New European 'No' party
The man who organised the "No" vote to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland is setting up the first pan-European political party to fight next year's parliamentary elections. Declan Ganley says that it will be a single issue party, campaigning solely against the Lisbon treaty and what he believes is the anti-democratic nature of the European Union.
Listen to my interview with him.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~51~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is a comment on Mark Mardell's paragraph on Freeborn-John and bias from the last entry. I noticed a new blog line had started and I feel that this is an important enough issue to put it here as well.
I have no idea what Freeborn-John said.
The BBC Governors (as was) were sufficiently concerned about perceived bias to commission a report in January 2005 into allegations of bias in the BBC's output. It is available here.
In the summary, it says:
It says in the detail:
I have no idea whether the 'urgent action' was ever taken. Perhaps Mark Mardell knows ?
The BBC has also had money from the EU. This article in The Times can itself hardly be called unbiased since The Times is in the same Murdoch empire as Sky. I doubt its facts are wrong, however.
Of course I agree with the respondent who said that perspective matters. I am generally anti-EU so the BBC looks almost perpetually biased in favour of the EU to me. The report addresses that issue.
Somewhat ironically, the report also says:
Complain about this comment
Are you sure that this party will not be taken over by EUphiles...
I think GreenPeace is taken over by EU? What they do is nothing, except talk, and write reports.. EU style,dont you think so?
anyway.. the mother of Democracy is Anarchy..
Mark can you get EU on anarchists as a political movemnet in Greece?
They are the opposite of EU, or bailing out the rich, they will keep destroying the rich symbols of bailouts, till they get the opportunity. Should things be in a status quo, should the rich remain rich even if they are incompetent, there will always be Anarchy, the mother of Democracy.
Complain about this comment
Britain's parliamentary monarchy is also anti-democratic, however I have not seen any parties solely campaigning against that.
Referendum on the EU only after we have had a referendum on the monarchy in Britain!
Complain about this comment
Where are the fair EU regulations? Why the rich cannot be allowed to be poor and the poor to be rich? Why bail out the rich with the sacrifices of the poor?
This is not anymore democracy, but slavery.. where the pharaeons makes the rules...
Complain about this comment
Just give people a referendum and we will get reed of the old elites...
The referendum is the only way to get reed of the system elites, of bailin out the rich, of shooting to youngs. why they (the youngs in Greece) are protesting?
if no referendum, then anarchy will reign so democracy can be born.
Complain about this comment
Whether it be Brown New Labour
or the EU we now have selective
democracy/dictatorship.
YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SAY SO LONG AS ITS
YES!
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
Indicating what's wrong is easy. Solving these issues is the interesting and hard part. Here, populism falls even more short than status quo politics.
Complain about this comment
As someone committed to the concept of a democratic Europe, I'm delighted by Mr. Ganley's new initiative.
However, as is usually the case in these matters, the devil is in the detail.
Declan Ganley boldly talks about bringing issues of specific European resonance on to a European arena of debate - great, I'm all for that but if one follows this principle through to its logical conclusion it also means pan-European political parties contesting European elections on the basis of European policy proposals.
In turn that means voting for or against the implementation of such policies on the basis of a unified European democratic platform, not 27 different domestic mediums cobbled together for convenience.
In short let's have a real debate about a European Constitution, whether such a document is desirable or not, what it should contain and what it should not and what policy areas should (or should not) be managed by which tier of governance?
Then, put the (hopefully concise) Constitutional document emanating from such a debate to the people for their approval - but by people I mean European people, utilising a simultaneous plebiscite across the entire Union.
That's what I call European democracy but is it what Mr. Ganley really means - I think we should be told?
Complain about this comment
I wonder how UKIP, Vanitas and other similarly anti-EU parties are going to look upon this new upstart. A "Life of Brian" scene comes to mind:
"Splittists!"
Really, bringing these people together seems like herding cats.
Complain about this comment
I wish Declan Ganley luck, but I suspect this will be biting off more than he can chew.
Those opposed to the Lisbon Constitutreaty should remain focussed on opposition to this at the next referendum, and as many referenda as it takes after that.
Complain about this comment
#1 chill0, congratulations on your reporting. You'll never get a job at the BBC with well researched articles, supported by genuine quotes and detail.
As for whether Mark Mardell will answer you, I think we both know that once a blog entry is written, and the pay packet pocketed, Mr Mardell will never read it again, never mind any of the comments.
Last week a massive story regarding the future of EU expansion, NATO and the USAs proposed weapons shield was completely missed by the BBC, and I can find no reference in Mr Mardells blog pages.
The one brief mention that caught my attention, and set alarm bells ringing, was a one sentence report on News24; Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev returned home early from a visit to India following the death of the Pontiff of the Russian Orthodox church.'
Poland, Ukraine and Russia each have seperate Orthodoxies. In 1988, the Pontiff of the Ukrainean Orthodoxy died, and the position has remained unfilled since then. The Ukrainean Orthodoxy has been looking to consolidate with either its Polish or Russian brethren, and felt that a unified Pontiff would be required, rather than serving a Pontiff elected solely by Polish or Russian Cardinals. The vacancy at the head of the Russian Orthodoxy opens the doors to negotiations between the 2 churches regarding unification. Should the Ukrainean and Russian Orthodoxies unite under a Pontiff elected by Cardinals from both churches, this would strengthen a connection which has been fractured greatly since the dissolution of the USSR. Clearly, the new Orthodoxy would be more pro-Russia and could easily turn the tide in the Ukraine back towards Russia. As the current, though not overwhelmingly popular, Ukrainean government is seeking membership of the EU and NATO, and America wishes to build its missile shield in the Ukraine, such a shift in power and influence would scupper both.
Following Americas lack of action in Georgia, and Condoleeza Rice's leaving the NATO summit early, the Ukraineans are already having second thoughts about their governments pro-west stance.
I doubt Mark Mardell will read this post either, but perhaps now that an Englishman who has never visited Eastern Europe, lives in Manchester and has no ties to either Roman or Orthodoxy Catholicism has done the job the BBCs 'informed' reporters should have done, the Beeb might actually give some coverage to this seismic shift within Europe. If so, I bet I don't get paid for the story, nor even an acknowledgement.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark,
When answering Freeborn-Johns allegations of bias will you please give full coverage of comments I have read here about the BBC getting money from the "EU".
Will you further please give details as to how the BBC recruits its journalists. Several years ago I tried to find out where the BBC advertised for journalists. The only place I found was the Guardian - a pro "EU" newspaper. Are adverts placed elsewhere?
If you have any time then you might like to comment sometime on bias at ITN. I haven't watched the telly for five years but when I did use to watch it, I always thought that Jon (?) Snow at ITN had a very pro-"EU" bias.
I would also like to know who owns the pro-"EU" press in the UK and the rest of the "EU". Has there been an attempt by "EU"-lovers to take over the press "EU"-wide? I always used to consider the Neue Zuercher Zeitung (Swiss newspaper) to be anti-"EU" and sometime it started to look pro-"EU" to me.
Complain about this comment
I listened very carefully to Mr Ganley.
Presidents of nation states have widely differing powers. I'm not sure but is it possible that he might think that a President of Europe would in some way be like the president of a nation state? Not so.
He's very assured and, unlike many, he's putting his money where his mouth is. But if he does succeed in putting forward candidates in every Member State of the European Union for the next European elections and makes an insignificant impact what, I wonder, will he do then?
Complain about this comment
I have found that Lisbon seems to bring out the most extreme and inappropriate Euroscepticism in British citizens.
As i write i am sitting revising for my December exam in European Studies in the beautiful Centre Ceramique in Maastricht. I am also a British citizen myself, and from the 100 or so students from across the world, I am the only British person studying this MA.
And i'm dissapointed.
The intensity and ferocity of anti EU sentiment in the comments on this blog are so wildly backward and blindly parochial that they hardly worth reading, except for a chuckle every now and again. Accusations of bias in a well researched and comprehensive blog entry are just easy and snide remarks made by paranoid patriots.
In the contemporary international setting, if you feel fragmentation and a dogmatic grip on 'sovereignty' is the most important thing in the world, then i'd suggest a revised look at the Great British hero Winston Churchill, who's enthusiasm after the second world war was driven by a desire for "some sort of United States of Europe".
It isn't enough anymore to believe that all a country's answers lie within its borders and within one national government. Stronger union with our neighbours, very simply, will keep our long term security and financial buoyancy sustainable.
If people really feel the EU is as fascist and homogenising as its dubbed, then i hope they don't take for granted the only period of meaningful and beneficial peace throughout all European history.
Lisbon reveals the unfortunate gulf in global understanding between the people and their bureacracies. Until this is addressed, referenda will only serve to feed an increasingly salient national introvertedness, especially amidst a recession.
Complain about this comment
God dont you just hate these troublesome and piffling little democracies holding up the good work of EU.
Who the hell do Ireland think they are.
They should be made to have a referendum every dam week until they get the answer right.
Complain about this comment
declan ganley was not "the man who organsied the no vote". him and his suspectly funded libitas party were only one group campaiging for a no vote. the very broad nature of the opposition to the treaty (many, if not most, boycotting combined work with these far right people) was a much more important factor in its rejection.
Complain about this comment
1. chill0:
For all that Freeboen-john is articulate, if wordy, he has own agenda.
See his advocacy of a recreation of the British Empire (without the black or brown bits)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/10/02
/an_embarrassing_example_of_anglosphere_unity
And why does his draft EU Constitution that won him a prize from the Adam Smith Institute resemble so closely his Anglosphere Constitution?
see
#94 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/06/what_does_irelands_no_mean.html
and
http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/government/alternative-eu-constitution-200711201245/
Complain about this comment
@ 11,
what religion(or god?) has to do with politics? money? or power? and (should i add) sex?as well.. war?
it always had/has.
this is the reality.. the elites have to brainwash people, scare them about god (in christianity/islam), climate change (EU, IPCC,etc).....
So, they can control people like sheeps..
anyway.. see you in Anarchy..
Complain about this comment
Re:
Do grow up and stop being so naive.
AlsoI think, if you check, you will find that Winston Churchill did not believe the UK should be part of a united Europe.
Complain about this comment
I believe that whilst Mr Ganley seems genuine and his ideas are in princple good it would be very dangerous to Elect a one policy party into European Office before a Constitution is in place.
People are trying to build an idea of European Nationalism whilst the E.U is essentially quite socialist in nature. A dangerous mix.
And a yolk that i for one am not prepared to live under.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I vote "Yes" to Declan Ganley's 'NO' Party: The sooner Europe-wide the ordinary Citizen is given that choice the sooner the EUrotocracy will start to receive it's redundancy notices.
Europeans can return to democratically elected National Governments deciding their nations' Justice system, size of fruit, Defence policy, hours of work, Fiscal policy maternity leave, Agricultural policy, political rights and responsibilities, Fisheries policy etc.
In the meantime we can set the ball rolling the English "NO" branch by voting to stop payment to all English MEPs, voting to ignore Brussels' EUrotocracy directives and to show the English really mean business byvoting to not enter the Eurovison Song Contest or letting Terry Wogan broadcast from the event!
Complain about this comment
#14 Smeashy wrote
“if you feel fragmentation and a dogmatic grip on 'sovereignty' is the most important thing in the world, then i'd suggest a revised look at the Great British hero Winston Churchill, who's enthusiasm after the second world war was driven by a desire for "some sort of United States of Europe".
Ah that old red herring again. Yes, Churchill supported some kind of plan for European Unity, but he did not expect that the UK would want or need to be part of it.
Red Herring No #2
“If people really feel the EU is as fascist and homogenising as its dubbed, then i hope they don't take for granted the only period of meaningful and beneficial peace throughout all European history.”
When you are answering your European Studies exam, I hope you don’t neglect the existence of an organisation called the North Atlantic treaty Organisation. Sensible people recognise that the reason why there has been so little conflict in Europe since 1945 is the continued presence of US soldiers, tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons on European soil. It is noticeable that the Bosnian debacle occurred after N.A.T.O had been weakened by the influences of the E.U.
Having dispensed with Red Herrings, let me consider your final point.
“Lisbon reveals the unfortunate gulf in global understanding between the people and their bureacracies. Until this is addressed, referenda will only serve to feed an increasingly salient national introvertedness, especially amidst a recession..”
I take it this is your justification for not continuing with the democratic ratification process. The anti-democratic view has prevailed in most of the countries of Europe, clearly you feel cheated that the Irish get a say.
The only thing revealed by Lisbon, is the profoundly anti-democratic nature of the EU, an organisation which was created through deception, and which has reached its current undemocratic heights through a continuous process of misleading the people of Europe. Until this is addressed, referenda will be the only hope for a free and democratic future in the increasingly Stalinist EU.
Oh, and just in case they take account of spelling in your exam, bureacracies. is actually spelt bureaucracies, while dissapointed is really disappointed.
Complain about this comment
#20. WhiteEnglishProud wrote:
“I believe that whilst Mr Ganley seems genuine and his ideas are in princple good it would be very dangerous to Elect a one policy party into European Office before a Constitution is in place.
People are trying to build an idea of European Nationalism whilst the E.U is essentially quite socialist in nature. A dangerous mix.
And a yolk that i for one am not prepared to live under.”
It has to be prior to the Constitution, because afterwards, it would no longer be possible. One of the many provisions of the Constitution is to give the EU power to prevent “unapproved,” parties from standing for election.
This is yet another Stalinist bit of control freakery from the world’s most anti-democratic organisation, the Zimbabwe government included.
Complain about this comment
Dear Smeashy
Not all of us living on this side of La Manche are dogmatically opposed the concept of closer European integration although I’ll have to admit that rampant Europhobia peddled on the basis of half-truths, innuendo, exaggeration and downright mendacity does seem to be a peculiarly English (and I mean English, not British) pastime.
Of course you'll be aware that whilst Winston Churchill was a staunch advocate of a "United States of Europe" he had absolutely no intention of including Great Britain within the concept.
I'd like to believe that a process of robust yet informed debate will help to blow away many of the more frequently peddled Euromyths but maybe I'm being naive in holding true to that idealistic vision?
Complain about this comment
#23, Smeashy - I commend you upon your studies, and wish you well in your exams. Surely you, of all people, must appreciate the irony of an Englishman sitting in Maastricht condemning British political ideology.
Not only did that city give us John Majors Maastricht Treaty, but was also where the Gunpowder Plot was hatched!
I always suspected that the EU were aware of the latter fact when choosing a city to name the treaty after - cheeky blighters:)
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip: "I vote "Yes" to Declan Ganley's 'NO' Party: The sooner Europe-wide the ordinary Citizen is given that choice the sooner the EUrotocracy will start to receive it's redundancy notices."
I agree in principle but what do you mean by "Europe-wide" in this context?
I also want European democracy but that means placing European policies in the European Arena for debate and censure/approval by a European electorate en-masse, not in some arbitrary and peripatetic fashion by 27 increasingly irrelevant (for European matters) domestic elements thereof?
You (and Mr. Ganley) need to clarify what is meant, precisely, by democracy in this context?
Complain about this comment
Mark, in choosing to interview Declan Ganley you are showing distinct anti-EU bias. (That's for FBJ).
But seriously, if Ganley can get 27 representatives - each from a different country - to agree on a manifesto, then he no only deserves every vote he gets, but should stand as EU President himself. Anyone who takes more than a passing interest in how the EU works knows just how difficult it is to secure agreement.
Is he going to use Qualified Majority Voting to ensure he gets a manifesto, I wonder?
Complain about this comment
It's interesting to see how this forum is dominated by mindless Murdoch-bots, endlessly repeating their master's message.
You vote for the European Parliament. You vote for the UK government who appoints the commissioners. Ironically, your much-despised Lisbon Treaty does make the EU more democratic and accountable.
What you don't get to vote for is the US government and President (and the Americans could well lose their minds again and elect Palin or somebody equivalent).
Yet, you are acting as agents for those whose aim is to keep the EU weak and maintain the UK in its role as the US' lapdog.
Yes, agents for a foreign power acting against the UK's best interests...
Complain about this comment
Re 3: Britain's parliamentary monarchy is also anti-democratic, however I have not seen any parties solely campaigning against that.
Well some parties (called "republican" for some strange reason) did campaign, almost solely, against it. They were called terrorists. Then they stopped when their members were promised a share of power. Maybe that what the "No Europe" parties are after too?
Complain about this comment
As a (moderately) EU supporter, I wish Mr Ganley good luck. If he succeeds it means that the EU is not so anti-democratic as he claims.
Complain about this comment
Wow, i didn't expect that chorus of responses!
On the Zurich address, i stand corrected! If anyone has a link or anything they could post citing this UK exclusion from a United States of Europe then i'd be keen to take a look.
@ Constable_Shoe
Have European problems not always had affected the UK? I think it is more "naive" to consider the world neatly divided up into its own business by state borders, it simply isn't the case anymore. In an era after the British Empire does it not further lend credit further integrating into the EU in light of its enourmous trade power for example?
I really doubt whether NATO has secured peace between European States too. I would credit that to profitable and beneficial interdependance more than an overarching international military organisation. Having more guns isn't the only route to peace (if it ever really has been). I would put that more down to the formation of the ECSC and its subsequent evolution (incidentally the same reason for the democratic deficit today) than NATO. Do you really think US military presence in Europe was for its 'own good'? I think that had a lot more to do with the US's geopolitical advantage the Soviet Union.
You're taking much to great a liberty in interpreting my concern for the gulf between people and their bureaucracies. As i'm sure recall from this same blog the level of misinformation during the referendum was a serious issue, and made the No campaign's task a lot easier.
This point of misinformation is precisely my cncern over this gulf. If democratic will is to mean anything it cannot be just a toss up between easy nationalism and the detail of complex interdependence!
The democratic deficit is a glaring problem in the popular legitimacy of the EU I agree, but because it is contemporary problem does not mean the entire regime should be dispensed with. European issues all to easily become polarised by "in or out" mentalities. As mentioned above its easy indicate the problem.
On a final note, it is infuriatingly pedantic to pick up on spelling errors, your selectivity on this point is nothing short of needless and pathetic also. But i appreciate your concern.
@padav01
Robust and informed debate seems to be an ideal even with the virtues of the internet at the public's disposal. Being informed and having an opinion unfortunately don't go hand in hand. And indeed i felt that Irish voters were struck with confusion and bowled over by the power of appealing to historical nationalism. And its not as if i have problem with referenda or that there should have been a decision to choose
My European ideals may well have become too linked up the EU in particular, but as a simple maxim, i feel union (now more than ever) is a far more sensible approach than fragmentation, when dealing with the tougher times we are now facing; including what i would posit as a decreasing US unipolarity. We should be looking to our neighbours, not the special relationship.
Complain about this comment
Pan-European party, what a great idea be it one opposed to EU. This is the only way forward to a Democratic EU. I hope it is only the beginning and others will follow. I just wonder what the majority of bloggers will complain about once EU becomes democratic; well as much democratic as the most democratic member states are.
#14 Smeashy good post and take no notice of spelling complainers. I’ve seen many mistakes by most people, after all there is no spell check in the blog so it is easy to miss a typo; some of us are not English first tongue Oxbridge educated and we plea for some tolerance.
#23 wrote:
‘It is noticeable that the Bosnian debacle occurred after N.A.T.O had been weakened by the influences of the E.U.’
I am afraid this is utter simplification and it does not show true reasons for Bosnian debacle.
Anyway three cheers for Declan Ganley and who knows he may even get converted once he is seriously into the pan-European politics.
Complain about this comment
Mark...
another party...good thing! how many seats will it win in the next parliamentary elections in the european union in 2009....
Complain about this comment
32. Smeashy:
"On the Zurich address, i stand corrected! If anyone has a link or anything they could post citing this UK exclusion from a United States of Europe then i'd be keen to take a look. "
Sorry, I can't help on the Zurich address but anyone interested in Churchill's stand on Europe should try reading
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=61
Not a lot of people know that!
Complain about this comment
Naughty Mark!
You've given the arch anti-Lisbon protagonist the opportunity to get himself widely heard via the BBC.
Are you trying to be evenhanded? Are trying to show the BBC to be something other than a hotbed of europhiles? Are you trying to cut the ground from under the feet of the europhobes?
Is there no end to your machiavellian underhandedness?
Complain about this comment
SpeleoKarst @29:
I guess that all the people in France, the Netherlands and in Ireland who voted against the Constitutional/Lisbon Treaty were also "mindless Murdoch-bots, endlessly repeating their master's message"
Amazing how much influence he has....
no wonder they won't let us vote on the matter here in Britain.
Complain about this comment
32. Smeashy:
"On the Zurich address, i stand corrected!"
Oh come on! Students these days! That took me 30 seconds once I could be bothered to look.
Sadly Churchill does indeed appear to be placing Great Britain outside Europe. But then he also thought that the British Commonwealth would continue to be a force to be reckoned with. Go to
http://www.ena.lu/the_zurich_speech-020100043.html
You need to click on the "full document" button then close the following right hand pane and go the lower pane then revealed. Locate the audio file and click to listen to his own words.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @38,
I agree with your condemnation of students these days: usually ignorant in three languages ;-)
Anyone with even a little knowledge of 20th century British history will have heard of Churchill's statement (to de Gaulle), "Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea"
Complain about this comment
35. greypolyglot
"Sorry, I can't help on the Zurich address but anyone interested in Churchill's stand on Europe should try reading
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=61
Not a lot of people know that!"
That's a good read actually, if even a little guiltily vindicating! Thank you for posting!
Churchill's separation of Britain obviously comes in environment before the decline of the empire. Which makes me wonder then whether in a contemporary setting this fierce distinction is an anachronism perhaps...
Complain about this comment
Incidentally i did the same google search
;-)
I just wanted to the specifics on the UK exclusion which your previous post very comprehensively sums up.
Ena is a very rich resource indeed!
Complain about this comment
32, 40, 41. Smeashy:
Willing to learn and polite.
You may go far ;-)
Complain about this comment
Dear loons,
Please express to me your views on the far more democratic institutions such as the:
WTO
World Bank
IMF
Nato.
In the EU, we have the European Parliament providing a check on the Commission and Council. Granted I'd like the Parliament to have a real President and Cabinet with portfolios who'd be able to stand up the Council and initiate legislation. But this might only arise if someone like Mr. Ganley succeeds. The EU might not be perfect but at least we can have a real say in its workings. The WTO is run only by bureaucrats and forces governments to follow its will, ditto the others I list. Why no bile against them???
Tootle pips
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark
You have written; "The man who organised the "No" vote to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland ...."
This statement is simply not true. Prior to my voting 'NO' in that referendum, I had never heard of Libertas or Declan Ganly.
As I wrote in an earlier comment on a related theme, I voted 'NO' because of the EU's abysmal handling of the Balkan crises since 1990.
I am fearful of a re-emerging German dominance in Europe. I believe the Benelux nations and Austria are acting as frontmen for Berlin in certain areas and I feel that the creation of a 'Greater Germany' southwards to the Adriatic is panning out quite well; the only stumbling block being the remainder of the Republic of Serbia. (old WW1&2 foes)
This would explain the disgraceful behaviour of German KFOR troops in Kosovo i Metohija over the last decade with regard to ethnic minority Serbs.
I hope my contention is wrong. If it is, well, sure no hard feelin's to Germany and everyone.
If it's right, well, sure, I won't be around to..............
Complain about this comment
loojeanmacloo @44
If you fear a re-emergence of German dominance, then that is all the more reason for keeping Ireland fully involved in the EU.
The Lisbon Treaty is not my ideal but it both retains much of existing, useful treaty agreements and makes some (mainly) helpful adjustments.
Complain about this comment
#23 - Constable_Shoe
"The only thing revealed by Lisbon, is the profoundly anti-democratic nature of the EU"
No, the one thing revealed by Lisbon is the profoundly anti-democratic nature of 26 member nations who had the option to consult their electorates and chose not to do so. I would remind you that if 27 national governments had not chosen to proceed down this route, we would not be having this debate and you should be looking much closer to home when looking for someone to blame for lack of consultation.
Complain about this comment
I'm still waiting for someone on this forum to clarify the precise meaning of "European" Democracy in the context of this debate - in simple terms do people here believe that the arrival of "European" democracy will require the introduction of simultaneous pan-European plebiscites or not?
I want to see the emergence of a "European" arena of political discourse, in which matters of specifically "European" import can be debated by real pan-European political parties contesting elections on manifestos dedicated to distinctly "European" issues and deliberated upon by a "European" electorate.
I hope that Mr. Ganley's bold initiative will bring that scenario a step closer to fruition – even if that is not quite what he had in mind?
Complain about this comment
#17
I read part I of the so called constitution under 3000 words. I feel sorry Adam Smith Institute if this was the best contribution they got. It’s absolutely meaningless. Let me give you an example: Imagine that Irish government wants to protect their dairy farmers from imports coming from another democracy of the Confederation. All they have to do is to write down in their constitution that their parliament has the right to impose any duties on imports that it sees necessary. According to the Article 3.1 Confederational law is subordinated to the member states constitutions, so they really can do this. It does not matter what Article 12.1 says, they can do this quite legally. Result: kiss goodbye the free market between the member states.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding especially in UK, what EU is actually all about. It is about freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and most importantly people (read labour). That is what you need if you want a genuine FREE market, between the member states. But you can not achieve this if you do anything short of federation. As simple as this. At the end of the day you really want free market have to go all the way. USA is a good example for this. The so called states are not really states, in sense of independent entities.
I suppose the real reason why federation is a dirty word in UK is that it was used by the British as a way to subordinate the others, while I guess someone in Germany (a federation) will associate it with broad rights to the regions.
Complain about this comment
Hah, they only thing this party will manage to create -if it even manages to achieve any modicum of success- is the creation of a European demos. Exactly the thing sceptics fear.
Just think about it: to create a pan-european party you have to use exactly those things, those benefits, the EU has brought to the people of this continent.
Hilarious.
Complain about this comment
@46: those 26 other countries didn't do anything undemocratic. It is NOT undemocratic for an ELECTED parliament or government to ratify an international treaty.
If you think it is then your understanding of representative democracy is desperately flawed.
(Besides, not in every country are referenda legal.)
Complain about this comment
48. NikolayTzvetkov:
"#17
I read part I of the so called constitution under 3000 words. I feel sorry Adam Smith Institute if this was the best contribution they got. It's absolutely meaningless."
I admire your perseverance Nikolay. Needless to say I agree with your assessment. Maybe the Adam Smith Institute didn't realize that it was just a rewrite of the Anglosphere Constitution? Maybe they were overly impressed by Freeborn-john's semblance of erudition as, I believe, are his followers here.
Complain about this comment
39. MaxSceptic:
"greypolyglot @38,
I agree with your condemnation of students these days: usually ignorant in three languages ;-)"
I am shocked that agree with me on anything and saddened that it's on such a little thing.
"Anyone with even a little knowledge of 20th century British history will have heard of Churchill's statement (to de Gaulle), "Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea"."
Yes, yes, he was a great man, saved our country etc. but please go don't deifying him and turning every word he uttered into the word of God. He was a man. Men make mistakes. You do. I do.
Complain about this comment
39. MaxSceptic:
"Anyone with even a little knowledge of 20th century British history will have heard of Churchill's statement (to de Gaulle), "Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea"."
Just for you and other anti-EU lovers of Churchill quotes to support their line. May I refer you to the following and ask you to let me know if you think that the great man got it right every time.
May 7, 1948
“ the design for world government might have followed the system of three or more groups of armies-in this case armies of peace-under one supreme headquarters. Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence.”
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/WSCHague.html
March 5, 1946
“ Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth.”
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=429
You see, if he didn't, then we're all just cherry picking bits that suit us and not actually debating. It's really a very lazy way to debate because you don't think you just go and look for a convenient quote. I promise you, I can play this game all day.
Complain about this comment
Declan Ganley has a very questionable agenda. When he talks to the BBC he is an English man who went to Ireland for the interests of Britain. When he was in Ireland he was an Irishman who built up a fear of the Irish losing independence.
What is his real agenda and why is the Lisbon treaty so important to him? An exploration of this might unearth some very interesting answers. He is not accountable for anything he says or what he tries to influence unlike most political parties.
It is easy to build on an individuals fear when dealing with issues of such a magnitude. I don't think that is how a party should be run.
Complain about this comment
12. SuffolkBoy2:
"When answering Freeborn-Johns allegations of bias will you please give full coverage of comments I have read here about the BBC getting money from the "EU"."
Oh, you are so lazy. I have to hold your hand even to search the internet.
STEP ONE
GO TO
http://ec.europa.eu/grants/search/index_en.htm
STEP TWO
CHOOSE BENEFICIARY AND COUNTRY
STEP THREE
CLICK "SEARCH"
Satisfied? 1,943,145 € for the World Service.
Now try the same operation without selecting BBC and be amazed at the variety amongst the 1917 recipients of EU funding. I bet you think they've all been bribed to the tune of 1,023,527,191 € to support the EU?
Complain about this comment
Shock, horror, those wonderful self-reliant Swiss (they are actually - I like 'em) who are always being held up as an example of how to get along in Europe without the EU have gone and let side down by joining the EU's border-free Schengen zone and are even initiating border control against their fellow EFTA neighbour Leichtenstein. Oh the shame of it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7778022.stm
Complain about this comment
ChillO... re "..BBC bias.. and Governors Reports.."
Are you as concerned as I that despite your very pertinent, factually accurate and entirely honest remarks at the very top of this particular debate NO ONE FROM THE BBC has seen fit to make any sort of reply?
'Bias' the BBC Governors claimed was in the eye of the anti or pro EU beholder: What sort of bias is it (by BBC) that neglects the opportunity to answer legitmately raised issues on one of its own Editor's Blogs?
I would venture to suggest it is the very same BBC BIAS that informed me some 3 years ago that my contention that BBC 'time spent' on the "anti" and "pro" EU camps should be proportionate to the Public Opinion Poll results of the same: I.e. that BBC coverage of the "pro" argument should be 20 to 25% and 75 to 80% should be spent reporting the 'anti' views as that was clearly an accurate reflection of the UK (well, English) public viewpoint.
Needless to say BBC Governors responded in the negative and thus BBC Journalists, e.g. this Blog, continue to give "equal" time/weight/coverage to any EU reportage.
Whereas, if you can find any Blog by a BBC Editor entirely devoted to the views/opinions/actions of the "anti-EU" lobbies/voices etc. you are a far smarter person than I!
E.g. UKIP (not a Party, I stress, that I personally have much time for) trebled its MEP representation in 2004: Try to find one BBC Report that explicitly covers UKIP!?
You wont!
BBC is that unbiased!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
57. ikamaskeip:
"Try to find one BBC Report that explicitly covers UKIP!?
You wont!"
Didn't look very hard, did you? How do you like this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7600575.stm
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot, ".. didn't look far (BBC report on UKIP etc.)... try this one.."
I'm sorry! Did you perchance think that was a BBC Report giving due time/credit/publicity/information on an 'anti-EU group (in this case UKIP)?
Well, you're easily pleased!
I mean, which other UK Political Party increased its overall vote-share, overall MEP representation, overall cross-UK representation?
Who else in England that put forward Candidates for election to the European Parliament, according to all Public Opinion Polls for the last 15 years, is reflecting the Majority of English Citizens' anti-EU opinions?
I think we can all agree UKIP were the 'success' story of the English 2004 election to the European Parliament.
Hmm, now lets count up the UKIP articles by the BBC post 2004 and prior to the obligatory one-page coverage of the UKIP Conference?
Hang on, just a moment, it'll only take a few seconds...
Surely, the "unbiased" and "even-handed" BBC has been covering the UKIP/anti-EU movements regularly!? I mean they were the ONLY EU-orientated people to actually gain UK Public support in 2004, so, the BBC would naturally keep a close eye on this section of UK political development and report comprehensively on them, wouldn't they?...
BBC, did, didn't it?
Must have been a temporary oversight! I'm quite sure over the last 4 years the BBC got its act together, recognised a truly, genuinely BRITISH interest and got stuck into journalistic mode to bring home to the Public exactly what was going on...
Well, BBC didn't!
BBC failed to take the initiative in reporting a fundamental factor in the British Citizens' attitude to the political landscape they find themselves in!
Oh, you do surprise me!
Complain about this comment
emamel @11
you've desired Mark Mardell to address the issue of consequances of Russ. influence growth in Ukr. / contra the EU and the USA influence/, on the basis of the two Orthodox churches possible re-unification.
sorry, a technical correction.
In USSR there used to be two Orthodox Patriarchates in the whole of the territory: the Russian and the Georgian one.
There are still two - the Russian and the Georgian one.
What's now in Ukraine was labelled kind of a new church and debunkers by all the religion patriarchates of the world. Not Russian Orthodox Patriarchate. Not Georgian Patriarchate. Not "Russian Orthodox abroad" / New York patriarchate. Not Constantinopol Patriarchate. Not Serbian Patriarchate.
It's not enough to have a new church. It's also nice to have it recognised by the same religion holders elsewhere.
So about "re-uniting" - as min. as it follows from the Rus. one standpoint - there is no one to re-unite with. Patriarchates don't "unite" with "debunkers".
So no scare in this respect, LOL.
___
With the Rus. patriarch ceremony/burial - as you know it's always telling to see who was there. And who said what, at such an important event here. And who attended of the VIPs.
All the church ceremonies were done by the most senior in the world - Konstantinopol Patriarchate, who still have the upper hand.
Attending the Konstantinopol patriarch - were the Georgian patriarch and the Serbian one.
Georgian is very old, must be 90+, but came first, and in spite of the war. Religion unity more important for the future here than the politics.
Speeches were done by the New York one (standing up for "Russians abroad".)
The Catholics sent to Moscow a Cardinal.
Not the Pope, but the Pope no one expected, after the Russian Orthodox and Catholic tensions over the Ukrainians' souls.
Nothing personal btw the two Churches; the problem is that 50/50 Ukraine split yet again! With the Catholics', Western, part currently pestering the Eastern, Russian part of Ukraine. And winning, so the Rus. patriarch may be wanted to, but couldn't be overly friendly with the Pope.
Still, anyway, Vatican said all the proper words, the day of the Pope was devoted to praying about the departed Rus. Patriarch, so all formalities in place.
From Germany there was the Lutheran church. Russia welcomed it centuries ago, parishes still here, when Lutherans had religious troubles at home and had to emigrate. So, like the Bysantium empire/Konstantinopol, Lutherans came on the base of old connections and friendship.
Head of the muslims in Russia, the muftij, made a nice speech, that the relations with the Rus. Orthodox they have is most friendly, as "all the old religions were wecomed by the Orthodox Patriarch."
Same said the Jewish church head in Russia - "All old religions felt welcome alongside the Russian Orthodox."
They all have a point about the new debunker ones, so on this basis Russian church unites with the Muslim and the Jewish unanimously.
So all was fine and wonderful, with 2 exceptions. What church reps were not there.
a./ Protestant.
b./ a single soul from Ukraine.
Complain about this comment
Kind of hilarious.
Buddhists can go along with the Russian Orthodox church.
Adventists of the 7th day!!! - can.
Baptists - allright. So many churches here.
Vatikan (apart from the tensions over the Ukraine territory souls) - can.
Muslims (in Russia) - go well together.
Jewish - yes.
And only Ukraine now! can't. what a really disagreeable folk.
Well. Anglican church, for that matter, was not observed with tributes. Methodist and Kalvinists either.
But then I know only one Anglican church, for example, in the whole St. Petersburg, so, kind of, was never much here either.
Only, say, 300 yrs in the Russian capital, which used to be exactly St. Petersburg!
a minor trifle!
May be that's why Russia and England kind of have a thing, un-explainable by other reasons? a strange thought.
Complain about this comment
57. ikamaskeip:
"Try to find one BBC Report that explicitly covers UKIP!? You wont!"
58. greypolyglot:
"Didn't look very hard, did you? How do you like this one?"
59. ikamaskeip:
"Did you perchance think that was a BBC Report giving due time/credit/publicity/information on an 'anti-EU group (in this case UKIP)?"
You moved the goalposts! I take it you didn't like what Mr Farrago - sorry Mr Farage - had to say for himself?
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @52 and 53,
Sorry for the belated reply.
WS Churchill was indeed just a man - and as such flawed. He was, however, a great man both in thought and deed. Few British/English statesmen come close.
Perhaps his greatest gift was his oratory - especially the phrase 'in victory, magnanimity'.
As for cherry-picking: I only ever pick the 'right' ones ;-)
Complain about this comment
63. MaxSceptic:
'in victory, magnanimity'.
I'm not sure if you're inviting magnanimity or claiming it.
"As for cherry-picking: I only ever pick the 'right' ones ;-)"
Likewise! Settle for a draw? ;-P
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot, re"...you moved the goalposts (BBC coverage of UKIP).."
'I' moved the goalposts!?
You must have a job with the EU!?
That's the EU of repeat Referendum until voters tire and agree to anything, the EU of froma Constitution to a Lisbon Treaty with every key facet still in place, the EU of Msr Barroso informing EU Citizens "much more integration is needed" immediately after the Dutch & French voted "No", the EU of a failed Budget for 20 years that increased its tax-aggrandising every one of those years..
My original comment was on the lack of BBC representation of the 'anti-EU' Parties, groups, Citizens etc. and the BBC's constant ignoring of the British Public's expressed wished for a "Referendum on Membership".
I used UKIP as an example of how little this 'side' of the EU argument is covered by the BBC and I stand by that view: One obligatory BBC article on UKIP's annual Conference is hardly accurate reporting of that Party's successes and position with the British Electorate.
Personally, as I also wrote, UKIP are not my cup-of-tea, but, that's because their overall agenda/manifesto is so lightweight on issues such as European Defence Force or NATO, Fiscal arrangements for England when it does withdraw from EU, CAP, Immigration controls etc.
Look, today I'm off on my hols, so, seaspons greetings and see you next year for more EU campaigning!
Complain about this comment
I am a German American living, with two passports, in Texas and in Frankfurt. I like the idea if something like the US of E. With sovereign countries delegating (clearly defined) parts of their responsibilities to a European 'Government', directly elected and controlled by the people.
Most people, even those complaining about the EU in its current state, are not truly anti-European. But they, like me, simply don't accept a Europe controlled by special interest, a Europe with bureaucrats running wild without control.
I am a simple minded person. I like things the easy way. Like a "constitution" with less than 5 pages. If you need more pages, something _must_ be wrong. If you listen to politicians talking about the "people" - it signals lack of attachment from that group. If you look at recent European politics, environmental or the "response" to the economic crisis, you can't help but feel a certain pity. 'Is that all' - you ask? At the same time, one can hear the faint noises of "Lobbyists International" having a party - again.
Yes - I am all for a European Union. The current structure should be called Europe Ltd. because it is a much more fitting name and they don't deserve the 'union' . Unions are for simple people like me.
Complain about this comment
#60 Webaliceinwonderland.
Thank you for your insight into the current events in Russia regarding the Patriarch. I apologize for not having mentioned the Georgian Orthodoxy, which I would consider to be Georgian rather than Russian, but just as imperative to the issue I raised.
I would not fear a pro-Russian Ukraine, because the citizens fought long and hard for their independence, so even if favouring Russia, it would not wish the two countries to become one. I also believe that the American proposal for 'a defensive shield' is no more than an active act of threat to Russia, and a step back towards the 'cold war' which America and the West have clearly lost (as China remains Communist and is shortly going to become the richest country in the world, surpassing America), and completely unnecessary. As Russia already has the capability to plunge Europe (including the UK) into darkness and cold by withdrawing its gas supplies, why should it need to risk voters lives by starting a military conflict?
I would also be in favour of the abolition of NATO, where American and European objectives are now diametrically opposed. This was apparent when the UK/USA invaded Iraq, and Russia and France were willing to veto any such action at the UN Security Council.
Unfortunately, on the religious front, there is no such thing as a Protestant representative - the non-Catholic christian church is so fragmented, they can't even talk to each other. I was born in the UK, and my birth certificate states that I am Church of England (Anglican), although I can't remember the last time I entered a church. Even this faith is in turmoil internally, with Nigerian Anglicans saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not represent them! I appreciate that the Ukraine did not endear itself to its neighbouring countries during the second world war, as it chose to align with Germany, and some of its troops carried out horrendous acts of genocide against Poles and Russians in particular. It may be because of this that no formal presence was apparent at the funeral, as 'old wounds run deep'.
It is a shame that the Protestant faiths could not find at least a token gesture to the passing of such a high ranking man of religion - you can be sure that they'd be queueing if it had been the Dalai Lama.
Perhaps, one day soon, people will be able to put the Cold War behind them, and move forward. Europe needs Russia, and Russia would benefit greatly from a stronger tie to Europe.
As the UK still feels seperate from mainland Europe, and is suspicious of France and Germany, it may take a long time to completely bury the past, but I'm still hopeful.
All the best, and thanks again.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @64 wrote:
"I'm not sure if you're inviting magnanimity or claiming it."
Neither. I just like the sentiment.
An honourable draw is acceptable.
Complain about this comment
In Poland you will have many supporters
Complain about this comment
A question to all those who are calling the EU un- or anti-democratic:
Would you really be ready to support a constitutional assembly for Europe, elected on a one-man-one-vote basis?
Complain about this comment
chlange001 @70 asks:
"A question to all those who are calling the EU un- or anti-democratic:
Would you really be ready to support a constitutional assembly for Europe, elected on a one-man-one-vote basis?
No. There is no European demos.
The future and national/political direction of the British people should be determined solely by the British people.
Other countries should be free to determine their own futures as their citizens wish.
Complain about this comment
Strange how no Irish media picked up on the fact he has exntensive business dealings with the US military...
Complain about this comment
It will be interesting to see who Libertas takes votes from in the UK. Ganley's message is close to that of the Conservatives, but I don’t think that means the Tories will be immune. Their candidate selection process is such that there are quite a few constituencies where the candidates occupying the vulnerable positions on the Tory party list are the worst of the incumbent MEPs who want to stay in the federalist EPP. Voting Libertas could root these guys out.
UKIP won 16% of the vote last time, made up perhaps of a mixture of those wanting out of the EU and those wanting to reform it. Libertas might peel of some UKIP voters but probably most UKIP supporters want out and might think Ganley is unrealistic in advocating democratic reform.
There is a perception that anyone voting Labour or LibDem is automatically in favour of 'ever closer union', but I am sure that is far from being true. Probably quite a few of those who voted in 2005 for these parties might want to send a message about the referendum promises that were not kept.
Therefore it is seems to me that Libertas could take votes from across the political spectrum, with perhaps only the Greens having a support base immune to his message.
Complain about this comment
What is the platform of the new party?
Complain about this comment
emamel @67, sorry took very long to reply; on-going aggravations at home (ill dog). I liked your letter very much, as you tried to look inside into the matters deeper than is usually looked LOL. I do think many things ab Russia need to be explained; and glad Mark Mardell keeps a window.
Not because it makes these "things" less bad or anything. Simply because when you know a place you feel kind of safe and proprietory about it. Know all defects, what to expect, etc. But at least all the un-grounded fobia-s then get cut off. Which is a lot!
Georgian Orthodoxy, yes, diff. to Russian, there are some church scholar differencies, approx. a common root got forked at some point a bit. Their patriarch is called "Patriarch-Katolikos", what's there in common with the catholics don't know, rather think nothing. may be something like the name only is. may be not. Theirs current is quite elderly but very influential at home.
Two most known things are known ab him in Russia; a./ he approved the attempt to take Georgian lands back, like, blessed the general idea of the gloomy business. (This is not liked here of course.) b./ He strongly advocates monarchy in Georgia back, has a man in mind, from the old Bagration tsar Georgian dynasty. (As this means Saakashvili out - this idea is of course liked in Russia, LOL).
Now, as the Russian patriarch did not approve the war (the Russian part of it), the Georgian one kind of may be liked this approach of the Russian cousin church, in return.
Russian patriarchs can't theoretically bless wars which don't take place on own land, would be very un-orthodox! LOL
war excusable only when you are invaded.
Yes, strange the the Protestant church doesn't have a common voice; but then it must be this is how it developed. And - democracy, overall, no common centre! LOL.
may be was not needed.
I am a very, very bad specialist in the protestant matters. Though happened to attend various Anglican services on various occasions. Once sad, a farewell service, in East Sussex.
Once - together with a daughter of a friend, who I was taking out, and then had to "but take me to the church on time!" She was in a boarding school for girls, and they all went on Sundays.
And once in Brussels to make friends company, but there I don't even still know what church was that after all. Not Anglican, I think. No organ music. No cushions in the church with names whose family is that.
That one was for a Russian all interesting, how there are songs sang from a book in the pocket of the seat in front, under various numbers. "And now we all sing a song No...!" And before that I also listened to a lecture on the nature of miracles. With a note-kind of large pad, and with a black-board, like in school. All miracles
explained! In white chalk. Found all extraordinary interesting, but didn't dare to ask what the religion was there, after all.
All so unlike ours, where we are not supposed to sit down for a sec at all! Only standing and wandering around. No comfort in this life, like - don't even hope! Not the purpose! Not a single chair any place in view in the Rus. one; and one thing I understood about the protestant church, LOL, is you are supposed to have a bench or anything.
Yes, Western Ukraine, didn't endear itself, kind of, to Russians, in the war. In fact they kept on partisan-like in the wild post war for 30 years on! In USSR. My greatgranddad was killed by these partisans. He was Russian. But mostly if to look into nationality, Polish. From those Poles exported to Siberia in 1864, after a Polish uprising no 100 and 1.
But the rep they didn't send is not because of that. It's simply Orange revolution also got penetrated into the Church! they wanted to separate as well, but didn't succeed so far. Because of the Orthodox large world "lobby". Who don't encourage the idea of new patriarchates in the world' creation, LOL.
_______
Anyway, two recent jokes for you, on the theme:
A meditation/thinking:
president.... was... a prime minister..... have tried.... patriarch... O!
Two Russians in Ukraine watch satellite TV, a Russian channel.
- Those damn Ukrainians, see - they hold back money for our gas again!
- Vasya, Ukrainians - it's us.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS