Taking on the cowboys
16:35 CET: Which president will wear blue jeans? President George W is famously dressed down at Camp David. I can see President Sarkozy in designer denim, chic if not terribly western. But I have problems imagining President Barroso in Genoa's most famous gift to the world or indeed a Stetson. Perhaps, given the discussions on the world financial crisis, something patched and rather "grapes of wrath" would work.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Never mind. It is a first time for the European Union to be so feted and listened to seriously by an American president, even one with only a few months of political life left in him.
At the end of the council meeting Jose Manuel Barroso said that his message would be that the world needs new rules and regulations and that these should be based on the European model, "not gung-ho liberalism".
If he looks happy it's not just because of the agreements on the economy. The commission appears satisfied by the agreement. Yes, I know I called it a "tragedy" for those who backed the climate change plan, and I stick by the view that there will be some very tricky arguments in the months ahead, which will result in a seriously watered-down package.
But the counter-argument goes like this. Despite all the moans, no-one has suggested that the target of a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 is wrong. The deadline for an agreement is still December, despite serious pressure to leave out a date from the text published at the end of the summit.
The Poles are playing to the gallery, because of the tricky political situation at home. But the commission has bent over backwards to be helpful over the issue of state subsidies of shipyards and come December it will be payback time.
The speeding-up of pipeline projects in new laws, all under the collective rubric of "the energy security package", is hugely important to the Baltic countries which are worried about over-reliance on Russia, and they will go quietly.
Berlusconi is acknowledged as a problem, but he was much more muted in his end-of-council news conference and wasn't even asked by Italian journalists about his threat to use a veto on the climate package. Merkel's intervention on behalf of the plan was crucial, not least because she didn't back any delay or watering-down, despite Germany's concern for the impact on its own industry.
That's the theory. I think the problem is, as so often, money. The Poles obviously want more money. Sarkozy was talking about help for the car industry. So were the Italians. But Germany is not in a mood to pay up and neither is anyone else in the current economic climate. I don't doubt there will be a deal in December: I just wonder how ambitious it will be.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
The fact of the matter is that the cost of the Financial Sector bailout is of such extraordinary expense and may even rise between now and December that all of the former grandiose ideas of the Council of Ministers and the EU will have to be curtailed or even put on hold until better times.
It is not such much that the goal posts have moved as the pitch has moved to another planet so getting the ball to the goals is now a serious problem.
The economic and climate change goals were sensible, laudable and probably within reach but with the pitch moved none of the players can see the goal mouth let alone see the goal posts any more.
The leaders need to quietly go away and consider what is (a) now achievable and (b) worth pursuing as the domestic audiences for all of the leaders will not take kindly to EU spending as if there is no tomorrow or more and more money is required from the more wealthy member states if the domestic electorates are feeling the pinch, out of work and seeing their personal fortunes diminish as the cost of living rises - and that is undoubtedly going to start happening soon if it is not already occuring in the homelands.
Complain about this comment
I hope they do keep their environmental targets. Despite my and many others scepticism at the media hype over global warming, less pollution can't be a bad thing however you look at it.
On the other hand, if the G27 are going to bail out every single industry, could someone divert a million Euro in my direction? I will gladly sell my house, leave Europe and my job to someone more deserving :)
Oh and s*d Berlusconi: he's nearly dead anyway at his age ;)
Complain about this comment
Interesting contrast between Mark's report and that by Reuters on
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081016/tpl-uk-climate-eu-39349ed.html
Still, 20% by 2020 allows plenty of opportunities for changes of government, especially in Italy!
Complain about this comment
It would be a tragedy for the future prosperity of the human race if the "European model" were to become the basis of global finance regulation. After all the "European model" is the reason why there is so little financial industry in Euroland with all the serious business being done in London, Switzerland and the markets of the USA and Asia. The "European model" is the reason why the Eurozone has been the slowest growing part of the developed world since the creation of the single currency.
Economic liberalism has been the basis for the rise in living standards since WWII. The EEC contributed to this in its early days but since the 1980?s it has been the GATT/WTO which has led the way. What we really need now is more economic liberalism based on a worldwide common market such that we could allow the power-obsessed EU institutions to whither on the vine.
Complain about this comment
#1 - Menedemus
Yes but bear in mind that green technologies are the new industrial future. The opportunities are huge and the objective laudable.
This recession is going to throw large numbers of people out of work. We (the planet) needs a growth industry with long term potential. These industries need support services. It is not just 'geek country'. They will need salespeople, managers, accounts professionals and - save us all - possibly even bankers.
The job creation potential is almost unlimited (not for nothing are the Chinese the biggest manufacturers of solar panels). To cut back drastically on alternative technology targets now would be to look a gift horse in the mouth and - given that all the other horses have bolted because some idiots left the stable door open - we need this technology for more than purely environmental reasons.
Complain about this comment
How twee: a lame duck President and a clutch of boobies meandering around the autumnal woods of Camp David.
Yawn.
I hope Silvio cracks some jokes (good or otherwise) or else this will be a very dull affair. EU summits (well, molehills rather) usually offer great opportunities for hoteliers, restauranteurs, call girls (and boys!) and assorted hangers on.
Complain about this comment
It's worth remembering that in most cases saving energy actually saves money and carbon emissions and that this could be very, very good for both the economy and the environment.
An economic slump will also reduce energy use organically, meaning that carbon emissions will fall without any effort from our leaders. This means that we shouldn't assume that a reduction in emissions has just got any harder. In fact it has got easier!
One other thought is that all of these long term goals are meaningless if they are not matched with binding, short term milestones.
The world's bankers demanded concrete timetables for effort and investment when it came to rescuing the world's banks and we shouldn't expect any less when it comes to politicians being explicit about how they plan to stabilise the planet's atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
We will all lose out if our homes are flooded more often, our port cities need to be defended against rising sea levels and our crops are killed by droughts simply because we could not be bothered to reassess the ways in which we make money and plot a new, less destructive and more responsible course for our future.
Complain about this comment
Oh sure Freeborn John, lets have more ultra-liberalism, more deregulation, more greed, more craziness, more financial crisis, and indeed things will get better...
Complain about this comment
I guess the fallout from the current financial catastrophe really has not been comprehended by many people blithely wittering on about their favourite ideas and topics.
The world is changing very rapidly my friends and many of the expensive hobby-horses to which you still cling with great zeal are soon to become seen as incredibly expensive and cause of great resentment.
In the UK unemployment this week rose to 1.7 million and that is a 5 year high. It is expected that 3 million people will be out of work by Christmas 2008 and that is barely 2 months away.
Many local authorities are bankrupt because they have money lost in the Iceland Banks that have become bankrupt - some councils in Wales are talking about no money to pay staff wages/salaries.
Public Sector initiatives such as a new Genome Institute in Norwich have been terminated due to lack of County Council funding.
The UK is basically bankrupt, people homes are going to shrink in value with the absence of buyers able to get loans to buy homes for themselves and they are going to lose their jobs and the chance to afford a roof over theoir heads.
And some of you think these people are going to be bothered about Climate Change when they are homeless, out of work and living on government dole money?
When push comes to shove the things that matter to people are the things that impact their livelihood, their self-esteem and their families - grandiose ideas such as Nuclear Power Plants, climate friendly carbon emission reductions or any other green initiatives you care to mention are going to become repugnant and arouse great anger amongst the masses.
Complain about this comment
Mark tells us, Jose Manuel Barroso said that his message would be that the world needs new rules and regulations and that these should be based on the European model, "not gung-ho liberalism".
And who exactly is this Jose bloke? Did anyone vote him into office? Does he have any mandate to speak on our behalf?
In America, they even get to vote for the local dog catcher. I can't see the Americans being terribly impressed with this unelected official from a discredited organisation that hasn't had its accounts audited for 14 years in a row.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John,
"Economic liberalism has been the basis for the rise in living standards since WWII."
Really? Not the consensus around social democracy and the social market which produced decades of consistent high growth across the continent?
"The EEC contributed to this in its early days but since the 1980?s it has been the GATT/WTO which has led the way."
Really? The neo-liberal Lisbon Strategy was launched at the end of the 1990s, while the WTO's Doha round has been dormant for years and may be dead.
And Frankfurt is not a financial centre?
Really?
I think you should stick to your day job of slagging off the Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
It seems only Europe and some few honourable exceptions worldwide (Australia, NZ , Brasil or Chile) are concerned over carbon emissions.
Whichever deal is reached in December over the issue, it will be a lot compared with other major world actors like China, India or US, which are not in the mood of doing nothing on this respect.
After centuries of colonisation and world exploitation, Europe is leading the responsibility to save the planet and also save us from the wild capitalism, a role to feel proud of it.
Complain about this comment
Poland is the cleverest of all. :-)
They lived under USSR central power, so they know how it happens. Time to negotiate country's allowances and benefits - now.
If EUSSR is created settling down around central power - will be too late to squeek afterwards and ask for something.
"Our country wake-up is at 8 o'clock" (sorry. joking.)
So I think they just take timely precautions in case there forms a strong centre of decision making in the EU, and in case it happens by some unfortunate luck not to be Poland itself.
Complain about this comment
#4 Freeborn-John wrote:
Economic liberalism has been the basis for the rise in living standards since WWII.
________
The reason for the phenomenal economic growth after WW2 was the respective growth of productivity caused by the miraculous success of science and technology. All the fundamental breakhroughs like nuclear reactor, jet engine, laser, semiconductors, computer, telecommunications, internet we developed for military purpose and payed by the budget money.
Complain about this comment
@distanttraveller (10)
I was about to say the same thing. Who does this unelected clown Barroso think he is representing? Well not me I didn't vote for him, or for any of his fellow Politburo kommissars.
Complain about this comment
Why are the EU handing out free jackets to the press corps and whose bright idea was it when everyone is looking for a silver lining to put the silver on the outside? I've got a fiver that says there's a label on it somewhere saying 'Made in China'.
Complain about this comment
Refering back to the 'East Left Out in the Cold?' topic of a few days ago, a little under 8 billion Eur ECB backing for Hungary would seem to suggest that we are, after all, 'in this together'.
Complain about this comment
#10 and #15 Spot on!
Keep up the good work. I've been doing this sort of thing since 1975. We didn't have the internet then but we did have jungle drums.
I suggest we also need a replacement for UKIP which doesn't do very well when it should be doing fantastically well thanks to the pressies the "EU"-lovers have given us.
Complain about this comment
# 15 mcdv-1975
Well of course, it's not just the UK that didn't vote for Barroso; none of the citizens of the EU countries did!
This highlights everything that's wrong with the current EU.
I suspect that most European citizens would support a strong trading block - but what we don't want is to be ruled body of unelected officials.
The EU is a sleazy unaccountable organization - that can't get its own books in order. Who do these unelected people think they are?
If we don't like our government, we can (eventually) boot them out. But what can we do about the Commission, where the real power lies?
This isn't democracy, it's tyranny.
Complain about this comment
#19 - DistantTraveller
#18 - SuffolkBoy2
#15 - mcdv-1975
Absolutely. Let's get rid of all unelected officials. Shall we start with the entire British Civil Service? (You didn't really think the politicians ran the country - did you?)
Complain about this comment
Barroso was elected by European chief of states. Of course Great Britain is not very democratic so you didn't elected your Prime Minister (without speaking of your Queen) but in France we did. Thus the Commission President is indirectly elected by citizens (as your prime minister is).
Moreover all EU laws are required to voted by the European parliament where some people represent you. So Barroso has not so much power except to be seen on TV.
Finally if your country is democratic enough and your ideas unite a majority of citizens (or subjects) I am sure that you will be out of the EU soon.
Criticizing is nice but you should recognize that EU can be useful. Your Prime Minister proposed an excellent plan last week but only applied to Great Britain this plan had no impact. The same plan applied to the whole eurozone seemed to be a success.
Complain about this comment
@cilpale (21)
You make a nonsensical argument. And you utterly fail to grasp how the EU was set up and how it really works.
First of all, Barroso was not elected by anyone, he was appointed. He was appointed as 'president' of the EU politburo (commission) which is the driving force of this newly created layer of government (the EU is a layer of government, not an institution). Together with the EU council, the EU commission can make laws which no elected parliament can reject.
Your nonsensical claim that the EU's parliament is somehow democratic just because it is elected. Well that can be easily disproven. Can the EU parliament initiate laws? No they cannot. Can they impose an agenda on the EU politburo (commission)? No they cannot. Can they act as an effective parliamentary/democratic control on the actions of the EU kommissars? No they cannot. They're not a parliament, they are a self-enriching bunch of politicians who at best can be labelled an advisory body.
Have you not noticed that legislative powers were taken away from the elected national parliaments and given to unelected Brussels politicians who are not subject to meaningful parliamentary/democratic scrutiny? If not, then please inform me as to how an elected national parliament can stop a law made by the unelected politburo and their council friends?
Through the EU council, government ministers can bypass their national parliaments altogether (a point which I must have made a thousand times already, but which EU-philes to this day have utterly failed to address, for some reason).
A government minister who cannot get his law through his national parliament is encouraged by the system to go 'through Brussels' where he can agree with other council ministers and the unelected EU politburo (commission), and then they can present the elected national parliaments with a fait-accompli.
So in effect, government ministers together with the EU's politburo have usurped legislative powers. National parliaments have no means by which to stop any EU law. How on earth can anyone argue that there's still parliamentary democracy around in the 27 memberstates. There isn't!!! Parliamentary democracy is dead.
And finally, I'm not British but Dutch. And we voted against the antidemocratic 'constitutional' treaty only to have it passed through our parliament on the orders of Sarkozy, Barroso and Merkel who demanded our politicians cancel the promised referendum.
We voted for a majority in parliament that promised us a new referendum. And they cancelled their promise the day after the election. We can vote whatever we want but the EU's unelected and/or antidemocratic politicians can do what they want because our votes don't affect them.
The EU is a massive gravy train for politicians who all relish such a job and will do nothing to endanger it. It was set up deliberately in such a way to appeal to politicians so they would always be 'loyal' to the system. You see it all over the EU member states. Elected national politicians are increasingly putting the interest of Brussels ahead of the interest of those who elected them.
Ireland is a good example, the day after the Irish saved 27 parliamentary democracies from the self-amending anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty, the EU politicians contacted Taoisech Brian Cowen and demanded another referendum (ie 'keep voting until you get it right'). Brian Cowen has long since agreed to this because he thinks listening to Brussels is more important that listening to the Irish people.
More people voted against the antidemocratic Lisbon Treaty than in favor of it. A Financial Times poll indicated a vast majority of peoples in the EU wanted a halt to politicial integration and wanted a referendum.
And another thing, François Fillon was not elected but appointed.
Complain about this comment
The world does not need Brenton Woods 2.0; we did not need v1.0. When will Europe realize that they've been suffocating under their own beuracracy for the past half century?
The current financial crisis has alot to do with poor choices but more to do with poor governmental control structures that artificially maniuplate the foundation of the market.
People will always try to succeed, and if you allow them to, many will. The EU is operating on some sort of basis that it is clairvoyant, which we all know beuraucrats are quite the opposite. The EU benefits Europe like a pimp benefits a prostitute.
Complain about this comment
#22 - mcdv-1975
The European Parliament has to approve the budget. No approval, no budget. No budget, no EU. Your 'powerless parliament' has actually got the commission by the short and curlies. Remember the parliament - you voted for it?
Complain about this comment
Re post 24, so the Parliament does not approve the budget and as a result the M.E.P.'s do not get their salary or their bloated expenses. Let us know when that happens, probably be the same time Turkeys vote for Christmas
Complain about this comment
what makes the british different
Because we have nothing in common with you.
We drive on the left you drive on the right.
We have pints you have litres.
We have inch's you have centimetres.
The E.U. is the most corrupt organisation on earth.
In the last 2 hundred years we have been at war with every single one of you, [Portugal excepted]
We are British and want to remain so etc.etc
the EU as started to try and destroy britsh culture very slowly so you dont see it. eg metric measurements brought in by the EU.
Complain about this comment
#25 - jordanbasset
The budget was rejected in 1998 and again in 2005 when Tony Blair was responsible for preventing ratification. It is not as unusual as you might think for the Parliament to hold the Commission over a barrel and the Counsel has similar powers which are exercised in conjunction with Parliament.
The following is a brief description from the EU budget website.
"Both the annual internal and external auditors' reports on the management of Union funds are sent to the European Parliament and to the Council of Ministers. Each year, under what is known as the "discharge procedure", the European Commission and the other EU institutions are accountable to the European Parliament for the use made of the resources at their disposal. The Commission is obliged to take follow-up action on the conclusions reached and recommendations made under the discharge procedure by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers. Parliament, Council and the Court check on these follow-up actions".
But yes you are right. Unless the changes required are not in place before the new budget comes into effect, all payments cease, not only to parliament but the whole shooting match.
Complain about this comment
#26 - jaws1912
Britain has not been to war with Spain since 1808 or France since 1815. She has never been to war against Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, Poland, Denmark or Ireland. I don't think she has ever been to war with Sweden and certainly not in modern times. She has not been to war with Holland for at least 300 years. Slovenia and the Baltic Republics have, as far as I know, never been to war with Britain and for a good part of the last hundred years have been parts of larger countries.
So when you say that we have been to war with all of you over the past 200 years, you actually mean Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria. I am not sure whether you are perverting history to promote your cause or that you simply don't know your history. Either way it does not contribute to the debate.
I have heard metric measurements cursed for many reasons but never as a basis for corruption.
Complain about this comment
@threnodio (24)
I most certainly did not vote for this worthless parliament. Besides, this socalled 'parliament' wouldn't dare vote the budget down. The EU'd cease to exist and their gravy train would disappear.
The good thing would be is that 27 parliamentary democracies would be restored.
Complain about this comment
#28:
I believe UK was at war against Finland during WWII, (Finland, as a democracy, was semi-part of Axis, due to both of them fighting against USSR)
"I am not sure whether you are perverting history to promote your cause or that you simply don't know your history."
Eurosceptics perverting history to promote their cause? That can't be true! Next thing you will be telling me that Eurosceptics also like to pervert quotes from Churchill and other famous leaders.
#22: "which no elected parliament can reject"
European Parliament can both reject and amend legislations from the European Commission.
And although the European Commission has the legislation initiative most of the legislations it creates doesn't come from the European Commission itself but are usually 'suggestions' by member states, EU parliament etc.
Having said all that I do think that European Parliament should have the legislation initiative.
"And finally, I'm not British but Dutch."
Not surprised, besides the British only the Dutch are still bitter about Germany (don't bother denying it, you've given every EU institution a German nickname) and losing that World Cup final to them didn't help much either. :p
Complain about this comment
#29 - mcdv-1975
I dare say you didn't but you had the choice.
Nothing undermines a democracy so effectively as indifference.
Complain about this comment
#30 - Ticape
Finland.
Technically yes, but not a shot was fired.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ #32
There have been a lot of changes in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the 1900s.
Everyone seems to forget that the United Kingdom only got a universal education system within the UK from 1944.
During the Second World War and before that Finland was a place on the map of the globe that your average British citizen had never ever heard of - let alone would want to go to war with - as education was pretty much, but not entirely, exclusive to those parents who could afford private education.
Mind you, even now with the loss of the Tripartite Education System as required by the 1944 Education Act and its replacement by the wooly-minded Comprehensive Education system within the UK, Finland is still probably a place to which the average British Citizen would not be able to point out on the map of the Globe although the British have probably now been educated enough to know Finland IS where Santa Claus (aka Father Christmas) lives!
Complain about this comment
#30, Ticape,
So you naively believe that besides the British only the Dutch are still bitter about Germany, maybe you should visit the other European countries occupied by the Germans during WWII. The attitude in the UK is minimal since firstly the war was won, secondly we were never occupied and thirdly the bombers did far more damage to Germany than the UK received. That however is not the case in the formerly occupied countries as there are still many alive that experienced what happened. I've had many conversations about this with people in Belgium and also Czech Republic. I would also be surprised if the Polish people have forgiven either the Germans or the Russians for their occupation. As for linking this to a football match you obviously don't know either the UK or the result of 1966 or have you rewritten history in your mind as that was the only time England (not Britain) has been in the final since it started in 1930 and they won, Britain has never been in the FIFA World cup as the home countries compete individually.
As for your comment about #22: "which no elected parliament can reject", it was clear they were talking about member parliaments, since although your wonderfully powerful EU parliament, LOL, has a theoretical power it is rarely used since it would upset the gravy train. They act purely as a highly paid, talking shop that milks the taxpayers, and the surprising vote recently about car emissions probably had more to do with the impending 2009 elections and keeping their snouts in the trough than anything else.
Finally re "Eurosceptics perverting history to promote their cause? That can't be true! Next thing you will be telling me that Eurosceptics also like to pervert quotes from Churchill and other famous leaders." As others have often pointed out, once a rose tinted EU fanatic starts to make comments like that they've already lost the plot as it's been your failure to rewrite recent history to coincide with your PC view of the EU that makes the truth always come out. Remember you can fool some of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.
Complain about this comment
#33 - Menedemus
On a point of order, Mr.Chairman, Lapland is partially in Sweden, Norway and Russia as well as Finland. In order to resolve the problem, I suggest a triumvirate of Santa Clauses each representing NATO, Neutral and Russian Lapland, holding the presidency on a rotating basis, the deal to be monitored and guaranteed by the mayor of Lapland, Idaho.
Complain about this comment
Or better still, get Sarkozy to work it out - then nobody will know where the hell the borders are:-)
Complain about this comment
# 22. mcdv-1975 :
"First of all, Barroso was not elected by anyone, he was appointed."
So, a bit like the very much more powerful Condoleezza Rice who, you may remember got just one vote, Dubya's.
"Can the EU parliament initiate laws? No they cannot."
Which parliament can? Governments and their civil services "initiate" laws.
"Elected national politicians are increasingly putting the interest of Brussels ahead of the interest of those who elected them."
And what, pray, is the "interest of Brussels" and who are you to decide unilaterally that it's "ahead of the interest of those who elected them"?
" the EU politicians contacted Taoisech Brian Cowen and demanded another referendum"
Proof please. Such as an EU press release rather your opinion, a rant from a blog or an invented unsubstantiated report in a newspaper
"A Financial Times poll indicated a vast majority of peoples in the EU wanted a halt to politicial integration and wanted a referendum."
As pollsters know, phrase your question in the right way and you'll get people to agree to anything. I take it the FT poll involved millions of people across 27 countries? Probably not.
Complain about this comment
22. mcdv-1975:
"The EU is a massive gravy train for politicians who all relish such a job and will do nothing to endanger it. It was set up deliberately in such a way to appeal to politicians so they would always be 'loyal' to the system. "
Oops, I nearly missed this one. So, the United Kingdom Independence Party is loyal to the EU system. Hoo, hoo, ha, ha, tee hee. Oh do please keep the jokes coming. I haven't laughed so much in ages!
Complain about this comment
#34 - Buzet23
I think you need to get these things into perspective. My Hungarian partner lost family members in Auchwitz at about the same time as others were fighting for the Russians at Stalingrad only to be shot at 12 years later by the same army during the '56 uprising. At various stages in the war Budapest was bombarded by Brits, Americans and Germans. The whole point or having a proper historical perspective is to learn from it, not be bitter about it.
If there is one outstanding lesson to be learned from the past 100 years or so, it is that smaller nations will not allow themselves to be swallowed up and controlled by super power structures. One of the effects of admitting the accession tranche of '04 was to significantly dilute the power of France and Germany within the EU. Both are noticeably more malleable than hitherto and it should have escaped the attention of Euro watchers that, with most of these new arrivals being Atalantacists, there has abeen a significant shift towards the British position. I have posted before that Euro scepticism is not a British thing. It is widespread in eastern Europe and it is the ability of these nations to join together at times of difference that keeps Brussels on its toes and Berlin and Paris in line.
A recent concrete example has been the way in which these nations along with Italy have clubbed together to point out that, without more investment, CO2 emission targets are not realisable. Eastern European banks were not seriously exposed to the sub-prime fall out and should have been healthy but the guarantees made by governments in the west has caused a big exodus of deposits and eastern banks have suffered to the degree that have required help in some cases. The ECB has been very positive about this and stepped in with a bit under 8 billion for the Hungarian system. This is not a bail out. It is recognition that financial stability will help to keep the emissions strategy on course. It is, if you like, politcs with joined up writing.
The Euro sceptic tendency in the UK is prone to pointing out that the UK is quite capable of going it alone even in a global economy. But what has happened to the SNP's much vaunted 'arc of prosperity' in the last 2 weeks? Two Scotish banks would have drifted into oblivion were it not for UK Treasury intervention. Proof, as if any were needed, that Scotland may be able to go it alone but only within the bosom of the EU.
Small and perfectly formed may be beautiful but it is not viable. We already know that European countries have dealt with their security issues by being, for the most part, within a strong global alliance. It is now time to recognise that in the global market, the same is true for it's economic prospects. Arguments about the justifications for the EU and membership of it belong in the 20th century. The issue today is to ensure that it's institutions are as democratic and representative as they can be. You do not achieve this by cutting and running.
Complain about this comment
#34. Buzet23
"The attitude in the UK is minimal"
I can't speak for the British culture (if it exist in the first place) nor for the Scots or Welsh but do I really have to point out that the English have an unhealthy cultural obsession with Germany?
"As for linking this to a football match you obviously don't know either the UK"
And you obviously don't have any reading comprehension skills I was talking to mcdv-1975 a Dutchman, and therefore I was referring to the World Cup final of 1974 between West-Germany and the Netherlands. :-)
"it was clear they were talking about member parliaments, "
Yeh I know I misquoted which can happen. I was simply clarifying the powers of the European parliament, mcdv-1975 was twisting some minor facts about it.
And if you read my post carefully you would find that I agree with him at the end of my post. I'm such a funny little EU fanatic. :)
"As others have often pointed out, once a rose tinted EU fanatic starts to make comments like that they've already lost the plot as it's been your failure to rewrite recent history."
The plot has been lost when people start twisting historic facts for their own viewpoint, and if you really think that Eurosceptics don't do that then you're no different then a rose tinted EU fanatic. It happens in almost every discussion in this blog.
Complain about this comment
#38, greypolyglot,
I have to agree with your comment on UKIP, after getting quite a number of MEP's elected in the last European elections their representatives have shown a thoroughly typical attitude to the EU by easily slithering onto the gravy train. At least they could have rocked the boat occasionally or become whistle blowers on what the MEP's are up to.
I think until all MEP's expenses, attendances etc are fully publicised there can be no change to the gravy train. Maybe they should only be elected for two year periods which coupled with full disclosure of their expenses, attendances, achievements would mean that they can never relax when sitting down to their endless meals, poor misunderstood darlings.
PS. anyone here actually likely to get their name on the 2009 voting sheets for the next election to the EU gravy train.
Complain about this comment
#40, Ticape,
re "Not surprised, besides the British only the Dutch are still bitter about Germany (don't bother denying it, you've given every EU institution a German nickname) and losing that World Cup final to them didn't help much either."
Yes it was preceded by "And finally, I'm not British but Dutch." but if you don't understand the need to qualify which of the two nations you're talking about in your comment then it's you that has missed the language skills. Your comment started with "the British" not "the Dutch" and could equally apply to either.
As for the English have an unhealthy cultural obsession with Germany, if you can't speak for English, Scots or Welsh or even Irish you quite frankly just have an assumed opinion. The friendly rivalry that is between Germany and England is I think born of mutual respect, and I found working in Germany very interesting some years back. Where you've dreamt up the unhealthy cultural obsession bit I don't know, but if it's because we don't like the unhealthy power that France and Germany hold in the undemocratic EU then that's not an unhealthy obsession.
To #39, threnodio,
My comment was simply to illustrate to Ticape that there are still many in the EU that hold a grudge against occupation forces, whether they be German or Russian, but this is something I never met anywhere in the UK. You're right though in your comment that it's better to put that to one side and most I know here in Belgium have done just that but there are some that haven't. Just as my own family lost several members in WWII and WWI and even one sailor next to St Petersburg. These things happen and I think you're right, many of the smaller nations peoples are beginning to question the EU's direction to avoid once more being swallowed up. Even my Belgian friends who welcomed the EU because Belgium has been such a battleground over the years are not happy with it's direction and the thinking of their politicians.
Complain about this comment
#42 - Buzet23
I accept all that you write. I am just getting a touch of the fatigue factor with Eurosceptics spouting Rule Britannia, Bulldog Breed, all hands on deck isolationism. I am not saying they do not have a point of view. I just want arguments instead of rhetoric.
All political people are on a gravy train if they do not do what they are elected to do. You don't have to look far to find members of the Commons who have not stood up and spoken for years. It is not an especially European thing and it is not a valid argument.
Above all, I am fed up to the eye teeth with people telling me how undemocratic the EU is but show not the slightest inclination to do anything about it. Well life isn't always fair either. So what do you do about it? Change things for the better or beat a hasty retreat to the exit door?
If these people really do care about freedom and democracy, they should be looking closer to home. Or is what the Home Secretary proposes OK because it was not dreamed up in Brussels?
Complain about this comment
42. "but if you don't understand the need to qualify which of the two nations you're talking about in your comment then it's you that has missed the language skills. "
I'm speaking directly to the person, a Dutch man that alone would be enough for anyone to understand I was speaking about the Dutch.
Now if it were a stand alone sentence, so if I weren't responding to someone. The sentence between the round brackets isn't there then you would be quite correct about my grammatical error of not indicating of which nationality I'm talking about.
"Where you've dreamt up the unhealthy cultural obsession bit I don't know,"
Reading English opinions on various issues from various sources, watching their TV programs stuff like that.
"you quite frankly just have an assumed opinion"
Opinion about a person or a group of people tends to be an assumed opinion by default. You yourself have an assumed opinions about me (and I don't think it's a positive one ) also the 'we' in the following sentence:
"if it's because we don't like the unhealthy power that France and Germany hold in the undemocratic EU then that's not an unhealthy obsession."
is an assumed opinion ;)
Anyway my opinion regarding English unhealthy obsession with the Germans doesn't come from the France and Germany partnership.
As for the France and Germany partnership, I believe only Britain is able to split them apart and yet the only thing you guys do is complain about it.
Complain about this comment
#44 - Ticape
I think you are being a little extravagant about this. Over the best part of 55 years as an Englishman living mainly in that country, I have encountered very little in the way of obsession with the Germans. There was some sentiment in my parents' generation but I think that was understandable given that they had just emerged from a bloody and costly war.
The football thing and the "old enemy" phrase is just a bit of fun. Nobody means it seriously. Most nations are the butt of the English sense of humour (What do you call a German with a sense of humour? Austrian), but that too is harmless. It was actually a very 20th century thing. Previously the British had been at least as obsessed with German art, music and culture as with the French and, now that the British are so widely traveled, they are as cosmopolitan as any other Europeans.
As a matter of fact, now living in continental Europe, the people I tend not to mix with are the English.
Complain about this comment
#9
Best not exaggerate, some fool might believe you...
Complain about this comment
As a UK resident (but not citizen) I'm completely baffled by the insular understanding of European history which is presented by some posters here, as well as the lack of knowledge of the circumstances and motivations of the formation of the EU. Seems that the motto is, let's not have facts get in the way of well-opinionated prejudices...
Why EU? For starters, just read up on any part of the history of this continent - any, 500 AD or 1918 it doesn't really matter, and ask which of the current states actually existed or where their borders were. You would be surprised if you checked up on say, Poland or Hungary. In fact a hundred years ago not even half the current countries existed. So what sense is there in strong independent nation states the likes of the Slovak Republic, Latvia or Slovenia? They only really make sense as part of as part of an integrated Europe.
Furthermore, both Greece and Spain when they came out of dictatorship have essentially had their stability as democracies guaranteed by acceptance into the EU. And the multitude of Central and Eastern European states were virtually 'prised' out of the Soviet Empire by virtue of integration into the EU. Many other countries are still aspiring to become a part of it, with all its imperfections. So the political Europe (not just the economic one) has been very instrumental indeed in making Europe as democratic as it is now.
There is so much overlap between the territories, people and their shared histories that no one in their right mind would want any kind of borders come up again. (Incidentally, what do you think Ryanair is making its money with? Mostly flying all the foreign European workers into the UK and home again - and Easyjet, flying British to their second homes in France and Spain). The point is also not so much membership of the EU - for example neither Switzerland or Norway are, but are adapted to its regulations to such an extent that they could join at any time. In fact, Switzerland is now even part of the Schengen group of states (which the UK is not) and has abolished all its land borders.
The 'France and Germany partnership' has hardly been the main driving force people make it out to be. In fact the two countries stand for almost opposing ideas of Europe, but precisely because they have, in the past, so frequently forced themselves to come together, new initiatives have sprung from this and moved stalled European policies forward again.
It has been the choice of past UK governments to largely stand back and not take part in the policy-forming business of Europe - so if you don't take part, don't complain if you don't get the Europe you want (or even none, if that's what you want). And nobody forced the UK to join, in fact Thatcher had to keep on trying to get the country admitted - so blame your own subsequent governments for being in, not Brussels!
It also seems to me that the severe deficiencies of the British political system are completely ignored and instead all negatives blamed on Brussels. Rather the opposite is the case, most forward looking policies which empower people rather than governments, employees rather than industrialists, local rather than central government have originated in Brussels.
Granted, the further away the seat of power is the less people tend to feel represented - but that could be said for the UK as well the further you get away from London.
Where is the second chamber of parliament which would in almost all countries represent the regions? Where is the power of the local authorities to deal with local matters? They have virtually no money so no clout either. Elected mayors with actual power? Thanks to a weird election system and all power concentrated in the hands of the PM and his/her cabinet, Britain would be, if it wasn't for devolution, probably the most centralist country in the Western World.
So if we talk about democratic representation, the dilution of national power by Brussels which (for England) is now almost entirely concentrated in London can only be a good thing for its people. At least I never suffered from the illusion that British governments of any colour had much of an interest in its people's needs - big business and the financial services industry were far too important for that. Maybe they are going to rediscover them now.
Complain about this comment
41. Buzet23:
"#38, greypolyglot,
I have to agree with your comment on UKIP, after getting quite a number of MEP's elected in the last European elections their representatives have shown a thoroughly typical attitude to the EU by easily slithering onto the gravy train."
I was actually giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they were abiding by their elections promises. But if think they're a bunch of self-serving backsliders, well ...........
Complain about this comment
#21 youve got it spot on!
Im sure not all britons dislike europe just the few that run all the righty-newspapers and another few thousand who think they can run the country even with their minority status.
#22 The EU has been set up over the last 60 years through all its constituent forms EC,ECSC etc as Winston Churchill once said " to provide a lasting peace in Europe" via the creation of a United States of Europe. Believe it or not he said that, because he had just guided a country through the bloodiest war in human history and understood that a lasting peace in Europe could only be created by making Europe one nation, or if you want a Federal Republic. It seems to have worked so far wouldnt you agree? Only minorities within the EU are against these great plans, would you yourself deny your great-great grandchildren a bright future in a modern Superpower state with no internal borders, a free trade zone, a bulwark of culture and diplomacy against a resurgent Russia. Would you deny your son or daughter that?
Complain about this comment
@ticape (30)
I've given all parts of the supreme government of Europe (EU) German names? I'd hardly call 'politburo' a German name. Politicheskoye Buro is very much a Russian term.
And I haven't been 'bitter' about Germany or that World Cup final which happened before I was born, ever. Certainly not since 1988, when we beat them in their own house on the road to the European championship. As a matter of fact, go back far enough in family tree and you'll find I am a German (so are most Anglos and Saxons, by the way).
@threnodio (31)
why bother voting when that socalled 'parliament' doesn't really affect things, and the real power lies elsewhere. Its like voting for mayor and then finding out they've passed all his powers up to the provincial governor. Pointless.
@greypolyglot (37)
Rice is not acting as president of the American commission, now is she? No the US of America has a president which is decided after a popular vote in each of its constituent states.
In Europe, this 'president' (soon to be one of two presidents, after they shove Lisbon down our throats) is appointed in a back room deal between heads of government and state who were never empowered by anyone to create this layer of government in the first place. Same goes for the 'high commissioner of foreign policy -providing all 27 member states can be bullied into acquiescence-', in other words the function that the EU would like to put on par with US secretary of state.
And your reply to the FT poll. Well, how do you think the Eurobarometer always happenes to agree with the 'Commission'? Who are they polling? EU employees?
@threnodio (43)
I've said many times, the system cannot be reformed, it is immune to reform. The system needs to be deconstructed right down to the ground and reconstructed bottom up (rather than top down, which they did).
Step #1 is getting a popular mandate for any level of 'political integration'. The current setup was done without peoples consent and without any mandate from anyone. The politicians simply usurped the powers of the national institutions and transferred them to a new layer of government without asking the peoples for permission. That is utterly unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
#47 - kuhmassy
As a UK ctizen but not a resident, I have to take issue with some your history.
The Slovak Republic (more properly called Slovakia) is a distinctive country in it's own right. It's language is similar to, but not the same as Czech. It is actually the Czech Republic which is more artificial being the old Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia. Slovakia was also part of the Empire but by virtue of having been a province of the old Kingdom of Hungary. Latvia - along with Estonia and Lithuania - were independent states until they were absorbed into the USSR by Stalin following liberation from Nazi Germany and they are Nordic rather than Slav. The Latvian and Estonian languages in particular bear a striking resemblence to Finnish and (along with Hungarian) come from the same family of languages. Spain did not suddenly discover democracy. Rather it was restored on the accession of King Juan Carlos. Greece had been a democracy from the end of the post World War civil war until the military junta deposed King Constantine.
My friends and family in eastern Europe would take great exception to the idea of being 'prised' out of the Soviet Empire. They were for the most part unwilling participants in the great socialist adventure and seizeded the moment in 1989-90 to finally achieve what they failed to do in 1956 (Hungary) and 1968 (Czechoslovakia).
It is not the case that past UK governments have stood back from policy making. It was not for nothing that they were known for many years as the 'bad boys' of Europe for fighting rear guard actions against some of the more outlandish proposals that appeared from time to time. The UK has played a major role in shaping swathes of the European project.
As to the "severe dificiencies" in the British political system, you are clearly on the wrong blogs as there is a vigorous debate going on (try Nick Robinson's blog). Where are the second chambers? (I assume you are not asking about the Lords) - Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. Local Authorities have no money? Enough it seems for Kent County Council to have a cool 15 billion statched away in Iceland. Elected mayors with executive powers? Currently there are 12 in England and Wales out of 36 local authorities where referenda took place, the other 24 having rejected the plan. When the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (2007) comes into force, all LAs with a population of 85,000 or more will have a choice between an elected mayoralty and cabinet or a council leader system based on the Swedish model, each serving for a four yer term.
I am on the same side of the arguement as you but I make the same point that I made earlier to the Euro sceptics. History is history and revisionism does not do your cause any favours any more than for the anti-Europeans and neither does cherry picking aspects of the constitution that best suit your argument.
Complain about this comment
To those who, like me, hate and despise the "EU" and cannot wait for us to leave:
You have a right not to answer this question, but if you are prepared to answer it: How are you going to vote at the next elections to the "EU" - parliament?
I think I am going to have to vote for UKIP. I am far from being totally happy with UKIP. I wish they did not have policies on nuclear power etc. I wish they had two main policies - get us out of the "EU" and reform the useless system that got us in and has kept us in.
I cannot vote for the BNP. I haven't read their manifesto but I have heard some of their voters speak. Here a horrible example: "Jews cause all the wars in the world. They own all the armaments factories." I repeat that I consider this statement to be absurd and dangerous.
I haven't got the resources, but I would think it wonderful if somebody formed a new anti-"EU" party along the lines given above. Just being anti-Lisbon is not enough for me.
So please, if you are anti-"EU" or anti-Lisbon, let me know what you intend to do.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#50 - mcdv-1975
"Step #1 is getting a popular mandate for any level of 'political integration'."
Now - at last - common ground. If you can't beat them (and you can't), change them!
Complain about this comment
#51 - thanks for your comments.
The national identity in the Czech Republic is much stronger than Slovakia (although denied 'nationhood' by the Austrian empire in the same way as Hungary achieved it), since the former has always been the industrial powerhouse of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. But anyway both were just provinces of Austria and Hungary respectively within the same Empire, and apart from a Slovak state from 1939-45 have only been separate states since 1993, mainly for political not ethnic reasons.
The Baltic states very briefly independent between the wars but with Stalin's Russia as a neighbour that was not bound to last.
Lithuania has a rich history shared with Poland ruling over large areas of what is now Ukraine. Estonia has indeed a language closely related to Finnish, but Latvian just like Lithuanian is an entirely different, ancient Baltic language not related to any of its neighbours'. Both Latvia and Estonia still have about 40% ethnic Russian population (although not keen to acknowledge it) so aren't all that Nordic anymore.
All this just goes to show what a patchwork Europe is and how silly it would be to consider anything else but integration - not necessarily in the way in which the Eurocrats are trying to do it, but that's a different discussion.
Of course all countries incl. Slovakia have their own history but identities and populations are overlapping to such an extent that many borders become irrelevant, and would certainly be disastrous for trade.
Of course the people of Central and Eastern Europe were more than keen to regain their freedom - I didn't suggest otherwise, but their governments had other ideas until 1990 (and it they did actually agree like briefly in Hungary and Prague, they were stopped by the Soviets!)
and like it or not it was the European Union (with a little bit of help from NATO) which has been instrumental in allowing a mostly safe and quick transition to Western-style democracies, opening up new markets for our industries.
I remember vividly how in 1989/1990 it wasn't clear at all how all this 'marching in the streets' would end and I doubt that anyone could have imagined that all these old-new countries would become EU member states (some with even the Euro) so shortly afterwards.
As for Spain, under Franco for decades, it certainly had to rediscover democracy and any Spanish you ask will be happy to confirm that both the influence of their King and the EU with its stabilising effect and support have helped greatly to prevent a backlash by the new Socialist government with all possible outcomes this could have had.
We seem to take for granted that such transitions happen smoothly and peacefully but this is actually by no means by default, as the painful examples of Romania (briefly) and Yugoslavia have shown, and currently Kosovo.
As for the UK, I'm glad to hear that besides devolution to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast local authorities across England are supposed to get some power - at the moment they have virtually none, apart from London (the regional assemblies are a joke and I'm not even sure if they still get elected). All important decisions for England are made in Westminster, even the way councils collect rubbish or subsidise transport has been prescribed.
You seem to confirm that the influence which the UK has had on European policies has been mostly negative. Most major policies have been initiated elsewhere and by the time a workable directive emerged, the UK has had its input just like most other participants did. That's hardly 'shaping Europe', and Britain has never been regarded as the 'motor' of European integration. But that's hardly what the majority of British want anyway, or is it?
History is not 'just history' but explains rather a lot how we came to be where we are - for example it explains why it is the overwhelming desire of most Europeans to live in a unified, peaceful Europe as the EU has helped create.
I don't see how revisionism comes into that at all, nor the constitution debate - that is a different story altogether.
Ignore history at your peril - bickering about current European directives becomes totally irrelevant when seen within the larger historic and geo-political picture.
Complain about this comment
#54 - kuhmassy
All good points. I think it may be because I now live in eastern Europe that I have become somewhat sensitive to the idea that these are somehow small entities with few historic roots and little right to play a role in the larger scheme of things. Mercifully, this is not the case and they have proved that, acting together, they can influence the future of the EU decisively. They have also contributed significantly in adjusting the balance of power away from the Paris-Berlin Axis.
I think it is a mistake to characterise the UK contribution as negative. The UK's problem, if it has one, is that it fights tooth and nail against reforms it does not like because once passed, EU law tends to be enforced in the UK far more rigidly than elsewhere. Other countries can afford to be more relaxed when you realise that they have no intention of fully implementing what they are agreeing to.
Complain about this comment
threnodio and kuhmassy,
An interesting discussion to which I am much along the same lines, the differences in the various cultures, origins etc are very much still there and rather than becoming marginalised by a federal EU, it seems that the federal direction of the EU is increasing peoples awareness of their cultural heritage in a negative way. The BBC articles on the current problems in Belgium are a good example of this and the latest and last article reaches the conclusion that Belgium was held up to be the model of a future federal Europe, and that it's problems now reflect equally the disunity across the EU. Being part of the Belgium situation I have lost count of the number of discussions I've listened to on it in my commune and there seems to be no one hopeful of a workable solution under the current electoral format. I would suggest posters read the BBC's article as it's pretty accurate to what I've experienced here and applies equally to the feelings of many about the direction in which the EU has been taken.
I also hope the smaller new entrant countries will build in confidence and not be content to follow the party line of France and Germany. Once that happens the UK can be more involved as it's views are often more aligned with the Northern and Eastern countries vision of an EU. If that happens the UK can become one of the motors of the EU but up until now the UK is marginalised because it's views of federalism etc run counter to those of France and Germany.
#50, mcdv-1975,
I could not agree more about your comment to ticape about all our common origins, migration has always been there whether over short or long distances.
#44 ticape,
You have assumed the Dutch poster does not have dual nationality i.e. Dutch and British, in these days many have dual Nationality due to the way the EU has evolved, myself included, so please don't assume anything, qualify your comments so that nothing is left open to interpretation. That is what was radically missing from the Lisbon treaty BTW and even with the last revision/update it was still open to multiple interpretation which is one of the reasons the Irish rejected it and so many of us on this blog do not trust it i.e. the 'we' I was referring to in my post but true, I did not qualify my sentence.
PS. re assumed opinions by "Reading English opinions on various issues from various sources, watching their TV programs stuff like that." Don't forget most media is very much state controlled, politicised and PC. For accurate views I would suggest trying canvassing for votes for a candidate you support in the next election. It's a very interesting experience as you generally meet people other than the activists and action group spokespersons whose views pretty much dominate the media sources.
Complain about this comment
I don't know where you "learnt your history" , though if it was in an English school (as I did) it doesn't surprise me you have such a poor knowledge and understanding particularly of the eastern half of Europe. I would strongly recommend a weekend spent reading Norman Davies' standard text " a History of Europe". That should clear up all the errors!
Complain about this comment
As to the Poles "playing to the gallery" they have to deal with hard facts such as :
1. Electricity generation in Poland is over 95% coal burning dependent.
2. The construction of nuclear power stations has historically been blocked directly as a result of the Chernobyl disaster close next door in the Ukraine.
3. Renewable resourses are as follows: wind power minimal due to the distance from an oceanic coastline. Hydro power limited in possibilities and more so by environmentalists who want to retain "wild, natural rivers". Solar power limited by climate.
4. replacing coal by natural gas is all very well except that it would make the country 100% dependent on Russia.
So the obvious choise is coal (black and brown) with suitable filters on the chimneys...but the EU wants to penalise this.
5. It should be pointed out that 96% of the Earth's output of greenhouse gases is by the Earth's oceans in the form of water vapour (clouds). Only 4% is other gases such as CO2. Of these human beings breath out far more CO2 than all the world's cars....Add to that animals producing both CO2 and methane gas from their droppings.... Forest cover is of course the principal method of absorbing CO2 . Poland has 25% natural forest cover. Poor quality land is being cultivated with planted woodland which will further increase forest cover and therefore absorb more CO2, generating oxygen in the process.(Humans need oxygen, plants need CO2).
6.France has over 80% of its electricity nuclear generated. Therefore CO2 targets promoted by Sarkozy are there to provide the French with a head start and grossly unfair economic advantage. It should also be pointed out that Eastern Europe has quantifiably reduced its CO2 emissions over the past twenty years whereas western Europe has actually increased them.....!
Complain about this comment
58, mikewarsaw,
I must admit your points 2, 3 and 6 are especially spot on and certainly 2 and 3 are applicable in many countries across the EU. I was reading an article today about some new wind turbines in France producing 2 megawatts each compared to the 2600 megawatts of a neighbouring nuclear station. it was also pointed out that the 2 MWatts is only when at full speed and if it's not too cold. There is a lot of eco terrorist bulls**t being spouted about climate change and most of the so called eco friendly solutions are highly expensive, under performing and often constructed by materials that are even worse pollutants as was pointed out in the report I read.
Your point 6 is something that I've long complained about concerning the French as you always need to examine anything they propose to see whether it primarily benefits France.
Complain about this comment
#57 - mikewarsaw
Who was that intended for?
Complain about this comment
ref threnodio comment 60:
a general comment to "little englanders" and other nationalists. The problem with history is that everyone reads into facts their own interpretations based on poor knowledge and phobias. A classic example is Sir Francis Drake : "England's hero" and "Spain's worst criminal pirate" or for example "the French view of history" whereby Napoleon was Europe's greatest European, bringing the benefits of the superior French culture and civilisation to the rest of backward (implied) Europe, forgetting that if he had been born two years' earlier he would have been Genoan....he actually spoke French with a strong Genoan/Corsican accent!
Complain about this comment
#61 - mikewarsaw
OK - thank you.
I am getting a bit tired of being told that I am perverting history to suit my own purposes.
Since I am in very much the same camp as you, our view of modern history is probably much the same with the same added piquancy of first hand experience of eastern Europe.
Even so, one cannot change the facts, whatever spin one puts on them. I share you view. Those who want to revert to the glory days of empire have no grasp of reality and nothing to contribute to 21st century thinking.
At least its not my history that's rubbish :-)
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ #62
mikewarsaw @ #61
Put 3 Historians together in a padded cell and they could have a lovely party.
One would have one view of history, another would have to opposite view and the third would revise it anyway he/she liked!
Complain about this comment
#50 mcdv-1975
"I'd hardly call 'politburo' a German name. Politicheskoye Buro is very much a Russian term."
Kommissar is however German.
#56. Buzet23
"You have assumed the Dutch poster does not have dual nationality i.e. Dutch and British, in these days many have dual Nationality"
You are right I didn't assume that (even though Dutch nationality law is quite strict regarding dual nationality) so I'll apologize for creating a misunderstanding between us, I should have clarified what nationality I was talking about.
"Lisbon treaty BTW and even with the last revision/update it was still open to multiple interpretation which is one of the reasons the Irish rejected it and so many of us on this blog do not trust it"
This one of the many reasons why the treaty was rejected (although I seriously doubt that the majority of Irish voters actually managed to read the treaty).
"Don't forget most media is very much state controlled, politicised and PC. "
I wouldn't say most media is state controlled, most media however are controlled by (an) individual(s) who has a certain viewpoint and forces his viewpoint through the media he owns.
Complain about this comment
#64, Ticape,
re the Lisbon treaty, I did try to read it and the original form was almost impossible to read. After the update in April or May it was much better but it was still such ambiguous language that it could easily be interpreted in multiple ways, especially with all the cross referencing that is embedded. I think your comment about how many Irish actually managed to read it would equally apply to most of the EU. Unfortunately I can't believe it was written to be read and understood, and I think the originators badly misunderstood the Irish, and many others across the EU.
Re the media, you're right the media tycoon does control as well as the government. Put them together as in the UK and the reportage is, well, not worth listening to or reading most often.
PS. dual Nationality was difficult in many countries some while back but certain EU 'initiatives' etc have meant that it is a necessity these days as the nationality criteria has replaced the residency criteria for many many legalities e.g. driving licences.
Complain about this comment
Re 26: lol, you forget to mention that what makes you so different is that you're the only people in the EU who can't spell their language properly. So much for "them foreigners" taking your culture away :-)
Complain about this comment
Re 51: threnodio your otherwise excellent account of history bears some inaccuracies and opens some questions.
What makes Czech more "artificial" than Slovakia? All countries are artificial, and I fail to understand your rationale behind "natural" Slovakia and "artificial" Czech.
You forget to mention that Baltic states have been independent *for*20*years* between being part of the Russian Empire and the III Reich. Latvian is a Baltic tongue that has nothing to do with Estonian, which is classified as Finno-Ugric; it is mutually intelligible with Finnish. Hungarian and Finnish, although both classified as Finno-Ugric, are not so closely related as purported; some linguists have questioned the relationship.
"Nordic" refers to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and, sometime, Iceland. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are not "Nordic", but the term is just political jargon and has no linguistic meaning. So no "Nordic" languages in linguistics.
The current Spanish King was nominated by Franco as his successor. So no democracy until free elections were held. The King is unelected, and as such undemocratic.
Greece has had 4 years of civil war between 1945 and 1949 during which it could hardly be described as a functioning democracy. It was, with Korea, one of the first stages for cold war. The "West" prevailed in Greece, but when things started to shift too much towards the USSR the CIA helped in installing the military in power in 1967.
You must have a select club of friends of family and friend in "Eastern Europe". I know many persons from Czech, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, Ukraine, Hungary, who are not so strict in their views as your acquaintances about their position regarding the "shift" to the West. But hey, the EU pays cash, while those Soviet thugs were only taking the good stuff away... so it's better now, in a sense.
Complain about this comment
kuhmassy @54, "Lithuania has a rich history shared with Poland ruling over large areas of what is now Ukraine" - well capped in one sentence.
Every single piece of poetry in Ukrainian language of centuries No 18 and No 19 - is long sad poems moaning about Polish bosses.
Also about Turkish folks somehow.
Now they are busy putting in corrections to insert some moans abour "damn muscovites". Hard work because many lines don't rhyme anymore, but new editions top sales charts in the St. Petersburg "House of Books" because it is extraordinary fun.
School text books in Ukrainian (and we understand the language), since 2007, boldly state that: "History of Ukrainians as a nation numbers 140,000 years." one hundred forty thousand.
Now this is an ambitious number; more so as one has to fit the time-frame with examples of oppression and depression caused by Russia.
We are intrigued what'll be put in the space of 139,000 years and wait for more books.
Complain about this comment
BTW, we're learning fast.
Not fast, Russians don't catch things fast.
Our mode of operation is "lose centuries to harness - but then ride fast."
Anyway seems finally we got the angle; for a long time we were offended by "museums of Soviet occupation" springing up here n there in the Baltic states.
Offended and offended, but what to do, "on the angry ones they drive the water from the well."
Now, what do I see on TV ? surprise surprise. Of 17 schools in S.Osetia only 5 were fixed from bombs by the school year opening time. But ! apparently bricks and cement were found enough to open a new glossy building :"Museum of Georgian occupation."
TV also informed me a branch will be open in Abkhasia shortly. For next generations to get their history streamlined, without any nonsence, and all.
Complain about this comment
History of Ukrainians as a nation numbers 140,000 years."
You cant be serious about that.
We struggle to remember 7000 years of history.
The idea of a Ukrainian nation 140,000 years old is laughable
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud,
that's the beaty of it! But that's what their 12 year olds get at school. Now you do understand the anticipation, in which we're awaiting new revelations. and new books arrival in Ukr.
Recent one was Gogol, the most famous Ukr. writer. Their equivalent of our Dostoevsky or something. A problem was discovered with him, that is, he stubbornly wrote all his volumes in Russian. So they translated him back! You don't know these languages, so you can't imagine how funny it is. Ukrainian was like a small dialect, existing alongside Russian, but having much fewer words to describe various things.
Like, like we in Russia are borrowing foreign words for things we didn't invent, like if it is galoshes - it is galoshes, you don't translate them back as? "wet walkers", management is management, fax is fax and all. Gogol wrote in russian simply because he had a rich dictionary and didn't want to limit himself by language that doesn't have enough words to tell whatever he wanted to tell.
But now Ukraine translated him back, in the manner where galoshes become "wet walkers" and it is so funny you can't imagine. Like, like if you'd take Shakespeare and re-print him in? Welsh - don't know - Wales must have enough words for things, may be, imagine, Shakespeare in gaelic. gaelic
Complain about this comment
Hi Alice,
Your post amuses me, it's somewhat reminiscent of the French attitude where everything has to be converted into a seemingly French word. It seems their language commission hates things like weekend etc that are commonly used in francophone countries and as for translating IT words, LOL. Fun isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, yes, like that.
France does have the most pleasantly sounding language, we all agree on that I am sure, so no wonder they consider it a national treasure and guard it nervously.
To language preservation there are many approaches in the world, to be on the cautious side must be the French one. Ukraine def. follows in the same fairway.
I don't know - does France guard French from the English only? or from other influences as well?
Russian has got may be dozens of hundredths of English words recently. All that we didn't invent - which is all management parlance, hi-tech things, to say nothing of banking, because what is original Russian banking?! better not to mention for the night. and legal terms, and IT. Many linguists complained and predicted disasters, arranged var. round tables what to do with the invasion, but then all somehow relaxed and forgot about it.
Absolutely nothing happened to Russian from a good foreign dose, it is live and kicking, and healthy processes English words by applying grammar and inclinations, equips with prefixes and suffixes, forms plurals, and basically all this is fun.
I understand when you are small, like var. small languages in Russia, where text-books are printed for schools with 4,500 people of total language holders.
This is brink of extinction so all measures are justified, state financing, var. props, all to save. But with the big ones! What's that the language who can't stand for itself but gets dropsys and convulsions from a foreign word (or a thousand).
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, so that you get an idea what we do with foreign words - and English is excellent for construction, as it consists of bare roots very often. I wrote now on a piece of paper 17 forms of the word "fax".
That are common words in print. And 11 more that we use in speech so far only.
How do you manage with two instead of 28 ? Incredible.
:-)
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland, I think that has always been the advantage of English, it does not need to be complicated by multiple forms of a word even though it has the largest dictionary and they are there. As in all things, the simpler it is explained the less ambiguous it is and the more easy it is to understand it. Whilst the French is indeed a pleasant musical language it is not practice to write in ten words what you can write in forty words, thus even a simple French text is very lengthy and often difficult for even a francophone to understand.
As for the French language commission protecting itself against other non-English languages that is possible as the Dutch language commission is quite active although they do seem to use a lot of English words especially in IT.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23,
clarity has enourmous advantages indeed.
That's why English language (plus other heavy reasons) is so eagerly embraced in many parts of the world, as int'l lingua.
And the very amount of words in English
I heard is 7 times bigger than Russian. By taking key forms and "roots", how to say, when you don't count "has" and "have" as two different ones, neither in English nor in Russian.
This reflects the in-put to the world of English-speaking people in various industries and areas, who'd invent, observe, create something - and naturally call the new process or a thing by an own name.
(BTW with 17 and 11, I clean forgot to think ab "fax" as a verb. I thought about it only as a noun or an adjective. Add Russian equivalents of "she should have faxed", "I will fax" - roughly, I'd get a clear 50-70 words more.
And if to add the attitude! to the noun! all the caressing suffixes, like "my dear little silly fax" - in one word - "why don't you work?" or - "you big and awful bulky pre-historic disaster" - one word again - "it's time to throw you away". )
and all the Russian hard work on accommodating at home the alien word "fax" - to the dogs! because who needs faxes now! that's what you do to us!
Buzet23, next time you wonder why Russians don't think about improving life at home - don't wonder!
Russian minds are busy adding suffixes and pre-fixes to the thousands of new arriving English words - that you caressly toss over.
On the sunny side - clarity is nice, of course. Complexity and multi-variant thinking training has own advantages. How to say, more connections get formed in one's brain.
To put it simply - look at a fax machine on your desk. Try to call it 28 names. Until you can't - don't sit, how to say, at the table to play chess with Kremlin.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23,
sorry, have to bring on a self-correction.
First, complexity is not so healthy. Looked up in the web, linguists say not fit for modern times. Russian can be used for meditation only.
Second, we are losing it. Russian is shrinking. Stopped making words for the whole Soviet time period. Froze. And is, moreover, forgetting old words.
What root made 140 sprigs (and new words) in 1910 - now has only 41 sprigs. (love). We aren't doing well. On this "love" parameter.
Another root that had 17 sprigs - is 7 by 1982.
Etc.
_______
Anyway, on "complexity".
- Why are you so nervous? Quarreled with the wife?
- No.
- Then what's wrong with you?
- Nothing. Just been to a cafe together with Garry Kasparov.
- And?
- The table-cloth was checkered.
- So?
- He was passing me the salt for 1 hour and a half.
Complain about this comment
Very funny Nanotchka.
Pepper takes salt, checkmate :-)
You like the sound of the spoken French language? To me it sounds like francophones are speaking through their noses. Italian for me is the most melodious language. That is why it is perfect for opera. German sounds the worst.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland: From an English language perspective, a closer analogue to a Ukrainian translation of Gogol might be a Scots translation of Adam Smith. (That is, analogous only from the perspective of mutual intelligibility - I don't think that 'wet walker'-style replacement words are coined in Scots.) Perhaps something like
It isna frae the guidness o the flesher, the brewster, or the baxter that we bode wir tea, but frae thair regaird til thair ain interest.
(This is doubtlessly a poor attempt to illustrate the point.)
Could the missing Russian 'sprigs' be due to the older dictionary being more complete ? Or are all of those missing older meanings simply no longer used ? Certainly there must be tens of thousands of English words which are rarely used in modern speech.
Buzet23: Rather than multiple forms of a word, English tends to collect multiple words for one concept - for example, Anglo-Saxon wrath, Norse anger, Norman ire - and then keeps all of them by developing subtle shades of difference between them.
MarcusAureliusII: Yes, French does have nasal vowels, but I do not view that as a disqualification. In fact, I'd go farther along the nasal path and offer the gentle caresses of Portuguese, as found in Brazilian jazz. If you think that the sound of German is unmelodic, try comparing it to the sound of any language with a pharyngealised glottal stop.
Complain about this comment
Aha, Mavrelius is back to town. With the same nano-technological attitudes to me.
I thought you'd be busy making money in the crisis... but must be you are finished,
I mean, up, with the process. and can think about abstract things again.
Jan_Keeskop and MA the Second.
I don't know, ab French. One is supposed to like the sound, universally?
They are like happy fed cats by sound (which I find the best music in the world) (because what else an owner needs, for the peace of mind? heavy-weight cat, smiling and singing, plus a cold nose). don't know where the sound it is formed, in cats.
Italian indeed must equal the word melody.
We don't get it much here, to compare, and French was the 2nd Russian language, if not the first one, in the 19th century.
I once tried to learn it, some monsters sold me a month or two of learning French at a summer class in Paris. As I arrived there with 3: "Good day, excuse me, and I live in Moscow" - in exactly the same condition I departed two months later. (Once I asked a small English girl to translate me the mark in my diploma. She looked at me sympathetically and explained "Alice, it is, let's say, "average.")
The thing is study sellers forgot to explain me it is the Catholic Institute of France, that teaches foreigners when normal students vacate the monastery in summer. I knew things are getting out of hand when a lady in a hood and long grey gown showed me (by signs) to my room. Tiny prizon cell with bare white wals, 2 metre crucified Christ figure on it, a spartan narrow soldier bed, and a curious long hard tube instead of a plillow. Breakfast and me never met, because all starts there early by Russian standards, and I am an extreme owl in habits at that. At 9am began classes where I tried my best to keep eyes open, but by the time I woke up it all ended. I am absolutely unable to absorb any info in the early dawn (before 3-4 pm). The class consisted of boys, which is a fine environment in my mind, but they proved to be all wrong and boring. Wore cute little collars backwards - which - mind it - didn't hint me a thing! - until the graduation ceremony in the town hall, where I turned around - and saw my whole class in long brown robes - with sandals under on bare feet! They were all monks! One of them was telling a story, indeed, at a lesson, how he wakes up, crawls out of his cave or something to the daylight, brushes his teeth, goes to the cemetery nearby, but back then I thought it is my bad French and I am sleepy to understand him correct.
To top it all the monsatery closed doors at 10 pm. In Paris. In the evening. At 10 pm.
Which meant all walk and travel and go to the restaurants and have fun, and I am the only one in Paris who has to drop all at 8pm and run hysterically back to the monastery from whenever I am, before the gates slam. Several times friends from the company where I worked back then, Paris branch, collected money together in the middle of the partying "For Alice to spend night in a hotel tonight" and all was totally unbearable and awful hot in July as well, streets were melting. I sent all the studies to hell as hopeless, and took to waking up when I can, and go explore Paris and nearby towns instead. This was great and wonderful, but somehow I was so happy I got out of this Paris adventure eventually, that I remember as now looking at the plane wing when it was taking off, with extreme relief France is getting off away from me finally, and thoughts type never, never again.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Wow! Those are some huge changes! I CAN SEE WHY YOU STARTED THE EUROPEAN UNION. 1. They did what America wanted, 2. They gave the Bankers the poor peoples money, 3. They agreed to a need for regultions, but didn't do it, 4. They agreed to not protect the enviroment! You certainly wouldn't have that happening under the bad old nation states. How silly, just what the world needed another large purposeless bureacracy.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS