Rule change bears fruit
"I eat first with my eyes," a woman tells me in a Brussels supermarket. "I am not going to eat deformed potatoes. I am sorry, I may be wrong but that's the way it is."
She is unusual, or at least unusually frank, for most of the shoppers tell me what you expect to hear these days, that it is flavour and nutrition, not appearance, that are important. 
"
I am talking to them in a supermarket with not a deformed potato in sight. Well, they wouldn't be on sale, for they are banned under a set of European Union rules that have invited more ridicule than just about anything else. They set out the 20mm minimum diameter of the Brussels sprout and the exact permitted curvature of the cucumber.
These are now being scrapped. The rules covering 26 vegetables are going. The Commission agriculture spokesman Michael Mann told me: "We just don't think this should be regulated at European Union level. We are aware we get a lot of stick for this and we agree it shouldn't really be done by us, much better if the trade does it itself. We are living in an area of high food prices it makes no sense whatsoever that perfectly good fruit and vegetables are being thrown away because they don't meet a standard. In future you'll be able to sell any shape of apple you want in a supermarket."
Mind you, some rules remain in place for the 10 biggest sellers, including apples, tomatoes, grapes and lemons. In those cases countries can decide to allow wonky examples of these vegetables to be sold with a special label. So a supermarket may have a basket of wrinkly, less attractive apples for a more attractive price.
But I wonder if they will. These sorts of rules designed to enforce a uniform common market aren't exactly the EU's thing any more, perhaps because all the regulations were introduced ages ago. But whenever I do search for disgruntled manufacturers or exporters unhappy about a planned EU directive standardising their product, I often find that the majority are happy that there are Europe-wide rules, so they don't have to have legal teams and paperwork to meet 27 different national standards.
I've just heard that 16 countries - mainly the big fruit and veg producers - voted against today's rule change. Because of the system of qualified majority voting they didn't get their way, but it does go to prove the point that what Brits are conditioned to think of as the product of "barmy Brussels bureaucrats" is often - perhaps always - the will of the nation states.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I'm fed up with this EU thing.. i don't want to hear anymore about it and never have it to interfere with sovreign people and their lives.
This is not a news, they put a dictatorial rule, and they now decide to lift it.. so what's new?
EU is a joke, EUSSR
Complain about this comment
Now they will teach us how to eat? the correct way..
anyway, who don't want to buy and eat deformed fruits or vegetable, is free to do so, but stop with your obssesion with deformed fruits and vegetable and trying to prevent other people to buy and eat them.
if you have prejudice about a deformed fruit, then you have it as well about people.
can we determine that EU is racist? Y
Complain about this comment
It'll make little difference to us...
Long live my wife's uncle's (slightly deformed) potato patch :)
Complain about this comment
The issue however is that the supra-national decision-making rules (the community-method) were designed with such trivial matters in mind, i.e. those which have no political saliency. As soon as those same rules are applied to deciding politically sensitive issues then the lack of democratic legitimacy inherent to the community-method is exposed.
Abolishing rules of a trivial nature is a good thing. But it does nothing to legitimise the use of the community method in all the politically sensitive areas where it is now the norm.
Complain about this comment
Standards are good - it is important for the consumer to know what they are getting.
However it is mad to ban the sale of produces just because there isn't a 'category' for it.
Having squandered our money in the good times, the mad socialists are being forced back to reality.
However come the next wave of good times, no doubt they will dream up more bizzare schemes to squander the proceeds on.
Now - the EU must ditch other laws 'banning' the sales of things for spurious 'quality' reasons.
As long as supplier and consumer are happy with the product, noone else need be involved.
- Ditch the EU registered 'seed list'
- Let people buy as many vitamins as they decide they want (did that one go through?)
Complain about this comment
If people are fruits, imagine if we all are carrots..
then Mark, where would you classify yourself according to EU standards?
Therefore, this is EU-logic applied to EU funding of projects.. EU makes some *stupid* rules, then who fits the rules is funded.
for ex. to get funding you should have:
rule 1: you should be pro-EU.
rule 2: you should work in EC.
rule 3: your name should be J.M.Barosso.
if you fulfill the above then everything is legal. or inside the law, but noone questions if the law is democratic or right.
the only who objected this deformed fruits laws where the socalled *eurosceptics*, the europhiles still would have continued their way if we had not faced an economic and food diseaster because of them.
Complain about this comment
to karolina001:
Please try to investigate a bit or at least read the full article before posting a comment.
Do you really think the EU bans certain fruits because of some racist prejudice?
It's quite simple - you will always have standards in commerce, either on the EU or on the national level. Somehow, standards are 'bad' when based on EU regulations but 'pefectly fine' when based on domestic laws.
And don't feed me with the 'democratic accountability' fairy tales. How often do you check the voting patterns of your local MP on such issues as vegetable quality standards in commerce?
Complain about this comment
No No No, Mark this is very annoying...
Of course nations will vote to keep the 'status quo' as it is simpler than having to turn around the super-tanker...
This change is a small step in the right direction, but the fact is that many more totally unnecessary regulations are being foisted on people who didn't ask for them.
Okay, some 'fruit producers' will want to keep standardised uniformity, but this is because they are rapacious profit-hungry corporations who care little for the hundred plus varieties of apples - they just want to churn out loads and loads of cheap produce.
A bit like the bureaucrats - they want to keep churning out the cheapest, nastiest lowest quality legislation - if they churn out twice as much they get paid twice as much.
'Never mind the quality - feel the width of this latest draft directive...' The fact that this minor setback has occurred shouldn't blind us to the fact that they will continue to mandate what we can eat and drink..
Let us have a bonfire of this regulation and let the people decide.
Complain about this comment
ha ha.. again same story with the europhiles..
do you know what is a free market? consumer will decide by thier purchasing decision if a fruit has the right shape or not, right color or not... characterisitics that do not affect food quality.
EU should better concentrate in the health issues of food, fruits or vegetable.
Complain about this comment
singingprincealbert (7): I have quite a bit of experience in standards development in the industry i work in. It is not the case (at least not any longer) that a standard needs a legal basis (at either national or EU basis) to be 'the standard'.
Take for example the standards used to get this web page to you, e.g. TCP/IP, HTTP, etc. There is no national or EU law that says that these standards must be used. They are 'de-facto' standards rather than 'de jure' standards that are set by industry rather than governments.
Really governments only need to set standards related to protection of consumers (e.g. safety, environmental standards, etc.). Each industry is perfectly capable of the deciding the rest in industry-wide groups. Indeed in complex fields i would that both nation-state governments and bodies like the EU totally lack the expertise to set standards. Imagine for example how it would be if the EU tried to standardize Bur-ray disks. Do you think they would work? Even if EU designed Blu-ray players would work they would differ from those used elsewhere in the world. This is the way things used to be (which is why there were different types of TV, or mobile phones in use in different continents). But global industry prefers global standards and consumers like the lower costs this brings.
Standards for vegetables are low-tech of course, but supermarkets are full of stuff from all over the world. Other than related health and safety issues i do not see what the EU can contribute that the food industry could not better do itself.
Complain about this comment
I really wonder sometimes whether some of the people on here have gone nuts (perfectly formed ones, of course!)
This was an extraordinarily silly piece of unnecessary regulation. Some posters are right to suggest there was a 'control freak tendency' about the generation of eurocrats who put it in place in the first place.
Now the rule has gone, the major producers will still have the quality control practices in place. All this really means, as you rightly point out, is that they can now put the dodgy shaped stuff on the market as well and sell it as grade B stuff. Great. They don't have to bin in and those of us who rely on less income than the twits that introduced the rule in the first place can buy reasonably priced food.
OK, it does not amount to the root and branch reform that some of us want to see, but if it signals a less regulatory mentality, that has to be good. I really don't see the problem.
Complain about this comment
I see no problem with the EU regulating food and related areas, and in theory this is a good idea and totally appropriate.
However, regulating the size, shape, and appearance of food is utterly pointless and makes no sense. There is no valid reason why anyone should care if farmers or markets sell "imperfect" looking produce. The only important issues are things like fundamental quality and food safety. If people want to buy or sell produce that does not meet somebody's view of an "ideal" appearance, who cares? After all, what appearance is "ideal" is entirely subjective and there is no valid basis for making such criteria while I tend to associate "perfect" looking produce with growth hormones, genetic engineering, pesticides, and other unwanted, overly intrusive human interference.
Complain about this comment
If our national leaders (and EU Commissars) were fruit and veg (deformed or not) do commentators have any suggestions as to which variety they would be?
To kick off: I think Barroso would be an aubergine; Merkel a turnip; and Gordon Brown a cankered crab apple.
Ex-Commissar Mandelson was not a vegetable....
Complain about this comment
I wonder if non-standard vegetables are easier to measure in non-metric units?
More seriously, what happens to those whose livelihood is based on supermarket rejects?
Complain about this comment
#13: I think Barroso would be an aubergine
Is that because of the imperialist purple colour or the thick skin? Either way, I always found the outcome rather disappointing. Much better when presented as brinjal barjee (battered and dropped in hot oil).
I'm thinking of a cherry tomato - a very small fruit, rather green to begin with, then goes yellow and nobody takes any notice, finally produces a couple of little pips and turns embarrassingly red. Ends up squashed. Can't decide if it's Italian or French though!
Complain about this comment
at #13,
i totaly agree for Barroso, his nouse seems like aubergine or mango.
but Merkel is more like a champignon.
While Brown like a Mr. Potato.
Sarkozy is like a scalion or radish.
Berlusconi is a pumpkin.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I think your last paragraph sums up in a nutshell the problem of the EU for the most fanatic of EUsceptics but they blame the messenger (The EU) when the problem lies at the door of the other member states who send out the messenger to deliver the unacceptable face of the other europenas mentality.
The restriction upon misshapen fruit and vegetables is the brainchild of the 16 major European fruit and veg growers . . . not the EU per se?
The fact is that the EU is designed to reflect the middle European personality which accepts autocratic government (Do as I say , not do as I do!) and this mentality probably cannot understand the UK eurosceptics questioning the democratic deficit of the EU and what it stands for. It certainly cannot understand the UK sceptics criticism of internal protectionism activities such as this revered regulation or major protectionist policy such as the CAP.
Actually, what we have witnessed with this turnaround on the previous restrictions on the shape of fruit and veg is an example where the EU is not just working to the benefit of the grower nations but to the benefit of common sense and the benefit of the buyers and, in my humble view, that is a massive step forward as we can all witness the EU actually responding to the criticism of such a banal regulation in a positive way.
Complain about this comment
Marvelous news! Perhaps now, wonky fruit will be distributed freely and widely around the EU, instead of solely to the supermarkets of Central and Eastern Europe.
Belgians, if you turnip-ed your noses at ugly potatoes, you ain't seen nothin' yet. There are fruit and veg abominations lurking in Prague and Budapest that have been known to make grown men (and chefs) weep.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Thanks for the excellent pooint, that bruised fruits and veggies are still good to eat...if they are not up to the "high" standards in the looks department!
Complain about this comment
It does make sense for international standards to be set, especially for large distributors.
But that could also be achieved through industry standards.
Part of the hysteria about such regulation isn't due to the EU standards at all:
The notorious case of the kiwis having to be thrown away (and not even given away) because they were a few millimetres too small, is due to a 1964 UK law which sets a 5000 pound fine for selling, or even giving away, undersized fruit.
Please note that 1964 was long before the UK joined the EC.
This over-enthusiasm to enforce regulations is wholly British and seems to parallel the mentality which put CCT on every corner.
The farmers markets in Germany, where I live, have all sorts of weirdly shaped and sized fruit and vegetables.
In some cases there might be "Kl. II" or "Kl. III" on the price card, but I've certainly never seen someone going around measuring the fruit!
Complain about this comment
Many posters seem to forget that 90% of EU legislation (and 100% of funding) has one objective only: brainwashing people into the idea of a United States of Europe.
I struggle to serve to my foreign clients British jams and marmalades because most of the packages are labelled "Made in the E.U."
Crazy: are the oranges from Scandinavia or the Victoria plums from Malta?
Complain about this comment
#18 - SmazenySyr
LOL - you are not wrong. I have to cut my potatoes before peeling them, the shapes are so odd. And they don't distiguish between reds and whites. A potato is a potato is a potato here.
Complain about this comment
Amusing news from Dublin.
Good old Vaclav Klaus!
Complain about this comment
Well done. One of the rare attempts to avoid trivialising the subject and indicating that rules may have a function. Somehow the media find it impossible difficult to resist an easy laugh or a ride round the room on a hobby-horse. A mission to confuse. And I don't exempt this evening's tongue-in-cheek Ten O'Clock News.
Complain about this comment
Have you tried scraping a carrot with rhizomania (many roots) - It takes ages and there is huge waste - give me the sleek lines of a standard carrot any day!
What will the press do now without a non curved cucumber to complain about. I guess they will complain that the EU has allowed those perfidious foreign farmers to off-load sub-standard vegetables on the poor British people.
I can see the headlines now - "Blind British pensioner poked false eye out with bent Euro cucumber". (apologies to the very many stereotypes I have just offended!) or "Barmy Brussels bureaucrats blind bonny British baby."
So long as the non-standard vegetables are not passed of as class 1 or 2 and are clearly marked that is fine.
The anti- European cranks will find something to complain about anyway. They do seem to be close to monomania!
Complain about this comment
#23 - MaxSceptic
I think friend Vaclav could send quite a jolt of reality through the corridors of Berlin, Paris and Brussels, especially if the Visegrad group sticks together during the Czech presidency. Four nations together can overturn the whole QMV process.
Complain about this comment
#25 - John_from_Hendon
This could be the start of a whole new industry based on genetically engineered vegetables. As well as Brussels Sprouts we could have varieties of Brussels Cabbages, the Kinnock for example. Or new fruits such as the Brown Orange which is engineered to have just skin and flesh so that you can't take the pith out of him. Or the Mandelson banana - so bent it forms a circle. And this could mean a whole new lease of life for the Swedes.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Czech President Vaclav Klaus! I was already proud to be pat Czech. Now even more so!
Complain about this comment
A few years ago in a Tesco's store, near the fruit and veg, handwritten on a chalkboard I saw a message which said that due to "EU" rules it was now illegal to sell Brazil nuts in their shells in the "EU". I have not seen any Brazil nuts in their shell since except, I think, when in a bag of mixed nuts.
I had my reasons for wanting my Brazil nuts in their shells.
Even if I had not had my reasons, I would still object to the "EU" making that decision for us. In fact, I object to the existence of the "EU".
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ #26
I imagine the views of Vaclav Klaus are well known in the corridors of power in Brussels and that those views are what may have prompted President Sarkozy to suggest, a couple of weeks ago, that, due to the current global financial crisis, it might be prudent for France to continue to hold the Presidency of the EU beyond the current 6 months.
Maybe, Klaus is getting a little bit of his own back by giving the Irish "no" voters some support and something to think about if, heaven forbid, the French and the EU manage to get the Irish governmemt to try another Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
I imagine we will soon see some kind of character assassination of Vaclav Klaus eminating from the dark recesses of Brussels very soon!
Complain about this comment
With the way things are going in the world economy, the lady in Brussels who eats with her eyes will probably soon be snatching up "deformed" potatoes - as someone who has been very poor, I can tell her, when push comes to shove, deformed potatoes taste A1.
Complain about this comment
Some silly laws (published by the times 15/08):
In England, all men over the age of 14 must carry out two hours of longbow practice a day.
In Chester, Welshmen are banned from entering the city before sunrise and from staying after sunset.
In London, it is illegal to flag down a taxi if you have the plague.
Under the UK’s Tax Avoidance Schemes Regulations 2006, it is illegal not to tell the taxman anything you don’t want him to know, though you don’t have to tell him anything you don’t mind him knowing.
It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament.
Now, is this the EU's fault?
Is Karolina001 the angriest person in the world?
I'm neither pro nor anti EU. there are some good things, there are some bad things. I just don't understand some people getting their knickers in a twist over something so trivial and pointless... which reminds me, where's Jaws? ;)
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (30):
Excuse me, but I think you are throwing 'character assassination' a little too easily.
If you look at Vaclav Klaus, his actions and views, I would claim he is old styled nationalist that doesn't want to work together with bigger neighboring countries and instead wants to ally and align with more distant powers to balance with neighbors. He would rather work with USA, Russia and China against immediate neighbors Germany and Poland and against other big influential countries like France. That is the same pity politics that essentially caused both world wars. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand these people.
I also would like to remind you all who cheers for this man that he has criticized heavily Georgia for conflict in South Ossetia, he has disagreed with Kosovo having Independence and he has not criticized human rights abuses in other countries and instead laid all of his critic toward European Union.
Now if you want some character assassination...
You do know that cheering for Vaclav Klaus for his eurosceptic position towards European Union is as same as cheering for Adolf Hitler for his anti-communist position in world politics.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, character assassination is innecessary when the character in question is Václav Klaus', somebody who ran a particularly crony- and scandal-plagued privatisation of Czech state assets in the 90s and now denies both manmade global warming and the dangers of passive smoking.
It's funny (or perhaps sad) that he's now so worried about referenda and democracy, when he refused to put the dissolution of Czechoslovakia to a popular vote...
Complain about this comment
Referring to Vaclav Klaus,Jukka_Rohila @30 admits:
"I'm sorry, but I just can't understand these people."
and then goes on to compare him to Hitler.
I'm sure that you've just made a lot of Czech friends.
Incidently, Klaus is, of course, right on both the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict and the granting of 'independence' to Kosovo.
Complain about this comment
"John_from_Hendon wrote:
Have you tried scraping a carrot with rhizomania (many roots) - It takes ages and there is huge waste - give me the sleek lines of a standard carrot any day!"
John,
You don't need to peel a carrot. You need to wash it and scrub it in cold water.
What's been skipped over in these discussions is that it's only 15% of vegetables and fruit (by quantity sold)that no longer have this rule. The remaining 85% are unaffected - this includes apples, citrus fruit and so on.
I'm just back from the farmers market with a bag of forked parsnips and carrots, non-EU regulation cucumbers, apples and the like. It's possible to buy this food if you know where to look and has been for some time.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (35):
Do I sense famous British humor in your comment or do I have otherwise have an delightful day, I'm in the mix here.
PS. Kosovo, seriously? Georgia, seriously?
Complain about this comment
#13, MaxSceptic,
You mentionad that is our national leaders and EU commissars were fruit and veg what would they be, and then you finished with "Ex-Commissar Mandelson was not a vegetable".
I had a think about that and you're right he doesn't seem to resemble anything edible but is more like a maggot that feeds off other things.
To all the predictable anti Vaclav Klaus posters, why am I in no way surprised you now hate his guts for having had the courage to go against your EU politically correct opinion. He may well be a flawed politician at home with a bit of a dark past, but then so are the EU politicians you support so wholeheartedly.
As for Jukka_Rohila comparing him to Hitler that is like the ranting of a far left fanatic to whom anybody to the right of them is a fascist swine no matter how little to the right of them they are. I have seen old time Labour supporters called fascist by hard left activists in London many years ago, so please Jukka, you may think the sun shines out of the a**e of the Lisbon treaty but most who have analysed it do not, and that does not mean we are like Hitler, far from it! we simply believe in the freedom to express an opinion and try to have what we consider flawed policies changed.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (38):
Oh please, read my original comment 33. To make it easier, here is my comment:
"Now if you want some character assassination...
You do know that cheering for Vaclav Klaus for his eurosceptic position towards European Union is as same as cheering for Adolf Hitler for his anti-communist position in world politics."
Now lets look this carefully...
Is an equation between Vaclav Klaus and Hitler made? No.
Is an equation made with people who cheer for Vaclav Klaus for his eurosceptism and with people who cheer for Hitler for his anti-communist policy? Yes.
The critic here is directed to people who cheer based on logic of 'enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend'. In case of Hitler what people blind eye was his hatred against Jews and nations deemed sub-human. In case of Vaclav Klaus what people blind eye is his nationalistic politics and disregard of human rights. Remember that this is the man who sides with Russia in regards of Georgia and the man that wouldn't have gave independence to Kosovo. So how is it? Do you describe also to other sides and bases of world view of Vaclav Klaus?
Complain about this comment
Buzet23@38:
I am actually quite glad that Mr. Klaus has become such a distinguished anti-EU campaigner. If one is defined by the company one keeps, that is one politician I'd certainly not like to be linked with. So, please feel free to quote his views as often as you like: it feels quite liberating to know that I disagree with him on so many things.
I prefer to have the other, good Vaclav on my side, the one who actually did oppose the communists when they were still in power (and not only afterwards, like Klaus), and who has always shown a much more reliable moral compass to all: his predecessor Vaclav Havel.
Complain about this comment
Just read the posts about the czech leader after posting on the E.U. spending gripes thread about this very matter.
Jukka, you may just as well make the same comparision with people supporting Sarkozy because of his anti euro sceptic stance is the same as people supporting Hitler because of his anti communisat stance, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It is complete nonsense and unhelpful to suggest any comparision with the czech leader or Sarkozy to Hitler.
I support the czech leader because he is one of the few who says it how it is. He is perhaps more astute than other politicians as he has recognised what many of us have seen. There is an increasing feeling of disconnection with the peoples of Europe and the E.U. and a feeling the E.U. is just not listening is growing in breadth and depth across europe.
Complain about this comment
I cannot see that these quite nasty exchanges are necessary. Anyone who thinks Vaclav Klauss is going to bring 'the breath of fresh air' I referred to in an earlier post because of his stature as a statesman deludes himself. What he may, however, do is to contribute to an environment in which a debate can take place instead of underwriting the stealth mechanisms that are currently in vogue for forcing Lisbon through. I am not suggesting we follow him, merely use him.
Regular readers will know that I am no eurosceptic, but I have long acknowledged that the polarisation of opinion that is evident in these columns means that we must have the debate. If Lisbon goes through without one, it will simply harden opinion and deepen the divisions. Klauss may prove useful in opening this up.
#40 - RCalvo
Havel is the kind of statesman who makes the vast majority of our leaders look precisely what they are - mere politicians.
Complain about this comment
The interesting thing for me is that 16 Member States voted against the rule change. Why? Would it be because they were lobbied heavily by farming groups whose main interests lie in maintaining high food prices?
Complain about this comment
#39, Jukka_Rohila,
Your comment in #33 is quite specific about certain unrelated activities of his compared to his words in Ireland, and your reply to me in #39 broadens the scope of your original comment to include other reprehensible policies of Hitler and people turning a blind eye to those. To use your own logic and words I could equally say that "cheering for the introduction of the Lisbon treaty and the europhile desire for a federal Europe is the same as cheering for Adolf Hitler for his anti-communist position in world politics.". That however is an absurd correlation just as yours was since the comment was about a single issue, the words of Klaus in Ireland. Whatever else he may or may not be or do is outside the scope of this comment. With all politicians there are things they do and say I find distasteful, but there are also other things they do and say that I like. To find a politician that you agree 100% with is quite frankly impossible unless you are a zombie, so to rubbish the words of Klaus in Ireland solely based on his poor home record is an affront to democracy.
There have been many times that I found Tony Blair terrible for the UK but then he'd say something that was sensible and do it and I'd think whew, for once he's got it right. Likewise this guy Klaus, concerning his views on the Lisbon treaty he deserves to be listened too, and whatever else he's done is not in the equation.
Finally you said "Is an equation between Vaclav Klaus and Hitler made? No.
Is an equation made with people who cheer for Vaclav Klaus for his eurosceptism and with people who cheer for Hitler for his anti-communist policy? Yes."
It is not the case that people who cheer for Klaus's words against the Lisbon treaty are turning a blind eye to what else he's done, that's the responsibility of the electors who elected him, it is simply that he is almost alone in saying what many believe about Lisbon and about which we are being denied a voice. It is the pro-Lisbonites that are turning the blind eye to the inherent flaws in its concept, so just remember nothing is sacrosanct from change, both in politics and business. If it is flawed it needs to be discussed and changed, and the Lisbon treaty is certainly flawed and because most politicians are turning a blind eye to the flaws does not mean they will go away.
Complain about this comment
#41 - jordanbasset
It is perfectly legitimate to compare any paranoid schizophrenic monomaniacs with delusions of grandeur who have been dead for 63 years with Hitler.
Any other comparisons are odious and, worse, totally irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
Re post 42, Threnodio, as usual you display a lot of sense. I do not think trying to link one camp or another in any way, however subtle, to Hitler is useful.
We have different views on the E.U., but it does not help the debate to denigrate the other side or make silly comparisions.
I certainly do not put the czezh leader on a pedestal, but he should be recognised for breaking ranks and bringing out into the open what many on this site are aware of.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (46), to threnodio (45) and to Buzet23 (44):
You are jumping the gun, but lets continue with the thread... because its fun :-)
"I support Adolf Hitler because of his strong stance against smoking and alcohol use" is as same as "I support Vaclav Klaus because of his strong stance against European Union and European integration".
Now, if you drop the figures of authority from these comments, then they have no connotation. If you include the people in here, you can't disregard connotations that they carry.
Buzet23 told that it's impossible to agree 100% with a politician. Yes, that is true. What however he forgot that politicians have, or at least should have, a moral scope, a view of world, valuations and a thinking process from witch their stands on issues come from. You can't forget that.
Now, what does it tell from a man who is against EU, is also against independence of Kosovo, against Georgia in South Ossetian conflict, brothers around Russians, Chinese and Americans etc.. What does these items and many others tell about this mans moral scope, view of world and valuations? Do you really want to cheer and support him when the world he would give us would be one that probably alienate even most eurosceptics let alone euroenthusiast?
Understand?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @37 asked:
"Do I sense famous British humor in your comment or do I have otherwise have an delightful day, I'm in the mix here."
I guess I'm not yet confident that 'continentals' can deploy irony ;-)
"PS. Kosovo, seriously? Georgia, seriously?"
Absolutely!
My views on Georgian stupidity re South Ossetia (bear-baiting?) and the idiocy of granting Kosovo independence (who next? The Basque Country? Spain and France will be delighted, I'm sure....) are well documented on this blog.
Complain about this comment
Re post 47, Jukka, you really do not do your cause any good in pursuing this line of attack.
For instance, if you read my posts at the time of Kosovo independence, I believed the west was wrong to recognise it at that time. Does that make me similar to Hitler? The reason I disagreed was that I believed it would give others (Russia) free reign to make similar stands (Georgia) in the furure.
Name calling is not helpful in this debate, do you recognise there is an increasing disconnection betwen the peoples of Europe and those leaders who are driving forward the E.U. project. If so do you think this is useful
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @38,
re: fruit and veg: Stating that Mandy is not a vegetable does leave one option....
Complain about this comment
Jukka: I agree with Vaclav Klaus on numerous issues (including Georgia) but not about Kosovo. However one of the key issues at stake there is the territorial integrity (i.e. no change to borders without the agreement of the states concerned) of Serbia. I think it is natural for the president of a country whose territorial integrity was violated in 1938 to be more concerned about that principle than most.
It is interesting to me that the slogan for the Czech presidency of the EU in 2009 will be "Europe without barriers" which corresponds to the definition of liberty ('freedom from coercion') I used in earlier discussions. The EU used to be popular when it concentrated on the removal of restrictions (the original 'four freedoms' of the EEC were all of that type) and has suffered continual declines in popularity as it has tried to move on to the democracy-destroying 'positive integration' agenda of the progressive harmononisation of national laws.
The EU really only needs a general rule that discrimination on the grounds of nationality is prohibited, and the acceptance by federalists that EU law (in areas beyond the common market) can be* inferior to EU law. This will of course be the end of the dream of a federal EU; but it would make the EU very flexible and may save it from break-up.
----
*: I would require national governments to implement whatever EU law is agreed and which they voted for, but there should be no obligation to implement what they vote against (but lose under QMV), or what their predecessors at national level voted for.
Complain about this comment
#47, Jukka_Rohila,
I think you hit the nail on the head with "that politicians have, or at least should have, a moral scope, a view of world, valuations and a thinking process from witch their stands on issues come from", the key words being "should have". It is a shame that their moral scope and view of the world has become so blinkered by dogma and political correctness that they are no longer open to alternative thought processes, and that any one breaking ranks and showing that sort of questioning vision is to be ridiculed and castigated. It is always the case that managers know more about what is going on than their employees and likewise with politics, but often they get it wrong, vis a vis the current financial crisis, so why is it that you cannot accept the possibility that the current direction of the EU and the Lisbon treaty are an error that needs to be redressed.
Finally, whether or not I support Klaus or even like him is not relevant, what is true is that no matter who he is he does have the right and status to make these comments and in this case they are worth listening to since there are few other leaders with the courage to say them publicly.
Complain about this comment
#47 - Jukka_Rohila
Ah so Klaus is brothering around with 300 million Americans who are pro Kosovo and pro Georgia, 100 million Russians who are anti Kosovo and anti Georgia and 1.3 billion Chinese who couldn't give a flying ferret about either.
Not exactly consistent is he? Carry on, Jukka.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
Now, what does it tell from a man who is against EU ( in its present form, sounds sensible to me)
Is also against independence of Kosovo ( Again sensible Kosovo is an artifitual ethnic division that has no place in a multi-cultural europe)
against Georgia in South Ossetian conflict (sensible Georgian aggression mounted to enthinic cleansing, condening enthnic cleansing should not be dirided)
brothers around Russians, Chinese and Americans etc (show he has world vision rather than your limited E.U vision)
The term Eurosceptic and Europhile is misleading . Maybe EUphile and EUsceptic would be more useful.
The EU is Not Europe!
Complain about this comment
Frankly, Jukka made all a disservice when he so successfully Godwinised this thread. With respect to Mr. Klaus' support of "Libertas", it would perhaps have been a little more to the point to point out that Klaus enjoys rather strong links to (very) right-wing US think tanks such as the American Entreprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Since "Libertas" has been previously accused of being a sock puppet for those very same interests, this is supporting evidence and raises the question (in particular to threnodio@42) of exactly who is using who, and who is acting stealthily...
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (53):
You didn't pay close enough attention to the thread.
The main point, the main driver, of Klaus policies are improving own country's status and position relative to its neighboring powers by trading favors with more distant powers.
In Finland we have saying that comes from the cold war years...
"When bowing to the east one moons to the west and vice versa, so to succeed one needs bow enough but without mooning."
Essentially by trading favors with Americans, Russians and Chinese Klaus is mooning to the rest of Europe and especially to Germany and Poland.
The problem with this kind of politic is that it essentially ensures that great powers succeed and they succeed in the cost of small nations and countries. We only have to look to yesteryears to see what it was like when all European countries were competing on who can bow more to where.
My essential problem with Klaus and elevating him is that his views are from yesteryears. The modern way of thinking is that a country and a nation foremost has to do close dialog with its immediate neighbors and ensure fair relationships with dialog and co-operation and then do the same with more distant neighbors.
It should be reminded that the current government of UK is doing exactly the same politics with USA and Russia that I accuse on Klaus of doing. Lets see... Operation Iraqi freedom to put end to trading oil in Euros... BBC reporting on Georgians starting the South Ossetian conflict to put end to the troubles of BP and Shell. If that doesn't sound petty nationalistic politics then I don't what does.
I should also mention that it astonishes me that you regard it sensational that a one leader voices his eurosceptism. In all fairness the Polish twins, the president and the ex-prime minister where and are notorious eurosceptics. More on politics and political leaders are not a class or race of their own, they don't belong to a secret cult with a secret handshake (Americans not included). It isn't like one member of the cult blazes out the shackles and preaches the masses.
To RCalvo (55):
Godwin's law wasn't broke. Nobody was accused or equated on being a Nazi or a comparison made to Hitler.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila says:
"In Finland we have saying that comes from the cold war years..."
We, in the West, have a word that comes from the cold war years: Finlandisation.
Usually used in a pejorative sense.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (57):
:-) Actually you can use Finlandization only either in pejorative or in pitiful sense. At least my brains don't produce any meaningful use with any positive sense.
The good thing about the word is that its nowadays used only to describe our past not the present day. Although there are no quarantines that those days wouldn't comeback. Even in this week US state department reminded our parliament of possible great commercial consequences if it accepted enlargement of replacing original medicines with generics in case where medicine has only analogue patent. The law was accepted.
Complain about this comment
Your last comment is the most telling:
"... what Brits (Britons!) are conditioned to think of as the product of "barmy Brussels bureaucrats" ..."
The trouble is with the anti Europe media. I wonder how many people asked in the street by the BBC have actually read the rules that are being kicked out?
I thought I should go have a read.
Here is an example of the Carrot ones:
"In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the carrots must be:
* intact,
* sound; produce affected by rotting or other deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded,
* clean, that is to say:
* practically free of any visible foreign matter if they are washed,
* practically free from excess dirt and impurities if they are not washed, or if they are washed and covered with pure peat,
* firm,
* practically free from pests,
* practically free from damage caused by pests,
* not woody,
* not running to seed,
* not forked, free from secondary roots,
* free of abnormal external moisture, i.e. sufficiently dried after washing,
* free of any foreign smell and/or taste."
Okay, so basically they should be good quality, healthy, fresh and what the public wants.
I bet the Daily Mail and Express never printed that.
Oh, hang on, nor have the Beeb.
The rules might be written in legalese, but they are sensible and straight forward.
What is more, carrots that do not fit this criteria are NOT simply thrown away - they can be used for industrial production - that is cattle feed, soups, flavourings, horses (they love carrots) etcetera.
The reason the EU gets a bad press?
Because the press simply make it up as they see fit.
Complain about this comment
Klaus who?
Did i miss something?
This guy is so old that this time it may be wise for EU to put some standards for the elites?
Complain about this comment
It is perhaps inevitable that the reactions to this blog deviated immediately from the issue addressed by Mr Mardell and that all the traditional Europhobe prejudices were displayed by the usual suspects.
Three points are worth noting:
- the decision to adopt the standards in the first place, like the decision to remove them, was made by the Council of Ministers, not the Commission, ie, both decisions were made by the elected representatives (ministers) of the member states, not by bureaucrats;
- the QMV system used for the decision is the Nice version, which gives some very peculiar results. One of the things the Lisbon Treaty would do is replace this by the double majority test, which while not perfect, is a significant improvement over the current Nice version;
- EU decisions, once adopted, are not set in stone. Governments which don't like them, or change their mind, can, if they are persuasive with other governments and public opinion, have them changed or rescinded.
Complain about this comment
EU dissatisfaction is increasing from what it used to be before.. is it the problem with the people that don't see the benefits or is something wrong with EU?
why EUphiles are only the ones working for EU or getting paid/or salary from EU?
Complain about this comment
Karolina001
Your right the only people who seem to want the EU (the way it seems to be headed downa road of unelected fedralism) are Fascists who want to create a Superstate to rival the U.S China and Russia, and those who are paid to get it there.
Complain about this comment
#56 - Jukka_Rohila
I really do not need to be told that I am not paying attention. In the post to which I was responding, you said you were having fun. I simply joined in. I do wish you would make up you mind whether you want to be serious or not.
So let's play hardball.
Mr. Klaus' position is that he is the head of state of the Czech Republic and elected directly by the people. As a party politician, he is elected on a mandate which entitles him to take a position. The National Assembly is also democratically elected and they have a responsibility to represent the views of their constituents and to form governments in accordance with the alliances it is practical to make in the light of the electoral results. It follows that, from time to time, the presidency will not hold the same political position as the remainder of the administration. There is nothing unusual about this. The assembly has voted in favour of the ratification of Lisbon and it has arrived at the president's desk for signature. He has expressed the view that it would be inappropriate to sign this into law until there is unanimity amongst the 27 regarding Lisbon. This is not possible until Ireland agrees to ratify and, since the electorate rejected the proposal at the referendum, there is no immediate prospect of this happening. Again, a reasonable person might agree with him.
However, by participating in a public appearance with Mr. Ganley in Dublin, he appears to have taken a position. For the first time, he appears to be saying outright that his personal view, which is not necessarily that of the Czech government, is Eurosceptic. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether this was a tactful thing to do during an official visit, it opens up a possibility which has not been available during the French presidency. From January of next year, there is a real chance that the Lisbon debate will be reopened on the basis that there has been insufficient public consultation and therefore there is no mandate.
At #55, RCalvo raises the question of 'who is using who, and who is acting stealthily...' and then seeks to make linkage with Klaus' connections with right wing think tanks in the States. Moreover, he implies that this is connected with similar contacts that he alleges Mr. Ganley has. I argue that, providing they are are open and honest about their right wing opinions, there is nothing sinister about this. I further suggest that the fact that some of us do not agree with the broad sweep of their agendas does not invalidate the case for taking any opportunity to bring the specific debate over Lisbon back into the public arena because there is still a significant segment who are plainly not happy.
I have repeatedly expressed my views in favour of the European project but I have also said that I do not believe we can progress without carrying a significant body of public opinion with us. The only way to do this is to have the debate and then to be consulted. If Mr. Klaus in some way facilitates this, I have no problem with this regardless of my views on his wider political allegiances.
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud wrote:
"Your right the only people who seem to want the EU (the way it seems to be headed downa road of unelected fedralism) are Fascists who want to create a Superstate to rival the U.S China and Russia, and those who are paid to get it there. "
I object to this very strongly.
I am not a fascist
I do not want to work for the EU mechanism.
But I am very much in favour of the European Union - as are many, many other people out there.
I want a strong Europe and not return to the bickering, injustices and trade inequalities that were before.
But then, I am not a little Englander who would put up walls to stop every one coming in and then watch this country fade away to nothing.
Complain about this comment
"the only people who seem to want the EU (the way it seems to be headed down a road of unelected fedralism)"
Ie. Fascist in Nature!
Therefore if you are in favour of this de facto you are a fascist whether you like it or not.
Complain about this comment
I am not a little Englander who would put up walls to stop every one coming in and then watch this country fade away to nothing. I believe in a United Europe just not the one which we are offered at the moment.
I also think that we need to think beyond nations and even Continants. For this is one world and at the begining we were on people. Nations, Tribes, Countrys have divided us. But in the end we are all Human.
Complain about this comment
#66 - WhiteEnglishProud
"Therefore if you are in favour of this de facto you are a fascist whether you like it or not."
WEP, I will endorse your right to your opinion every time but that remark is outrageous and well you know it.
Complain about this comment
Maybe if you subconciously link Fascism with Nazi ideals, you don't have to.
An entity can be fascist without being racist or even a bad thing, absolute power can be weilded responsibly by the right person.
Unfortunately the Right person is usually someone who doesn't want absolute power.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (64):
Dude, chill out.
I thought you weren't paying attention to the thread in hand. To me it seemed that you hadn't read, understood or remembered the key message of my comment 33 which I repeated in more detail in comment 56. If you were paying attention to the thread then my apologies.
However, this is not about election process, this is not about Klaus having right to voice his opinions or act as a leader of his country. What this discussion has been about is background thinking of Klaus and pointing it to those who have seemed to be cheering for him.
The thing is, you can't separate the result of the thinking process from the process itself. You can't separate the opinion from the values and morals that formed it. That is the very reason on this whole discussion, to firstly point out that there is background and that the ground may not suite well with views that many have.
If you are going to have a deep and meaningful discussion and form an intelligent opinion about a thing being discussed, you have to look at the drivers of opinions. The drivers of Klaus seem to be petty nationalistic policies with hint of American neo-conservatism. The drivers of Ganley again seem to be neo-conservatism and military contracts to US. You have to acknowledge these background and ask A) are these compatible with your views, and B) and if not, then what value should hold they in reality hold.
Now in regards of the European integration and the Lisbon treaty. The problem with this whole issue of discussion is that its results are only in reality measurable in parliament elections, excluding Ireland. To this date those elections have been long gone and parliaments have made their decisions. So what is the problem? Citizens knew that these things were being drafted, they were discussed in media, citizens voiced their opinion in elections and got a parliament to decide about it. So, is there need for discussion now and who is to judge what amounts to reasonable level of discussion? If the citizens and media just moan a little bit, scratch their heads and go back to work, has the discussion been performed?
PS. Having fun doesn't necessarily equate to being funny. Having fun doesn't necessarily equate on being not serious. You can have fun and be serious in the same what other motivator there would be to have these endless conversations?
Complain about this comment
Actually, she's wrong. People eat with their wallet first; unless you're insanely rich, most people will have a rough idea on what they can spend for their shopping per day/week/month.
I think once the credit crunch really starts to bite, Mrs X will quickly (re)discover cooking from scratch, buying seasonal produce and less meat and yes, that wonky carrots make the Euro (or Pound) go further.
Complain about this comment
#70 - Jukka_Rohila
OK, fair point.
But you seem to be argueing against yourself here. You want us to take on board the political affiliations of Klauss and Ganley 'in the round'. Well that is precisely what we are expected to do at parliamentary elections. We are presented with a package of measures which embrace everything from law and order to health care to nuclear defence and we are are invited to chose a party of government. No British government can claim to have had a mandate to follow the course set out by the European leadership. Equally no one can say they were not mandated.
The problem is that this whole issue of the future of Europe is becoming so central to political thinking in the UK that either a party has to come along which puts the counter argument or we simply go on ignoring the gainsayers. I have a natural distrust of single issue politics and, like Finland, the British system does not take naturally to referenda but can you think of a better way?
Complain about this comment
Re post 70, the driver for Mandelson seem to be power at any cost.
The driver for Sarkozy seems to be French interests first, second and third.
The driver for Berlesconi seems to be money and pretty women.
These are all supporters of the E.U., it does not make what they say worthless.
Could go on and mention many prominent pro e.u. politicians, but again it is not useful. Every one has different drivers, otherwise they would not be politicians.
We do need to look at what they say and does it have relevance to the debate. You may not like what he says but it does have relevance.
Re elections, all 3 of the major U.K. parties promised a referendum on the constitution. Then instead of the constitution we had the Lisbon treaty (95% the same) and the ruling Labour Government decided a referendum was not necesary. In France Sarkozy changd the law so the French could not vote no again.
Perhaps because of these sorts of issues Klaus's comments are welcomed.
Re post 66, Whiteenglishproud, do not think such comments are helpful in throwing light on the issues.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset
Possibly not ....
But for me sleepwalking into a "unelected fedralism" for me is a major issue.
The points you raise on elections are a prime example.
Manifesto commitments should be binding and Paries should able held accountable not 4 years later but though the courts.
You said "In France Sarkozy changed the law so the French could not vote no again"
Was it the law or hte constitution, if it was the constitution then it should have been protected by referendum.
For me if the E.U is to work all further integration must be subject to referedum in each nation of the Union
MEP's should be more visable we almost need E.U wide political parties who give us a choice of what we want the E.U to be. This means Giving the European parliment the ability to set the Agenda rather than the Commision.
All unelected commisar etc need to be removed and again who ever replaces them needs to be made more visable.
Proper checks and balances need to be introduced .
The Commision Needs to be Reduced to a Lesser House status which can veto legislatrion but not propose it.
I am in favour of an elected President but unsure if there is presently and European politicians (Domestic or E.U) who I would trust with the Job.
Fascist maybe a dirty word because of a Certain Bisexual Part Jewish Austian Dictator but none the less is the correct term.
Complain about this comment
Jukka: I think you are wrong to say that Vaclev Klaus and Declan Ganley are old-style nationalists without any guiding principles. Neith figure is all that well known in the UK, (so I could be wrong) but as far as I can tell they are just like me, classical liberals who believe in democracy. Do you think it an accident that Ganely’s movement is called "Libertas"?
As far as I can tell neo-conservatives favour an interventionist foreign policy (as opposed to intervention only to deter aggression) and support "traditional" (i.e. illiberal) social values. In British political terms Klaus might be a Conservative, but not a neo-conservative. But this "neo-con" label is typically used as a kind of insult when applied to politicians outside the US anyway, and I believe this is how you intend to use it here?
I would say that Ganley and Klaus are the ones motivated by principle, where as you are pretty clearly of the 'realist' school that suboridinates principle to power politics. You raise an interesting point when you suggest that all the countries of Europe should pursue of policy of Finlandization towards France and Germany. At first sight it sounds unimaginable, but I would say that there is some truth to the charge that a lot of politicians pay lip-service to the French and German agenda while keeping their real thoughts on EU integration private for fear of the consequences. Hence the mock outrage when the Czech President dares to say in public what they think in private.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (72):
Where am I arguing against myself? My head is spinning, but my brain can't produce any answer. Non of the less...
If parliament has a clearly stated right to decide on things, its decisions then have the clear mandate and that mandate can only be withdrawn by a decision of the parliament.
I think the major issue, and now I'm jumping in the conversation I know, is that in Britain the question seems to be does the parliament even have the right to decide? UK doesn't have written constitution that lays out on what things can the parliament decide and in which order and with what requirements, thus the ever revolving discussion about EU.
Another major problem could be the election system of first-past-the-post, at least to me it sounds foreign coming from d'Hondt based elections. In the last elections there were 169 candidates in my region, 31 from the conservative party (the only right party) from which 4 were chosen out of 17 elected. The candidate that I elected didn't pass, but my vote went to the right party. In this kind of system people can't hide on saying that they didn't have chance to vote for a right kind of candidate. I should also mention that even if my candidate didn't pass, my voice to him was also a message to the party and the candidate, for the party to look more at this candidates views and for the candidate to continue in politics.
Now if we go to the problem in hand. The thing about why background drivers have to be look is that we are making our decisions based on incomplete information thus we need look on thoughts and the drivers of people that push a decision in either way. In example I myself don't vote for anyone who has nationalistic background, the minimum requirement for my vote is acceptance of internationalism and equality among people.
To jordanbasset (73):
Having drivers doesn't make ones opinion worthless. There is no such thing as absolutely object opinion, all opinions have inner drivers. What I'm saying is that you can't disregard these drivers. Also what I resent is masking drivers into something else. Let me make make an explain...
Ganley and his Libertas are against the Lisbon Treaty, but Ganley himself told that he is actually pro Europe and would fancy more Federal Europe with elected officials. Now is that truth? Is Ganley just freedom loving pro European Federalist? Or is that mask to hide his commercial dealings with the US army and his relationship with neo-conservative think tanks?
Klaus in the other hand in here seems to be painted as an leader who has the courage to say what he thinks and oppose European integration. So is he a brave leader who loves freedom? Or might he me nationalist that despises Germans and other European, remember he has educated and lived in US for long time and he has relationships again to neo-conservative think tanks.
Not to mention that freedom and bombing loving and pro European Sinn Fein is against the Lisbon Treaty.
So... to simplify... in the other side we have power hungry, money and beautiful women loving politicians and in the other side you have nationalist, neo-conservatives, money lovers and terrorists. So you are going to disregard that? Even if I would be against the Lisbon Treaty or EU, I would be seriously questioning my position when looking at others who share the same opinion.
Complain about this comment
#75 - Freeborn-John
"Hence the mock outrage when the Czech President dares to say in public what they think in private".
I suspect that a considerable number of European politicians have decided that, for all intents and purposes, Lisbon is dead. I think Sarkozy was desperate to keep it alive so that he could try to get it done and dusted before the French presidency lapses. Now he is focused on trying to save the world economy, I think it will probably sink without trace and be replaced by something remarkably similar at a later date. Hopefuly, next time, popular consultation will be on the agenda.
Complain about this comment
Post 76, Jukka, you really need to think past your prejudices and look at the substantive issues.
You are trying to categorise all those who do not agree with the current direction of the E.U as rampant nationalists or even terrorists. By the way Sinn Fein has given up the armed struggle and embaraced demoratic politics - which is exactly what they were doing when they opposed the Lisbon Treaty. Would you prefer they go back to bombs to make their point.
You accused others in an earlier post of turning a blind eye to the faults of Klaus because of his views on the E.U.
You are also blind if you do not recognise the real feelings expressed in this blog and many other places of ordinary people who feel a disconnection with the E.U. and a lack of democratic accountability.
I can listen to the people who express a federalist E.U. viewpoint withour resulting to name calling and suggestiong that they are all power mad, wanting to reinstate Hitler's and Napoleon's dream of one europe. Such a view point is silly and unhelpful, perhaps can you see your labelling of those who happen to disagre with you is also silly and unhelpful.
Klaus appears to be an independent minded politician of a certain generation who has a contribution to make to the debate. Has he flaws, absolutely,which politiican does not. But he does not deserve to be demonised, such cheap politics re very much the last resort of those who have lost the debate.
There are many people who do not share a federalist dream who are far from nationalistic, such as Tony Benn.
Perhaps if you allowed yourselve to be a little more open minded you may at least be able to understand why millions of people across europe do not wish to see further federalisation. You may not agree, but understanding is the first step
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (75):
Ganley's group is called Libertas because that is the name they chose for it. That in essence is very clever branding, actually it's double plus good. However, the formal name of East Germany was German Democratic Republic which sounds double plus good, but actually is double plus ungood. In my opinion Libertas are double plus ungood.
You are right on your description of neo-conservatives, but its not a slur word, it's just an necessary description to differentiate them from traditional conservatives. Besides their interventionist nationalistic policies what I most despise in neo-conservatives are their love of the Austrian school of economics. And yes, Ganley and Klaus probably have principles so does Osama Bin Laden and I, the principles are just different.
I don't remember calling for Finlandization towards France and Germany. I don't know if you fully understand what in practice Finlandization means, it isn't just a special relationship, its a domination and assimilation of the whole society to serve the official doctrine dictated by the supreme power.
From my point of view, that I would say many others in this country have, is that EU is an alternative to Finlandization, both toward Russia, USA, Germany and France. The important distinction is that in the EU one is in the same table on deciding about the issues and not waiting outside for the results. In current EU Germany and France even together can't dominate, their opinion has to be accounted for, but they just don't rule the nest. There are 500 million people in 27 member countries, thus there are always some other countries who share the same position or are willing to trade their vote in exchange favor in other affair.
If I look at my country's political map then I really don't think that I can find any politicians that do a lip service to the EU. In major three parties the question isn't do they love EU, but the question is how much, varying from shot-gun marriage kind of love to eternal love.
In the end, I don't think that there is outrage as to what Klaus is saying, but on with whom he is dating out.
PS. Klaus describes to thinkings of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, in essence darned Austrian school follower. Damned them be all.
Complain about this comment
#76 - Jukka_Rohila
I think we may be talking about several different things at once here. Let me deal briefly with the British constitutional position. The first past the post system has certain advantages. Firstly, it usually produces an outright result. You do not therefore have the problem of governments teetering on downfall because one or other minor party decides to pull out of a coalition. Secondly, it forces the main parties in contention to embrace a considerable range of opinions from the left or right as the case may be - the phenomenon we call the 'broad church' position. The downside is that it is manifestly undemocratic. Indecently large majorities are achieved by parties with less than 50% of the popular vote and issues of great importance are often buried away in the mass of other policy positions. You will occasionally have issues which cross party lines. More often than not, these are resolved by arriving at a position on which everyone can agree but there are exceptions. On these occasions, either there will be a free vote, each member being allowed to vote according to his or her conscience or the opposite will happen and the party whips will use sometimes very unpleasant methods to force their own MPs to vote against their will.
However the UK, like Finland, operates a parliamentary system under which members are mandated to form a government which is deemed to have the support of the people and referenda do not sit comfortably with this. The problem with both Lisbon and the wider issues of the future of Europe and Britain's membership is that the questions cut straight across party lines. You will find plenty of Labour members who will argue against further integration and a few who openly oppose the Union. On the other hand you will find Conservatives who are firmly pro-Europe. The result is that, while the issue of Europe is very important to many British people, it is never a major factor in the electoral process because the parties do not agree amongst themselves. The net effective is that, while the parties are perfectly happy to represent strongly held views in Brussels and Strasbourg, they become very vague when addressing a domestic audience. While both the major parties continue to be broadly in favour of the European project, it can hardly be surprising that eurosceptics feel themselves disenfranchised and unrepresented.
The problem is that there is a very loud and raucous lobby who proclaim that the majority of British electors are opposed to the whole thing and would dearly love Britain to withdraw. I personally very much doubt this and suspect this is an attempt of a minority to make themselves heard by shouting that bit louder but the problem is that we do not know. People who protest that they did not vote for Lisbon tend to get quite angry if you point out that they did not vote against it either. The result is total apathy. You can bet a years pay that the turnout for the forthcoming European elections will be very low. People do not believe that they are listened to in Brussels so they do not bother. This is no way to promote the future of an entire continent.
I don't know what the answer is but I have increasingly had the feeling that the question has to be put. A referendum will be of no value if parliament chooses to reject the results. On the other hand, a binding outcome undermines the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. (The same would be true of Scottish independence except that there are political parties which clearly represent the opposing points of view). It is actually ironic that, were the Scots to vote overwhelmingly for the SNP at the next general election, a referendum would not really be necessary whereas, whoever wins the next election, we are no closer to finding out what the British think about Europe.
OK, now magnify this 27 times. All but the founding 6 have come into the club at various stages of it's development. The original 6 joined a club which was about iron and coal, the next tranche joined a free trade area, the next tranche joined a political project and the latest ones have joined a federalist project so there is no quantifiable consensus about what Europe actually is to the broad mass of the people. Even the big hitters have wildly different visions. The federalist French suddenly go very cold when you suggest that they may have to give up their permanent seat at the Security Council, for example, or hand over command and control of their nuclear forces. Finally, throw in the examples of those countries who have held refernda at various stages. Denmark initially rejected QMV then changed their minds when asked to do it again. The French rejected the constitution because it did not address their concerns sufficiently, the Dutch rejected it because it did not go far enough, the Irish have rejected Lisbon for a whole host of reasons, many of them ill founded. It is not just the British who are questioning what the whole thing is about . . . /more
Complain about this comment
To Jukka . . . /continued
This brings me to the other strand of your post. To what extent should we look at the bigger picture when addressing the question of who we should or should not vote for (what you have called drivers, if I have understood you correctly). Just to be clear about Klaus and January 1st, he was elected by the Czech people to be their president. The Czech Republic has it's turn in the chair of the EU from Jan 1. The rest of Europe did not vote for Mr. Klaus and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it even if we wanted to. In this context, his wider agenda if he has one is absolutely irrelevant. The question is, can we see an advantage in this? If you believe that we should go serenely on as we are, he is not really of any importance except for chairing meetings. If, however, you believe it is time to have a debate about the whole future of Europe and Klaus is going to bring this about, to be honest, I don't actually care very much about his wider agenda. By the end of June, he will have handed over the chair. It will be a matter for the Czech people, just as it is now.
My Ganley is an entirely different proposition. He is, as far as I can see, promoting through Veritas a possible agenda for the EU and, if that is being conditioned by ultra right wing elements from outside the Union, we should certainly ask questions about it.
As to how deeply we should enquire into the minds of our representatives, I suppose this depends on whether you consider there to be a moral dimension which goes beyond politics. Put at a very basic level, does the fact that a man beats his wife make him any less capable of running a government department? The answer is probably no. The fact that many of us would refuse to vote for such a person may say a lot about our personal morality but it has precious little to do with politics. The best any of us can do is to form judgments based on policy as it is presented to us any exercise those votes responsibly. The rest is outside our control.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (77): Listening to the pro-Lisbon drumbeat from the Irish government in their press I am not sure I share your optimism that the EU Constitutional project is dead. The Irish government are between the rock of the national constitution and the hard place of Franco-German displeasure. The key issue for the Continental powers will be the voting rule changes in the Lisbon treaty. The EU is a double-edged sword for most countries (i.e. potentially increased influence but at the risk of being outvoted and required to do things you do not want to). However it used to be a single-edged sword for France and Germany in the EU15 so long as their alliance held. In those circumstances the EU effectively augmented the power of France and Germany without significant risk of them being coerced. That immunity from coercion will begin to breakdown if the Nice treaty rules remain in use in the EU27 so one can expect them to push very hard for the changes that would see their votes rise from 18% to 30%.
Finlandization occurs when the weaker states calculate that the cost of opposing a stronger power exceeds the benefits to be gained from opposing it. This should only happen in the EU when the weaker states feel there is no possibility of building a balancing coalition against France and Germany. No doubt there are quite a lot of governments that harbour doubts about Lisbon but for whatever reason it still seems to be the case that all (bar perhaps the Czechs) prefer to bite their tongues. It will be interesting to see if France and Germany succeed in isolating the Irish at the December EU Council.
Complain about this comment
Jukka: Economics isn't my thing, but any friend of Karl Popper is a friend of mine ;-)
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (80):
I would add to the first-past-the-post discussion that, at least in the US, it allows for candidates to have more radical views. If you have an staunchly Republican or Democratic constituency the candidate gets elected almost on what ever agenda thus leading to either serving commercial interest to collect election money or serving out vocal minorities with high voting rates. Both USA and UK are essentially two party systems and this leads to further polarization. Of course as you said, there are advantages to it, but then again having a constantly divided country is not in the long term desired outcome.
Now if we go to the question of EU politics and can parliamentary democracies really express the will of the people then I have to disagree in here. I don't know do you know how d'Hondt's system works, but either way, a short introduction to those who don't.
In d'Hondt's system vote for a candidate is also counted for the party. Candidate who gathered most votes gets the all votes gathered by the party, the 2nd gets 1/2 of votes, the 3nd 1/4, the 4th 1/8 etc.. The seats are then divided by organizing all candidates in order with their calculated vote count.
Usually in all elections as there are hundreds of candidates from which to vote, its just very hard on not finding a candidate that resembles in key issues my own opinions. Essentially for this reason I just can't buy, at least outside first-past-the-post elections, that the people haven't had the chance to vote eurosceptics to power. Thus in my mind every parliament that has been elected does have the consent and expresses the views and wants of the people, thus there is no issue about EU politics or its direction. I should also add that this same method is used to distribute Europarliament seats where the whole country is one single election district. Of course there maybe variations on where the EU is and should be heading, but clearly the direction is towards ever closer union.
In essence, what I think that in those EU countries that there are strong doubts about the EU or where its headed, yes, there should be conversation about it, but that shouldn't be mandatory exercise to all. If UK or Ireland are worried about their position in the EU, then they should solve these questions by themselves. Even if EU would be Federal these kind of questions belong to the state level, not to the federal level.
Now if we return to Klaus, there is no question about the rotating presidency of EU, January 1st Czech will have the presidency and Klaus among other Czech leaders will host meetings and carry on as normal. Nobody is suggesting the same treatment that Jorg Haider got when his party won first time a position in the cabinet. However if Klaus will use his position to voice critic towards EU that he has voiced before, calling EU "failed and bankrupt entity." or voicing his opinions about global warming like "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" then I really don't see why that kind of rhetoric couldn't be answered back by strict terms.
To Freeborn-John (82):
You hit the nerve of the Lisbon Treaty. Voting is important and having fair and balanced voting is essential to functioning of the system. The other important thing is to finally have common foreign policy, even if it would be heavily watered down positions.
To Freeborn-John (83):
I can't say anything about Karl Popper because I still haven't read his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. My friend recommended it warmly about 4 years ago. He and his views can't be totally bad as George Soros, that I held in respect, was mentored by him and held him in respect.
PS. To threnodio. In the time when European Coal and Steel Community was founded the importance of coal and steel to economies and politics were immensely more important than in example movement to Euro is in these days as money is essentially worthless if you don't have tanks and airplanes to guard it.
Oh, how I wish I could return in time and be manager of a steel mill in 30s. Steel, endless amounts steel and endless armies tanks to the borders. ;-)
Complain about this comment
This sounds good... that is until you read that "The rules will remain unchanged for another 10 types of produce, which account for 75% of EU fruit and vegetable trade: apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes. However, the commission says shops will be allowed to sell these products provided they are labelled appropriately. So an apple which does not meet the standard could still be sold, as long as it were labelled "product intended for processing" or equivalent wording, the commission says."
So basically they have spent all this time and effort tinkering around the edges and not really changing much at all.
Oh and I tend to shop with my nose and then my sense of touch... I don't care what shape my fruit and vegetables come in!
In Australia I buy fresh misshapen vegetables every week at the markets and they don't seem to have had any ill effect - or carry warning labels that they are a "product intended for processing"
Nicole
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @79,
I appreciate why any supporter of the EU would spurn anyone who wrote a book titled The Road to Serfdom.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell is wrong (very wrong) to say that this rule change "proves" that the EU acts on the will of nation states. Even if we ignore that 16 nation-states voted against the rule change, it is clear that whenever the 'community method' (which is federalism) is used the nation-states vote on Commission proposals and cannot propose anything themselves. This monopoly on legislative initiative gives the Commission enormous power to set the agenda and it has chosen for decades not to put these infamous fruit and vegetable regulations on to that agenda. Nothing changed in the member states that led to this change in the regulations. Rather it was the Commission itself, recognizing its own unpopularity, which made the proposal to change these regulations.
Furthermore, under Lisbon, the EU Parliament would assume equal weight with the nation-states in consenting to Commission proposals, further diluting their ability to reject measures that advance the supra-national interest.
Mark Mardell either does not understand the EU rules, or is misinforming people.
Complain about this comment
#36. Soddball wrote:
"You don't need to peel a carrot"
True, if you know where the carrot came from (my own garden for example), but when you buy a carrot you should peel it as the toxic substances used by the farmers to produce blemish free rhizomes tend to be concentrated in the skin, or so I was informed by a botanist.
Complain about this comment
i think that it is a brilliant idea for scrapping the horrible rule!
it is a waste of money, employees time in brussels and, also waste of "good" vegetables and fruits!
Complain about this comment
@ #26
Sure, and afterwards they'll whine and bitch there's no democracy in the EU.
We've got a word for people like that: hypocrits.
Complain about this comment
Re: Freeborn-John (87)
I think Mark Mardell well understands the rules. The fact that draft EU regulations and directives have to come from the Commission does not mean that Member States have no say in the agenda of the council. The contrary is the case. No Commission proposals reach the council unless they have been vetted by the Member States through the COREPER, the meeting of member States permanent representatives which is the effective secretariat of the council.
The Commission has a monopoly on submitting draft legislation in part to ensure some coherence and uniformity. If individual States could arrive at a council meeting with some pet legisation in their pocket ready to be produced on their unsuspecting colleagues, chaos would be guaranteed.
Many Commission draft regulations or directives arise becuase of initiatives or requests of member States. That was the case with the directive on fruit and vegetable standards. Any Commission proposal which is not purely technical (and most of those which are) will have been discussed with member States long before it reaches COREPER.
Member States are not putty in the hands of the Commission: if they do not want something, it does not happen. A recent example is the withdrawal by Mrs Reding of her suggested single EU telecoms regulator to replace the multitude of national regulators, whose largely uncoordinated activity is a major factor in keeping EU phone rates for "cross-border" calls (and local calls in many countries) artifically high. Her very sensible proposal was shelved when it was clear that member States, who like to keep their own regulators, would not accept it.
Complain about this comment
Manofiona (91): It is clear that the Commission is able to use its monopoly on legislative initiative to set the agenda at EU level, precisely as Monnet intended. Naturally the Commission will propose what it thinks it can get through the Council of Ministers, but that does not mean that nation-states are in control when they can only vote on measures proposed to them by a supranational power independent of them. Nor is this institutional design an accident; it was chosen by Monnet as the key part of the one-way ratchet to a super-state as it ensures that the nation-states (even acting unanimously) are unable to propose anything that would reverse EU integration. Nor will the Commission ever propose a measure that would reverse EU integration, because (as Mark Mardell has said) they regard 'ever closer union' as their job description.
There is no parliamentary or presidential democracy anywhere in the world where the executive has a monopoly on legislative initiative. This simply would be an obscene power incompatible with the separation of powers. The problem can be solved but not without first resolving the larger problem of the supremacy of EU law. If most EU law (beyond the common market) is made subordinate to national law such that our governments can overrule the application of EU law that they disagree with (i.e. vote against) on their own territory, or unilaterally overturn measures that their predecessors at national level signed up to, then this inappropriate power of the Commission could be tackled for example by transferring it to the EU Parliament. But until this larger problem is addressed, the Commission's monopoly on all changes to European law superior to any other for 500 million people remains an obscenity that no democratic society should tolerate.
Complain about this comment
Before Mark Mardell repeats the lie that the EU acts on the will of nation-states and not on proposals from the Commission he should answer why Jose Barroso resigned as prime minister of Portugal to take up the post of Commission president. The only explanation for this is that he regards being head of the Commission as being a more powerful post than head of government.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (93):
Is there any question about this? Being president of EU commission is more powerful and demanding than being a prime minister of a small country. In addition when being a president of commission one takes part to world history as one of builders and influencer of Europen Union, after all we are seeing a formation of a new super state that in many aspects of life leads the way in global arenas.
Complain about this comment
It's a complete nonsense to suggest that Member States have no power over the Commission. If a majority of Member States or MEP's felt that, say, integration was going too far, there are many ways they could exert pressure on the Commission. For example, the current President (Barrosso) is due to complete his term of office next year, and whether his mandate is renewed for another five years or whether he is replaced is up to the Council and Parliament. If the Council and Parliament really feel that the first priority is to reverse integration they will nominate a replacement who feels the same way, and who will set an agenda over the next five years based on this. In reality, I don’t think that's likely to happen because most governments recognise that many of the challenges that face the region demand a united approach rather a policy of dis-integration.
However, to return to the original topic the I think the Commission has woken up to the fact that worrying about perceived petty issues (such as the shape of carrots ) is counter- productive (even though a large number of Member States still support the current Directives in this area) .
Complain about this comment
#93:
Or better paid?
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill (95): So why do Commission members swear an oath before the ECJ to be independent of national governments, and act in the interest of the European community?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner#Commissioner.27s_oath
Mark Mardell has previously said that the Commission advances EU integration because 'ever closer union' is part of its job description. He cannot then say that the EU only acts on the will of nation states knowing that it will not act at all (when the community method is used) without a Commission proposal.
Mark Mardell might as well say that he can walk into McDonalds and is free to order Thai food. He would quickly find out that he is only free to order what is on the menu. It is the same in the EU where the nation-states in the Council of Ministers are only able to choose from a menu prepared by Commissioners who are sworn to advance a European interest that they systematically misinterpret as their own bureaucratic interest in increasing the powers of the EU institutions.
-------------
"Here in Brussels, a true European government has been born. I have governmental powers, I have executive powers for which there is no other name in the world, whether you like it or not, than government". EU Commission President Romano Prodi
Complain about this comment
#97, Freeborn-John
They can swear on oath to be independent of individual Member States and act in (what they perceive to be) the interest of the European Community, but most commissioners are politicians with known views and are members of political groupings. The appointed commission President is likely to belong to the same political grouping as the largest group in Parliament - in Barroso's case, the right-of-centre European Peoples Party. In the unlikely event that a grouping of Eurosceptic parties (such as the Independence/Democracy group - which includes such odd bedfellows as UKIP and League of Polish Families) were to gain a majority at the next election, then they might want to push for one of their kind to be Commission President, and thus ensure that the menu offered over the next five years would be in line with their tastes. This would also be dependant on a majority of Member States in the Council wanting to nominate a Eurosceptic President. I think we can all agree that this is extremely unlikely since the elected MEP's and elected governments are generally pro-union (up to a point), but the fact remains that anything is possible if the political will is there.
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill (98): The problem though is that the political will of politicians is not aligned with that of voters when it comes to the EU. There is a gulf between the desire of voters for representative governance and that of politicians to be unleashed from the democratic constraints on their power that exist at national level. There is precious little to suggest the EU Parliament is any more representative of the peoples of Europe than EU Commissioners. Consider the recent overwhelming majorities in the EU Parliament in favour of the Lisbon treaty, or their vote against respecting the result of the Irish referendum. All the evidence indicates the EU Parliament (like the Commission) represents no interest other than their own in accumulating more power and budget. Typically the Parliament acts in alliance with the other institutions (Commission and ECJ) that represent the supranational interest against the Council of Ministers that (supposedly) represents national interest.
Most MEPs are deeply out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent and can get away with it because they are protected by the party list system. It would for example take an 80% swing against the Conservatives in London next June to unseat Dr. Charles Tannock (one of the worst federalist MEPs). It is wishful thinking to expect any such change when most people vote in EU elections on national issues and when political brand loyalties are so firmly established. The only prospect for real EU reform is to elect a national government with the mandate to re-negotiate our membership in earnest (i.e. be prepared to pull out unless the negotiating objectives are achieved) This will happen way before there will be any majority in the EU Parliament that would vote to reduce their own powers (which are set by treaty anyway).
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (various posts): things are simpler than you allege and not sinister as you make them out to be. Europeans want to have their cake and eat it too: they want the benefits of integration, and are aware that European action is necessary and effective in many areas - but they do not want to surrender national sovereignty. The Irish, who voted against Lisbon the first time round (they will be voting again) are among the most enthusiastic supporters of "Europe", on the assumption that they can indeed have their cake and eat it.
This attitude of Europeans, while understandable, subjects the process of integration to considerable and constant strain and results in an unlovely compromise between common action and national sovereignty which, as you keep telling us incessantly, is less than fully democratic.
The only way for Europeans to have a genuinely democratic union is to throw aside the illusion that they can have their cake and eat it and choose a sovereign (and democratic) union to take the place of sovereign (and democratic) "national" states. That is not about to happen any time soon and therefore Europeans will continue to live with the unlovely compromise which is the perfect reflection of their own illusions.
Complain about this comment
Manofiona (100): Thank you for confirming my point; i.e. that there is an intent by those on the EU payroll (of whom I assume you are one) to force an unnatural union on the nations of Europe.
Monnet assumed that there would be of 'transfer of allegiance' from the nation-state institutions to the deliberately self-aggrandizing EU institutions he created; that a European polity (or nation) would emerge to legitimate European governance along the classic lines of a sovereign state as you still fondly imagine might occur. It is not happening. Indeed the EU's own polling (Eurobarometer) shows that the number of people who identify themselves as either only European or primarily European has been falling everywhere since the early 1990s. The peoples of Europe are rejecting Monnet's institutions as an alien transplant into their body politic.
There can be no compromise any more with you federalists. You must simply be smashed so hard that you never recover from Lisbon.
-----------
"The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe." Mikhail Gorbachev
Complain about this comment
93. Freeborn-John:
"Before Mark Mardell repeats the lie that the EU acts on the will of nation-states and not on proposals from the Commission he should answer why Jose Barroso resigned as prime minister of Portugal to take up the post of Commission president. The only explanation for this is that he regards being head of the Commission as being a more powerful post than head of government."
What then is your explanation, in line with this logic, for Mandy resigning as EU Trade Commissioner?
Complain about this comment
Beware of good-looking vegetables! and fruit. :o)
(a Russian warning)
honestly, we are scared of the modern arrivals to our supermarkets. they look too good to be true. something extraordinary awful must have been done to them.
apples look suspiciously glossy. and big.
fakes!
we always prefer the locals to the shiny imports.
the more crooked one looks - the more sure you are it didn't meet many "improvements" in its life so far. insects ate it free, without chemicals. nothing was added to the ground (hell knows what) to make it more fertile. to say nothing of these genetic modifications' scares.
when you don't do anything to your apple trees, you get normal apples.
do you know that apple quality is in direct relation to the external conditions? I mean - the worse and more harsh for the apple tree it is - the more vitamins and minerals and whatever it stocks into the very apples -to surround the seeds.
I am ready to bet a thousand dollars any minute - on the vitamin/minerals amount in a nasty looking apple - Vs his sunny side warm place, los of care counterpart.
it's been tested innumerous times. only you don't know.
and of course the best apple there is - is a one with a scar, because it means a bird pecked at it, and that rough brownish stripe was formed to heal the place along.
birds are not silly. they peck the best only.
:o)
PS
so if you have ugly ones un-wanted in the EU - though fat chance, the way you nourish them - you can safely forward them to sell in Russia. the uglier - the better.
Complain about this comment
apple trees don't make apples for us. which people tend to forget.
they stock there vitamins hysterically to have a supple base as a nourishment in de-composing for the seeds to feed on and become new apple trees.
that's their idea. colour and gloss and inflated size have nothing to do with nourishment.
the worse the climate around the apple tree - the more it stocks into its apples automatically adjusting, for future de-composing.
Complain about this comment
For a dictatorship like the EU to admit that it is wrong is amazing. The petty dictators in Brussels are taking over our lives and this is probably just a diversion, along with a semi return to sanity, and I expect that they are cooking up something much worse under this smoke screen.
My view is that there has been too much waste from EU policies and that we should leave the EU to continue down its destructive road and go our own way. Hopefully when there is no EU gravy train for the likes of Kinnock, Mandleson, et al, our politicians will start to consider those who pay for their lifestyle.
Complain about this comment
#101
'There can be no compromise any more with you federalists. You must simply be smashed so hard that you never recover from Lisbon.'
There speaks the voice of true democracy!
Complain about this comment
What is the most amazing recent advance in our way of life?
The internet.
What did the 'state' have to do with this massive, social, political etc change?
Pretty much nothing... where the state(s) have been (and are involved) it is in a negative way, attacking the freedoms of the people using it.
Should they have been involved? Could they have helped? NO BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T NEEDED. They would have added cost, slowed things down and added nothing.
EU - Not needed - adds cost, slows things down - specific, focused, efficient organisations for cooperation will come into being as required - we don't need a Politburo to plan these things.
Complain about this comment
I agree we first eat with our eyes. I wonder why "deformed" fruits and vegetables are not destined to make pures, juices, smoothies, mermelades, stocks and so on.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (101): your assumption about me, like your assumptions about the EU generally, is totally wrong. I am a private citizen: I am not connected to the EU institutions and never have been. I do not even live in Brussels!
My work has brought me into occasional contact with the EU legislative process - enough to see at first hand what the real relationship is between the Commission, national governments and the European Parliament.
Your assertions about Jean Monnet are also wrong. Neither in his Memoirs nor anywhere else does he state that the emergence of a European state is the inevitable result of the integration process.
You are right that the EU institutions in their present state are unloved. However, that is hardly a major problem for federalists, since such institutions were never seen as being anything more than provisional. The real question is whether democratic European institutions will emerge to take their place.
The answer to that question is unknown. However, the last sentence of your post betrays some unease about the possible answer, which is a hopeful sign for any federalist.
Complain about this comment
Manofiona (109): Since you offer no explanation for the increasing unpopularity of the EU, where as I do, I leave it to others to judge who has most credibility in the matter. All you should assume is that I am determine that the federalist EU project will be broken. Do not confuse lack of complacency on my part for doubts about ultimate success. On the contrary, the more I post on these issues, the more certain I become that EU federalism is bankrupt ideology that its supporters are incapable of defending.
You should not entertain any hope that a European polity will emerge. Stalin failed to do that in the USSR with all the power of a totalitarian state at his disposal. Even if Monnet's neo-functionalist theories were valid, globalization has long overtaken Europeanization of the economy, such that his theories would (if valid) lead to world government rather than European government. However the European experience shows that his neo-functionalist theories are not valid; the 'transfer of domestic allegiance' from the institutions of the nation-state does not occur. The reason for that is explained by J.S. Mill who said that "if the era of aspiration to free government arrives before this fusion [to create a multi-national federation] has been effected, the opportunity has gone by for effecting it". Europeans certainly aspire to free government and the incessant demands from EU federalists to either bypass the democratic process, or (where is not possible) for nations to keep voting until they return the answer Federlists want, shows that free government is no longer compatible with EU membership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalism
Complain about this comment
While some of the rules were overly fussy, in general setting these sorts of standards at EU level makes a lot of sense. It is a shame they are weakening their stance here rather than just refining the rules to make conformance as easy as possible - things like size ranges are trivial for example, as you can just mechanize the sorting process completely, and stuff outside the range just gets juiced or whatever is appropriate.
Complain about this comment
The 'EU' need to realise that before they imposed a 'democratic' Parliment and controlling unanswerable commissiong. They were a 'common market'. That is what the UK voted to join in 1973 to get some standardisation in trading between companies. However, one knows when the original goal of a body has been forgotten when people start making rules on the sizes of vegetables and the increase in waste that comes with it.
Complain about this comment
Just two comments tell you all you need to know about this pathetic organisation and about Mark Mardell. Comment 1 - Commission agriculture spokesman Michael Mann told me: "... it makes no sense whatsoever that perfectly good fruit and vegetables are being thrown away because they don't meet a standard". Comment 2: Mind you, some rules remain in place for the 10 biggest sellers, including apples, tomatoes, grapes and lemons. Er...so Comment 1 means WHAT exactly? Did you notice that Mardell does not take Mann up on this absolute howler of stumbling bureaucratic non-logic. No, of course not. Don't want to knock the Euro gravy train Mark now, do we?
Complain about this comment
The question is 'Would I buy wonky veg?'
How hungry am I?
If I'm hungry who cares what shape it is. This is the simple philosophy those narrow minded politicians failed to understand and now it's taken them 20 years to catch up with the rest of us living in the real world.
Welcome Ladies and Gents...This is Planet Earth...Please try and keep up!
Complain about this comment
I'd rather eat Ugli fruit. Mmmmm! Try some, if they're sold in your local Caribbean store.
Complain about this comment
What I've still not yet seen explained anywhere - Mark, if you could find out, I'd be exceedingly grateful - is why there are these ten exceptions (apples, tomatoes, grapes, lemons and so on) to the deregulation?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS