of Union . . . and wishful thinking does not make that any more likely.
Do please continue to fret for Scottish independence if it keeps you happy, one day the 5 million people living in Scotland (many of them English) may vote for independence but in the grand scheme of things the 5 million votes of the Scots pale into insignificance as the 50 million voters in England (many of the Scottish) may hold a referendum and decline to see the Act of Union repealed.
Complain about this comment
#278 - oldnat
The arrogant assumption, I assure you, is entirely yours.
The Treaties of Rome and Maastricht and all other agreements pertaining to the United Kingdom and the other EU members were entered into by The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The act of leaving the (British) Union would be for Scotland to withdraw from the constitutional arrangements currently binding the union but leaving the union extant as a legal entity complete with the whole plethora of treaty arrangements it had entered into. You are right to say that, as this is unprecedented, it has never been tested but you are certainly not right to say that an independent Scotland would have an absolute right to rely on the advantages and benefits of those same treaties as though they had entered into them independently.
If what you say is correct, for instance Scotland would remain members of NATO, which has a significant role in command and control of the UK nuclear deterrent. Are you seriously suggesting that Scotland would take over the UK element of c and c for the Trident fleet simply because it operates from Holy Loch?
The fundamental flaw in your argument lies in:- '1. accept all constituent parts of the former UK as members'. Former UK? Just because Scotland chose to withdraw from it would not mean that the UK ceased to exist and any arrogance on my part pales into insignificance compared with the arrogant assumption that Scotland could bring about the end of the Union unilaterally.
'Nice to have support for Scottish Independence from you. Unfortunately others on this blog are less sensible.'
You know perfectly well from our exchanges on other blogs that I have no argument with Scottish independence and to suggest otherwise is to distort my position.
'To assume that the rest of the EU would prefer to have the eurosceptic English is a somewhat arrogant assumption.'
If you can find any post of mine in which I have suggested that this is the case, please point it out to me or amend your comments accordingly.
The pity of all this is that I believe there is a broad measure of agreement in Britain that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory and that Scottish independence is one perfectly plausible way forward but if it is to be achieved, it will take a great deal of political skill and very fine legal minds. Crossing all those Ts and dotting of the Is will call for a more delicate instrument than the broadsword.
Complain about this comment
#279 Menedemus
"I hardly think that a desire for Scottish independence is that high on the agenda of the Parliament of the United Kingdom" - one of the major reasons that Scotland voted for its own Parliament is that the Parliament of the United Kingdom seldom had time for Scottish affairs.
Unfortunately, you are arguing from the point of English Constitutional Law - which enshrines the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That has no basis in Scottish Constitutional Law, which is based on the sovereignty of the people. Since we are a separate legal jurisdiction, Scottish Law applies in Scotland.
If you want to fantasise that we need the permission of the UK Parliament to rescind the Treaty, then you are free to do so. Of course, you are also free to continue some sort of pretence of sovereignty - after all the English claimed sovereignty over France until last century.
You may remember that there was another part of the British Isles that was formerly part of the UK, was given a devolved Parliament by Westminster, then dissolved the Union unilaterally. Eire is doing quite well without the permission of the UK.
Complain about this comment
#280 threnodio
and your source for that definitive legal opinion is?Complain about this comment
oldnat @278
As a gentle reminder BOTH the English Parliament AND the Scottish Parliaments were dissolved by the Act of Union which formally created a Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Parliament for the United Kingdom actually hold the key to devolution and it will take the Parliament of the United Kingdom to repeal the Act of Union and grant independence to both Scotland AND England.
The legality of any UK component country attaining de facto independence (in the same manner as the origins of the Irish Republic) or declaring unilateral independence outside the framework of UK constitutional convention is uncertain but withou the consent of the UK Parliament it would be independence without lawful consent.
Personally, I think that the Scottish electorate are not as overwhelmingly supportive of outright Scottish Independence as the SNP may believe. But, in any, event the quest for Scottish Independence would take years to resolve and 300 years of trying hasn't resolved it yet!
Complain about this comment
#282 threnodio
Having come late to the discussion, I perforce lumped my response to you and Menedemus, since you were happily agreeing about an assumed status of the residual parts of the UK following its dissolution.
You won't be surprised to learn that lawyers in Scotland have been investigating this issue in depth over the last 20 years or so, and consulting with their European colleagues.
There is no definitive view, which is why I said the decision will be a political one. any of the options I outlined can be justified in international law. The fact that Scottish law is part of the European mainstream, and England has a different basis, means that the viewpoint from England is often somewhat skewed.
Parliamentary sovereignty is a peculiarly English concept - exported only to New Zealand and Israel. The only other EU country with it is Finland, where (due to their precarious relations with their neighbour) Parliament can override their Constitution.
Complain about this comment
#283 Menedemus
You really need to get your history correct.
There is no such thing as "an Act of Union". There were two Acts passed one in the English Parliament, and one in the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Act is entitled an "Act ratifying and approving treaty of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England".
You may be thinking of the Act 6 Anne c.40, which was essentially an administrative Act, and has no significance as to the nature of the Union - a voluntary joining of the Scottish and English "bodies politic".
The Articles of Union which were confirmed in the Acts of both Parliaments included Article 19 which enshrined the continuance of Scots Law as a distinct jurisdiction. Consequently, as I've said before, Scots Law not English Law applies in Scotland - and that includes Constitutional Law.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @285
This is a very interesting but utterly pointless discussion.
We are agreed that we both feel that England and Scotland should separate. I just simply believe that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has the constitutional veto of any moves by Scotland to be granted independence. I really don't care if you disagree.
I am bored with this Scottish navel gazing now and, to be honest, I don't really care about Scotland, so - if you get independence then gain it with my blessing.
Complain about this comment
#282 - oldnat
I am not falling for that one. Since it has never been tested in court there is no authority.
It is precisely that. An opinion.
I entirely agree that any arrangements will have to be political. Where we will continue to disagree is with the three statements you make all of which refer to 'the former UK'. I can find nothing in law to suggest that the departure of Scotland from the union, however it may be arranged, would bring about as a matter of course the end of the UK.
Unless of course you have a source for that definitive legal opinion.
Complain about this comment
oldnat, Menedemus & threnodio
Shouldn't you move this spat to Brian Taylor's blog, which certainly needs a little enlivening just now?
It might be different if there were anybody from outside the UK posting their views on how the EU would react to a post-UK Great Britain but as it's yet to be tested they're probably wise to keep stumm.
Complain about this comment
#287 threnodio
"UK" was shorthand.
The United "Kingdom" would continue to exist, in that one monarch would both be Queen of England, and Queen of Scots (I don't know what her titles are in Wales and Northern Ireland).
However the cessation of the Parliamentary Union would mean that there was no longer a state accurately called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Of course the non- Scottish part of the current state can call itself anything it likes, but the last time this happened, the "UK" renamed itself from its previous name of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".
Of course, in practical terms, it's easier all round for the UK to evolve into a loose confederation for international purposes with an agreed convention for representation of the different Parliaments within the EU.
Actually my sticking point is over whether the "Confederal Parliament" of the UK continued to assert Parliamentary Sovereignty over all of its existing territory.
Complain about this comment
'Of course, in practical terms, it's easier all round for the UK to evolve into a loose confederation for international purposes with an agreed convention for representation of the different Parliaments within the EU.'
Which is precisely what I have been arguing for since way back on another blog.
Parliamentary Sovereignty in a modern context is really little more than a mechanism to constrain the power of the executive which is basically irrelevant when viewed in the light of the whip system in a 'first past the post' assembly. That would be the time, I think, for a modern written constitution.
Complain about this comment
Browndov @288
I entirely agree.
The subject of Scottish independence is not only boring it is also an exercise in futility.
Of much more importance! Does anyone know when Mark Mardell is back? This blog item is 17 days old.
Please don't tell me that the BBC Europe Editors get more holiday than the rest of mere mortals!
The differences between EU countries when it comes to holiday entitlement would be of much more interest to me than Scottish independence.
Complain about this comment
by putting fake edited pictures on articles, bbc losses its credibility by the day.
we know bbc is a EU-funded propaganda machine, but not reporting certain news, or
Complain about this comment
#291 Menedemus
We disagree fundamentally, but the current Brian Taylor thread is fundamentally bashing the SNP so you might get some kicks there.
Complain about this comment
Browndov @293
I think you fundamentally misinterpret me too.
I am not particularly anti-SNP so I do not seek to give them a kicking. If the SNP wish to seek independence they are perfectly welcome to pursue that dream as far as I am concerned.
We can certainly disagree about Scottish Nationalism being boring and/or being an exercise in futility. That is simply my opinion.
I am sure we can agree that this 'European' Blog is not really the place for what is, intrinsically, a matter between the Scots, The English and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Scotland is such a small country with such a small population that it gets far more attention than it deserves already and trying to make Scottish Independence a European issue is stretching credulity. Again, this is simply my opinion.
Complain about this comment
#s 288 and 293 - Brownedov
On the specifics of Scottish devolution, point taken, but if you cast your eye back through this thread, the topic has also embraced the possible break up of Belgium, matters arising from devolved powers in the Spanish federal system and so on.
I cannot speak for others but I personally believe that a constructive debate about the European project is not possible without taking into account national and regional questions which will influence it.
I notice that elsewhere you are pointing posters to Robin Lustig's excellent blog. These matters are interrelated, some cross referencing is inevitable and one level of moderation is more than enough for me.
Complain about this comment
I do not know if scottish independence is particularly of high importance at this time but my view is that if the majority of scots vote for it, eventually it will happen. The UK Government may prevaricate, may even ask scots to vote again (perhaps they did not understand the issues!) but eventually Scotland would gain independence. To try and stop it would cause a crisis in both Scotland and the UK and would only strengthen the SNP. Failure to give the people what they want would eventually result in mass demonstrations, strikes and perhaps worse.
Perhaps this is relevant to the E.U after all!
Complain about this comment
#295 threnodio
OK - personally, I think Lustig's blog is the better place for national split-ups given the specific nature of the lastest thread.
#296 jordanbasset
It's certainly relevant to the EU because it hasn't happened yet. I think it's still too early to say who the 1st EU state to split will be. The top 3 are certainly Spain, Belgium & the UK but I'll leave the bookies to guess the order it happens.
Complain about this comment
I think I'll come back when you guys have finished prattling about Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Is ridicolous how the BBC is so pro-Russian in every article it writes.Or maybe just anti-american.In the last two days BBC has been going crazy,it has even had articles that blatantly suport Russia,such as the one *How Russia is losing the propaganda war* and today it was puting through the opinion of Russians about the war.Not once so far has the BBC condemned in any article or report the invasion of an independent democracy by Russia and the exesive use of force.
It has always been slow on the news and always playing down the scale of Russian brutality.
And it has always made news in the light of the Hipocritical West and good Russia.
I am shocked by such disgusting news coverage by the BBC.
Please someone tell me,is the BBC paid for by the British Taxpayers or what the hell?
Complain about this comment
#299 Named_Erion
"is the BBC paid for by the British Taxpayers"?
No.
Complain about this comment
oldnut.
Ok,i dont really know alot about the financial situation of BBC,but i do know that the British do give considerable financial suport to BBC,through the government,and through direct tax if i am not mistaken.
Anyway is an British media,and first of all should have the interest of reporting the truth.If it choses to be bias,then i would expect it to bias a litle towards British interest.
But for sure is not under the payroll of Kremlin.Or is it?
Complain about this comment
#301 Named-Erion
oldnat is right that the BBC is not funded mainly by taxation, but there is a very small subsidy paid through the Foreign Office for the BBC World Service Radio and foreign language broadcasting.
Domestic radio is free but domestic TV is paid for through a licence fee, as is common in European countries.
Overseas BBC TV broadcasts like BBC Prime and BBC World News are intended to be self-funding, but I haven't looked at their accounts lately.
Complain about this comment
What are you on about, 299?
The BBC's reputation--rightly or wrongly--has always been based on the view that it is relatively impartial. It's the reason why BBC World (the channel) is the most viewed news source in the world.
I'm not excusing cock-ups, which the BBC often has. Nevertheless, the BBC does much better at owning up to its mistakes than other 'responsible' news sources. (Here's looking at ABC in the US, which has failed to apologise for false reporting on the 2001 anthrax cases--despite pressure to do so.) It also helps that the BBC has outside monitoring to keep it in check. We shouldn't want it any other way.
To the extent that BBC output has been blaring on and on about the Russia-Georgia conflict I do believe it has played a more balanced approach to its reporting than when the conflict first began. There are always two sides to every story--yes, even this story--and the BBC has held its own this time around.
Complain about this comment
The funding of the BBC seems to me marginally less relevant than Scottish devolution but it's touch and go.
Complain about this comment
For anyone with a view, one-way-or-another, as to whether the BBC is biased and the extraordinarily difficult job it is to actually glean the truth amidst a conflict, please read this article: Separating Fact from Fiction
I guess the view I take is that, if there were 2000 South Ossettians killed by the Georgians in their attempt to reassert contol over that territory, the Russians would have only been too quick to show pictures of this to the world.
All we get to see of Tskhinvali is blackened ruins. This is devastating to see but not as devastating a piece of propaganda value as 2000 bodies would be . . . . and, of course it is even arguable, that the bulk of the destruction was Russian munitions used to recapture Tskhinvali before the Georgia retreat?
In the absence, of such evidence of 2000 deaths, crucially, I think the Russians have made a fundamental mistake - no doubt Russian citizens will believe what they are told by the Russian media but the world will now see Russia as the aggressor and bully.
In this respect Georgia has actually won a phyrric victory.
Complain about this comment
*303
Paul Reynolds,
World affairs correspondent,BBC news
-Starts his article -
Victorious Russian military loosing propaganda war.
The Bush administration appears to be trying to turn a failed military operation by Georgia into a successful diplomatic operation against Russia.
___________________________________
I have posted just the first sentence of this particular article above.I think starting from the title and from the first sentence,