Too many EU plumbers?
In the basement of a big Brussels office block plumbers are hard at work hammering and drilling away, replacing the old metal pipes with brand new plastic ones. But the boss of Maintenance et Multiservice, Jacques De Meester, is fairly gloomy about the outlook next year. 
"For 2009, companies from the construction sector still have busy order books but we are expecting a slowdown. We're already seeing the first signs of it. The architects are being told by their clients that they are not going ahead with projects or they are going to wait a bit before making a decision. This will have an impact on us."
Who should help? He gives an answer that I guess no one running a small business in Britain would dream of.
"Europe can help us. In most European Union countries we have a European spirit. Most laws are now made on a European level, so it's their responsibility to help us to get out of this crisis. We no longer live in closed countries; we live in Europe, that's an important message."
The European Commission, under instructions from the prime ministers and presidents of the EU's nations, has come up with an economic recovery plan.
There'll be more immediate money for some of the big EU-funded projects, under schemes curiously codenamed Jeremy and Jessica, but that is not the centre-piece.
The commission will urge the EU's 27 governments to make tax cuts particularly in VAT, to encourage energy efficiency and to bring down labour costs. They will exhort countries to spend more, investing in construction, helping carmakers, and installing broadband in new buildings.
This may be simply what is right. But it is also because the commission can't get agreement on very much more. Germany doesn't want to end up paying for those who've been less prudent. Eastern European countries can't afford to do much. Britain has already acted, although along the lines suggested. Some insiders think the commission is just making the best of a bad job and the package is pretty meaningless.
I've got a feeling that in the old days central EU spending would be seen as the main way of stimulating the EU economy.
Instead they are coordinating, exhorting, and - if the EU leaders agree to the plan at their December summit - making sure they keep up to the mark.
They stress that they are offering a tool box and it is up to governments to pick the instruments they choose. But can 27 plumbers, with different tools, fix a leak?
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~12~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
VAT cuts are a totally wrong way to revitalize economy.
What European governments should be doing is to start public infrastructure and housing projects, give permits to private construction and investments where needed (i.e. permits for new nuclear plants), create and open new markets to make economy function better (i.e. electricity bourses), cut over-head and bureaucracy in the government, streamline legislation etc..
The fact of the matter is that we will have a recession now, there is no question about it. We have two choices, either we can buy short lived popularity from the people by cutting taxes or we can invest to our economies and in the middle and long term have greater growth.
Complain about this comment
There'll be more immediate money for some of the big EU-funded projects, under schemes curiously codenamed Jeremy and Jessica, but that is not the centre-piece.
It wouldn't occur them that if they need to give us some of our money back (less their massive 'handling charge'), then maybe they shouldn't have taken it from us in the first place.
'EU Funded' == 'Inefficienty Taxpayer funded'
Anyone employed by the EU likely to be feeling the pinch?
Complain about this comment
Does that mean the E.U will change the rules and allow VAT to be dropped below 15%? Frankly if you are only allowed to drop it down to 15% it will be insignificant. The U.K. has just done this but a drop of 2.5% makes little or no diffference to a decision to buy an article or not
Complain about this comment
Herr de Meester has reason to worry; some friends have just completed a flat in England and the water tastes horrible. Why? Plastic pipes.
And when the plumber says that 'Europe' can help, does he mean the continent or the European Union? I haven't noted any help coming from Norway, nor from Switzerland.
Complain about this comment
The drop in VAT will do nothing for most people.
What is really needed is education. Too many people in the first place borrowed beyond their means because they frankly don't know how to budget. While another load of people who were more prudent (or lucky) are now panicing and saving every last penny despite not needing to do so.
If the first had beene ducated we would not be in this mess, if the second could be then we might get out of it.
Encouraging spending is the correct thing to do, but it can not come from the middle, busienss will be willing to spend as soon as the banks are willing to lend agains and people are willing to buy again. Work on the two edges and you will fix this.
Complain about this comment
I tell you what Mark if we get hold of all that waste the EU sits on we'll solve the global financial crisis in jiffy. Too many plumbers: Noooooo too many eurocrats.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to see the UK reaction that 2.5% reduction in VAT is insignificant, yet howls of protest of a rumoured 1% rise that would crucify the economy.
In Europe VAT is applied to most items of expenditure in the family budget even essentials, so a reduction would certainly have an impact on disposable income.
Complain about this comment
When do I get my vote?
Complain about this comment
#6
Well, with twenty seconds research I see that the staffing and administration budget for all the EU institutions in 2008 is ?7.3bn, about one third of what just the UK is doing in terms of fiscal stimulus.
So not quite enough to solve the global financial crisis.
Complain about this comment
Not only to many Eurocrats, but also unrealistic goals? First of all, our tax money goes on funding unrealistic projects which can never be achieved because of the simple fact that they are unrealistic.
And second, incompetent institutions which are not needed since their vision is based on unrealistic goals that can never be achieved.
What the so many EU or even UN institution have achieved thus far, except spending our tax money is beyond belief. They have achieved nothing, they just brainwash people about their importance. Investigate each organisation in EU and you will find they are doing nothing except preserving their jobs and making an extravagant living with a job that doesnt produce any commodity except thin air.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown has said this is no time for novices to be in charge of economic policy. That must apply to the economic illiterates in Brussels that seek to use this crisis (like every other) to justify an increase in their own powers. The EU institutions should play as small a role as possible during this downturn, focussing on concluding a WTO trade deal to eliminates EU agricultural tariffs and subsidies in return for others eliminating tariffs on our exported services.
If other governments want to copy Gordon Brown's policies then it should be their choice and not something imposed from Brussels. Since UK policy for re-capitalising banks has been emulated in the USA, The Emirates, South Korea, etc. it is clear the EU is not needed to do that.
A more interesting question to me is how to explain the remarks of this Brussels 'plumber'. I previously mentioned a book from Francis Fukuyama called "Trust" which can provide an explanation for why the privatization policy that succeeded in Britain and elsewhere failed so disastrously in Russia and other low-trust societies. Fukuyama says that in low-trust societies (he identifies Belgium, France, China etc.) it is difficult for the private sector to expand beyond family-owned businesses and the state therefore becomes the 'organizer of last resort' for all projects too big for family-sized companies to handle. So low-trust societies tend towards big and inefficient/corrupt state sectors. It seems to me that the low-trust societies also put more faith in international organisations than the 'government by the people' they elect. The opposite phenomena occurs in high-trust societies (e.g. Germany, Japan, US and other English-speaking countries) where the private sector is able to scale to accomplish much larger tasks without becoming corrupt, such that government involvement in the economy and international bureaucracy is held in low regard.
As the Russian experience with privatisation shows it can be disastrous to apply economic policies which worked in a high-trust society to a low-trust society. The same might be said in reverse of the UK experience between 1945-79. The conclusion is that economic policy cannot be divorced from the culture of the societies in which it operates. Yet the EU frequently appears to be a never-ending campaign by which low-trust societies seek to inflict their low-trust policy on others (with Sarkozy's Colbertism being only the latest example).
Complain about this comment
Re post 7, iculpin, the reason why 2.5% will not make much difference is that people who are uncertain as to their future (jobs, economy, mortgages etc) are unlikely to go out and spend money on non essential items just because they get 2.5% off.
Re essential items, the clue is in the title, people have to buy them, whether there is vat on them or not. This will mean that in those countries that currently charge VAT people will have more money left over at the end of the month. However, I suggest, it is unlikely they will go out and spend this saved money on non essential items because they can get them 2.5% off. More likely they will save it for the bad times ahead, which will not provide the boost that is hoped by the reduction of vat
Complain about this comment
The only way out of the economic crisis is:
Restructuring the system:
welfare system=parasitism
lifestyle=incompetency
EU=incompetency and parasitism.
How we can see it? We have same self-appointed EU elite officials at top level, such as Barroso, Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Blair, Berlusconi, Solana, J. Scheffer, etc etc.
They just rotate or upgrade their status in EU.
Can someone like you, me and us reach at such position, even if we have better skills than the elites? NO.
Because they designed the system in such a way that even if you follow it, it's mission imposible. They have excluded the people from the equation, therefore there is no hope for anyone to get on top. The only hope is that the elite (Barroso, Sarkozy, Blair, etc instead of rotating jobs between them) can give up his job to someone like you, me or us.
Will it ever happen? NO
Complain about this comment
Not only to many Eurocrats, but also unrealistic goals? First of all, our tax money goes on funding unrealistic projects which can never be achieved because of the simple fact that they are unrealistic.
And second, incompetent institutions which are not needed since their vision is based on unrealistic goals that can never be achieved.
What the so many EU or even UN institution have achieved thus far, except spending our tax money is beyond belief. They have achieved nothing, they just brainwash people about their importance. Investigate each organisation in EU and you will find they are doing nothing except preserving their jobs and making an extravagant living with a job that doesnt produce any commodity except thin air.
Complain about this comment
Where have all these plumbers come from? Joe the plumber in the US elections and now all these europlumbers? This is getting silly. Six months ago, there was a waiting list to get a pipe fixed. If there are so many plumbers around, send them off to Romania. They are desperate for them.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ #12
The other reason why people will hardly blink at the 2.5% VAT Cut is that the actual price reduction the customer pays is only 2.13% not 2.5%.
If I am a trader selling an item at 100 GBP I then add to 17.5% to the customers bill to cover the VAT. Total cost to the customer 117.5 GBP
With the VAT reduction to 15% the item still retails at 100 GBP + 15% VAT. Total cost to the customer 115 GBP.
Do the maths and you will see that the price reduction is just short of 2.13% to the customer.
This percentage price reduction is the same as if it were 1 GBP or 10 million GBP - the price change remains only 2.13%.
Even less of a Christmas give-away by the Labour UK Government than people think!
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John I hardly consider Francis "End of History" Fukuyama as a very reputable reference. What makes Belgium "lower-trust" than Britain, Germany or the US? Certainly, in Belgium or France there are plenty of quite successful private corporations having expanded well beyond family enterprises. And I doubt that Belgian entrepreneurs trust their government much more than each other.
If the same question had been asked in Britain, I'm pretty sure that the difference would have been that the plumber would have referred to Whitehall, rather than Europe. In fact, the only difference in perception is that many British still tend to believe that their national government can still on its own enough shelter in turbulent times (whereas Belgians don't make themselves any illusions about their government's strength in the face of a global storm), while believing that "Brussels" couldn't be trusted to organise a piss-up in a brewery (whereas Belgians, mercifully unexposed to the Daily Mail and Murdoch media, while being quite aware of the EU's shortcomings, are know its strengths and thank their Gods for having the euro nowadays, rather than a Belgian franc which would have been cruelly exposed to just the same kind of ill winds that have felled the Icelandic krona and the Hungarian forint...and may still bring sterling into more serious trouble).
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ #15
The International Space Station crew have just fixed their Urinal Facility . . . on-the-job plumber training was required!
The end result is the the Space Station Lavatory now works and several more plumbers are shortly going to be returning to Earth.
I bet they won't have to worry about getting jobs when their feet are back on terra firma! ;=))
Complain about this comment
Re post 15, Threnodio, I could do with a good one
Complain about this comment
Once again another thread full of posts that have nothing to do with the topic.
Who moderates this blog. It is a joke.
It is just polluted by europhobe and eurofederalist trolls. Either close the comments or block the trolls. Otherwise don't pretend there is any moderation.
Complain about this comment
Richmov @ #20
If you don't like what you read then don't read the comments. Demanding censorship is just a shortcut to making the threads boring and diminishing the value of the responses, many of which I find interesting - whether I agree with the comments or not.
The whole essence of the Blog is that the comments are fun and a conversation based upon Mark's initial thoughts relating to a European topic.
Censoring those comments is the last resort of the unintelligent and mean-spirited individuals who should be like children - seen but not heard!
Complain about this comment
@Jukka (1)
governments should cut overhead?
Well, I am all for that! Let's start by cutting the EU which is a massive overhead. The layer of government called EU isn't needed at all.
For example, why should we Netherlands pay into the system, and then get some 85% of that back in the form of subsidies? Couldn't we cut out the middleman, save on overhead and not use the EU for that at all?
And considering the degree of de facto control the EU has over policy areas, many national bureaucrats are effectively working carrying out Reich directives. That 'the EU is not bigger than a medium sized citys bureaucracy' is not true at all.
@karolina (13)
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment of there being way too many international institutions and all that. But one note: the EU is most decidedly NOT an institution. It is a layer of government (an embryonic supreme goverment of Europe).
@richmov
if telling the truth about the antidemocratic EU (being the elitist attack on democracy that it is) makes one 'europhobe' then I am proud to be one.
Complain about this comment
Thank heaven Britain is not in the Euro.
Sterling is now melting and with it British credibility.
Londons Financial Services industry has been exposed as nothing more than sleight of hand.
Eurosceptic commenters generally fall into 2 camps
(1) Paid employees of Rupert Murdoch (The Sun, Sky, Sun Times) whose job it is to tell English people that Europe is somehow evil.
This is after all the same man who put George W Bush in the white house.
(2)The neanderthals who read Murdochs propaganda.
I almost wish a Euro sceptic would take the British out of the EU altogether and the rest of Europe would not have to put up with their monosyllabic, xenophobic rantings.
French people are not frogs.
Germans are not "deck-chair stealing krauts".
Little Britain is indeed the laughing stock of Europe.
Complain about this comment
Of course a Belgian plumber is in favour of the EU ! The Belgian government has run up massive debts on behalf of Belgian citizens, so they will of course be keen on getting further money from the EU (on top of the inflow of funds to pay for the EU bureaucrats).
Complain about this comment
Hmm, The VAT cut in the UK may not do much, but the fact that the pound is collapsing like a flan in a cupboard means I'll be going on a spending spree soon. Especially if it gets to parity with the Euro.
Complain about this comment
ProfJamesMoriarty @ #23
The problem with your view that you "almost wish a Euro sceptic would take the British out of the EU altogether and the rest of Europe would not have to put up with their monosyllabic, xenophobic rantings." is that that would doom some British who don't see Europe as the threat that your Little Britain(ites) may perceive the EU to be.
The best way to silence the incessant clamour of people who demand that the UK should leave the EU is to actually provide the British electorate with such a Referendum on EU Membership then, whatever the majority of British Electorate decide, the British Parliament will have a genuine and real mandate to either proceed with "ever closer Union" with the rest of Europe or to withdraw from the EU altogether. At least the EU and the UK will know exactly where they stand in full democratic choice of the majority of the British Electorate.
I would actually be disappointed if the UK left the EU as I think both the EU and the UK would be the worse off for that decision.
On the other hand, I am a committed democrat and see that the current lack of voice for the British people regarding membership of the EU means that the EU is viewed with jaundiced eyes and that it is difficult for British pro-Europeans to justify the current status quo of Britain's EU membership given the democratic deficit felt by citizens of the UK.
Personally, I would be surprised if the majority of the British Electorate would vote to have the UK withdraw from the EU - thus giving British membership of the EU a much needed vote of confidence and convince other Europeans that we are not all Little Britain(ites) who despise other Europeans and their nations which I, for one, do not.
Complain about this comment
23
Not all people who oppose EU are as you categorise. Many want to see co-operation within Europe they just do't see the need for :-
2 Presidents
A commission
A Council of Ministers
A parliament
A seperate judiciary,policeforce,army,foreign service
The right of arrest that undermines rights that Britons have had for 800 years
A lawmaking system that undermines national parliaments, by allowing the executives to make binding agreements,that can't be over turned by said parliaments
A budgetry system that stops the taxpayers who actually pay for the EU(Germany,Holland,UK)from having any say in how it is spent, leading to mass waste and inefficiency, at a time when services are being cut,borrowing is soaring,and taxes will have rise significantly
Perhaps you should address thes points instead of making silly comments
Complain about this comment
#20 - Richmof
Having just skimmed through the posts again, I have to say that yours is without question the least relevant. Chide us by all means if, in the process you are going to bring us back to earth (literally in Mendemus' case at #15:-)), but failing that, I refer you to Oscar Wilde who sagely remarked that it was better to keep one's counsel and be thought and idiot than venture an opinion and leave no room for doubt.
Can we take it then that the WWF will not be adding Belgian plumbers to the endangered species list?
As to VAT adjustment as a mechanism for quickly injecting liquidity into the UK (or any other) economy, there are two major drawbacks. The first, as jordanbasset points out, is that the overall net benefit to the consumer in significantly less than 2.5%. Secondly, there is the huge cost involved. Cash registers have to be reset, accounting software adjusted, new price lists, menus and tarifs created, e-commerce websites revised and vast amounts of advertising copy rewritten in less than a week. Then it all has be redone in 13 months, which just happens to be right in the middle of a public holiday. Nice one Alistair.
My own view is that direct taxation is over complex, tedious to administer and, in some respects, unfair. Indirect taxation is inherently fairer because people have greater freedom to choose the amount of tax they pay determined by how much they spend over and above essential purchases. It is much harder to 'avoid' and much cheaper to administer. However, it can be expensive to set up and, for this reason, should only be considered as a long term policy and not as a quick fix. The Chancellor's proposal fails on both these criteria.
I wonder whether now might be the time to think the unthinkable. With eurozone countries now moving to follow the reflationary path, there are likely to be changes to indirect taxation Europe wide. Possibly a good time to contemplate harmonisation?
Complain about this comment
Referring to Kilroy-Silks pending stay in the Australian jungle, Labour M"EP" Glenis Willmott is reported on this site as saying:
"I think it shows a complete lack of respect for voters"
What amazing hypocrisy!
Labour got voted in on the promise of a referendum which they have now denied us!
Complain about this comment
Re 23
I am neither a paid employee of Murdoch nor a neanderthal who believes what I read in the Murdoch press. In fact, I am highly educated, with wide ranging experience and a mind of my own. I have served as European President of an international organisation and was elected - and re-elected - to that position by my peers from across the continent. My work for European co-operation was given special recognition at a meeting in Switzerland earlier this year.
Nevertheless, I am profoundly eurosceptic and am proud to be so.
Your comments are, however, typical of the europhile camp and tie in with those repeated ad nausem by members of the European Movement in the letters column of my local newspaper. It seems they are all for international cooperation as long as it is on their terms but if anyone dares to disagree with them they are on the far side of being nasty and intolerant.
And in being so they simply confirm all the disquiet those of us who think things through in realistic rather than idealistic terms feel about the EU.
And if Britain is in a mess it is because of the mismanagement of NuLabour and that mess has not been helped by Blair caving at the negotiations for the EU budget and landing us with yet higher contributions.
Complain about this comment
#27
You are claiming to be British Eurosceptic that thinks.
Your arguments are all over the place.
You would prefer your own legal system, laws, currency etc. instead of having something in common with the other 27 democracies that surround Britain
Let me ask you a question:
Do you have any concept of what it is like trying to run a business across 28 borders ?
Any idea how difficult it used to be to register a patent in 28 different countries instead of 1 ?
Any idea how difficult it used to be to deal with multiple currencies instead of one (and a couple of remaining silly national ones). Having to waste hard earned company revenue on spreads simply to pay for parasitic currency arbitrageurs in London.
You complain about European beaurocracy - Any idea how difficult it is to deal with 28 mutliple bureaucracies ?
You have no idea what the word inefficiency means.
Complain about this comment
RCalvo (17): I look forward to your alternative explanation of why some countries tolerate a big state and international bureaucracy, and others do not.
The trouble in Iceland was not the currency but that they borrowed 12 times GDP. If Ireland or Spain did the same do you think Germany will bail them out? The belief that the Euro somehow protects you is purely physiological. It is a herd instinct. The economic reality is that the Euro will concentrate the pain of unemployment in certain countries.
The additional flexibility we have in the UK to adjust interest rates and the exchange rate has already taken advantage of. The Irish are going to find their options are much more limited, e.g. to looking for a job in the UK.
Complain about this comment
#31 - ProfJamesMoriarty
Interesting post completely undermined by the 'couple of remaining silly' currencies comment. Slovakia will join the Euro next year having met the convergence criteria, most of the other eastern EU countries have a declared policy of joining not, as in Britain's case, 'when the time is right', but as soon as it is practical to do so. I am sure we will be more than happy to abandon our silly currencies just as soon as the west stops messing up our economies, then having to bail us out, and postponing the convergence point way into the foreseeable future.
Complain about this comment
31
Tough
under your logic we would have :-
a single global currency
World Government
And that world government being runs for the benefit for multi national corporations
As for your argument about patents, an agreement about international recognition of intellectual property rights that doesn't include Asia is pointless.
These could and should be dealt with at G7,G20 and WTO conferences with all major exporting countries involved
And as for currencies,had the European countries had their own currencies, it would of forced countries like Spain and Italy to sort out their debt problems or seen their own currencies collapse
It would of forced countries with weak governmental structures like Greece to re organise their economies and the way they govern themselves, unstead of which we have weak governments propped up by subventions from Europe
Complain about this comment
Re post 26, Menedemus, a vote by the U.K. population to stay in the E.U. does not equate to a vote for ever closer (political union). If there was such a vote I woud vote to stay in the E.U. But I would be voting for a E.U. that is vibrant, a freemarket and where people can move freely about, no more, no less.
If tomorrow Scotland had a vote whether to stay in the U.K. and voted 'yes', that would not give a green light for powers to be taken from the Scottish Prliament to West Minster. If that was wanted a referendum would need to be asked specifically asking the question.
The problem with the E.U. project has been a lack of transparency and a feeling people have not been given all the information and hoowinked. So if you want ever closer (political) union ask that question directly of the British People (and the people of the european nations) I would stand by the result.
Just in case you are talking about ever closer economic union (as most people thought the original EEC was about) I am with you on that.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset (35): Any UK vote to remain in the EU would be used to the maximum federalist extent possible, just as the 1975 referendum to stay in the common market has been. The reality is that you will get a once in a lifetime opportunity to decouple the UK from an undemocratic EU state and it would be foolish in the extreme to fluff it.
Complain about this comment
#32
Ahh, so Britain has the ability to adjust your exchange rates.
How's that working for you ?
Raise interest rates and you wipe out your recovery.
Lower them and foreign investors withdraw their money turning your currency into the peso.
This "ability to vary your interest rates" is a fallacy in a globalised economy.
As an Irishman I am delighted my country is in the Euro.
It has meant consistently lower interest rates vis a vis our British competitors.
Not to mention another incentive for foreigners to invest in Ireland over the UK.
I'll not be looking for a job in the UK as happily our 2 greatest export industries (Pharmaceuticals and IT) are weathering this downturn rather well.
When the cost of servicing the spiralling UK national debt is far higher than had the UK been a member of the Euro I wonder how many taxpayers will agree with your pro sterling sentiments...
Complain about this comment
I think EU sceptics would do a better job in running EU, only then EU would be fair and democratic.
Why do you think we are in a world finacial crisis? It is becuase instead of independent counrties, and independent systems, today we are creating a bigger and bigger conglomerate of states, called EU, another is US, another is Russia, and China, and India, etc.
The system and regulations inside each conglomerate is centralised and unified. Diversification is not allowed. Therefore if we have one system, and this system fails, then there is no other choice but to suffer the consquences. If there were many friendly countries with each a diversified system then the crisis would be local, but never global.
Why everything went wrong? Because of the interdependency missconception. What is that? That is that our leaders confused *interdependency* with *reliance* on the others, thus becoming *adictive dependent*. Instead of being *interactively independent*. Even if one part fails, it will not be such deal.
About VAT, less we pay to EU, better off we will be.
Complain about this comment
If a reduction in VAT does anything it will be to increase imports. Reduced taxes will be used to reduce existing loans. That's the reality.
The EU agreement is to allow each state to use whatever facility they think appropriate to their own economies. Not much EU-centralised power-play there .
The key thing in this economic crisis (Yes, folks, it's really what this blog is about) is to learn what works - and transfer it, quickly. Now if all these EU plumbers could turn to that, then they could be "economic plumbers" - sorted!.
(Maybe not, I might need a real piumber soon).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
jordanbasset @ #35
The main battle with the British Parliament would be to get them to even agree to hold a referendum about membership of the EU.
However, if the MPs were ever able to bring themselves to trust the British Public and agree to such an event then by all means the Electorate could be asked all sorts of questions. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned as supposition that the majority of Briton want to leave the EU or wan this type of EU or that type of EU is merely chattering without any concrete evidence that the British actually think one way or another about the EU.
Unfortunately, however the Referendum questions were posed, the British would be necessarily voting to stay or leave the EU as it is BEFORE the UK Government could be mandated to seek to make changes to the EU that met any additional requirements as voted for by the British Electorate through supplementary questions. Thus the voted for "Ideal EU" for what sort of EU the British wants to be part of is somewhat moot!
If (and it is a big ask!) the majority of the British Electorate voted to stay within the EU Project then the EU-Sceptics can simply no longer hold the absence of ANY referendum over those who do seek to have the UK part of the EU Project.
From my prespective it is far better that Britain is part of the EU and a thorn in the flesh of Germany and France and continues to strive to make the EU different to what it is now.
The British giving the UK a mandate to stay by way of a public referendum is my ideal method for achieving that objective.
Complain about this comment
What a thread, just what we needed was new EUphiles who can't admit the down falls in the current EU system.
Please ProfJamesMoriarty don't confuse those who are EUphobic and those who are Europhobic.
In my assessment the majority of Britains are EUphobic but do favour sort sort of European wide co-opperation.
The real issue is that People who have no democratic legitimatcy are deciding on where and how the E.U project should work.
I think if we were offered a couple of different models of European Government and asked to chose the one which we thought would work best, then people the majority, who don't trust the direction the E.U is taking, but are in principle Pro-european would get behind the European project again.
The proplem is the E.U is so used to dictating the way forward that it has forgotten that it is only there to serve the people. Not to control the people.
The Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is prime example of a missed opertunity.
No means no.
What should now happen is the E.U commision or who ever should present different versions of where they want to be in say 10-15 years time and let Europe choose its destany rather than being lead there like sheep.
Lets bring back democracy to Europe, lets setout 3 or 4 visions of how we want the E.U to work and then lets choose one which works and people actually want.
Transparacncy, Equality, Democracy, Freedom and Justice
Complain about this comment
Re post 41, Memedemus, I think we are on the same wave length. Yes you are right the referendum would have to be on leaving or joining the E.U. as it is now. For me that is one where the constitutional treaty has been rejected, followed by rejection of the the Lisbon Treaty. A E.U. that has no popular mandate to press for ever closer political union. So I would be happy to vote for that.
But the referendum, as you say, could allow the people a say on what sort of E.U. the people want to see. I am no longer sure about the outcome of a referendum to leave the E.U. I am completely confident that any referendum that asked the people do you want ever closer political union within the E.U. , the answer would be an overwhelming no. But I would stand by the result, wish the politicians and bureacrats would.
Post 36, Freeborn John I do appreciate where you are coming from. For too long there has ben a drive to create a federal Europe by the back door. When we had the original debate re joining the EEC, it was sold as an economic union and we would retain complete sovereignity. Then came the Single European Act and Mastricht Treaties. These were were sold as tidying up exercises and there was no need to worry about tansfer of more power to the E.U. In these and other matters we were misled. After the act we are told it was obvious there would be transfers of powers etc, you should of read it, it's your fault for not being observant.
From all this you may wonder why I want to stay in the E.U. Two reasons, firstly I do think it is in our economic interest. But that would not be sufficient if it was not for the second reason. I really think the people of europe are waking up to what out political masters and E.U. bureacrats are trying to do. We have seen the abyss and stepped back. Small steps at the moment with the rejection of the constitution and the LIsbon Treaty, but every journey has to start with a single step.
If I'm proved wrong and the 'project' is pushed through regardless of the will of the European peoples I would, reluctantly, join you.
Complain about this comment
Prof (37): You appear to be denying that UK interest rates have been significantly reduced in recent weeks and that the exchange rate changes will assist the UK economy? I think you will that that what you believe is fallacy has already happened and that British public opinion is very much that our decision to stay our of the Euro has been fully vindicated. If anything, all those pro-Euro campaigners who argued the UK would 'lose infleunce' outside the Eurozone have been discredited as the Eurozone plus many others have followed the UK economic policy.
You may HAVE been delighted that Ireland was in the Euro, but it is undeniable that the main effect of this over the economic cycle has been to fuel an unsustainable construction boom that SHOULD have long ago been nipped in the bud with a timely rise in interest rates. The consequences of Ireland not being able to do that as a Euro user WILL now be a far more serious downturn than will occur n the UK.
WhiteEnglishProud (42): We should welcome the fresh EUphile posters. They are useful in illustrating how weak pro-EU arguments are.
----------
"They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way" ? Wellington.
Complain about this comment
Since whatever topic begins these threads, the regulars almost always end up debating quite stridently either for or against the EU from polarised positions. For some time, I have been consistently arguing that the UK has reached the point where it has decide decisively on a sense of direction and that the best way to test this is by referendum.
However, what I am beginning to detect, especially in the eurosceptic camp, is an uncertainty as to what exactly they do want. People are posting that they are in favour of Europe wide co-operation, freedom of movement, mobility of labour and so on but want to avoid integration, tax harmonisation, cross border law enforcement or monetary union.
This begs the question of what, in exact terms do you want a referendum to ask you? One can certainly not propose a question full of 'ifs and buts' and there is no point in asking a speculative question when there is absolutely no guarantee of a positive outcome to subsequent negotiations on free trade and mobility following a withdrawal.
So my question is a very basic one - what is the question?
Complain about this comment
2. the-real-truth:
"Anyone employed by the EU likely to be feeling the pinch?"
Yup. Staff have been getting below inflation pay rises for at least a decade now. Don't believe me? It's public domain info - just read the Official Journal online or at a major library.
Complain about this comment
6. doctor-gloom:
" too many eurocrats."
10. karolina001:
"Not only too many Eurocrats ..."
Go on then. How many? Do your own research then compare the number with a city or county authority.
But then you probably believe that 1 is "too many". Yes?
Complain about this comment
11. Freeborn-John:
"The opposite phenomena occurs in high-trust societies (e.g. Germany, Japan, US and other English-speaking countries) where the private sector is able to scale to accomplish much larger tasks without becoming corrupt, "
Ah, that's delicious. I've finally seen Freeborn-John crack a joke.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset, Menedemus, etc..
About UK referendum on EU.
If UK would have an referendum on EU membership, there couldn't be option as "stay in the current EU" and it certainly couldn't be sold as keeping EU at its current state and not furthering in the federalist path. That would be more or less self deception or a blatant lie.
My point is that EU from the beginning was organization with a vision: an ever closer union. There has always been a drive, a political culture, to further European integration. Referendum in UK won't change the fact that there is a drive to further integration and you can't change the fact that the end of this integration if federation.
I would also like to point out that there are real economical interests for the ever closer union and those interests translate into political and in the end military interests. Referendum in UK wont change those interests and it doesn't change the fact that many European countries especially France and Germany want to take care of those interests.
If a referendum would be organized in UK, the options would have to be 1) secede from the EU, or 2) accept the ever closer union as the aim of the EU and accept to part take fully in this process. I'm sorry, but those are the two real options, there is no third way.
Complain about this comment
23. ProfJamesMoriarty:
"Thank heaven Britain is not in the Euro."
I think you'll find that at the moment the UK wouldn't be allowed to join the eurozone even if it wanted to. See the eligibility rules on wiki, etc.
Complain about this comment
Re post 45, Threnodio, I understand what you say about speculative referendums may produce a result that is unachievable for a Government to produce. But such a referendum would inform the strategic direction the Government should be heading in. I would also suggest such a referendum needs to be simply worded. For example 'do you wish the Government to try and achieve ever closer political union with the E.U.?' A yes would legitimise Government actions re the constitution or Lisbon Traty, for example. A no would be a clear steer to the Government about how they should try and resist such attempts.
In addition they could and should be referendums on any change to the balance of power between the E.U. and the nation states. (As the case in Ireland). If there is any doubt then the decision should be in favour of holding a referendum. Such actions would perhaps ease the fear of many who see a E.U. project being forced through against the will of the people.
Complain about this comment
26. Menedemus:
"On the other hand, I am a committed democrat and see that the current lack of voice for the British people regarding membership of the EU means that the EU is viewed with jaundiced eyes and that it is difficult for British pro-Europeans to justify the current status quo of Britain's EU membership given the democratic deficit felt by citizens of the UK."
Good heavens! I agree with him.
Complain about this comment
Jordanbasset (43): The consensus democracy in numerous Continental countries means that so long as the leadership of the established political parties come to a mutual agreement on EU integration then the voters really cannot do anything about it all. This week we saw the foreign minister of the most EU sceptic country (Austria) resigning rather than be part of a government that favours referendums on future EU treaties (not Lisbon). Andrew Duff MEP today criticised the Czechs for not realising when they joined the EU that ?it was subscribing not only to the acquis communautaire [rules] of the past but also to all future obligations." I am afraid the writing is on the wall as far as the EU is concerned and it will only be underlined at next month?s EU Summit when the Irish electorate are told they will be voting again.
I would also question that EU membership remains in the UK economic interest. The cost of the EU has risen remorselessly and somebody must be paying for it.
Threnodio (45): No more talk of reform from me. We need to get out. The Conservatives should include a commitment in their manifesto about re-negotiating our membership to one of trade and not politics. And if this cannot be completed in a timely manner (say 2 years) then we should simply leave. EU tariffs are 0% on services, 2% on manufactured goods and 10% on agriculture (which is less than 1% of GDP anyway). Many people would not even notice we had left.
I think we should have a referendum but a part of me would enjoy the hypocrisy of squeals from EU supporters should they be denied one and we left anyway.
Complain about this comment
Re post 49, Jukka I do appreciate your straight forward and honest views on this subject. Too many federalists try and hide what they are trying to achieve under the disguise of 'tidying up', 'need to because of enlargement' etc
However I do not think you, or I, or any one else on this forum can dictate what the E.U. should become. That is up to the peoples of Europe. The fact that fifty years ago the words ever closer union were used in an economic context does not give you, or any one else, the right to say that this binds the people of europe ever more to working towards a federalised europe. Only the peoples of europe can do that
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #49
At the moment the UK would have to repudiate the Treaty of Rome to leave the EU with all the problems of repudiation of treaties holds for those countries brave enough to do that.
Strangely enough, the Lisbon Treaty, for all its faults bypasses the nned to repudiate treaties and provides a mechanism for nay ons EU Member State to leave the EU Project.
Thus one has make an educated guess that the bureacrats who engineered the Lisbon Treaty must forsee that sooner or later EU Member Nations are going to want to leave.
Clearly, in my view, that would be a retrograde step for the UK to take but the mechanism is there for any EU member State to take now and could be there (in a more manageable and less fraught way) if the Irish do get a second referendum and vote "Yes" to the Lisbon Treaty and, other potential obstacles such as a Czech Veto do not come to fruition.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (54):
The people of Europe have always elected governments that have furthered European integration and there is no question or doubt that this would be changed in the future. And as long as those governments are elected democratically, as long as people think that they represent them, as long the governments can drive things that are in their and their peoples interest.
If I go back somewhat in the history, the formation of European Coal and Steel Community wasn't just an economical decision, it was highly a question of politics and military security. Coal and steel at that time decided would the state fare in the world or would it fall.
The culture that was created in ECSC is still with us, it is at the hearts of government, it is at the hearts of leaders, political actives, state employees, business men etc.. There is a culture, there is a drive, and that culture and drive has to be accounted when talking about the EU, EU is not just a legal creation, it is a creation of culture, that culture must identified and acknowledged.
As I have said in other discussions, the question on what the federation, the ever closer union be is still open for debate, but the direction is clear, and that direction is dictated by the culture instilled on people and their leaders.
To Menedemus (55):
And that is the thanks of EU becoming more federal :-)
Complain about this comment
Richmof @20 wrote:
"It is just polluted by europhobe and eurofederalist trolls. Either close the comments or block the trolls. Otherwise don't pretend there is any moderation."
... and tinpot dictators.
Complain about this comment
ProfJamesMoriarty @23,
Although I am neither a paid employee of Murdoch or a neanderthal, I shall attempt to reply to you using only monosyllacic words:
Buzz off.
Complain about this comment
#49 - Jukka_Rohila
I agree. There is no point in seeking a mandate to maintain the status quo because the situation continues to be fluid. Essentially the question that would have to be asked - obviously in a much more elegant way than this - is do you want to throw your lot in with Europe and accept the resulting institutional structures created with full UK participation or do you want to get out now and negotiate a completely new arrangement.
Not very satisfactory is it?
However, much as I respect your position as a federalist, not everyone sees it the same way. Menedemus and jordanbarret are good examples of people who do not want to pull out but see a different way forward. To offer the British a 'federalism or nothing' question would be to preempt the outcome. You would be in real danger of being crushed in the rush to the exit. Since that is not what many of us want, it would be an artificial result which would leave many bitter and feeling as though they had not been consulted. Whatever the question is going to be, it certainly should not be one that panders to the people on the poles and disregards the middle ground.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (59):
I think the problem here is what is in the middle? What is a middle position? What is the philosophical position of it? What are its inner values, what is the logical process on how the middle way descends into the future?
To tell you the truth, I think you, Menedemus and jordanbasset just hesitate to take the federal step. The thing is, already EU could be argued on being a de-facto federation, a de-facto country. If we take the middle ground and say, yes more integration, but no federation thank you very much, then who is to judge what is enough and where the line is?
I think that the question has to be either integration with a logical result of a federation or getting out. There just is no middle ground.
Now of course, a compromise could be to attach boundaries on integration or in getting out that would trigger a new referendum. Either you do that or then you have to chart on what the middle way would be and then justify it. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any third path.
Complain about this comment
ProfJamesMoriarty @23,
Although I am neither a paid employee of Murdoch or a neanderthal, I shall attempt to reply to you using only two monosyllacic words:
[censored censored]
Complain about this comment
#60 - Jukka_Rohila
Yes but I am not talking about the future of Europe at the moment. I am talking about what the British people should be asked. After all, the fact that you see federalism as the only logical path does not, with all due respect, make you de facto correct. There are others who take a radically different view. The question to them is whether they want to stand their ground and fight it out within Europe, in which case they have also to accept that if federalism wins the day, it becomes a fait accompli or do they not want to take that risk and pull out altogether.
Complain about this comment
Jukka: The number of people who would support a federal European state is no more than 15% in even the most pro-EU country (Luxembourg). It is only about 10% in France and Germany and around 3-4% in EU-sceptic countries like the UK and Finland.
3-4% is about as low as it is possible to go in an opinion poll question with two answers. 4% of people tell pollsters they think Elvis Presly is still alive.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (62):
What is the alternative to federalism?
You can't just decide on where to fight, but you have to decide on what for to fight. To me the third way is "I will kick and I will scream and I will fight every step of the way". I'm sorry, but that road has taken UK and EU to this point already, and you do understand that the current path will just continue and in the end of it there waits a federal future. If UK will continue its current policies it will just take more time, but the end result will be the same.
To Freeborn-John (63):
Oh please, every time something is asked or pooled from people they reject or object to it as people fear for change. Because people themselves can't decide rationally, we have invented representative democracies where elected representatives make decisions based on ration and on medium and long term interests of the country.
What you should be asking do people truest their government, in our case our republic, to take best care of the country and its people.
When I look to Finnish political leaders and actives, there is no question about the path. The only thing that has a question mark is what kind of ever closer union waits down the path. As I said before, there are economical, political and security interests for the integration, and there is certain political culture that is driving the integration. The politicians are just guiding and making sure that we get there, where ever that is, safely.
Complain about this comment
#64 - Jukka_Rohila
None of which takes away anything from my original question which was: what is the question you put to the British people? I know and understand your position. I would like to know from British posters what question they want put in this referendum (in the highly unlikely event that there is one).
For what it is worth, I think that if they had been given a referendum on Lisbon, there would now be such a loud clamour for a referendum on withdrawal. Lisbon you can fix. A complete breakdown in confidence is a whole different ball game.
By the way, if your democracy is really based on the idea that "Because people themselves can't decide rationally", then you really don't deserve to have one.
Complain about this comment
@jukka rohila
what a shame that your idea of EU/federalism clearly does not include (parliamentary) democracy, but instead rule by decree by Brussels' unelected crowd.
Complain about this comment
4. At 10:27am on 26 Nov 2008, tim5165 wrote:
" ...And when the plumber says that 'Europe' can help, does he mean the continent or the European Union? I haven't noted any help coming from Norway, nor from Switzerland. ..."
I believe that Norway and Switzerland do make a financial contribution to the "EU". I believe I read it. Does anybody really know?
The real contribution that Norway and Switzerland do make is to demonstrate that you can do very nicely outside the "EU". We could and should do nicely outside the "EU". When people do German at school they should be looking at Switzerland as well as Germany because there is so much that is worth copying.
Complain about this comment
64. At 10:36pm on 26 Nov 2008, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
" ...
To Freeborn-John (63):
Oh please, every time something is asked or pooled from people they reject or object to it as people fear for change. Because people themselves can't decide rationally, we have invented representative democracies where elected representatives make decisions based on ration and on medium and long term interests of the country...."
I dispute that representative democracy came into being for that reason. When it case into being in the UK and probably in Finland, direct democracy was just not possible because the means of communication and the spread of information were not as good.
It did come into being in Switzerland because it was cut up into much smaller units due to its geography. What was possible there then is possible here now.
Complain about this comment
23. At 2:41pm on 26 Nov 2008, ProfJamesMoriarty wrote:
" ...Londons Financial Services industry has been exposed as nothing more than sleight of hand."
I suspect you are right there. Look at that I sort of agree with you on something!
"Eurosceptic commenters generally fall into 2 camps
(1) Paid employees of Rupert Murdoch (The Sun, Sky, Sun Times) whose job it is to tell English people that Europe is somehow evil.
This is after all the same man who put George W Bush in the white house.
(2)The neanderthals who read Murdochs propaganda.
Professor, do you have any quantitative evidence to support that assertion?
"I almost wish a Euro sceptic would take the British out of the EU altogether..."
I don't almost wish it . I wish it whole heartedly!
" ...and the rest of Europe would not have to put up with their monosyllabic, xenophobic rantings.
French people are not frogs.
Germans are not "deck-chair stealing krauts". ..."
I don't hate the French and I don't hate the Germans. I have good reason to be very grateful to a lot of Germans. I want to be friendly with them,. I don't want to be in a political union with them.
We in Britain are only in your "EU" because our so-called democracy is rubbish and anti-democratic megalomaniacs and creeps have been able to take it over. I do believe that they have been supported financially by anti-democrats on the continent. Because our democracy is not working and we have been denied the referendum we were promised, we now have an incentive to annoy the continentals in the hope that they will throw us out.
" Little Britain is indeed the laughing stock of Europe." Laugh as much as you like.
Austrian hate the "EU" just about as much as the Brits. ("EU" statistic!)
I would like to know how much effect blogs like this one are having on the continent. I suspect it is only the theory-blinded "EU"-lovers who are offended.
Please could you tell me how fed up with the Brits the people around you are and whether this blog gets much attention over there?
Please work for the removal of the UK from the "EU". We will all get on much better when we are out. I do want to get on with you (continentals).
Complain about this comment
65. At 11:11pm on 26 Nov 2008, threnodio wrote:
" ... I would like to know from British posters what question they want put in this referendum (in the highly unlikely event that there is one)."
Either : "Do you want the Lisbon wotsit?" YES or NO.
Opinion polls were saying that 70% would say NO.
If we were the only ones to say NO then the French and Germans would want us out. I want out. So if they don't throw us out, then I want a referendum on whether we stay in or not. The recent opinion poll in Luton said a majority wanted out. I believe that it was flawed not because of the sample size, as threnodio suggests, but because it was only in Luton.
" For what it is worth, I think that if they had been given a referendum on Lisbon, there would now be such a loud clamour for a referendum on withdrawal. Lisbon you can fix. A complete breakdown in confidence is a whole different ball game."
I agree with you on that.
Klaus Haensch Ex-president of the so-called European Parliament said some time ago that if the British voted NO they should leave.
I shouldn't really write this because I want out: If we voted NO and they said you are out of touch with Europe. Leave! We could say: "We are in touch with the people in your country. They don't want Lisbon either. You resign!"
I am not sure if I have answered threnodio's quest yet. I want either referendum. If we have the one on Lisbon the other will follow. Hurray!
Complain about this comment
I read elsewhere that "Ireland stands alone."
Ireland does not stand alone. Ireland has the admiration and gratitude of millions of people throughout the "EU".
The "EU"-loving apparatchiks and their out-of date parties stand alone. They are the enemies of the people of Europe.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Poor mr Mardell, getting the same discussion over and over and over regardless of what the topic of his blog is.
Good thing the blog itself is interesting.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To threnodio (65) and to SuffolkBoy2 (68):
Why do people always get so excited when the ration and logic behind representative democracy is taken out in the open?
Look, the fact is that people can't decide rationally. In first place they are mostly ill-informed and secondly most people don't just have the capacity to make rational decisions. For example, if you take the whole nation and measure IQ of every single person in the end what you get is Gauss distribution: the extremes on both ends, low and high IQ, have relatively few people and most people have average IQ. If this mass would make decisions those decisions would be dictated by average minds and average thoughts, that just isn't good enough. To get the state working what you want is to put the most intelligent and able persons to lead the country. Unfortunately that isn't good enough either.
Representative democracy is a compromise between direct democracy and oligarchy. The key behind this compromise is the understanding that people have interests: interests influence and dictate decisions. In elections people vote for parties and candidates based on how his or hers interests are aligned with the interests of party and the candidate. The end result of election is that elected representatives, the parliament, represents different interests of the society. When different interests are settled, combined and conflict, a majority in the end emerges that represents majority of interests and thus majority of the people. If the interests of the people change or their representatives or parties didn't do what they promised, people vote for different candidates and different parties in next elections.
Complain about this comment
Jukka: No-one should take lessons in democracy from you.
BTW. What do you think of the EU's "Deliberative Polling" where they select a group (supposedly tandomly) and then use pro-EU moderators to steer the debate, and then present the results as pubic opinion on the EU?
http://www.tomorrowseurope.eu/spip.php?rubrique8
-----
10. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.
13. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Umberto Eco (?Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt?)
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (76):
I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of getting quotes from Umberto Eco. His texts in the end are just finely worded opinions, nothing more. 'Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt' belongs to the same trash can as texts of thinkers of Austrian school.
Actually my objection and resentment on you responding to my comment with 'Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt' is that you try to juxtapose my comment on fascism.
If you don't disagree with my view of representative democracy as alignment and competition of interests then you should put argument against it, not to quote some texts that have no value at all in this discussion.
Now if we go to deliberative polling, its a method on predicting how the opinion of people change due to having a political dialogue and education given to people. Its a tool to support decision making, it doesn't tell how things are, but to what things could be. Now is it scientifically valid? Does it give a definitive answer? No, but its a tool that with other methods can make a study more accurate. Also if you look at the examples of its usage you should see that it has been used to test policies not on "the result is: we are all happy EU people!".
Complain about this comment
#75 - Jukka_Rohila
That is alright as far as it goes but it presupposes government by consensus, a situation which usually arises when you have a proportional representation system and governments are formed of more than one party. First past the post systems usually produce a single party of government which means that politics tend to be far more confrontational.
Under either model, a functioning democracy requires universal suffrage which means that the very people you suggest cannot make rational decisions are in a substantial majority. The result of that scenario is either that nations will get the government they vote for but not necessarily a government that is good for them or that, in order to achieve 'responsible government', you have first to disenfranchise those who are not considered 'rational' enough to vote. This makes an absolute nonsense of representative democracy. I am inclined to agree with Churchill's analysis that democracy is not perfect but it is the best solution we have come up with so far.
The problem with your model is that it sounds very much like a ringing endorsement for democracy all the time you get the result you want. That, in my mind, is no kind of result at all. Democracy as an expression of the will of the people may often produce flawed government but it has legitimacy. Democracy as a "tool" is little more than benevolent despotism which (by chance?) happens to be the very thing that anti-federalists object to in the ongoing EU project -
- #70 - SuffolkBoy2 -
- has answered my question and his answer seems to me a fair one. He agrees with me that the best solution would have been a vote on Lisbon. If the UK, like Ireland, had been offered Lisbon and rejected it, we would have been at a 'back to square one position'. Since we no longer have an option of voting for or against Lisbon, the eurosceptics must now look for a referendum on the whole future of UK membership. My question for SB2 therefore is: if you have your referendum and lose it, will you then accept that the government is mandated to proceed with the EU project wherever that may lead? And my question to you Jukka is: if the UK remains in the EU and the tide of opinion continues to swing against Lisbon and fereration (Ireland? UK? Austria? Czech Republic?) will you accept a different way forward despite your committed view on federalism?
Complain about this comment
The Referendum Question should be
"Should the British Government consider 'ever closer Union' within the E.U without presenting further Intergration Treaties to public Referendum"
A yes vote would give them carte blanche to Intergrate
A no vote would give us a say on all future proposals
Complain about this comment
Then We can Judge each Constitution on its merit, rather than either in or out.
Complain about this comment
Jukka: I do see a strong correlation between many of the views you express here and fascism, and I will continue to point that out. We have had numerous posts from you saying that if politicians can find constitutional loop holes by which they can impose a permanent transfer of legislative authority outside of national parliaments (which is what the successive treaties on European Union do), then it is legitimate for them to exploit those loopholes even when this is obviously contrary to the wishes of the people, who are permanently (short of leaving the EU) disenfranchised by the result. What you describe is therefore not democracy, but rather the perversion of democracy.
My views on democracy are not based on the "Austrian school" (by which I assume you mean the economist Hayek), but rather on the political philosophy of English and French liberals such as Locke, Montesquieu, and J.S. Mill. Government in which the supreme power is a legislative authority in which the people delegate their power in trust, and which retains its legitimacy only so long as it enjoys the consent of the governed. The UK Parliament has 646 MPs and all but 8 were elected in 2005 on manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. A majority of those MPs have now voted to do the opposite of what they were elected to do, i.e. ratified the equivalent measures without referendum, in the full knowledge that the British people would have rejected the transfer had a referendum been held. The result would be (if Lisbon were to come into force) that the EU has sacrificed the consent of the governed and become an authority exercising illegitimate power over the British people. The same would be true of the Irish, French, Dutch and no doubt numerous others.
Only one EU member (Ireland) is a real democracy. It is very clear that this real democracy (based on the sovereignty of the people) is increasingly incompatible with EU membership. The twin concepts of federal Europe and the sovereignty of the people are by definition mutually exclusive. One of them must go, and it must be federalism.
-------
"As all human things have an end, the state we are speaking of [Engand] will lose its liberty, will perish. Have not Rome, Sparta, and Carthage perished? It will perish when the legislative power shall be more corrupt than the executive." Montesquieu 'The Spirit of the Laws' (1748).
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_11.htm
Complain about this comment
#79 - WhiteEnglishProud
Now that is fair, reasonable and sensible.
Complain about this comment
#81 - Freeborn-John
As you know, I hold a rather different view of the future of Europe but I completely agree with your view of what democracy is and the authorities of the 18th century that you cite to underline it. What worries me is that there is a technical argument under way as to whether Lisbon is, in effect, the constitution by another name or whether it really is a watered down version which addresses the concerns of the original's opponents.
If Lisbon is effectively the constitution redrafted, that really only leaves one plausible explanation for the situation in which we find ourselves, namely that the electorate have been betrayed by the government they voted into office by playing with words (removing the word 'constitution' from the title page and by extension the obligation to hold a referendum). Since similar procedures have been followed in all other member states except Ireland, it can be inferred that there was a Europe wide conspiracy to deprive the great mass of the people their democratic rights.
We need to be clear, however, that while the EU may have been the umbrella organisation under which this occurred, the acts of betrayal themselves were committed by the individual governments concerned acting in conspiratorial concert. The Germans have an opportunity to express their views next year, Britain before summer 2010 but for many Europeans, the only opportunity will be at next year's European Parliamentary election. This is why, no matter how jaundiced and sceptical electors may feel, they must take this election seriously. The message must go not just to Brussels but to every capital in Europe that if they ignore or circumvent the will of the people, there will be a price to pay.
If, as our political leaders seem to believe, the differences between the Constitution and Lisbon are sufficiently significant to justify treating it as a different proposal, I think they need to tell us why it is that they are so afraid of consulting the people on this 'new set' of proposals.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
Thank you, glad you persuaded me to stop shouting
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John@32:
I have to repost, since it seems that my inconsiderate use of a four-letter word (even with asterisks, and even when replaced by the name of the author you cited) has attracted the attention of the otherwise rather dormant moderators. Apparently, even "alternative spellings" are verboten. Must be the repercussions of the Jonathan Ross incident.
Anyway, you asked why, if not for the reasons proposed by Francis Fukuyama, people in some countries "tolerate" an interventionist state, and in others not. My answer is that it certainly has nothing at all to do with "high-trust" and "low-trust": witness the Scandinavian countries, generally reckoned to be the "highest-trust" places in the world, and their nanny states.
What citizens are ready to accept or ask from the state has really a lot more to do with historical serendipity and local precedent. Also, state size and power are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Basically, citizens are ready to trust the state where it has proven itself capable, and distrust it where it has blundered or worse in the past: so it is that Brits and Americans are ready to accept large militaries, because their militaries have performed relatively decently in the past and refrained from intervening in internal affairs, whereas Germans, Italians, Spaniards and Greeks are understandably anti-militaristic. Similarly, the French trust the state to run the trains, because it makes a rather decent job of it, and the Scandinavians accept the bill for their welfare states, because they've crucial in their general prosperity, whereas the Brits have a natural distrust of nationalised enterprises, not least because of British Leyland.
Above all: don't generalise. Across the world, and in particular in Europe, citizens tend to be quite pragmatic, if somewhat incoherent, in their appreciation of state power: so do you Brits accept a level of camera surveillance which would cause riots about anywhere else, whereas you get suspicious at the simple mention of ID cards.
As for a Belgian's appreciation of the EU, it is clear that from the point of view of a small Continental country, trading heavily with its neighbours, the advantages of the EU are far more apparent than from Britain. This is exacerbated by the fact that Britain has itself opted-out of the two most apparent advantages of the EU, that is, the euro and Schengen. You can't even begin to understand just how quaint and anachronistic it feels for a Belgian resident to have to go through passport control and currency exchange for a quick jaunt over the Channel (never mind driving on the wrong side of the road, using plug adaptors and mentally converting measuring units). As I'm fond of saying: it almost feels like another country.
You dismiss the Icelandic example a bit too quickly, too. Iceland's biggest problem is that its debt is mostly in foreign currency. Since the Icelandic krona is such a small currency, it was highly vulnerable to short-sellers. Rapid devaluation inflated thus the debt in relation to GDP. Even if Britain has a much larger economy than Iceland, it is exposed to the same risk, especially as its banks have also foreign debts much larger than its GDP. A run on sterling could thus be devastating.
Euroland countries do not have that risk, as their banks' debts and assets are mostly denominated in euros, and the euro is a much bigger beast than sterling, never mind the Icelandic krona, and thus a much tougher nut to crack for currency speculators. The euro is certainly no panacea in the current economic climate, but it helps.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#85, RCalvo,
Two points, regarding the Euro don't forget the old saying "the bigger they are the harder they fall", nothing and no-one is immune from this crisis and if a currency the size of the pound sterling crashes it would be inconceivable that the Euro won't also suffer in some way. As for the banks debt, well you know what Fortis, Dexia etc have done and they're little better than the UK banks that needed saving. I think there is a lot more to be unveiled here in Belgium about Fortis and BNP Paribas in particular and how the sell off got funded.
As for the low-trust and high-trust countries and Belgium being considered a low-trust country, I can well understand that as the tax regimes and regulations are very much prohibitive. It is the existence of such a high cost overhead that made so many work in the black economy and you can't expand a small business in those circumstances. Unfortunately, over regulation, corruption etc is a legacy that Belgium needs to shed and things are beginning to change, and the establishment of small business parks is one sign of that.
As for too many EU plumbers, please send some down the road from Brussels as there are very few and they're over priced with all their expensive to obtain agreements (qualifications) that are mandatory these days, and which exclude many able potential plumbers from creating a new business.
Complain about this comment
Re #83 threnodio
Absolutely on the button, couldn't disagree with you at all!
Re SuffolkBoy2 and WhiteEnglishProud - rarely disagree with you both - just watch the blood pressure!
My doctor has now warned me off the EU because I get so frustrated with both the UK Government and our electorate. Let's hope they give the three main parties the contempt they deserve in the Euro elections next year.
Mind you, Campbell & Mandelson may have already convinced dear Gordon to hold a General Election on the same day to muddy the waters!!
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (83): There are two types of difference between the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty; semantic and syntactical. The semantic differences are small, mainly related to symbols like flags and anthems. The syntactical differences are big (but not important) because the Lisbon treaty has been re-written as the differences from the existing Treaty on European Union rather than as a stand-alone document. However in all the important semantic aspects, e.g. the supremacy of EU law, the rules by which this law is decided, and the additional fields to which it would be applied, there is no difference between the two documents. Nor is there is any serious doubt that such things are of constitutional significance.
On the issue of electorates being betrayed by a Europe-wide conspiracy, my thinking is as follows: I do not believe there is a conscious conspiracy, but rather (as Montesquieu says) 'experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to carry his authority as far as it will go'. i.e. that the politicians in power today support the EU because it enhances their power relative to other branches of government, and also to future governments.
The original concept of an elected legislature such as the British Parliament was that it should act as a check on the power of the executive (then the Crown). This is still the case in the USA where there remains a separation of powers between the executive (president) and legislature (Congress) as we used to have in the UK. However we have lost this in Britain and it does not exist in most Continental countries where the concept of parliamentary democracy prevails in which the executive (cabinet) is elected by the legislature after which the legislature is then beholden to the executive. Prime Ministers are able to use the mechanisms of party discipline (Whips, patronage, etc.) to ensure that MPs do their bidding rather than act as the voice of their constituents. Thus parliament has increasingly come to represent the will of one person (the leader of its majority party) rather than being a representative assembly of the people able to hold that executive to account. I beieve this to be the defect from which the EU problem has grown.
This is what I believe Montesquieu meant when he talked of the legislative power of the Westminster parliament becoming more corrupt than the executive, and that this would lead to the end of English liberty. The reason that this has not happened since the end of the political power of the monarchy is that every few years we have been able to elect a new parliament able to undo any unpopular measures enacted by the previous government. Thus there is a limit to the volume of unpopular law and policy that can build up. But the problems become much more serious when the EU system is overlaid on top of parliamentary democracy. The EU can be viewed as an additional set of tools which further increase the (already excessive) power of the executive in parliamentary democracies. National executives (cabinet ministers) are for example able to create law at European level (in the Council of Ministers) which no vote in a national parliament can block, and which is binding not just on them but also on future parliaments. This creates a kind of 'first mover advantage' whereby the generation of cabinet ministers who first propose to transfer legislative power to Brussels are able to play a role in setting up a body of superior EU law which their national opposition cannot reverse when they come to power. This I think explains the phenomena that we see throughout Europe whereby opposition parties are critical of the EU but then support it when in office.
In summary I think you are correct to point out that there are national causes to the EU problem. Rather than being a conspiracy I see it as politicians acting on their personal short-term interest (i.e. to push their authority when in office as far as it will go) in exploiting a systemic weakness with parliamentary democracy as it is practiced in Europe. Consider for example what would happen in the USA if their president had signed the Treaty of Lisbon. The US Senate would not even be asked to ratify because the Supreme Court would throw it out for violating sentence 1 of Article 1 of the US Constitution, which (following Locke) declares that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States".
If my analysis is correct, then there will come a time when future politicians (and voters) will no longer agree to be bound by the knots that current generation of politicians are tying them up in. This is why I think the EU system will collapse rather than be reformed.
------
"So oft it chances in particular men,
That through some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o'ergrowth of some complexion -
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much;
that these men ? Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption, from that particular fault" (Hamlet)
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (78):
I do agree on what you said about the first-past-the-post system and that it leads to confrontations. I would add that the first-past-the-post system also encourages politicians to pander extremes as they are more constant voters.
Now I do think that you missed a point about interests.
Joe the plumber doesn't know what 'monetary policy' is, but what he knows is that upper classes are duping him. He has an interest and he votes a party and a candidate that shares his interest.
A single mom doesn't know what 'industrial and technology policy' holds, but she knows that she needs more help with kids, more child friendly environments, better school, etc.. she has an interest and votes for a party and a candidate that shares her interest.
An entrepreneur knows what monetary policy means, how industrial and technology policy affects him and his company, thus he votes a party and a candidate that shares his his interest.
What we have here are different interests and some of this interest either overlap or compete with each other. Now these interests are then converted to responsible, rational and intelligent representatives via competition. For example Joe the plumber decides to vote for communist party, and from communist party he has 14 different candidates from which to choose. Joe probably chooses a candidate that can deliver the message, has a track record etc... The end result is that those who are better politicians get to the parliament.
In this kind of system there is no need for voter disfranchising and as irrational feelings and thoughts are translated to interests and via competition translated to the best of the crop of representatives.
---
Now about the EU. You asked...
"And my question to you Jukka is: if the UK remains in the EU and the tide of opinion continues to swing against Lisbon and fereration (Ireland? UK? Austria? Czech Republic?) will you accept a different way forward despite your committed view on federalism?"
That solely depends on are my current and future interests satisfied. That is the key. If a federation gives a better results, satisfies interests better then the answer is No, but if there is another solution that gives better results then its a Yes.
I should also add that interests and positions change in time. In my view EU does need to come a federation to take care of its interests. However things can change, if for example we all find the holy spirit and become kinder, softer and more lovable people, then unravel the federation, unravel all governments and states and let the heaven on earth to become true. Until then or when a better solution comes, its ever closer union as in a federation.
Its all about results. Results are the only thing that matter.
Complain about this comment
Its all about results. Results are the only thing that matter.
Read "the End Justifies the Means."
And you wonder why people think your a fascist?
Complain about this comment
# 78. At 1:16pm on 27 Nov 2008, threnodio wrote:
"...
- #70 - SuffolkBoy2 -
...
My question for SB2 therefore is: if you have your referendum and lose it, will you then accept that the government is mandated to proceed with the EU project wherever that may lead? "
If we have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the "EU"-supporters win then the government is entitled to proceed with the treaty, if they told the truth.
In 1975 they did not, I believe, tell the truth and therefore I do not accept the legitimacy of that referendum result.
If we have a referendum on membership and I lose then we are still in. I have no right to dictate to the British people. If we had the referendum on membership first then they should still have a referendum on Lisbon because we were promised one.
However, I would still be entitled to campaign for us to leave although probably I would renew my efforts to escape to somewhere outside the "EU".
I would be entitled to campaign for us to leave but I would not be entitled to claim as I do today that the "EU" is illegitimate.
What I would not accept is that in a few years time we would not be entitled to leave if the British people changed their minds. Nobody has the right to sell their children as slaves.
In particular, if the "EU" turned into a fascist police state, as I fear, then we would be entitled to destroy it whatever it said on any piece of paper..
Complain about this comment
75. At 11:11am on 27 Nov 2008, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
"To threnodio (65) and to SuffolkBoy2 (68):
Why do people always get so excited when the ration and logic behind representative democracy is taken out in the open?
Look, the fact is that people can't decide rationally. In first place they are mostly ill-informed and secondly most people don't just have the capacity to make rational decisions. For example, if you take the whole nation and measure IQ of every single person in the end what you get is Gauss distribution: the extremes on both ends, low and high IQ, have relatively few people and most people have average IQ. If this mass would make decisions those decisions would be dictated by average minds and average thoughts, that just isn't good enough...."
If that is what you believe then presumably you would want an IQ test to allow only some people to vote. Yes? No?
Complain about this comment
As I see it, the europian states are in the process of forming a central goverment. Other nations have done this in the past, of course, most notably the USA. The comparision is remarkable.
In the early days, after the Revolutionary War, there was a weak central goverment under the 'Atricals of Confederation', which worked poorly because the various States all sought to keep as much local control of such things as boarders, trade, taxes, currency and so forth.
This led to chaos, as you might expect. The 13 States were of various sizes, made up of people with various backgrounds and differing beliefs. Some did not wish to be part of any sort of strong Federal Goverment on principle, but all saw that their exsistance depended on some alliance.
There was a discourse on the subject, led perhaps by Thomas Paine, who authored the Federalist Papers and in the end won the debate. The Constitution was written, ammended with the Bill of Rights, and adopted.
The EU is now in much the same position as the States were with the Articles of Confederation. Sure, the europian states have a much longer history to overcome and so its birth pains will be longer and more intense, but that a United States of Europe will be born at some future point is not in question.
What is yet to be determined is how healthy the child will be. Should it be stillborn, God help us all. No one wants a return to 28 little states all going their own way; this led, after all, to both World Wars.
What is needed, and soon, is the emergance of a new Thomas Paine, and a defining debate. Perhaps the Eurozone set up isn't exactly right, too top heavy or autrocratic in its' approach to goverment, but the discussion must evolve from its current level within member states to a wider stage.
I wish you luck.
Complain about this comment
#89 - Freeborn-John
I find your analysis interesting and persuasive.
It is very many years since my student days and, at that time, there was still substance in the view that the British system of checks and balances worked well precisely because there was no written constitution but on the basis that there were accumulated rules by virtue of convention which needed to be observed in order for it to work. Montesquieu is very interesting on this point because he shows remarkable foresight. He could have anticipated that the corrupt legislature might have manifested itself during his lifetime. Actually it has taken the best part of 200 years to reach the point at which parliament can be considered little more than a rubber stamp. Voltaire's assertion about absolute power corrupting absolutely is turned on its head. The corruption of parliamentary democracy comes from powerlessness. Trapped between the ever more devious practices of the whips offices and a sophisticated PR machine which contrives to portray liberals and mavericks as at best eccentric and, at worse, dangerous fools, a generation of second raters now troop slavishly into the lobbies with barely a moan of protest at the behest of their masters in the executive.
There are many reasons why this has come about but three come immediately to mind. Firstly, the tendency for parliament to believe that it knows better than the judiciary how to apply the law. In my day it was clearly understood that parliament made the law and the judiciary applied it. Mandatory sentencing has ended all that. The argument is that sentencing should take into account the needs of victims and should, to some extend, be conditioned by public opinion and that parliament, by being the elected representatives, are in loser touch with these realities. This is, of course a fallacy. Firstly, parliament does exactly what the party hierarchy tells them so their imposed regimes are no more connected to the people than the judiciary. Secondly, we all know the dangers of relying on public opinion. There would be no prison overcrowding if the public had their way but there would be round the clock shift work at Tyburn.
The second is a real paradox. The argument for reforming the Lords was lack of democratic accountability. In practice, the Lords have repeatedly ridden to the rescue when an overzealous Commons have threatened to trample roughshod over the rights of the people who put them there. The reforms depended on putting something credible in its place before removing the old structure. In practice, the administration has improvised all the way along the line,frequently stumbling along the way and the result is a chamber which is neither effective nor representative. The last part of the jigsaw will fall out of place when the Judicial Committee cedes power to the Constitutional Court next year and the Lords will become nothing more than a repository where crumbling old fogeys are bullied by the army of 'working peers' appointed to make sure that the mere threat of the use of the Parliament Act will herald a cave in. 42 day way indeed turn out to be the last ditch stand of a noble institution before it sinks without trace.
The third is a mere suspicion and may well be the product of prejudice. Margaret Thatcher may not have been the prime mover in these matters but she has a lot to answer for. She made it respectable to be filthy rich and created an environment where most individuals with the necessary flair and ability are far too tied up 'nest-feathering' to have time for the public service. She has effectively bequeathed us a generation of second raters whose job is made easier by the said PR machine which so effectively promotes them as the states people they self-evidently are not.
These ever decreasing standards have led us to the point at which standards of probity are a secondary consideration. What does it take for a minister of the Crown to resign these days? How many times is he/she allowed to do it? How many chances are they allowed? I have increasingly looked to Europe as a means of, if not reversing the trend, then at least curbing the worst excesses of an overbearing domestic executive. Alas, it rather looks as though I shall be disappointed although the ECJ offers a small window of opportunity.
The bald truth is that I am disgusted by the way in which a system of which I was once so staunch a supporter has been perverted and undermined. I have always been privileged to live in a democracy and I continue to do so. Which is the main reason why I no longer live in Britain.
Complain about this comment
#92 - SuffolkBoy2
That is a completely reasonable position and I respect it as such.
Complain about this comment
To WhiteEnglishProud (91):
Actually no. Let me explain...
Calling somebody a fascist or blaming on fascism is just a modern version of naming and shaming with an object of silencing or smearing the counter part. The whole problem starts from the question on what actually is fascism and what is not...
For example using original definition of fascism, I really can't see how my opinions or views could be seen as fascist...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Now if take some modern abstraction an define fascism as 'from the top to down obligated uniformity' then we moving near waters where almost everything can be interpreted as fascist. For example "everybody must be free" could be said to instate fascism as it obligates everybody to be free. So, the question is, what is fascism, how you define fascism.
If I continue with "Ends justify the means" then I'm sorry, but I have to announce that doesn't have any meaning. "Ends justify the means" is just a word play. What people usually forget that while "ends justify the means" the ends themselves are not free from means. When you want to have a certain end what you have to understand that the end itself dictates the means as there are means that are incompatible with the end.
To SuffolkBoy2 (93):
Look at my comment 90 for my answer.
In essence, people have irrational feelings, fears, thoughts etc.. these are translated to interests, in elections voters seek a party and candidate which share these interests and vote for them, the people who are elected to parliament are the best of the crop as they have been subjected into a competition in elections.
Just look at my previous post.
Complain about this comment
You see what I mean?
An opposition MP arrested in connection with leaks from a government department. The very department responsible for policing. The same department that wants to know all our secrets, doesn't want you to know theirs.
Complain about this comment
#98, threnodio,
I just saw this report on the news and noted immediately that it was the metropolitan police who carried it out. Now why do I suspect some of the political appointees to be behind this, especially since Ken Livingston's Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Ian Blair announced he will stand down soon (now that Boris Johnson has been elected).
This smells to high heaven of political interference and I hope Boris will wheedle out the officers who gave the order for this travesty, and if it happens to be government backed then this needs to be exposed, names named and those responsible dismissed or disciplined.
Complain about this comment
#99 - Buzet23
Great minds. I grant that opposition front benchers do have some degree of privileged access but this involves material that is alleged to have been leaked from within. Knowing how fond this government is of leaking stuff it wants us us to know about, this looks suspiciously to me like our Mrs.Smith is seriously p'ed off because she does not like the nature of the material that has been leaked. The ironic thing is that the 'source' has a public interest defence if charged. The MP probably does not. The Home Secretary is obviously on shaky ground otherwise she would go the whole shebang and have him charged under the Official Secrets Act.
Mrs. Smith is responsible for homeland security and therefore has a clear duty to order her own arrest since she is obviously dangerous when let loose. By the way, you know that Sir Ian has let it be known that he was pushed don't you?
Complain about this comment
threnodio and buzet23 re. 98-100
This is easily explained.
Boris Johnson has inadvertently politicised the post of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police by declaring his wish that the Mayor of London should have the remit to hire and fire the Commissioner and using his role as Head of the Metropolitan Police Authority to force Sir Ian Blair to resign.
I think that New York, where the Mayor's authority is such, there have been 40 NYPD Commissioners compared to 14 Commissioners for the London Police during the same period of time.
Boris has inadvertently politicised to post and the role and so Sir Ian Blair, on his last day as Commissioner of the Police has clearly demonstrated to the Conservatives that you don't want to allow the British Police to be governed by politicians for day-to-day policing matters as therein lies the road to the British Police becoming political stooges.
Damien Green is merely a pawn in the demonstration of how easy it would be for the British Police to start arresting and detaining people based upon their political behaviours and beliefs.
I just hope the Politicians learn the lesson well. Set policy by all means but don't start telling the police what to do as they are servants of ALL of the People not the Politicians. More imprtantly, I hope the British Peole understand the demonstration of how easy it is for the Police to start to make arrests based upon political behaviours and beliefs.
Freedom from oppression is under threat in the UK.
Policemen and women in Britain are not stupid and some of them know criminal law better than Solicitors do (or at leats they used to do so until the advent of the horrid Crown Prosecution Service!) and, if they wanted to abuse their powers for politiacal reasons, they could do so very easily.
Sir Ian Blair has just demonstrated that fact to Boris Johnson and the Conservatives (and as it happens, also to the Labour and Liberal Parties too!).
One hopes the Electorate can see the danger of politicising the Police in Britain.
Complain about this comment
#100, threnodio,
I'd heard that and thought would I have done the same in Boris's position, too right I would have and his feet would not have touched the ground. He's made far too many mistakes (some very dubious, see wikipedia) and shows his pedigree by being as hard to get to resign as any found out nu-Labour politician.
Or to quote Wikipedia "On 2 October 2008 Blair announced he would resign as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, with effect from 1 December 2008. He blamed a lack of support from London mayor Boris Johnson, saying that "without the mayor's backing I do not think I can continue". Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid tribute to Blair's service. Sir Paul Stephenson will take over on an acting basis until a successor is appointed.".
All that needs exposing now is who ordered the enquiry, Jacqui Smith or Ian Blair or one of their lackeys.
Complain about this comment
Memo to myself:
Spell check for heaven's sake - the typos are messy! ;=)
Complain about this comment
Re the leaks and arrest of the m.p. Under current legislation what the m.p. is alleged to have done is an offence. If reported to the police they are duty bound to investrigate it. I do tend to agree with memedemus that the timing may be significant. I personally do not think the police should be put under pressure by politicians either to arrest or not arrest any one who may have committed an offence, that way lies danger.
The current Government and opposition can sort this matter out very easily. They can ammend the legislation so that if a m.p. leaks information to the press, or aid and abets such a leak, they will commit no offence. (subject to sensitive security issues being exluded perhaps), If that was done the police would not be put into a position of having to decide on political grounds about whether to arrest or not.
However, I do not thinkthis will happen. Parties are very good in opposition about standing up for freedom of information and the like. When they get into Government these principles are soon forgotten in order to have 'good governance'.
Complain about this comment
I am back on my hobby horse. The Home Office is a dinosaur which should have been abolished and split into its component parts years ago. When Brown set up the Ministry of Justice, I had hopes but, no, it is just a new name for the Lord Chancellor's Dept.
There should be a national police force along the lines of the FBI responsible for matters which cross policing boundaries - the Serious Fraud Office, National Security, Anti-Terrorism etc. It should be the responsibility of the Department of Justice and subject to judicial scrutiny. Responsibility for homeland security should be brought under a single wing so that we no longer have MI5, anti-terrorist units and other agencies including regional forces competing to get a result. Again non-governmental scrutiny is required. The remainder of the Met responsible for policing London should be responsible to London and the Commission a mayoral appointment. A modern Department of Justice is required with two ministers, one responsible for law enforcement including terrorism matters, the other for the court service and the penal system. In other words one minister pulling for effective policing, the other pulling for transparent justice.
The Home Office should be consigned to the scrap heap of history. At the end of this recession, when we count the size of the dole queues, I very much hope the Jacqui Smith is numbered among the numbers. She is rapidly emerging as someone who makes David Blunkett and Michael Howard look like wishy washy liberals.
Complain about this comment
PS. Quite what this has to do with Europe, I am not sure.
Complain about this comment
Not sure why referred to moderators so will try again
Re the leaks and arrest of the m.p. Under current legislation what the m.p. is alleged to have done is an offence. If reported to the police they are duty bound to investigate it. I do tend to agree with memedemus that the timing may be significant. I personally do not think the police should be put under pressure by politicians either to arrest or not arrest any one who may have committed an offence, that way lies danger.
The current Government and opposition can sort this matter out very easily. They can ammend the legislation so that if a m.p. leaks information to the press, or aid and abets such a leak, they will commit no offence. If that was done the police would not be put into a position of having to decide on political grounds about whether to arrest or not.
However, I do not think this will happen. Parties are very good in opposition about standing up for freedom of information and the like. When they get into Government these principles are soon forgotten in order to have 'good governance'.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @106
Mumbai and cross-border terrorism and the fact that Air France Aircrew, British and American citizens and the hundred plus deaths are a good reason why this has everything to do with Europe.
Terrorists with murderous intent have just shown how they can stop a city from operating normally when they attack in numbers and without moral constraint.
Europe needs a policing strategy and the police and security services have to work together to prevent such an event happening in any European City.
How can we possibly be discuss the merits or demerits of a unified Europe if we do not consider the merits or demerits of a unified policing and intelligence system that is effective, serves and protects all Europeans for the common good and is professional enough to be trusted to guard us all against the extremists and terrorists who want to kill people simply because of nationality or religious faith as seems to have been the intent of the Mumbai terrorists.
Complain about this comment
Okay I am starting to get paranoid now, but will try one more time.
Parliament made a law which made criminal what is alleged to have been done. The police arrested and interviewed a person suspected of being involved in the commision of that offence. I for one do not want political interference as to who the Police arrests or don't arrest, that way danger lies. (I do appreciate Menedemus point re timing )
If the Government or opposition wants to decriminialise it in respect iof M.P.'s, the answer is very simple, ammend the law. I believe they will not because however much people complain in oppostion, when they get to Government they tend to change their tune and security of information becomes all important.
What I do not want is the Police to be put in a position of having to make decisions as to which law is enforced on political grounds.
Complain about this comment
#108 - Menedemus
I think you misunderstood me. When I said cross border, above, I meant investigations across domestic police force borders.
International policing is now absolutely essential but what I am anxious to avoid is the kind of fragmentation that arises from having too many agencies. If we create a 'supervisory co-ordination committee' or something like that, we simply engage more administrators when what we need is action on the ground. What I want is for domestic services to be rationalised and then given cross border powers including arrest but restricted to security matters, subject to judicial oversight and other safeguards.
I do not want to see Peruvian electricians being shot on the Budapest metro by French special forces. Neither do I want to see British police forces going into peoples' homes elsewhere in Europe, excluding them from involvement in terrorism then saying '- but now we are here, about your tax returns'.
Complain about this comment
#109 - jordanbasset
Agreed. I also agree with Menedemus that this is mainly about timing. However, the juxtaposition of several factor - the enforced departure of Blair by a Tory mayor whose just about final 'nick' is a Tory MP putting embarrassing info into the public domain? Timing it may be but it still stinks of fish. The bottom line is that I and people like me no longer trust any of them - the politicians, the police, the whole system of state. When you reach the point when something which may be perfectly proper is greeted with howls of derision, there is something very wrong with the whole damned system. We used to believe there was no smoke without fire. Today, we cannot see the wood for the trees.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re post 11, Threnodio, yes think the timing is rather suspicious. Having said that I would have hoped if there was evidence an offence had been commited the police would act.I think we both want there to be a clear seperation of powers. The legislature makes the law, the police enforce it and the judiciary decided on guilt or inocence. For too long the boundaries have become blurred. Some of the news channels last night were saying they could not believe the arrest was made without the say so from the Government. I should hope that did not happen. The decision should be made by the police on the basis of evidence they have.
I notice the opposition are crying foul, but have yet to hear any one say they would give immunity to m.p.s. who disclose such information in future. A little honesty and less hypocrisy would be good in this situation.
For what it is worth I believe m.p.s should have the right to disclose information (subject to security considerations) that is in the public interest. The answer is in the opposition hands, they could put real pressure on the Government by saying they will ammend the law to make this legal - I wont hold my breath
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (95): I agree with the additional points you make. It is ironic that changes to the British constitution introduced in the name of democracy (i.e.cabinet government, the PM exercising 'royal perogatives', the weakening of the House of Lords, etc.) are leading to the subversion of representative government through an excessive concentration of power. Personally I am more sanguine about the hiving off of the Law Lords into a distinct new body of UK Supreme Court as it seems to me that the judiciary in the UK has well established records of de-facto independence and judicial restraint.
I think there is an opportunity to transform the Lords back into a useful body that could act as the 'anchor of democracy'. It would mean increasing its powers (e.g. to block domestic and EU legislation, ratify treaties, etc.) which would only be legitimate if it became an elected body, but the difficulty as ever is how to persuade those in power to introduce checks against the power they currently exercise?
We are really witnessing a run away concentration of power into the 27 heads of government in the EU Council, who are the same people that appoint the EU Commission, all the cabinet members who attend the Council of Ministers, control the party lists from which MEPs are chosen, and command majorities in all the national parliaments to rubber stamp the treaties on European Union, which (because treaties occupy a status in the legal hierarchy equivalent to national constitutions) can be used to make changes of constitutional significance to further concentrate power into these few hands.
Complain about this comment
With the amount of posts being referred to moderation I get the feeling the powers that be do not want us to discuss this matter. To be fair it is a little off topic. So to get back on track, how about Wolves, top of the Championship - could this be the year
Complain about this comment
We are really witnessing a run away concentration of power into the 27 heads of government in the EU Council.
The first revolution from above by democratically elected officials.
Complain about this comment
A lot of the posts here can be summarized by the following: Blah, blah, blah- EU bad, blah, blah, blah, out of EU, blah, blah,blah, referendum.
If there is a referendum tomorrow, Britain would vote against EU, not because the EU does not work, but because the overwhelming majority in this country reads Littlejohn's collumn. The future of EU is too important, to be decided upon by the sort of people who get their information about the modern day politics from The Sun.
Some food for thought- if there had been a referendum at the time, the slavery would not have been abolished, women would not have voting rights today and gay people would still be put in prison.
As some guy said-'You cannot trust people. People put Hitler in power and listen to Coldplay'.
Complain about this comment
#117 - WhiteEnglishProud
'The first revolution from above by democratically elected officials'.
Actually, no. In 1925 a democratically elected government was in place. During the following five years, that government began to systematically gift itself more powers so that it could pursue it's radical agenda and increase it's control by taking additional surveillance and detention powers until, by 1930, it was effectively a conservative-nationalist authoritarian state. However, the majority party did have a democratic mandate of sorts.
15 years and 155 million people later, it all ended in a gigantic bonfire in Berlin.
42 days, anyone?
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn @ 188
So we can take it you don't have any good feelings towards democracy?
Perhaps you think that it is right to let the meritocrats or autocrats rule as they know what is best for the common herd!
I am not sure that your are correct that Britain would vote against EU in a referendum vote but, even if it did or did not, at least the people, whether they read Littlejohn or not, would have their vote and have their right to decide their future.
Personally, I want the UK to stay in the the EU not because I don't read Littlejohn but because I believe that to be in the interests of the UK as a whole.
On the other hand, I don't want Britain to be delivered unto the EU with her citizens bound, gagged and otherwise restrained by being led into a European Fedration or Union that is simply a meritocracy or autocracy that rules through an elite that think thay know what is best for me and my fellow British citizens.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
Thank you for pointing out my terse sense of Irony
Complain about this comment
Willybedamned (94): I disagree with you fundamentally about the comparison you make between the early USA and the EU. American states were never nations defined by language, culture and history such as we have in Europe. They were originally arbitrary chunks of land created by royal decree and delineated on maps drawn in London to encourage piecemeal commercial exploitation.
The US Articles of Confederation was not a deliberate design for a confederation of multiple sovereign nation states. They simply reflected the reality of the aftermath of the American Revolution, with severed links between the state executives (governors) and the Crown in London. That is why there was no strong central authority. The whole purpose of the American Revolution was to remove the central authority and it took some time (12 years) to come up a systematic alternative design in the shape of the US Constitution. But that does not mean that 13 different American nations existed during those 12 years! Clearly there was a common American identity forged in the common struggle to secure independence but which crucially inherited from Britain all the essentials necessary for a stable nation state, i.e. shared language, culture, etc. The US Constitution of 1789 could therefore begin with words ("We the People") that could not, to this day, ever be used when talking of the EU.
I also dispute that Thomas Paine would support the EU. He said (in 'The Rights of Man') that there are only two kinds of government in the world; (i) those which draw their legitimate power from a people and (ii) those which can trace their origin back to a usurpation of power such as occurred in 1066 in this country. When he wrote this in 1791 he judged there to be just two countries in the world (the USA and France) with a government of his first type, but over the last two centuries peoples everywhere have succeeded in clawing back their power from the descendants of these usurpers that we called Kings and Emperors. But which of Paine's two forms of government would an EU state be when there is no EU people from which it might draw legitimacy and when our political elites defy the results of referendums to force through transfers of powers to EU councils on which they sit and from where they can decree law that cannot be opposed by the democratic checks (national parliaments) on their power at home and which will be binding on us no matter how we vote in future? In a democracy power should belong to the people. We are in Europe witnessing the return of usurpation of power, and I believe that Thomas Paine would have opposed that strongly.
Complain about this comment
I hate to admit it but I had to Google Littlejohn to find out who the hell you are talking about. Unfortunately - or fortunately as the case may be - 7 million odd of the votes cast will be by readers of the Sun. Get used to it. Its called democracy.
Blah, blah, blah . . .
Complain about this comment
I don't read Littlejohn's column. I've never heard of it before. Where is it?
Complain about this comment
Mendemus (120): Why don't you tell me why you think staying in the EU is in our interest? Then I will be able to explain why you are wrong.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn
Who's Little john?
Complain about this comment
Frequently "EU"-supporters try to disqualify "EU"-opponents by claiming they are victims of the Murdoch press or of Littlejohn's column or Neanderthals or the like.
The Austrian anti-"EU" organisation "Rettet Oesterreich" has supporting statements from eleven university Professors and the ex-mayor of Vienna, Dr. Helmut Zilk.
Are they all Neanderthals?
Do they all read Littlejohn's column.
Do they all read the Murdoch press and are too stupid to make up their own minds?
One thinks not.
Complain about this comment
7 million odd of the votes cast will be by readers of the Sun
Maybe most probably won't bother
Complain about this comment
Re 118, Isenhorn, you go too far, what is wrong with cold play :)
Complain about this comment
Actually, no. In 1925 a democratically elected government was in place. During the following five years, that government began to systematically gift itself more powers so that it could pursue it's radical agenda and increase it's control by taking additional surveillance and detention powers until, by 1930, it was effectively a conservative-nationalist authoritarian state. However, the majority party did have a democratic mandate of sorts.
The dates you've listed are quite wrong (1925 was a presidential election) and the Nazi party only became a powerful party after the 1930 elections. :p (Remember that the Nazi party appealed to the unemployed masses, so they only managed to get in power after the Great Depression had started)
122. Freeborn-John wrote:American states were never nations defined by language, culture and history such as we have in Europe.
In 1775 Europeans nations weren't defined by it's language nor culture. That is a, successful, indoctrination that only appeared after 1775 I believe it's called 'Nationalism' I'm sure you've heard of it.
Complain about this comment
#124 and #126
Littlejohn is a columnist/ 'journalist' who writes for The Sun newspaper.
His views are as follows:
EU- Franko-German plot to rule our country, Two World wars and one World Cup, The Dambusters tune , two-fingered salute, etc., etc.
On global warming- build more motorways
On immigration- kick them all out
Smoking ban- we want our freedom to smoke wherever we want
Menedemus,
I see your point about the freedom to choose. However, in my opinion it should be an informed choice- people should know what they voting for or against. I am sure that at least 90% of the people against (and for) the EU have not read the proposed EU constitution, for example. As such their choice will be based not on any rational considerations of the pros and cons, but on articles in the Sun, the talk in the pub and on what happened at the battle of Agincourt during the Hundred Years War. And believe me, in a situation like that people like Littlejohn are not to be ignored easily.
Complain about this comment
130 - Ticape
The dates are quote are not wrong. What I wrote was that, in 1925, a democratic regime was in place which is correct. Between 1925 and 1930 under Hindenburg, the democratic institutions were systematically eroded, which is also correct. The pace of this process accelerated from 1929. By 1932, the National Socialists were the largest party in the Reichstag and Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January 1933.
Perhaps you would point out in what respect I am inaccurate.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ #125
You have often stated very good reasons for the UK to leave the EU or for the EU to revert to being an economic co-operative to which the UK might ascribe.
I would hate to have to read all the counter-EU arguments all over again.
Suffice to say that I have read the arguments for not being part of the EU and the arguments for the UK remaining part of the EU and I am now of the opinion that it is in Britain's interests to be in ever closer union with the other EU member States.
Where I may dissent from being an absolutist pro-EUite is that I recognise that the EU is not at all acceptable as it is to the people of Britain (and probably for a lot of other Europeans too) but I would rather have the British in the EU seeking to change it from the inside for the better rather than be on the outside and find Britain adversely affected politically, economically and socially by an EU that developed without British influence.
Complain about this comment
Ticape: You are confusing nations and states. The nations of Europe most certainly did exist prior to 1775 even if some of them had not yet achieved self-government.
In post 81 I included a link to some text written by Montesquieu in 1748, in which he refers to English, French, Germans, Italians, Polish, Chinese, Turks, Spain, Greeks etc. If these nations did not exist at the time, how do you explain that anybody could write about them? Montesquieu also talks about states, e.g. the Italian republics (plural). What we have seen since the American Revolution is the increasing recognition that state boundaries should follow the contours of national community. i.e. the nation-state as the finest form of government ever devised and the only one compatible with democracy.
There are of course far more ancient descriptions of the different peoples of Europe.
----------
"Gaul comprises three areas, inhabited respectively by the Belgae (Belgians), the Aquitani and a people who call themselves Celts, though we call them Gauls (French). All of these have different languages, customs and laws. The Celts are separated from the Aquitani by the river Garonne, from the Belgae by the Marne and Seine. The Belgae are the bravest of the three peoples, being furthest removed from highly developed civilizations of the Roman province, east often visited by merchants with enervating luxuries for sale, and nearest to the Germans across the Rhine, with whom they are continually at war. For the same reason the Helvetti (Swiss) are braver than the rest of the Celts; they are in almost daily contact with the Germans, either trying to keep them out of Switzerland or themselves invading Germany. The region occupied by the Celts, which has one frontier facing north, is bounded by the Rhone, the Garonne, the Atlantic Ocean, and the country of the Belgae. The Belgic territory, facing north and east, runs from the northern frontier of the Celts to the lower Rhine. Aquitania is bounded by the Garonne, the Pyrenees, and the part of the Atlantic coast nearest Spain." ? Julius Caesar 'The Conquest of Gaul' (58 BC)
Complain about this comment
However, in my opinion it should be an informed choice- people should know what they voting for or against.
The problem is that the Majority of people know what there voting on. The misconcieved idea of ever closer Union (which was ment to mean ecconomical but is now used to mean political)
As a most ardent EUphile points out (Jukka_Rohila) the ulitimate end to this means an all encompasing political Union or Federation.
Even in the present situation E.U directive are of higher importance than National law. A situtaion that needs to be resolved.
Freeborn John writes (which i totally agree with)
There are two types of difference between the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty; semantic and syntactical. The semantic differences are small, mainly related to symbols like flags and anthems. The syntactical differences are big (but not important) because the Lisbon treaty has been re-written as the differences from the existing Treaty on European Union rather than as a stand-alone document. However in all the important semantic aspects, e.g. the supremacy of EU law, the rules by which this law is decided, and the additional fields to which it would be applied, there is no difference between the two documents. Nor is there is any serious doubt that such things are of constitutional significance.
The problem is that most people realise that the E.U is secretive, closed, non-inclusive, unrepresentative and fundimentally un-democratic.
So although this Littlejohn appears to be appealing to the lowest common denominator at least he is on the right side of the arguement.
We English, Brits, Scots, Welsh Irish have never just accepted being dictated to by Europe or each other. Why do you think were going to start now?
'We are an Island Race, warriors born, we will not be ruled'
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon treaty is a wolf in sheeps clothing
a constitution by the back door.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus (133): That I am afraid is a cop-out. No-one has made a pro-EU argument on here that holds water. If you know of one that you think can be sustained, then please point it out to me.
Complain about this comment
#130 - Ticape
#134 - Freeborn-John
If I may, I would like to add to Freeborn-John's comment that it is not only a mistake not to differentiate between nations and peoples, it can be a very dangerous folly.
It was a central plank of National Socialist doctrine to bring about, if necessary by force, the German 'Volk', a definition which included Austria, parts of Chechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium and France. The more recent unification was of the German 'Leute'- the citizens of that divided nation. There is still reference to Greater Serbia in the Balkans embracing large chunks of Bosnia and Kosovo. Peoples do not have borders, nations do.
Complain about this comment
#135 WhiteEnglishProud
Of course the EU has a democratic deficit which needs to be reformed, but so does the constitutional structure of the UK which, unless reformed beyond asymmetric devolution, may well fail to survive."We English, Brits, Scots, Welsh Irish have never just accepted being dictated to by Europe or each other. Why do you think were going to start now?"
Not a description that many of us in the smaller nations of the UK would agree with. Regardless of how we vote in the UK's undemocratic FPTP elections, we have only a marginal effect on the UK Parliament.
Not that I'm suggesting that the UK wasn't useful in its day. To quote a fellow poster on Douglas Fraser's blog
Complain about this comment
#138 threnodio
Freeborn-John was rightly distinguishing between nations and states.
I'm not sure why you move from this to distinguishing between nations and peoples.
What are you meaning by "peoples"?
Complain about this comment
Frreborn-John @ #137
Quite frankly, the UK is in the EU and it is for you and anyone else who dislikes the EU to convince the British Government to hold a referendum and then hope that the British People consider the pros and cons of EU membership and make a choice to withdraw from the EU.
All too often we read anti-EU comments that suggest that the British People would vote for the UK to leave the EU but I am not so sure that is the case. The British are now used to the existence of the EU and anti-EU sentiment is not as strong as it used to be.
Should the UK Government, be it Conservative or Labour, perform a remarkable volte face and actually offer the British Electorate a referendum on membership of the EU (and not just current and future Treaties drawing the UK into ever closer union alone) then I would campaign to see the UK remain within the EU.
At the present time I do not have to do so as the ball is in my court and I only have to seek change to the EU and not withdrawal which is not going to happen unless one of the three major British political parties decides to offer that choice to the British People - even then I am not sure it is an Election winning campaign issue!
Complain about this comment
134. Freeborn-John :
Nations come and go. Some of them survive
centures , others dissappear in the historic debris.
Where are the Assyrians or or Egyptians ? Not the Arabs who live on the territory of the modern Egypt but people who lived
in Ancient Egypt? They are gone.
About 40000 Assyrians live in Russia, they have something like the national assembly ? but culturally - they are assimilated.
Jewish history is unique ? I think they are the only nation ? which survived as a nation without own territory and protected their culture.
In my opinion - culture and historic memory are the main characteristics of a nation.
Complain about this comment
#142 zhanetta
"culture and historic memory are the main characteristics of a nation."
I am reminded of the writings of Mazzini, the philosopher of Italian nationalism. He explored many factors which he thought might explain why people felt themselves to be "Italian", but finally concluded that a nation consisted of those who feel themselves to belong to it.
Like every other nation, the Scots are an amalgamation of earlier nations who assimilated to a common cultural identity.
Complain about this comment
132.the democratic institutions were systematically eroded, which is also correct.
Technically speaking no, although Weimar republic was definitely less democratic due to Hindenburg appointing people he liked in the chancellor role there wasn't a big plan to destroy the "democratic" institutions.
It was only when the Nazi's came in power that the systematically dismantling of the democratic institutions truly began.
134.:
Ticape: You are confusing nations and states. The nations of Europe most certainly did exist prior to 1775 even if some of them had not yet achieved self-government.
Indeed I have, and it seems to be a common mistakes. ;)
the nation-state as the finest form of government ever devised and the only one compatible with democracy.
And yet the number of democratic nation-states is surprisingly small.
Complain about this comment
143 oldnat
#that a nation consisted of those who feel themselves to belong to it.
right.but normally there is common cultural
backgroud.
as to historic memory - after reading your formulaton of the Mazzini thoughts-
i started thinking it could be secondary -
not every common folk has this sharp feeling
of historic memory - it could be i was wrong
Complain about this comment
#140 - oldnat
I regard the words 'people' and 'nation' as synonymous but quite distinct from the state. As this aspect of the thread began with references to North America the example of the Sioux Nation is appropriate. Clearly they are a people, they regard themselves (or did) as a nation but know no geographical borders.
Since the old world's borders are often arbitrary and artificial, the same is also true here. The Hungarian diaspora for example spreads over large areas of Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. They are citizens of another country but they are still Hungarian. It works fine when everyone is reasonably happy with their citizenship status and states do not have territorial ambitions. Only when there is a conflict does the distinction becomes important.
Complain about this comment
#144 - Ticape
My point is simply that it is perfectly possible for democracy to be eroded or destroyed with acquiescence of the people. No revolution is necessary. It may well be that the depression was the catalyst but the decent can be traced back to 1925 and to the door of Hindenburg.
Complain about this comment
#145 zhanetta
Another thing I like about Mazzini was that he had an idea that, once the Empires in Europe had gone, the nations of Europe could co-operate for their common good.
He was both an Italian Nationalist and an early European Unionist.
150 years later, some of the British have still not understood this idea.
Complain about this comment
#101, Menedemus,
Sorry but for once I have to disagree, the politicisation of the head of the metropolitan police was done by Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone several years ago, Sir Ian Blair was a political appointee and I can't blame Boris for wanting rid of this character. I'm afraid all you have to do is look at his record to realise that he was a loose cannon and some of his policy decisions were absurd. I'm sure it was no accident that he and Ken got on so well and that Lambeth was chosen for one of his most wacky policies, after all my old friend (only joking) Ken originated from Lambeth.
Having seen Ken in his hay day in Lambeth as he comes from my old area all I can say is that any one he supports has to be suspect, and in Ian Blair's case that is seemingly true. It is also rather unusual that the head of the London Authority cannot appoint the Head of it's police force, and that it is the remit of the Home Office on so called national interest, anti terrorist etc grounds. One should remember that it was Labour that reinvented the LA after the GLC was thankfully abolished yet they kept the political power to control it's police force. If there is one thing the Met is these days it's not independent of political control.
Complain about this comment
148. At 00:02am on 29 Nov 2008, oldnat wrote:
" ...Another thing I like about Mazzini was that he had an idea that, once the Empires in Europe had gone, the nations of Europe could co-operate for their common good.
He was both an Italian Nationalist and an early European Unionist.
150 years later, some of the British have still not understood this idea.
" ... could co-operate for their common good." is not the same as being a "European Unionist." That is something that you, oldnat appear not to have understood. It is a classic "EU"-lovers ploy or mistake.
Co-operation - YES!!
"EU" - NO!
Complain about this comment
buzet23 @ #149
You suggest that Tony Blair appointed Sir Ian Blair as political appointment but actually the recruitment process to replace Sir John Stevenson, Sir Ian's predecessor, just happened to fall in 2005 when Sir John Stevenson retired and Tony Blair was in power.
I would never disagree with anyone holding a view that Sir Ian Blair has been a shadow of previous Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police but, like all his recent predecessors, he has risen through the ranks of the Police and has been ascribed the label of "The Thinking Policeman's Policeman".
If the Conservative Party were in government in 2005 it is arguable that they would not have still selected Sir Ian Blair as he was, potentially the ideal candidate - extremely well equipped academically, professionally and with the capability of leading a 25,000 personnel Police Force in a Decade when the police have more and more come under the cosh for how they do their jobs.
Traditionally, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has served for approximately 5 years before finally retiring and taking well-deserved rest from the role.
Sir Ian has only performed the role of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for 3 years and there is no doubt in my mind that he decided to go because he did not have the support of Boris Johnson.
If Boris Johnson withdrawal of support was based upon Sir Ian Blair's inadequacies I would not care a jot but Boris has used his role to force change prematurely simply because Sir Ian Blair was appointed when the Labour Party was in government.
The ridiculous thing is that Sir Ian Blair will be replaced by another candidate selected through due process whilst the Labour Party is still in power. This rather defeats the argument and stance taken by Boris Johnson.
As to the governance of the Metropolitan Police, please do not ignore the fact that the Metropolitan Police Area is divided along Borough boundaries and each Borough has a Commander whose rank and responsibilities equate well with the roles of Chief Constables in the Provincial Police Forces. Commanders within the Metropolitan Police are constantly on their guard and have to respond to the local policing needs defined and required by local politicians.
You?re Police Area of Brixton, Streatham and Clapham was the "L" Division of the Metropolitan Police and would have had its own Commander. If I recall I think you got that well known (joke!) celebrity who is currently in the jungle - Brian Paddick who's claim to fame was to order the toleration of smoking of cannabis in the street (whilst personal possession was still an offence) which led to people flouting the law and actually blowing cannabis smoke into police officers faces.
I am all for their being a National Police Force for England the same as we have a national Army. In this day and age, criminals travel with ease and police forces have to liaise to manage this mobility. There are various Squads such as the Central Robbery Squads and Regional Crime Squads as well as national Units to deal with organised crime and terrorism but even they have to liaise when conducting operations in other police areas and therein does lie security issues.
I believe the ideal would be that the Commissioner appointed by the National Government would lead the national police body but London would simply have its own constabulary.
The argument then would be should the London Constabulary be responsible to the Boroughs or to the London Mayor. I think the Boroughs may have a strong view about that as I have always thought that the London Mayoralty is an anachronism
Complain about this comment
#151, Menedemus,
I remember Sir Ian's appointment in 2005 was viewed as being cronyism and that there were other equally capable candidates, although it's true that he was deputy at the time since being imported from Surrey during Tony Blair's time, so an obvious choice under the buggins turn system. However as to his qualities, Wikipedia has a number of issues surrounding his actions and views and it is clear that his political leanings were towards Nu Labour and their politically correct views, and allowing Paddick full reign in Lambeth was symptomatic of that. I recall at the time that there was a lot said about his appointment and how he was Tony Blair's choice, and that was long before Boris was chosen as Mayoral candidate.
Personally I think Boris has decided that due to the number of questions raised about his policing policies, politics and other matters he was "not fit for purpose" and his procrastination over the shooting of Mendez was the final nail in his coffin.
As for there needing to be a regional council like the LA, I tend to agree with you as the absence of the GLC was not missed as it was simply an expensive toy for Ken's merry band, which the LA quickly became as well. The only benefits that seemed to ensue are the TFL common transport organisation but that could be achieved without the LA. The only other thing the LA does is control the boroughs in strategic matters which means if the LA is Labour it can control the planning of Liberal and Tory boroughs, especially in terms of land use and housing. I have always seen it primarily as a tool for political control and I don't think anyone in the Labour party ever envisaged it would fall to the Tory party due the the left bias of the large population in Inner London.
As for "The argument then would be should the London Constabulary be responsible to the Boroughs or to the London Mayor.", if there is a London Mayor then they are best placed to run the Met, local police committees are very much politically motivated and I can't see any evidence that they actually control the Met these days. Whilst it is divided into borough operational command units they are under the MPA rather than their borough. I looked at Lambeth and all that exists in that local council are certain policing committees that support local initiatives e.g. Safer Lambeth. It is clear that there was a revision in 2000 when the Met contracted but I've not seen the details of that.
Complain about this comment
Re #11.:
"So low-trust societies tend towards big and inefficient/corrupt state sectors"
The first image that comes to mind is the "inefficient/corrupt" French state sector of the Railways... Frankly, the British pre- or post privatisation equivalent is a total shambles in comparison. And it's not the only one.
Without taking Fukuyama to task here, I would simply suggest that his theories may be valuable, but are definitely one-sided, even just from the interpretation behind that term "low-trust".
"the private sector is able to scale to accomplish much larger tasks without becoming corrupt... "
Oh dear. I would have thought the present state of the world economy proves just the opposite.
Complain about this comment
#146 threnodio
Thanks for the clarification.
Living as I do in a territory claimed by 2 nations (mine and the Brits) I'm well aware of the potential for conflict!
Fortunately, we're happy to deal with it through democratic processes.
#150 SuffolkBoy2
"It is a classic "EU"-lovers ploy or mistake."
Neither a ploy nor a mistake on my part.
Having pooled our sovereignty with England for 300 years, we see both the up and downsides of Union.
The UK Union is, however, too small nowadays. I'd be sorry to lose you from the EU, but leave if you want to. I think Scotland is better staying with a larger group of friends.
Complain about this comment
#154, oldnat,
When you say "The UK Union is, however, too small nowadays. I'd be sorry to lose you from the EU, but leave if you want to. I think Scotland is better staying with a larger group of friends." you really have to ask yourself if your friends would want you in their EU club which I guess is what you mean. It's by no means certain that any newly independent region would be automatically granted EU membership whether that be Scotland, Flanders or any other, you would have to apply and be accepted. In that case what exactly would an independent Scotland offer to the EU as an inducement for membership, an almost exhausted share of an oil field, skiing facilities (already abundant), fishing boats (mostly laid up now due to the CFP), Haggis.
In fact you may well end up having to simply negotiate trade agreements like England would if it ever left the EU and knowing your geographical position makes logistics difficult it won't be easy. Add to that the current financial crisis and the failing Scottish banks and there is not a lot to make your friends want you in their club as they've more than enough troubles of their own these days.
Complain about this comment
#154 - oldnat
Just more fuel to the fire that it is the British union that is redundant, not the European one.
Complain about this comment
It is often difficult for many of those living in Britain to understand what it is like within the core of the EU - ie most of continental Europe. (I recognise that several contributors to this Blog have worked over here). The value of Schengen and of the Euro in our pockets is an everyday reality. (NB despite Schengen I have witnessed ID card / Passport checks on cross-border trains).
However, according to a Eurobarometer poll earlier this year 43% of their youngest segment of the British felt the EU was a good thing. 63% of those educated to age 20 or above took a positive view (compared to 24% of those educated to age 15). Also, I have not read of crowd demonstrations against the EU, such as those against fox-hunting. So, all is not anti-EU in the UK?
Mark's Blog (remember that anyone?) talked of plumbers, now able to trade across most EU borders. They must have a terrible time when they do, with all of the different national codes, etc. Does that sort of thing fall into the "free trade" box, or is it another area where the EU can "interfere"?
Complain about this comment
#155 Buzet23
Were Scotland as you describe, then it would seem to be a certain candidate for admission - like the Eastern European countries a victim of tyrannical abuse by a dominant neighbour :-)
I wasn't claiming that it was "certain that any newly independent region would be automatically granted EU membership". In reality, any such decision is up to the other members on a political decision.
However, there is already a precedent for part of a member country leaving the EU, while the remainder remains in.
Just as Greenland opted out of the EU, England could do the same. Scotland, Wales and NI would remain in as the UK.
If you want to be a bit of a small island off the European coast, dependent on a bankrupted financial sector, with a currency no one wants, and applying for trading relations with no real influence, then feel free to do so.
Complain about this comment
146 oldnat
I definitely would like to read Mazzini if I find his works in English or German.
He was for the united States of Europe -
that is the idea you and me support.
there is simply no other way - in the strategic perspective. I trust it happens,
maybe not during our time but in the 50 to 100 years for sure.
Complain about this comment
#159 zhanetta
I don't know if anyone still publishes Mazzini's writings.
When I was at the University of Aberdeen (many years ago!) I read all of his collected works translated into English.
Be warned! Like many 19th century writers he wrote at great length. Much of his writing is exploratory as he tried to refine his ideas.
It is only in his later writings that he began to see the vision that you and I share.
Complain about this comment
Jukka seems to be an oldfashinoned unapologetic elitist who really believes that politicians are supreme beings.
Look, Jukka, I've spoken to some of the socalled parliamentarians here in the Netherlands, and have found them to be utterly ignorant of all things EU.
Fact remains, the EU is a direct attack on parliamentary democracy by the political elite. It is in politicians interests to make the EU as big as possible and as undemocratic as possible, whilst all the time keeping the charade of the EU parliament (not a proper parliament) going.
Unlike what you seem to suggest, people know what's best for them and do not need some politician, bureaucrat or 'progressive' elitist to decide what's best for them. National parliaments neither asked for nor were ever given a mandate to transfer their powers to unelected kommissars in Brussels. There is no mandate for it but its happening precisely because mainstream politicians are one of the few groups that benefit from the EU.
@frenchderek (157)
the Eurobarometer is notoriously biased and unreliable, and always gives what the EU commission considers to be the 'preferred' answer. Didn't the Eurobarometer also say France and Netherlands would overwhelmingly vote for the EU treaty called 'constitution'? They only poll pro-EU types! Of course, we voted against the antidemocratic treaty called 'constitution' but the traitor politicians and their acolytes passed it through anyway under a different name 3 years later. I do hope they will one day have to answer for their treason, as all national politicians who betrayed national democracy to the antidemocratic EU Reich ought to.
@threnodio (132)
you are right, in the late 1920s and early 1930s the democratic process of Germany was undermined, and eventually opened the door for its own destruction, by Hindenburgs appointment of herr Hitler to the chancellorship.
We are witnessing a similar thing these days. The antidemocratic EU and its democracy-hating acolytes have already succeeded in taking control of 85-90% of the legislative process and transferring it to Brussels into the hands of the EU Politburo (commission) and the EU Council who can combine to make laws that no parliament is allowed to scrutinize or reject. We are witnessing the de facto destruction of parliamentary democracy.
But the EU supporters are blind to the reality. And also, they don't realize that removing vetoes is removing sovereignty and denying a nation the right to make its own laws. A countrys population could be 99% against a law but they and their elected parliament can now do absolutely nothing to stop it. That is not very democratic is it?
I'd be for some form of federalization if it was done with a popular mandate (to be given in advance, not after the fact). But I a completely opposed to the antidemocratic EU. It is unreformable. And EU-philes simply won't admit it.
Complain about this comment
#158 - oldnat
I seem to remember we had this discussion on another blog some time back. It seems to me that if the UK were to split, there would be ongoing membership of the EU on the part of the 'rump' UK. Which part of the UK that would be is anyone's guess. I assume that England would consider itself the de facto rump, partly because all the law relating to EU matters was passed at Westminster and also because any split with Wales seems a long way off. It is interesting to speculate on what Scotland's position would be if it went on its way. The Channel Islands are part of the UK but not in the EU so it is perfectly feasible not to join but how a newly autonomous entity stands I have no idea..
Complain about this comment
#161 mcdv-1975
"A countrys population could be 99% against a law but they and their elected parliament can now do absolutely nothing to stop it"
Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland are already in this position.
How do you suggest they could be freed from the anti-democratic UK?
Complain about this comment
#162 threnodio
We've had a similar discussion before.
Of course "England would consider itself the de facto rump" but that is more a matter of arrogance than law.
However, if England votes to leave the EU while the other constituents of the UK vote to stay in, we are in a totally different constitutional situation than has been envisaged heretofore.
All the UK nations (except the English) now have their own Parliament/Assembly. Consequently, it would be a political possibility for the EU to accept the democratic vote of the English to reject the EU and be a Greenland, while accepting the democratic vote of the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish to remain within the EU as a continuance of the original UK signatory.
Not a prediction, a possibility.
Complain about this comment
20. At 1:57pm on 26 Nov 2008, Richmof wrote:
"Once again another thread full of posts that have nothing to do with the topic.
Who moderates this blog. It is a joke.
It is just polluted by europhobe and eurofederalist trolls. Either close the comments or block the trolls. Otherwise don't pretend there is any moderation."
My suggestion to you is that you start your post with the title of Mark's latest contribution in BIG LETTERS and try to get like minded people to do the same and then you can follow each others postings easily. Those of us who are obsessed with the "EU" will then also be able to carry on and will annoy you less.
You should realise that this blog reduces deaths on the road.
Before I started posting here I used to start swearing and cursing the "EU" as I was driving along. It was so bad that on several occasions I had to pull over to the side of the road and stop until I had calmed down. I don't do that since I started posting here. I kid you not.
Complain about this comment
Eighteen years ago I took the decision to go to live in Poland with my Polish wife. I was laughed at by Poles who thought I was daft to even think about it. It has not been easy but we managed to keep our heads above water in our small business which still thrives to this day even though I am well over retirement age. It was my turn to laugh as a million Polish up stakes and went to live in the UK. Now as I see the looming recession in the UK and stories of returning Poles I wonder if this exodus will end in tears. Poland is not immune from the world and their banks are no different from others, most are foriegn owned anyway. No reduction of interest rates and VAT would tempt me to spend. I saw the last time the recession hit the UK it was deeply unpleasant. The only way to survive this is NOT to spend but rather manage your resources however meagre in an ordered way. Do you really need that mobile phone, the cable TV payments etc? I guess some would also ask and do you really need a Polish plumber? But that's where we came in.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 @ #165
I have to admit that you surprise me not.
Is the death toll on the roads in Suffolk higher than the UK National Average I wonder?
Headache pills, ambivalence towards the EU and a realisation that repeatedly banging one's head on the steering wheel are conducive towards less driving accidents I believe! ;=)
Complain about this comment
Cutting VAT to boost consumer spending/borrowing more money is NOT the way to solve the recession. It will just compound the existing problem. What is needed is spending on modernising country infrastructure: Energy supplies and distribution networks, water resources and distribution, roads, railways, ports, airports. What used to be called "public works": getting companies and people back to work, with visible long term benefits to the population. As against a boost for imported consumer goods from China....
Complain about this comment
#163, oldnat,
Your thoughts are all about assumptions :-
That the Welsh or Northern Irish would want to be associated with the nation that has given them Gordon Brown and many other low grade MP's.
That those nations would want to be in a union with Scotland.
That the EU member states would want you as you have little or nothing to offer.
That the EU would be willing to subsidise you and your failing banks, RBOS being the latest evidence of Scottish financial acumen and as for Brown's financial prudence, well you must be embarrassed to be associated with him.
Finally you said "If you want to be a bit of a small island off the European coast, dependent on a bankrupted financial sector, with a currency no one wants, and applying for trading relations with no real influence, then feel free to do so.", that's rich coming from a Scot, it's your own people who caused this and the sooner they are prevented from being in the English parliament the better, you're very welcome to them once you declare independence and you'll make the day of most Englishmen when you stop griping and actually do it.
PS Your way of thinking reminds me very much of the way the Flemish attack the Walloon in Belgium, always living in the past, blaming them for anything and everything and thinking themselves superior, but sooner or later the reality will hit.
Complain about this comment
To Jukka post (64) If everything is so predictable, what is the point of a democracy anyway? And I disagree that these will be the outcomes anyway.
As far as needing representatives because we are as people in some way irrational surely all that happens is that we come up with scenarios that please no one.
Complain about this comment
#169 Buzet23
I'm speculating about possibilities, not making assumptions.
It's interesting that you also wish Scotland to have independence (though typically you are mean spirited about it).
We still have a tiny number of Scottish Nationalists who live in a mythical Brigadoon, and think their country can exist without others.
From these blogs, there seem to be a much larger group of English Nationalists, like yourself, living in a mythical Camelot.
However, English Nationalism is still a very immature set of attitudes.
In time, you'll grow up.
Complain about this comment
#164 - oldnat
Yes I agree with that. I find it very ironic that the part of the Union that is physically closest to continental Europe should be the most belligerent. I do not sense anywhere near the same level of Euroscepticism in Scotland or Wales. I suppose it could be partly to do with where much of the EU money that comes back to the UK is spent but I doubt that. I am beginning to wonder whether the English are feeling squeezed. As the only part of the UK with no assembly or devolved power, it may be that English feel powerless in the face of pressure from two directions and that anger is bubbling to the surface. If so, it would be totally pointless but entirely understandable.
Complain about this comment
#166 - alanbloggz
#168 - mikewarsaw
I know exactly how you feel having relocated to Hungary some years back and never regretted it. People here also think it odd that I would be more at home here but when you explain to them the powers of surveillance, interference in personal liberty and all the other restrictions the UK government are imposing on their own people, they nod in disbelief.
Mike, the problem with your theory - which is a good one - is that it has all been privatised.
Do you think it should come back under public ownership or should the government be throwing public money at private companies to get the infrastructure developments moving?
Complain about this comment
#171, oldnat,
Re "From these blogs, there seem to be a much larger group of English Nationalists, like yourself, living in a mythical Camelot.
However, English Nationalism is still a very immature set of attitudes.
In time, you'll grow up."
Camelot? no I live in Belgium and see at first hand another set of people with a permanent chip on their shoulder who want independence. Although like in Scotland there are people in Flanders with the clarity of thought who realise it won't be the panacea but rather Pandora's box.
What has upset the English like me most is the political correctness whereby everything other than being English is great and everyone displaying a bit of English nationalism is to be derided. The UK has for the last 11 years been ruled by Scots who have promulgated that view and it has been legislated into the financial and economic disaster it is now. It is one of the legacies of Nu-Labour that you now see so many flags of St George in England.
You are however right in one aspect, English Nationalism is still very immature and groups like the BNP enjoy very little support because of that. Should nationalism mature or grow up then it might not be a good thing in a great many ways.
PS. I'm wondering if you live in England and if so what you will do if Scotland is independent, return to Scotland? or take English nationality if you are permitted to? I've laughed for some while now at the quandary that Scottish nationalists living in England might find themselves in. Personally I have Belgium nationality and have never been overly nationalistic, but recently I've become more aware of the one-sidedness and intolerance of rabid nationalists, and for that I thank Scottish and Flemish Nationalists and the chips on their shoulders so maybe you can say I'm growing up and learning what or rather who to treat with disdain.
Complain about this comment
#174 Buzet23
A bit of paranoia there!When I visit England, I'm always pleased to see that the number of English flags increases - nice to see it being reclaimed from the BNP.
You seem to see people as stereotypes.
Why on earth would supporters of any constitutional position share identical views?
Like you, I dislike the position of "rabid nationalists", but that includes rabid British nationalists as well - particularly those who have an irrational dislike of pooling their sovereignty.
You seem rather confused in your attitudes to nationalism.
You talk of yourself as being English, but with Belgian "nationality" (citizenship I would understand).
You resent the Government of England being controlled by British people, who happen to be Scots. You reasonably want the English to be governed by the English. Since that is exactly the position that I want to see, it is not very clear why you think that your position is reasonable, but mine is somehow to be sneered at.
You talk of Scottish Nationalists as being driven by a "chip on the shoulder", yet you display a rather large log on your own shoulder with your
Both the UK Union and the European Union involve the pooling of sovereignty.
Scottish Nationalists simply want to pool our sovereignty more widely than just with the English, and the other UK nations.
Growing up is learning not to disdain other people. Mature people don't lash out childishly at others.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Good story, But there is never enough plumbers...
Complain about this comment
Oldnat: There is a difference between seeking independence for Scotland, and seeking to swap one master for another. The first is something that can be justified by Scots wanting maximum control of their own affairs; the second would enslave them all the more.
There is not yet a majority in Scotland wanting independence, but if and when there is, I will wish you 'bon voyage'. Scotland however is as EU-sceptic as the rest of the UK, so I the idea that Scots would vote for independence AND to be subsumed into an EU state is rather far-fetched. Such a policy could not appeal to anyone motivated by Scotland's freedom, because it would actually sacrifice it in the long-run. Such a policy could only ever appeal to those who put hostility towards England ahead of their own freedom, and I doubt one Scot in 25 would find that self-destructive bargain one worth striking.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/19134334/3
Complain about this comment
#177 Freeborn-John
Thanks for an intelligent response.
However, I think you misunderstand the Scottish political dynamic when you say that "Such a policy [Independence in Europe] could not appeal to anyone motivated by Scotland's freedom, because it would actually sacrifice it in the long-run".
Of course, you are correct in saying that currently there is currently no majority in Scotland for the SNP policy of Independence in Europe. However, you are clearly wrong in saying that this policy "could not appeal" to Scots since roughly one-third of the electorate already support this position, and more would if the UK had a Tory Government.
What I think you fail to understand is that Scotland in Europe would have increased control over its own affairs than it has within the Incorporating Union that is the UK. By and large, we examined the "UKIP style" option for Scotland and rejected it.
Few Scots want a "Brigadoon" Scotland, divorced from the rest of the world.
Our debate is whether we want a Scotland which is restricted to a Union with the other UK nations, or a Scotland which is in union with the these nations and the whole of Europe.
It will only be "bon voyage" if Scotland remains in the EU (as the residual of the UK, perhaps along with Wales and NI) while England does a Greenland.
Complain about this comment
#177 - Freeborn-John
You could easily make the same same argument for the accession countries of 2004 and 2007. You might have expected these countries, having finally broken away from the communist yolk to have either 'gone it alone' or formed some kind of self-contained understanding. In fact all of them embraced the EU and have been considerably advantaged by it. It would not follow in my view that Scotland departing from the Union would necessarily diminish their European ambitions. The people who seem to me to be seriously out of touch are those, mainly English, who are opposed both to the break up of the Union and further European progress. Such people are so fixated on the rear view mirror that they have no idea where they are going.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (179): East Europeans joined the EU for the subsidies.
It is a fundamental mistake to compare the UK 'union' and the EU as some people are trying to do here. A majority of the population in all regions of the UK identify themselves primarily as British, such that one can speak of a British nation. And as long as this is the case the legitimacy of the Westminster parliament is based on it being the sovereign institution to which this British people have delegated their political power.
The situation for the European institutions could hardly be more different. The numbers who identify themselves primarily as European is negligible, perhaps 4-5% in the UK. This is totally insufficient for political institutions to claim a direct legitimacy as the embodiment of the sovereignty of a people. This is why the EU (and indeed the regional assemblies in the UK) do not have a sovereign power, but only exercise conferred powers that can be taken back. European federalists imagine these numbers will rise, that people will come to see themselves as European citizens, such that the Brussels institutions will be able to draw their legitimacy direct from these citizens. But the actual experience is that the numbers identifying themselves primarily as European is falling everywhere.
I would say it is already pretty clear that the EU is a failed attempt at federation. Indeed some of the more intelligent in Brussels realise this and that the EU is going to have to find another way to legitimise legitimise itself than that used by the nation-state. There are other institutions (qangos) which exercise delegated political power and whose legitimacy is based on achieving results rather than a popular sovereignty. I would say that this is really the only option for the EU now. I would even say that the Commision realizes this.
The trouble however is that globalisation is at a rather advanced stage such that it seems to me that better results could be achieved by the ad-hoc set of focussed global organizations (WTO, G8/20, etc.), which are unencumbered by the baggage that federalists have bequeathed to the EU.
Complain about this comment
A majority of the population in all regions of the UK identify themselves primarily as British,
Not really according to British government statistics the majority of the people consider themselves English, Scottish or Welsh. :)
Complain about this comment
#179, threnodio, and #175, oldnat,
To be honest I don't know anyone in England who is either opposed to the break up of the union or even cares about that question too much, all the people I know are pretty relaxed about it and like me say if you want to break away stop griping and do it. I'll give a little simplistic example of what a lot of people see, every time there is a sporting event involving England (not against Scotland) will a Scot cheer on England or will they do as is always depicted from both tv interviews and Scots I've known, cheer on the opponents to England. Maybe I'm strange but when one of the home countries plays I have always cheered them on as they were effectively part of the family of the British Isles. However, since some years now I've grown tired of seeing and hearing street interviews which show Scots do not think like that which is something I've not heard from Welsh or Northern Irish, or even Southern Irish people.
When oldnat says "What I think you fail to understand is that Scotland in Europe would have increased control over its own affairs than it has within the Incorporating Union that is the UK. By and large, we examined the "UKIP style" option for Scotland and rejected it.", I think you really need to look at what is happening in the EU and where it's current direction is heading. Scotland on it's own would be a very small member state of the EU as it only has circa 5 million population. You would be physically on the fringe with no natural or historic 'friends' or neighbours other than the other home countries and Ireland, something which was not the case with the other entrant countries who had long historical links with their neighbours. How much sway do you think Scotland would hold when it disagrees with Franco-German policy, as it surely would with their federalist direction. If you look at the anti-British and anti-Irish diatribe from the various EU elite and see how they also criticise Poland and Czech republic for their opposition to Lisbon, do you really honestly think Scotland would have more control over itself or actually be worse off by having to perpetually keep quiet in order to stay on board the struggling EU boat.
It is a shame that so many confuse the English desire for independence with them disliking Europe, and it is to the discredit of the EU that their political rhetoric has convinced so many in the EU that the British are anti-Europe. Everyone I know is most certainly pro-Europe, but they do dislike the erosion of their independence from an unelected undemocratic organisation like the EU, and I might also add that there are many I know here in the heart of the EU (Belgium) who also feel like that these days. To harp back to some previous threads, I think most English would be in favour of a European confederation but are against a European federation of the type proposed by France and Germany. I also think that many hope that the advent of the new entrant states will eventually herald a new dawn as power shifts away from the historical Franco-Germanic alliance and becomes more balanced across all the EU member states. This is where I think there should be European progress and looking in the rear view mirror would be removed from EU politics as it seems the current elite are perpetually doing that at the moment on the excuse that they created the EU and should decide it's direction without interferrence.
Complain about this comment
#181, Ticape,
I would be interested to know where these statistics originate from, if it's the census returns (2001) I think there has been disquiet that the ethnicity box does not include 'English', 'Scottish', 'Welsh' or 'Irish' but rather uses the term British i.e.
(a) White (and whether British, Irish, or any other White background if so stating which).
So if that was the source it is of limited statistical value in my opinion since it was up to the head of the household to decide whether they qualified the ethnicity. Add to that the other categories and the statistics are confused to say the least.
(b) Mixed (and whether White and Black Caribbean, White and Black African, White and Asian, or any other Mixed background if so stating which),
(c) Asian or Asian British (and whether Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or any other Asian background if so stating which),
(d) Black or Black British (and whether Caribbean, African, or any other Black background if so stating which), or
(e) Chinese or other ethnic group (and whether Chinese, or any other if so stating which).
#175, oldnat,
You said "You talk of yourself as being English, but with Belgian "nationality" (citizenship I would understand).".
I forgot to cover this in my last post, by nationality I really do mean nationality as in naturalised, as my identity card says nationality Belgique. So it's a bit more than just being a citizen of Belgium as whilst there is not much difference between the two terms, one is that you can be a national without being a citizen i.e. live abroad.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
According to the BBC today, Barroso said:
"I know that the majority in Britain are still opposed [to adopting the Euro], but there is a period of consideration under way and the people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it,"
Someone should tell him that in Britain the 'people who matter' are the people who elect and depose our politicians.
No wonder the EU and its Commissars are so despised.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
your right about the census returns and almost all other government forms where if you wish to write your Nationaliy as English you must do so in the other box, hense the user name.
Complain about this comment
#180 - Freeborn-John
I have to take issue with you on your assertion that 'that one can speak of a British nation'. Having regard to the distinction you very properly made in an earlier post between statehood and nationhood, I would suggest to you that Britain is a state comprised of four nations which are, in some respects, quite distinct from one another.
I detect amongst many - including many English folk - that they are identifying far more closely with their national identity than their state. Certainly the only thing British about me is my passport. I am very definitely English and European but increasingly, I see my Britishness as irrelevant and anachronistic. I am sure that this is partly due to my disillusionment with what I perceive to be the ongoing undermining of everything that was good about the British identity by a government which has no little respect for tradition and even less for democracy. Even so, I detect a more general sense of fragmentation in Europe with ongoing tensions in Belgium and the Basque region, the increasing popularity of devolution within the UK, the continuing popularity of the Northern League in Italy and - outside the EU but in potential members medium term, the further disintegration of the compponent parts of former Yugoslavia. It may be that further fragmentation is necessary before the European entity can come together. This tendency might, however, gift more power to Germany and especially France with it's highly centralised approach to government.
Regarding your earlier post, Article 13 (12) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichts-Gesetz) 1951 states that '- in case of doubt whether a rule of public international law is an integral part of Federal law and whether such rule directly creates rights and duties for the individual, when such decision is requested by a court (Article 100 (2) of the Basic Law)'. As far as I know, it has not been amended and suggests that the Constitutional Court has the power to declare European law non-applicable when it conflicts with German law. If the Germans can do it, I see no reason why the UK should not and perhaps this could be included in the brief of the new court.
As regards the Lords, possibly a house directly elected by proportional representation to balance the excessive majorities that occur in the Commons due to first past the post? Mind you, if Scottish devolution goes ahead, the chamber might be a splendid place to put an English parliament.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (184):
The article you referred:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7757830.stm
Actually I really can't understand how you can see the comment that Barroso made as something negative?
To the EU, to the EU Commission, the people who matter most to them are governments of the member states and politicians and other prominent people who influence policies of said member states. After all EU as supranational entity, as something that is becoming a federation, works with and via its member states. The job of representing people falls to governments of member states. I think you would be more infuriated if Barroso would step over the member states and do business directly with the people.
Complain about this comment
#182 - Buzet23
There is a long tradition of friendship between Scotland and France dating back to their support for the Scottish catholic monarchy in the form of Mary. They made no little secret of their Jacobite sympathies in 1715 and 1745 either.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (184):
Also...
"Despite the Labour party promising to adopt the euro ahead of its election in 1997, current leader and former finance minister Gordon Brown has historically resisted such calls, arguing that the British economy was not ready." - http://euobserver.com/9/27203
Labour promised a refendum on the Constitutional (Lisbon) Treaty and they didn't keep their promise! People are betrayed!
Labour promised UK to join Euro and they didn't keep their promise. People are betrayed!?
So how is it?
Complain about this comment
Barroso stated today britain wants to join the euro what about the public still the opposite.After being refused a say on the lisbon treaty does he really think he can sell us the Euro, the euro cany save a country from turmoil look at spainish housing market.This mens heads in the cloulds all he is is the next hitler in the making very dangerous
Complain about this comment
#188, threnodio,
Quite so but I also seem to recall that they also aided those escaping the persecution carried out by the Catholics in France and who fled Northwards to Flanders and Holland before voyaging to Scotland. This probably gave rise to the polarisation of Catholic/Protestant that exists even now. It was also claimed that secret masonic organisations such as the Knights Templar etc went to Scotland and certainly there seems to be a lot of substance in that.
However whether this long standing link actually means anything to the French has to be viewed with extreme doubt, they only just about regard the Southern Belgians as cousins, but that is mainly because French is our language. Ultimately, were the Scots to think they could rely on that friendship they would have to change to speaking French, LOL, and hope that they could become another department under Paris as that way they might get help. I know that many here in Wallonia do not want that status should Belgium split so I consider it would be out of the frying pan into the fire for Scotland to rely on the French.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @189
Nu Labour actually promised to join the EU if and when it met their '5 criteria' - and subject to a referendum.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @187 and 189,
Firstly, from most of your previous comments on the subject, I am not at all surprised that you don't consider Barroso's comment as innately anti-democratic.
As for Nu Labour - I would not trust that squalid lot for as far as I could throw that Machiavellian ex-Commissar that they've just 'ennobled'.
Complain about this comment
#183 Buzet23
For example, the following are taken from the table referred to -The data on national identity comes from ESRC surveys of British and Scottish Social Attitudes.
There is a good summary in "Devolution, Public Attitudes and National Identity" (it's a pdf document, so I can't give you a direct link.
Here is an extract
In 1991-2 the proportions defining themselves as British or English, Scots Welsh were
England -- 63% British; 31% English
Scotland - 38% British; 56% Scottish
Wales ---- 34% British; 59% Welsh
In 2003 the proportions had changed to
England -- 38% British; 48% English
Scotland - 16% British; 77% Scottish
Wales ---- 31% British; 57% Welsh
Freeborn-John was correct about a majority of the English feeling British, but quite wrong about the Scots and Welsh.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (193):
I will skip the Barroso comment part, obviously we will disagree with that.
Actually more its more fun to read 1997 Labour Party Manifesto...
http://labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml
When I skimmed the document I can note that you were right about assessment and referendum, all thought the manifesto doesn't actually mention 5 tests, just that the matter must be assessed.
But of course the document has some parts that make me chuckle...
"We will stand up for Britain's interests in Europe after the shambles of the last six years, but, more than that, we will lead a campaign for reform in Europe. Europe isn't working in the way this country and Europe need. But to lead means to be involved, to be constructive, to be capable of getting our own way."
"We will give Britain the leadership in Europe which Britain and Europe need"
"With a new Labour government, Britain will be strong in defence; resolute in standing up for its own interests; an advocate of human rights and democracy the world over; a reliable and powerful ally in the international institutions of which we are a member; and will be a leader in Europe."
Yeah sure :-D The new Labour has been a miserable failure and not just in European matters.
Complain about this comment
re my #194
Sorry, I put the English figures the wrong way round for 2003. That line should read
England -- 48% British; 38% English
Complain about this comment
#194, oldnat,
Those figures tend to reflect what I said earlier about the legacy of Nu-Labours Scottish rule in Westminster so they may have a basis of truth, however I think you made a typo at the end as you say in 2003 only 38% of English said they were British so that was not the majority.
Without looking at the ESRC surveys I also wonder how they dealt with the cultural and racial mix that is England these days and still retained such a narrow list of ethnicity.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (186): We each identify with multiple communities, ranging from the street we live on, to the whole of humanity, but these identities are not of equal strength. You may identify primarily with the English and European communities; me with British and Western, but what shapes political institutions (in a democracy) is the majority opinion as to the strongest of these identities, which we call national identity.
The principle that the majority opinion prevails breaks down when it is not aligned with national identity. That is why we only see democratic politics within the nation-state. Scotland is an interesting example of a region perhaps on the threshold of nationhood, i.e. where the majority opinion might change such as to see the emergence of a new nation desiring self-government, but until that step is taken, the Scots should be viewed as a region of the British nation. If a majority of Scots are no longer willing to live under decisions of the majority in the British parliament, then they will, like the Irish before them, create their own majoritorian political institutions instead such that the principle that the majority decides can once again be aligned with the new national identity.
Civilizational values (European values, Western values, etc.) are the weakest form of identity we have and are not strong enough to create the solidarities necessary to hold a democratic state together. Since the principle that the majority decides breaks down at international level (on non-trivial issues) a multinational state will always have an inherent tendency to break up unless some form of coercion (typically military) is used to keep it together in the absence of national identity. This was the case in the USSR, and today in Tibet. Advocates of European Union are rediscovering this as they fruitlessly true to bypass referendums or insist they be hre-run until they get the answer they want.
You mention a 'general sense of fragmentation in Europe' but this is just part of the bigger global trend since the American Revolution. Prior to that the world largely consisted of empires held together by military force. The last two centuries have seen more and more nations escape this legacy to establish self-government but this is an ongoing process even in Europe, and one that has barely begun in Africa and parts of Asia where state boundaries were drawn by colonial administrators with no regard to the preferences of the indigenous communities. The number of independent nation-states has risen from ~60 in 1945 to 193 today. There are around 600 languages in the world each spoken by several million people each such that one would expect each of these to represent a people with an aspiration for self-government. The economic cost of national independence has never been lower for those nations prepared to open up to the emerging global market. Therefore all factors point to more nation-states emerging in the future, beginning in places such as Kosovo, Flanders, Wallonia, Scotland, Quebec, Kashmir, Tibet, Catalonia, etc. An EU state would be a futile attempt to stand in the way of this tide of progress.
------
"A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others, which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively." (J.S. Mill, 'Representative Government')
Complain about this comment
#197 Buzet23
You'll have seen that I corrected my data error.
The actual list of identities was not limited to those quoted.
The figures don't add up to 100%, as the tables omit, for example, those living in England who defined themselves as Scots, Jamaican etc.
Complain about this comment
#198 - Freeborn-John
Again, I agree with almost everything you say but - and this may be far more personal than philosophical - but the question remains of where one is supposed to turn if one has an absolute belief that democracy is the most inherently just method of governing a people and that those very principles appear to be crumbling in front of you. I do now sincerely believe that democracy is close to being a lost cause in Britain. I also fear that this is happening primarily because the vast majority of the British either have not noticed or do not care. People are very fond of misusing the word 'facist' on this blog, especially when addressing European institutions. Do they really not see what is happening in their own back yard?
Complain about this comment
My only question on the reliability of the data on national identity coming from the ESRC surveys of British and Scottish Social Attitudes figures would be the spread of non-indigenous English, Scottish and Welsh peoples living throughout the three regions (or two Kingdoms and one Principality).
There are clearly a large number of Scottish people who reside and work south of the the England/Scotland Border who would, one imagines declare themselves to be ethnically Scottish?
Similarly, there are a huge number of English who live and work in Wales who one can imagine would describe themsleves as ethnically English.
And to confound the declaration of nationality statistics, the figures would be corrupted by immigarnts from the Indian sub-Continent, Africa and the Carribean as well as Commonwealth Citizens whose heritage maybe Scottish, English or Welsh from centuries ago who have emigrated back to the mother country several generations after their ancestors left to reside in Australia, America or Canada and other countries such as New Zealand.
If the majority of immigrants, be they of Pakistani, Indian, African or Afro-Carribean origin reside where the majority of jobs are (i.e. in England), then the number of people purporting to be British (simply because they cannot be ethnically English!) will be a greater ratio of the English vs British proprotions for England.
The term "British" has become a passport label and to the truly ethnically Scottish, English and Welsh, it is high likely that the term British has become a derisory classification thus people who declare themselves as Scottish, English and Welsh are affirming their heritage AND also asserting that they are not mutts to be herded into a racial grouping that has no meaning other than a label on a passport.
The only facts, I would draw from the data on national identity coming from the ESRC surveys of British and Scottish Social Attitudes is not that more people are asserting their ethnicity of being English, Scottish or Welsh as a means to seek national separation but as a resolute determination not to lose their national ethnicity against the backdrop of rampant immigration that has occurred in the UK in the last 60 years.
It is merely a reflection of the unease and unsettling nature of this mass immigration that has the potential to overwhelm and isolate those few people left in the UK (be it in England, Scotland or Wales) who can trace their family history back to the times of the Industrial Revolution which pre-dated mass-immigration when a massive resettlement of the three peoples of England, Scotland and Wales from one country into one or more to the other two countries took place - mainly into England where the greater employment opportunities were.
As I view the 1999 and 2003 ESCR figures, I see them as representing a definitive realisation by people of English, Welsh and Scottish descent that they are not the same as the people who have emigrated into the UK or are descendants of emigrants to the UK (in the past 60 years) who call themselves British, Pakistani-British, African-British, Indian-British or whatever label they choose to wear with pride.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ 200
There is one thing that has become very clear to me since I firts started commenting on MArk's Blog entries and responding to other commentators, and that is that within the EU the "people" of the different EU Nation states have very different forms of "Democracy" they live under.
I quickly realised that the Democracy of the UK - which I thought was THE best democracy because it was (a) unwritten and (b) substantially reliable because it has existed in its current form for over 400 years - was not ideal as the Mother of Parliament (ascribed to Westminster giving the UK Parliament some prestige and global recognition for being a good "representative" democracy) is shambolic democracy as the current political representatives truly do not have the credibility that their predecessors of earlier this Century had.
Like you I am watching the development of a a police-state Britain where unelected and non-professional people are given powers of arrest, people are being observed and kept under surveillance electronically and physically by Local Authorities staff abuisng an anti-terrorist law to "catch people for potentially immoral behaviours" and parliamentarians seek to make profit out of politics for self-agrandisement rather than seeking to do what is best for their electorates.
In many ways I envy you and Buzet23 for having the courage and the determination to leave the UK and move to elsewhere in Europe where the life will be different but also where, being within more recently created democracies, the people would seem to still have a real voice and a chance to make a difference.
Alternatively, Democracy is merely an illusion and the plebiatarii truly do not have the means to have a voice and we shall be led by the Equestrians and higher Praetorian ranks because that is our plebian lot?
Complain about this comment
Wow Mark..your blog is getting populated..I remember a while back..it was like 14 comments..good job!
Complain about this comment
#198 Freeborn-John
While I agree with much of what you say, it's much more accurate to describe Scotland as a nation within the multi-national UK state.
While most Scots think of themselves as Scots rather than British, that does not necessarily equate to their wanting independence.
Thanks for the link to Scottish attitudes to the UK in Europe. Like a lot of survey data, it's always frustrating that they don't cross-tabulate to other political views!
Personally, I would much prefer to have a political structure that had Scotland as a member of a Confederal Europe - with clearly delineated policy areas for European and National Governments.
In such a system, one could vote for European parties on European issues, and for National politicians on National issues.
Complain about this comment
Interesting how this disiussion has moved. I have spent most of my working life outside of the Uk. People sometimes ask me where I.m from. I usually ask do mean where was I born? Yes. Okay I was born in the East End of London. I'm a ockney by birth. Hmm that needs some explaining, so better left alone. I usually say that I'm British I don't very often use the word English either. Perhaps in the same way a Frenchman asked the question will say I'm French. There are now 27 different nationalities involved in this grand alliance all with different languages. cultures and history. To glue all this together is a mamouth task, okay the Euro is one way and sometimes this is quite useful. Especially when you buy diesel in Belgium for one Euro a litre only to find it increased by 25% a few kilometres away in Germany. That difference really underlines the disparity between these nations. And... there are more waiting to join the club! The fact is there are hares and there are tortoises. Old Europe to coin a Rumsfeld expression has been at it for years, they've got the infrastructure sorted. The young ones want the same but it's going take at least a generation or two to get remotely
near. They see a big cake and they want their share.
Only now are the big fast rail networks across Europe are designing trains that any train driver can use. They all look so nice and sooh efficient but they're all different with different control layouts etc. So one day a Spanish driver will be able to comfortably drive a German ICE. There are
other smaller items to consider electric plugs and of course plumbing systems.
There's a long way to go yet. My guess is around 50 years any advance on that?
Complain about this comment
#205 alanbloggz
"Especially when you buy diesel in Belgium for one Euro a litre only to find it increased by 25% a few kilometres away in Germany. That difference really underlines the disparity between these nations"
But you also get similar disparities between the different states (and sometimes even counties) in the USA.
Complain about this comment
#182 Buzet23
Well, I'll certainly not be supporting England in the Rugby World Cup!
:-)
Complain about this comment
#201- Menedemus
I don' think it is an illusion although it is certainly more limited than many of us would care to believe. What I do think happens is that people take it for granted after a while. It has always been so and it will continue. They simply do not notice that it is ebbing away. The tragedy is that that this slippage becomes the life blood of the regime. They see how easy it is for it to slip naturally so they take it a stage further and help themselves.
There is no such thing as a perfect system but there is a residual sense of urgency among people who have not known what it is to be free for that long. The EU should take due note of this. If they imagine for a moment that eastern Europe has extricated itself from the communist yolk simply to be subsumed into another multinational ideology, they are in for a nasty shock. Eurpsceticism is alive and well and living in the east.
What is not alive and well is the sheer complacency by which democracy could be lost to the UK. It really is very simple. The present government in the UK has systematically stripped the people of their democratic rights and it is an ongoing process. Whether or not they are fit for purpose is a matter for the electorate of which I am no longer one. That they are not fit for office is manifest. Maybe more than anything else, this is why I cling to my Englishness. I am ashamed to call myself British.
Your kind remark about the determination to go has a slightly bitter feel about it. I am not convinced that packing ones bags and going is the courageous way forward. There is an element of hypocrisy about commenting so vehemently from elsewhere about these matters but my disillusionment is palpable and my sense of disappointment complete.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
Yes your right of course, but the USA is not Europe which is what this stuff is about. From my travels anyway in the USA the price you see aint the price you pay. Different world and for sure a different currency, or Fed note!
Complain about this comment
Price disparity is a red herring and will persist unless and until there is tax harmonisation. For now, just think how much fun it is going across the water for some grogg. Just popping over to Slovakia for some beer and Austria to top the car up. Catch you shortly.
Complain about this comment
#207, oldnat,
Likewise if Scotland happen to be playing, I'd rather support a southern hemisphere country in Rugby, after all they also tend to dislike winging poms, and having played competitive sport for a very long time I always enjoyed both winning and conversely losing against the Aussies as we enjoyed the beer afterwards.
#210, threnodio,
Sorry but I don't think tax harmonisation will do any thing other than aid the least competitive countries in the EU. All it does is encourage the excessive taxation that exists in many countries now and the highest taxation countries will insist their level is the norm as a means of encumbering the other countries to their restrictive levels.
Menedemus,
You have said what I think in a very eloquent manner, and should you wish to follow us to 'pastures new' you are welcome, I just hope that the greener pastures have not been liquidated by the cozeners that exist throughout the EU elite these days and who dare to call themselves politicians and having been democratically elected.
Complain about this comment
#211 - Buzet23
I completely agree. I did not say I favoured it. Only that it was the one way to standardise pricing.
Complain about this comment
#211 Buzet23
I suspect you did not see that England and Scotland are in the same group!
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (202):
Are you really sure you are disappointed to the democracy or to the results that it produces?
Have you asked from yourself on how much to your view does it add that Britain is in deep economic trouble and that the sectors of economy that have been the spearheads of the British economy are now in danger of being lost? I'm of course talking about the financial and banking sectors which have been in UK more or less been nationalized. I have even heard talk and hypothesis being presented that for small currencies its impossible in long term to retain large financial and banking sectors: examples are Iceland, Sweden and UK.
I would also like to point out that the economic success of the UK in the last 30 years, that is the era from Lady Thatcher to Gordon Brown, is actually product of North See oil. At highest point oil accounted for 6% of UK GDP and in last year it counted still for 1,5%. Besides oil in the 30 years Britain has eaten its inheritance: the experienced prosperity in UK in last 30 years was because serious underinvestment to education and to infrastructure. Currently intergenerational economic mobility is even weaker than in USA and that's a lot, and while bridges are not collapsing like in the US the British infrastructure compared to France or Germany is inadequate.
From my point of view, the reason for the state of the democracy and the economy of UK is consequence on living and doing politics based on false bases and premises and not on reality for the last 30 years. The current crisis is the swan song not only for the US but also to politics of UK that have been followed for 30 years.
Just ask yourself, was the British system, democracy, working in 80s, 90s, 00s? If you answer yes to both 80s and 90s then your grief in reality is with the economy and not the system or form of democracy that you have.
PS. To doubters... an other example... When did the real growth of income and pays stop in the US? Was it in the 70s? What else happened in the 70s... the US oil production peaked. The American dream, Americana, was based on ever growing oil production. From the 70s on the US economy has stagnated as the domestic oil production has declined constantly while the oil consumption has increased. The only thing that has kept the US up has been the US dollar as a reserve currency.
To threnodio (208):
You are commenting from Hungary and feeling things from Hungarian point of view. You say that there are eurosceptism in eastern Europe, but is it really true or is it something else? My money is on the economy...
In 2007 the GDP real growth of Hungary was 1,7% when in Czech it was 6,6%, in Poland 6,6% and in Slovakia 10,40%. Could it be that the eurosceptism is caused by poor economic results?
Also how do people in Czech or in Hungary feel the success of Slovakia? Both Czech and Hungary along GDR were the most developed parts of eastern Europe and now Slovakia, which at its birth was considerate to be poor undeveloped part of Czech-Slovakia has been more successful in the EU: i.e. joining the Euro at the change of year.
We shouldn't also not count out the effects of the fear of Germany and Poland. In communist times the systems there brainwashed people to blame and hate Germany for everything, those feelings won't change quickly.
I would also like to note that there is always a price to pay for a country's freedom. If a country is small, the price it pays for its freedom is even greater. Some eastern European countries have pretended that there are no costs, or that the costs of being allied with the US and participating in its projects is a smaller cost than keeping good relationships with the rest of Europe.
To Buzet23 (211):
EU at the moment is working mostly for the harmonization of the tax base: how and from where taxes are being taken. What that does is to decrease bureaucracy and over-head at European companies.
The harmonization of tax rates is another mater. Unifying tax rates wouldn't not benefit Europe, but then again there should be minimum tax rates i.e. in corporate taxes to make sure companies locate only because of real economic advantages and not because of government subsidies in form of lower taxes. You should also note that high tax rates don't necessarily mean poor economic performance, just look at the Nordic countries, Denmark, Sweden and Finland have now much higher GDP per capita than UK, Germany or France and that with higher tax rates.
Complain about this comment
Gordon brown needs to find out whos been plotting with hitler leader of the EU over joining the Euro
Complain about this comment
215 - jaws1912
"Gordon brown needs to find out whos been plotting with hitler leader of the EU over joining the Euro"
That's all we need - a Prime Minister who talks to himself!
Complain about this comment
#213, oldnat,
You're right, I had not picked that up, still that's at least one game we should win, LOL, and looking at the draw now it seems we've both missed a top 3 team so it's a good draw. It's a shame it so far in the future as 2011 is a long way off.
#214, Jukka_Rohila,
You mention harmonisation of the tax base as if it is a totally desirable eventuality, yet recent evidence with VAT/TVA etc suggests otherwise. As you know VAT is harmonised and the various tax bands are EU fixed with a few special cases for certain countries. Before the recent crisis there were several countries calling for domestic heating oil to be removed from the luxury band and placed in the 5% band and this was blocked primarily by Germany. They did not care about the social cost of people being unable to heat their homes, only considering their own angle. Agreed the price of oil has now fallen to almost affordable levels but their action illustrates the problem that tax base or rate harmonisation would bring. It is too prone to the control of self interested countries like France and Germany that only consider their own undesirable vision of the EU and with themselves controlling it's every step. It is their inflexibility and arrogance of self assumed leadership that makes me consider harmonisation a possible retrograde step.
BTW, you as usual link the UK's problems to their being outside the Euro, that is only a small part as they are mainly about the disastrous policies of Gordon Brown since 1997 and how he spent billions that he did not have. The Eurozone countries are equally badly hit and here in Belgium there have been several part nationalisations of banks. All the banks were run by morons with over inflated ego's and now their stupidity has been exposed and all the taxpayers of the EU are going to pay the cost of their appalling management. You might also like to reflect that since the bail outs the banks have not played fair anywhere and trying to get credit is almost an impossibility which means the housing market has died. Being a member of the Euro has made no difference to that as the housing market here in Belgium is almost dead. Since one of the reasons for Eurozone and non-Eurozone help for the banks was to get the economies moving it's clear that the banks consider themselves superior to the EU, any comments?
Complain about this comment
#216, threnodio,
That's funny I always thought Brown talked with god, or at least that's what the spin he puts out suggests. So the great saviour of mankind talks to himself, can you imagine him in front of his mirror saying, 'you're the greatest, you're wonderful, you can't be wrong' several hundred times, LOL.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (217):
Your example of heating oil and oil in general isn't good argument why we should have different tax bases or different tax rates.
Lowering the tax rate of oil would be giving subsidies to home owners who have decided to heat with oil, its subsidies to people who are not productive enough to produce enough value for the oil consumed. In Finland too we had truckers who protested against rising fuel costs. The problem however wasn't fuel costs, but bad undynamic contracts that didn't enable truckers to pass the cost of rising fuel to their customers. In all these cases the only correct option would have been assisting the market to function better, not to give subsidies. What we also should remember that when the government lowers one tax, it has to increase another tax to keep the budget in balance.
Now what I did in my message was to link UKs problems to 30 years of failed policies. Being outside Euro is just one failed policy after others. Now if you would like to see what would have happened to Belgium if it would be outside Euro is to look at Iceland or Sweden. The situation in Belgium would probably be closer to what is happening in Iceland than in Sweden as Sweden's economy is much more healthier than Belgium's. The thing that you have to ask is, how much worses the situation would be with out the Euro.
Complain about this comment
#214 - Jukka_Rohila
I cannot speak for Menedemus but from my point of view the erosion of democratic values in the UK predates the economic woes by a very long period. In fact, I trace it back to May 1997 when Tony Blair announced on the night of his first election victory that what Labour wanted to do 'could not be achieved in a single term'. In other words, the first term would be all about securing a second term and so on. Staying in office at almost any price. The over reaction to 9/11 was the turning point when the government realised they could get away with just about anything on National Security grounds. Nowadays, they don't even bother with that. They do exactly what they want.
I do not view eastern Europe from a Hungarian perspective. I view it as an Englishman living in Hungary which is quite different. The relative economic results of the countries you identify can be explained by a whole host of phenomena but it is worth pointing out that there was massive inward investment into real estate in the Czech Republic in the '90s which atificially fueled the growth figures. Also German industrial penetration was much greater than elsewhere. Poland and Slovakia have a much more mixed economic pattern than Hungary. Hungary's agricultural sector is relatively small as a proportion of GDP and therefore it has started from a base of needing to attract more inward industrial investment. The figures notwithstanding, it has been quite successful. Asian manufacturers in particular have tended to favour Hungary.
As regards Euroscepticism, the tendency is actually the opposite of what you suggest. There is a consensus here that Hungary would not have been so exposed if it had been within the Euro zone and that the sceptical tendency is likely to be in retreat in the new circumstances. Austria, on the other hand, is a long standing member of both the EU and the Eurozone and is reputed to be the most eurosceptic of all the members. Quite how you measure this scientifically, I do not know.
Complain about this comment
#218 - Buzet23
No God is too busy trying to fix the Middle East all on his own and become president of Europe at the same time. Mrs. God is probably working on another bad book.
Complain about this comment
#219, Jukka_Rohila,
Sorry but domestic heating oil is a lot different from oil used for commercial purposes i.e. trucks, farming etc.
There are few alternatives to heating your home these days and the most common are electricity, gas and oil. Using natural products like coal or wood has a negative effect on greenhouses gas emissions and is not really a good answer. Likewise solar panels, wind turbines are expensive and cannot provide enough guaranteed power to heat a home since they are prone to weather conditions. Where I live in Belgium there is gas but not everyone is near a gas main as you need to be in the centre of a town and most new developments do not have gas. This leaves the choice between oil or electricity, do you get the picture. It's not about assisting the markets to work better it's simply that your hands are tied as there is little or no room for manoeuvre. My other point is that to band domestic heating as a luxury is an insult, it is a necessity of sustaining life just as food is and all forms of domestic heating should be banded in the 5% band rather than the 15% band. Commercial uses are of course a separate issue, and it is a shame that the EU that the like so much has distanced itself from being a Social Europe where the welfare of the population is paramount.
#221, threnodio,
I'd forgotten about that god and her book, now they're about to be joined by their namesake who has just retired from the Met and who also thinks himself above us lowly mortals. I somehow think god's blown his hopes of becoming EU president as I think he's as popular as Sarko is in France at the moment or Brown is in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Jukka,
I made a slight typo in my last sentence to you, it should have read : Commercial uses are of course a separate issue, and it is a shame that the EU that you like so much has distanced itself from being a Social Europe where the welfare of the population is paramount.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (222):
Heating oil is not any different than other oil.
People who chose to heat with oil made their decision all by themselves. Its their own fault if their decision was wrong. My own parents who built their detached house in 80s chose electric heating as the ever increasing usage of nuclear power seemed to make electricity a sure bet, unfortunately then came the Chernobyl and irrational fears and thus new nuclear plants were not build anymore in the 80s nor in the 90s. So, should they get subsidies from the government? Of course not, as shouldn't people who heat with oil. Now is there other options? Well I live in a urban area and get district heating that is very cheap as its made in combination with electricity. If oil seems to costly for heating then one has to either invest and move to another source or if no other choices are available move to another place. Having a social society doesn't mean that the state should help every time when people do wrong or stupid decisions, especially when a decision like heating by oil was a deliberate decision.
My advice to you, invest to electric heating and in the next elections vote for candidate and party who support for nuclear power, otherwise decrease your in-house temperatures to bare minimum if oil seems to be too valuable.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #214
I think my disappointment in the political landscape of the UK is historic perspective.
The nature of politics in the UK is "First-past-the-Post" which I do see as better and stronger government than proportional or representational government which although can lead to more consencus poilitcs does lead to inaction and dithering when it come to crunch decision making.
You are quite right to question whether the Governemt of the the UK reflects the change in economic circumstances of the UK since 1945 but I think the UK economy was always boom and bust and of cyclical nature and it is only the fact that we no longer have any gold reserves and have a dwindling oil and gas reserves that compound our current economic woes and are not necessarily the cause or result of our political system not being as democratic as it was once.
What I think has happened in the UK to change the political landscape has occurred since 1945 and is a social change and not an economic change.
The end of the Second World War saw Great Britain was no longer a wealthy nation and the times wrought a change in attitude of the Commonwealth countries towards the "Mother" country. At the same time, the British people, most of whom had been involved in the War Effort sought changes to their standards of living and 1944-1947 saw the UK Government respond to the people with the introduction of Healthcare and Education for all as a free of charge and full entitlement for all as a major social change.
Some of the children of the post-War educational explosion have benefitted from their access to learning and those that were capable went to University in the 1960/1970s and many are now the key Politicians of Government and Opposition Parties of today.
It is interesting to read the biographic details of some of these politicians and one can read read about their early educational experiences and one can see that some toyed with ideas of one-party-state political ideas and joined political societies or groupings to gain the learnings of how to govern the UK, the EU and the world with little or no regard to democratic principles other than that the democratic voting process in a democracy can provide them the means to gain access to the fruits of political power.
If one was to do a bit of research and look at the membership roster for university-based societies and political think-tanks of the 1960/1970s one can see that the politicians of today have some very deep-rooted connections and have become a political elite that can slip into government by autocracy rather than by democracy at the drop of a hat.
Thus in a way, the political degradation of the UK today is fundamentally a flaw of having won the Second World War and, because Great Britain put in place changes to benefit the "People", there has been the creation of an educated political elite who think nothing is wrong when it comes to keeping and maintaining political power in their hands.
Complain about this comment
#224, Jukka_Rohila,
You really have missed my point about domestic heating, it a necessity of life and essential to sustaining life. To claim that if it was banded at the 5% tax band is giving a subsidy is absurd, by banding food at that level are you also giving a subsidy, I think not. There are a number of things that are essential to our life and heating is one of those, what would you propose, that old age pensioners spend their time in heated council centres since they were too stupid to chose the right way of heating. You are in a closeted world if you have the luxury of cheap district heating, most have never heard of it let alone have it. I could also suggest that in this case it's you that's being subsidised at our expense and why should you get cheap heating when others can't, fair do's my friend. As you seem to like harmonisation I wait to hear you supporting the harmonisation of your heating charges to our level.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (226):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
Its not my fault that people and societies in Belgium and other parts of Europe haven't invested to efficient ways of producing energy and heat. The Nordic countries and some eastern European countries have had to do things the right way from the beginning as they couldn't afford to do it the wrong way. In example district heating in all Nordic countries cover over 50%.
I myself pay 15e per month for my water and heating, and that's the market price, no subsidies from the government or from the city. Actually I probably pay little excess as this fee goes to my condominium. The electricity that I use includes 22% VAT, same too if the electricity is used on heating. I have no problem if electricity and oil have the same VAT, but if you lower VAT for oil then you are subsidizing it. Also if you lower VAT to make something more affordable to people what you are again doing is giving subsidies to let people continue to do things that they can't afford to.
The main thing, if people can't afford something, then they should change their consumption and habits.
If the pensioner that you mentioned can't afford paying for the heating, then the solutions are 1) invest to your apartment to either need less energy to heat or change the way its heated, and 2) if the pensioner can't afford to then he or she should sell the apartment and move to a more affordable place. That is how things work. People make choices and then they face the consequences of their actions.
The thing is that if you or the society wants cheap heating or energy what you need to do is to invest on ways efficient energy and heating production can be achieved. That is the only sustainable way to do it.
Now excuse me, but how is this so bad?
Complain about this comment
To myself (227):
Actually small correction. I pay 15e for water. Heating itself costs somewhere from 30 - 50e per month that is included in the condominium payment.
Complain about this comment
#227, Jukka_Rohila,
I think all I can say is to wish you the best of luck in your brave new world and be thankful that people like me don't share your opinions. If that is truly your thoughts and the thoughts of the Finnish population then I'm afraid the sooner Finland leaves the EU the better as quite frankly yours views are more akin to an extremist that anything else. I just hope you don't expect us to subsidise your perfect world when it eventually crumbles as we prefer a social Europe that actually cares for those that have paid their taxes throughout their life and now find it hard to afford the life your beloved EU has bequeathed on them.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (229):
Excuse me what?
A social society, a social Europe, can only happen when the society can afford it, when the society can produce enough. In Finland we have free education, free health-care, social security, community housing, etc.. to be able to afford all those the society has to work very efficiently and cut excess and unwise consumption from everywhere and invest continually to projects that make the society more productive and efficient. If we don't do that, if we consume more than we produce, if we offer more services and subsidies than we can afford, what we are doing is increasing our debts, meaning that the future generations have to make the sacrifices that couldn't do.
Now if we move back to a question of pensioners, I just can't understand what the big problem is. If a pensioner can't afford heating oil, that implies that he or she is living and consuming over his or hers means. Like I said before, there are two choices either invest to lower living costs in long term or move into another place that is more affordable.
In example my life that I will have and that other people have had is that in adult life...
When student, living in a shared apartment
When single, living in a single room apartment
When together, living in single or two room apartment
When with young family, living in two or three room apartment
When children are older, living in a bigger apartment or even in a detached house
When children are grown up, living in two or three room apartment
When widow, living in single or two room apartment
When too weak, living in retirement home
That is how my life will follow. That is how may others life have went. In every step of life one lives the life that one can afford and what one needs. What is wrong with this?
Complain about this comment
#230, Jukka_Rohila,
What is wrong with this? I notice in all but one case you said apartment, that assumes that there are really only apartments available with a few detached houses. The only place you really find apartments are in fairly big towns elsewhere it's old traditional terraced houses or newer detached houses or semi detached houses. Most of the elderly I know of here in Belgium live in very small terraced houses which are mostly known officially as 'maison modest' since they attract various governmental grants for making them more energy efficient. You may have a nice subsidised life in Finland where a small apartment is cheap, here it's at least 400 Euro per month if you're lucky plus charges for water and electricity. You may also have cheap affordable retirement homes but most of Europe does not. You may also have a high pension but most of Europe does not, here the basic minimum is under 800 Euro per month and the maximum a little bit more, unless you were a manager and could afford an extra pension. I don't think it's rocket science to calculate that there is little most elderly can do to economise and moving to a retirement home is a luxury most cannot afford unless the state intervenes.
You talk about "to be able to afford all those the society has to work very efficiently and cut excess and unwise consumption from everywhere and invest continually to projects that make the society more productive and efficient.". This is precisely why many of us here are EU sceptical, it has clearly failed in these objectives and has become a huge expensive dinosaur and a cash cow to every failed or failing politician there is. Consequently I am amazed that having said what you have about pensioners you are such an avid supporter of the EU in it's present form and that you even advocate it's extension towards federalism that will only exasperate it's inherent problems.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (231):
Where do you get the idea that we have a subsidized life in here? People pay the market price from housing, heating, water, electricity, etc... In example here in Turku and in other Finnish cities the local energy companies that are mostly owned by the communities are constantly turning big profits and giving substantial dividends to their owners and in the same time keeping their infrastructure up and expanding it. Is it so hard to think that maybe by doing things right and investing to infrastructure one can at the same time make profit and offer affordable services to people?
Now if we go to a question of pensioners, if they have a terraced house, why don't they sell it and with the money buy or a rent a house or apartment that they can afford? That is the normal situation in here, old people sell their detached houses and with the money by apartments.
Now if we go to services to pensioners and pensions, that question is decided and prioritized by the society. In Finland we have community maintained retirement homes were the caring, food, medicines and estate are paid fully by the community; those who remain long-term in retirement home the community can charge up to 80% from their income, but not more than the actual costs, and at least minimum amount of income must be left to the occupant. Those pensioners that stay in their homes, the community maintains home care where few times a week a worker comes to clean up the house and drop of prepared food, this of course has an affordable rate. Then the pensions themselves.. The minimum pension is 490e plus housing benefits, that goes to people who have not worked in paid work, as in house wifes. In maximum pension only the sky is the limit, my friends dad, an ex-senior professional, get 3000e pension per month and that is from the state. My own pension that I will get someday is calculated by the income I earn in my whole career and by the years I work, for every Euro I now earn (that is before taxes), I pay 22 cents to the state pension fund.
The thing is, a society can provide care and comfort to its members if it wants to, and it can do so without mixing the markets. Lowering VAT in some product mixes the markets and make the market unoptimized. The correct way of keeping up the welfare society is taxing income and consumption and using that money to provide social security and services. The best way to advantage and increase the level of welfare is to increase the productivity of the society at whole, meaning avoiding excess and wasteful consumption, making long-term investments, optimizing the market, etc..
Now if we look at the EU, what you don't seem to realize is that because of EU, because of harmonization and integration, the common market, the market place, companies and workers work much more optimally and with less over-head than without the EU. The cost of keeping EU bureaucracy working compared to benefits and cost savings it gives is just minimal. The common market, the Euro, Schengen area, upcoming SEPA, common standards, etc.. they are just all allowing the market more to work more optimally and produce more.
Now what you have to remember is that the EU allows and enables many things, but that doesn't change the fact that the member states still hold the keys to their success: they decide on their energy policies, on their industrial and technology policies, on infrastructure, on education and social policies, etc.. What you have to ask, what you should be asking why things are done in your town, in your region, in your country differently than in some other EU country. What you should ask why in example Belgium has government debt of 90% to GDP and budget deficit of -0.03% when other countries like again Nordic countries have much lower debts (Denmark 30%, Finland 39,7 and Sweden 47,6%) and surplus budgets even as these countries especially both Sweden and Finland located in harder climates and being hinterlands of Europe.
Complain about this comment
#232, Jukka_Rohila,
I'm thinking that living on the edge of the EU next to Russia you adopted a Socialist 'cradle to grave' policy alongside capitalism. However if your communities still own your energy company's then thatt's good but surprising since the EU is all about open markets, especially in energy. I am sure if your company's were owned by EDF for instance you would be paying EU market rates, as the raw supplies of energy are expensive everywhere. If you get your supplies from Gazprom for instance then your costs should be similar to ours, but then maybe your government has not implemented all the green taxes etc.
It's also the case that small is often better then big and bureaucratic, that applies equally to hospitals, energy company's and even the EU. If you have local energy company's then their overheads will be less since they need little bureaucracy. In the UK we started out with the same policy for a cradle to grave health service but that has been corrupted by an overgrown bureaucracy that believes large impersonal hospitals are better than the old small district hospitals. Most in the UK regret the closing of small friendly district or cottage hospitals and this is one of the reasons the UK's NHS is so bad these days. In much the same way I do not like the EU approach as it is a large bureaucracy with a large overhead that defeats competitiveness by it's interference in every aspect of life and business.
You say "The common market, the Euro, Schengen area, upcoming SEPA, common standards, etc.. they are just all allowing the market more to work more optimally and produce more.", what you are largely referring to is commerce as that to some extent does work although there are still so many restrictive practices everywhere that are designed to stop so called 'strategic' industries being bought by non-national company's. However when you look at social mobility, yes you can move to another country and yes a Finnish pensioner could move to Spain to be warm all year round but you have to be able to fund yourself. If you wish to exercise the right to work in another EU country then that's when you discover that the EU is not working. Firstly you will discover the language barrier and the qualification barrier, both being a method used to discriminate against foreign workers. After overcoming those you will then move on to a whole host of problems concerning your rights and welfare which finally culminate in establishing your pension rights across multiple member states. Maybe now you can see why people like me who've been mobile and have lived in multiple countries are not so enamoured with the EU's direction.
PS you're quite right about Belgium (and UK) public debt and that's why many I know are very unhappy with their politicians. We'll see what happens next year but being in a proportional representation election system it is difficult to ever get a real change, it would take a huge protest vote for extremist candidates to bring about a change and most dislike the communists or fascists so we're unfortunately stuffed.
Complain about this comment
a few years ago a joke was told in the greek parliament by an mp: A doctor had his tap in the surgery not working properly.
He called a plumber to fix it. Pmumbercame, 5 minutes later job was done. How much do i owe you asked the doctor? 100 Euros said the plumber. 100? said the doctor. I've spent almost 30 years studying, and i only charge 80 euros per visit. I used to charge that money when i was a doctor said the plumber!
So that's the problem now days. It's a common secret that plumbers were charging an arm an a leg, so everyone wasnted to be a plumber and now they pay the price.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS