Norway shuns EU herd
ASHER, NORWAY
Odd-Eynar Hjortnes, a boyish looking 35-year-old, trundles backwards down the cowshed, in what is in effect a giant motorised wheelbarrow. He's spreading out the morning fodder in front of his 50 or so cows. They surge forward to munch enthusiastically on the clover-rich fodder, although many of them also seem to appreciate snacking on my jacket, which I fear may have had some input from their distant relatives. 
About half an hour's drive from Oslo this area is traditionally a big farming area, providing not only milk and meat, but fruit and vegetables for the capital. The cowshed is perched on a snowy hillside, the fir tree-dotted landscape undulating gently down towards the horizon.
Odd-Eynar's farm is organic and in the summer he takes his cows to the mountains and the alpine pastures, a couple of hours' drive from the farm. "They love it," he says, and the summer break is clearly a bit of a holiday both for him and his cattle.
Like most of Norway's farmers Odd-Eynar is very happy that his country is outside the European Union and the Common Agricultural Policy. He tells me: "The fundamental idea of the European Union is economic liberalism and that doesn't suit my sort of business. 
"This is a long-term business that needs a stable framework. It's much easier to travel to Oslo to protest if there is something you disagree with than to travel to Brussels, and I feel that Norwegian democracy makes it quite easy to get in contact with the politicians."
He continues: "The CAP is not suitable for Norwegian agriculture".
I feel a tug on my jacket, an occupational hazard as the cameraman manoeuvres me, trying to get the interviewee looking in the right direction. I shuffle backwards as I ask the next question. But it is not the estimable Xav tugging on me but a calf keen to sample my jacket, which clearly would be voted a top hors d'oeuvre by Norway's bovine population.
The crux of their owner's argument is that he simply gets more out of Oslo than he would out of Brussels. "Yeah definitely. About 40% of what I earn is a subsidy. But the price of milk is central. I get paid about five kroner (about 50 pence) a litre. Our home market is protected by tolls, so we can maintain a higher price. If I was a milk producer selling my product inside the EU the price would be a third lower at least. The toll barriers between the countries would disappear and the milk price in Sweden and Denmark is at least 30% lower than in Norway. We would go out of business.
The Norwegian case against joining the EU is a particular one, based on an oil-rich economy, a big traditional reliance on fishing and, I am repeatedly told, independent-minded smallholders with historical memories of Swedish and Danish domination that has made them fiercely proud of their independence.
Norwegian farming is particular, too. The growing season is short and in a country of mountains agricultural land is scarce. Big farms are rare and laws are designed to keep it that way. It has, I am told, the northernmost farms in the world, well into the Arctic Circle. What intrigues me about this is that the present-day CAP is meant to preserve the rural way of life.
But the Norwegian farmers union's Christian Anton Smedshaug says: "The farmers want the government as close to them as possible.
"Our small fields and our short growing system would not be able to compete in the free market of continental Europe. The CAP is based on the most competitive farmers producing food cheaply for society and that is quite efficient. But in more marginal areas like Norway it's not good. We get a policy that is more adapted to Norwegian conditions, with a national policy. We definitely get more out of our parliament than we would out of the European Commission."
I make the obvious point that guaranteed high prices and high subsidies may not be quite so good for the Norwegian consumer.
"They also want a successful country, they want to see the country grow, that the farms are used and that people are living everywhere and that we have a sustainable agriculture. Cheaper food is a marginal thing compared to the loss of the whole country."
The cows chew happily on the delicacy from Brussels otherwise known as my warm but un-televisual brown coat. I return the compliment later over a coffee. Odd-Eynar's home-made brown cheese is marvellous. There is not a lutte fish in sight.
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~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark:
[Norway shuns EU herd]...Why, I thought the EU gets the Subsidies to the farmers for the things that are being produce in the agricultural and others aspects!!!!
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Mark:
[We definitely get more out of our parliament than we would out of the European Commission."]
I have to give this young man, some credit and support on his remarks....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Your Swedish farmer gives a good example of how tariffs might actually boost a country's economy. There was a similar effect in the UK when, in 1932, the UK broke from free trade.
But, one can't always be protectionist. Global companies and global money flows in particular, have exposed the weaknesses of such protectionism in most countries.
So, what's the difference in Sweden's case? Currently, Sweden is pretty much self-sufficient in terms of energy (oil and gas, plus hydro). So, it is able to afford both high social security payments and agricultural protection. ie, with good exports they can hold out alone.
But what happens when the oil flows start to slacken? That will be the really testing time for Sweden. When that time comes, they may well need to be within a wider "family" grouping, such as the EU.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
>In my earlier comments I was somewhat mistaken about a programme: CAP [Common Agriculutral Policy]..i was not able to remember the name of the item.....
[NB: Mark: at least there was no lutte fish available...]
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Most of Norwegian agriculture is a 100% dependent on import barriers. Most produce and meat (less so dairy) is completely uncompetitive not only in terms of price but also in terms of quality.
I'm not so sure that Norwegian consumers are really willing to put up with that in the long run. Maybe you should take a trip to one of the border towns like Strömstad and do a story on the rife smuggling on meat (and alcohol) across the border.
Complain about this comment
@frenchderek
I think you mean Norwegian, not Swedish.
Mark, how ironic is it that the Norvegians think that the CAP is actually too low, while the British think that its too high. Looking towards Norwegians as anti-EU allies doesn't seem to make that much sense anymore if you look at it that way.
Complain about this comment
Shorter Norwegian position: "we don't want to be in the EU because they'd never let us be this socialist".
Mark, are you trying to make the EU sceptics' heads explode? I hope you succeed.
Complain about this comment
Everything is 30% more expensive in Norway than in Sweden or Denmark and not just milk. This is not because of protectionism but because the oil wealth means the people are very wealthy.
How does your farmer explain that beer in Oslo is 7 pounds a pint and that a basic pizza in an Oslo restauarant costs 20 pounds? Or a taxi from the airport is more than 100 pounds?
Complain about this comment
If you happen to live in a country with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, the fourth largest oil exporting country and is entirely energy self-sufficient, you can doubtless afford the luxury of cradle to grave social support, a high price economy and a heavily subsidised farming sector - especially if you only have to share it round 4.5 million people.
No sour grapes here. Good luck to them and continued success but Norway cannot really be seen as a model for other European countries which either do not have access to such a wealth of natural resources or have to share it round a much larger populations.
If anything, Norway is an excellent example of why countries which do not enjoy all these advantages are far better off in strategic partnerships where resources and opportunities can be developed to mutual advantage. Unfortunately, Norway is frequently cited as an example of how well a country can do outside the EU and held up as an example the British should follow. There is simply no comparison in terms of geography, demography or access to resources and to pretend otherwise is simply cloud cuckoo land material.
Complain about this comment
Thrednodio (9): The principle industry in Norway is oil. The principle industries in Switzerland are pharmaceuticals and banking. The principle industries in the UK are oil, pharmaceuticals and banking. What countries do you think we have more in common with?
Complain about this comment
#10 - Freeborn-John
Since the affordable and accessible oil is rapidly running out and the banks are almost as short on credit as they are credibility, let's hope there a lot of hypochondriacs out there.
Complain about this comment
#10 - Freeborn-John
The serious answer to your question is that you cannot realistically compare an economy of roughly 60 million souls with one of 4.5 million, 25% of whose GDP comes from one industry. As I said in my original comment, there is no comparison.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (12): So you think only countries with a small population can proper outside the EU? Based on that logic you presumably believe that the EU market of 490 million is a guarantee of poverty?
Complain about this comment
Freebornjohn (10) didn't mention that Norway and Switzerland have much smaller populations: around 5m and 8m respectively, compared to the UK's 65m. That means for example that Norway pumps over 20x the oil per person compared to the UK. Switzerland's banking and pharmaceutical industries also bring in substantially much more money per person than the UK. I think the last sentence written by Thrednodio (9) is quite correct.
Complain about this comment
If they do believe that Norwegian society is so much in favour of these protectionist policies, what do these farmers fear from an open border policy? They could still maintain the high prices by just tagging their milk as "Norwegian-produced" and wait for Norwegian consumers to continue paying the overprice to support the lifestyle of farmers. Either these farmers are genuively naïve, or they're trying to fool everyone.
Complain about this comment
Asamorgan (14): Same question to you then as Threnodio: If you believe that countries specialising in the same sectors as the UK can only prosper outside the EU if they have a small population, then what do you see as the advantage to an integrated EU market of 490 million?
(Check-mate)
Complain about this comment
#13 - Freeborn-John
That is not what I meant and well you know it.
Population is only a single factor which makes up the economic profile of a country but it is a significant one when considering how the share of the national cake is distributed. The UK has a GDP of about $2.13 trillion and a population of 60,943,912. Norway's is $246.6 billion to 4,644,457 people. And Norway has 323,802 sq.km to accommodate them as against the UK's 242,900 sq.km.
You do the maths. No comparison.
Complain about this comment
The really great thing about Norway's system for subsidising their farmers is that only Norwegians pay for it. And, what is more, if Norwegians decide they don't like paying such huge subsidies, they can vote in a different Govt with different policies. It is a perfect system.
Norway can afford to be generous because they have not wasted their oil revenues on current expenditure but invested it for the benefit of their current and future generations. These are lessons that every Govt should follow.
Has Norway been adversely affected by the credit crunch? Frankly, I doubt it! In fact they will probably benefit as they have the capital to invest abroad at rock bottom prices which will bring good returns in the future and which will enable them to continue to subsidise their farmers for genarations to come! Good luck to them.
Complain about this comment
The Norwegian GDP is, as already mentioned $246 odd billion. The EUs GDP is $17,000 billion. It really doesnt change much. Nor does it if Iceland joins or any of the balkan nations. If they wanna stay outside, let them. They'll come begging when they realize that we will not protect them if they are threatened.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (17): I think you are exaggerating when you say you 'meant' something because that would imply you had thought your argument through before you made it. It seems much more likely that you were unthinkingly repeating an old argument from the 1970s without bothering to think through for yourself if it makes sense or not. It is actually one of the weakest arguments in the pro-EU arsenal; one that is guaranteed to blow up in your face.
The title of this thread implies there is an EU herd mentality where its supporters follow one another uncritically and unthinkingly. This is I think one important explanation for why EU supporters cannot win the arguments any more. In truth you do not really understand even your own arguments which have therefore been reduced to a kind of ritual incantation with no remaining power to convince.
Complain about this comment
#19 - Gheryando
I do hope you mean trillion otherwise we are in big trouble:-)
(US$16.83 trillion in 2007 or approx. 30% of global GDP)
Complain about this comment
I really wish that my country had emulated Norway over the last five decades.
Norway is no less European by staying out of the 'European Union Thing'.
Norway guarded her fishing industry and oil and gas fields in ensuring the livleihood of her people.
Norway also has an impressive record in arbitration in international disputes and is highly regarded worldwide.
Sadly, in contrast, successive Irish governments have sold out Ireland's vast fishing waters to 'the EU' and the cunning Shell Company practically owns our gas fields.
Ireland, I believe, also debased its international reputation when it recognised the illegally declared independence of the Southern Serbian Province of Kosovo i Metohija.
Complain about this comment
#22, loojeanmacloo:
Another benefit would be that the Irish wouldn't be affected by the current economic crisis, because there would be nothing to lose.
Complain about this comment
Why should Norway share the profit from its natural resources with the whole of europe when it can keep it to itself?
Using subsidies in the way they do shares some of their 'oil wealth' among the population in proportion to the real work they do for the norwegian economy - seems reasonable.
This is with the same reasoning the SNP want independance from the UK - they think they can keep more north sea oil revenue (ha ha).
We (the UK) gave up our fish, and (arguably) coal as an engergy resource when we joined (and seem to have got nothing back).
Germany chose to sacrifice some of its wealth (to the EU) as pennance for WW2 - although whether the current and future generations support self-flagelation to the same extent seems doubtful.
The EU then redistributes that 'wealth' as benefits to the so poor members have no need to develop themselves - paying them to remain poor, just as we do with our citizens through our benefits system.
If we left the EU, we could claim back our seas (don't know if there are any fish left though), and develop our own energy security policy (other eu countries are quick to turn on us over gas when it suits them).
Complain about this comment
Open border policy for agriculture always favors big factory farms that use despicable practices that relies on cheap imported labor and no care for the land. The life style of a dairy farmer is to start working before dawn and keep going long after dark seven days a week and don’t get sick. I live in Germany and the EU practices have caused my neighbors to farm after finishing their day jobs. The only people that really benefit from open trade are the CEOs of multi-national corporations.
Complain about this comment
"vagueofgodalming wrote:
Shorter Norwegian position: "we don't want to be in the EU because they'd never let us be this socialist".
Mark, are you trying to make the EU sceptics' heads explode? I hope you succeed."
Au contraire, vagueofgodalming. As an anti-federalist I congratulate Norway. They haven't handed over their country to the unrepresentative, unelected Comission and the Eurocrats. If they wish to be socialist, let them. It's their country.
I only wish that the three main political parties in the UK recognised the rights of UK citizens to a say in the direction of their country.
Complain about this comment
So, there you have it: If we want the following factors to remain unchanged:
1. (Relatively) Cheap agricultural products
2. European farmers keeping their jobs
then we have to agree that the CAP stays in place, subsidies are paid to farmers and tariffs kept on EU borders in order to prevent the cheap food from the third countries from entering the common market.
Otherwise, either we (the consumers) have to agree to pay much more for the food we buy or we'll have to say good bye to our centuries old farming tradition.
Complain about this comment
To sdnegel (15):
I totally agree with your comment.
To busby2 (18):
Contrary to your predictions, Norway was also hit hard by the crisis - the industry has been weakened, the 'sovereign wealth fund' lost a big share of the profits generated in the last decade and some northern municipalities went broke.
The farming system in Norway is not perfect. Norwegians can simply afford to heavily subsidise their farmers due to huge oil revenues. Is this a perfect system? Only as long as the oil keeps flowing.
By the way, I do not see the reason why Norway does not start producing its own cars (at 100.000€ each), mobile phones (at least 500€ a piece) and other overpriced goods.
Hey, as long as they can afford paying for it, it's a perfect system!
Complain about this comment
I think you must have been in Asker. "Ascher" does not exist in Norway. And the farmer you have been in touch with is probably named Odd-Einar. "Eynar" is unknown i Norwegian.
More important: Norwegian farmers have problems competing on the world market and deserve protection if we want people to live in this somewhat inhospitable country. It is a sad fact though that the main reasons for Norway staying out of the EU is greed and selfishness. Our mistrust of foreigners is proportional with our inflated self-image.
Jon Lie
Complain about this comment
Soddball @26,
Exactly.
Complain about this comment
Freebornjohn (16): I think you've mis-interpreted my comment. It's not about big or small countries like you suggest, but rather about resources. This is why resource-rich small-population Norway is not comparable to the UK, and has so-far opted to remain outside the EU.
Complain about this comment
Asamorgan (31): Norway has one half of the North Sea; the UK has the other half. There is no country in the world more similar to Britain in terms of access to resources than our near neighbour Norway. Yet threnodio says (post 9) that "there is simply no comparison in terms of geography, demography or access to resources and to pretend otherwise is simply cloud cuckoo land material" and you support this obviously ridiculous statement in post 14.
The difference between Norway and the UK is mainly that Norway has a smaller population. You can be quite sure that if Norway (and Switzerland, which also has an economy with strong similarities to the UK) can prosper outside the EU then we would too.
Complain about this comment
#32 - Freeborn-John
I have no idea why you have departed from your normally reasonable and detailed posting habits to have a go at mine but you have fallen victim on this occasion to the temptation of naive simplification.
The British oilfields are reaching the end of their commercially viable life. While it is true that new technologies have enabled extraction from less accessible sources, this technology is not cheap. It is also the case that North Sea oil is high grade and suitable for the production of lubricants, which paradoxically means it is not a significant part of the fuel equation. Norway's field, on the other hand, continues to be productive at an efficient level.
You completely disregard the fact that Switzerland is a landlocked country and Britain a group of islands which clearly underlines my point that they are geographically different from Norway, you do not address the question of the population density and we have not even addressed the thorny question of the extent of racial and ethnic diversity in Britain which does not pertain to the same extent in Norway.
You are perfectly entitled to disagree with me but to dismiss my argument as 'ridiculous' when it is demonstrably true simply highlights the extent to which the eurosceptic tendency is prepared to go in its selective use of information to make its case.
Complain about this comment
The truth about farming in Norway is that the majority of the population is paying a lot to keep a few farmers happy. I too don't like the idea of huge industrial farms and I support locally-grown products, but it's just not sustainable to keep paying lots of small farms just because people have this dreamy concept of what the countryside should look like, with lots of little patches with happy farmers bringing their products to the local markets (it doesn't work that way, there's a major nationalised infrastructure which transports everything where it's "needed" along Norway's 2000+ kms of coastline).
Norway just isn't built for farming, it's very mountainous with a few patches in the valleys where farms can exist. Consumers are paying a lot to keep this inefficient system, and it just doesn't make sense. Sweden is right next to Norway and is much better suited for efficient farming. Transporting all agricultural produce from there would probably be more efficient that transporting it from "local" farms like is done now.
In the end, it's not concerns about industrial farming with all the downsides it brings that drives farmers in Norway in their anti-Federalist views, it's a concern for their livelihood and a romantic nationalism. They want to keep the status quo because they benefit from it and because it fits their view of what Norway should "look like". Their opinions are not driven by logic, pragmatism or environmental concerns, but by nationalist emotions.
NB: I'm pretty sure "Asher" and "Odd-Eynar" should be "Asker" and "Odd-Einar", unless you've deliberately anglicized the names, in which case it would make sense. (ask = ash)
Complain about this comment
#34 - CaptainEurotrash
You are absolutely right but may I just add that, however irrational it may seem to outsiders, they do at least have the luxury of being able to afford it. Basicall it's their money to spend as they see fit.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (33): Your argument is demonstrably false. The major Norwegian companies are energy giants like Norsk Hydro which are very similar to British energy companies like BP or Shell. The major Swiss companies are banks like UBS or Credit Suisse or pharmaceutical companies like Roche or Novartis which have obvious similarities to leading British companies like HSBC, Barclays or Glaxo. If the Norwegian and Swiss companies can thrive outside the EU then so can British industry.
Size of population has no relationship to economic prosperity. Singapore is the 5th richest country in the world with a population almost identical to that of Norway and no natural resources at all. If small countries have access to the emerging global market then they have no need for the undemocratic EU political union.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (16) your comment manages to make two common mistakes in a single sentence.
First comment 14 does not allow the reader make any conclusion if the author believes or not that Norway and Switzerland can prosper only outside of EU. So we observe drawing definitive conclusions from insufficient information. Empirical observations actually argue that small countries with important banking sector (and some other high added value) can prosper both outside (Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein) and inside (Luxemburg) the EU. As clearly stated Norway derives significantly more money per capita from oil than UK, so it’s easier for them to stay out and pursue policies that are contrary to those of EU (closed agricultural market, specific fisheries management, etc.). Recent developments in Iceland demonstrate the dangers of staying out if you don’t have oil (for example).
Second, the mocking the opponent in order to undermine his/her position is example of spin for facts substitution. Usually this shows factual and/or intellectual weakness.
Check-mate, indeed.
P.S. I will leave it to you figure out the benefits from the common market.
Complain about this comment
#35
Of course, but it's my money too, and I don't like paying for their fantasies. I would like my tax money to pay for things that generate actual value, like upgrading the poor infrastructure, and I would like to not pay artificially high prices for the food I eat. The farmers have done a good job at creating this ridiculous illusion that because something was produced in Norway it's of a better quality, contributing to the consumers' approval and support of their agenda. The truth is that the quality is average, and because of the protectionist policies and inefficient and small market selection is poor and consumers end up paying way for a small selection of overpriced and mediocre products.
#36
Norway doesn't "thrive" outside the EU. Yes, there's a lot of money floating around, but it has created an artificial economy with artificial salaries and prices. Norway has no industry to speak of, the infrastructure is poor, and consumers are paying dearly for it.
Any country in the EU, including Britain, could manage on its own - they did so before - but that's not what the argument is about. Anti-EU and pro-EU opinions are highly emotional - either you want the status quo (or return to it) of independent countries or you want a federal(-ish) Europe. It's easy to claim you only want economic and not political union, but it's very difficult to achieve. We could start over with just a FTA, but eventually we would need a framework to ensure rules are being followed and presto it becomes political. And an FTA is not the same as a common market; a single market of 500+ million consumers has huge economical advantages over an FTA with 27+ smaller markets.
Complain about this comment
Re post 26, sodball, spot on.
Why do some people still persist in the childish believe that those who do not believe in the direction the E.U. is going in, all hold the same political beliefs in other areas.
I for one would label myself as a left leaning liberal (small l), who would normally be a labour party supporter. I do not support the current Government because of the second Iraq war and the increasing intrusion on our private lives.
However I still want decisions such as this taken by the national Government concerned and not by the E.U. I can (with others) make my point known at the ballot box and vote out the U.K. Government. The structure of the E.U. makes it difficult to change and it works on a rachet basis. When a particular law, procedure, treaty etc is implemented it is very difficult, almost impossible to get rid of it within the E.U. I also see the E.U. trying to take on the trappings of a super power, I want no part of that, we have enough of them.
Norway has control over it's own affairs and good luck to them.
I do want the U.K. to stay in the E.U, but I want a E.U. that reverts to the free trade area that was sold to us when it was the E.E.C. /Common Market.
It may make some people here help to feel morally superior by trying to label those who hold a different view point to them as little englanders/nationalistic/right wing/bigotted/ xenophobic (take your pick) but that does not make it true. Simialrly not all people who support the direction the E.U. is currently going in are arch federalists/ power mad/ anti-democaratic/ elitist (again take your pic) - best wishes
Complain about this comment
NikolayTzvetkov (37): Iceland's trouble has nothing to do with being outside the EU. Any individual, company, or state that runs up debts that are 12 times its earnings is far down the road to bankruptcy. The UK is an EU member-state with a budget deficit of 8% of GDP. If we keep that up for long enough the UK would go broke too. There is no economic voodoo magic to EU membership that would prevent this.
----
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six; result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." (Charles Dickens, from 'David Copperfield')
Complain about this comment
CaptainEurotrash (38): The WTO already provides the necessary framework and it is not political. Although it has not yet achieved global free trade we are in truth not so far from it when 80% of the UK economy is services based and the EU external tariff on services is 0%. Indeed the only economic sector where significant tariffs remain is agriculture which accounts for less than 1% of British GDP. (Indeed the application of this EU tariff to UK-EU26 trade in foodstuffs would be enormously to the UK advantage as we import far more food from the Continent than we export).
The reality is that global tariffs have declined enormously since the 1970s such that the former trade disadvantages of being outside the common market have largely disappeared. Any new british government coming to power in 2010 should immediately conduct a detailed cost / benefit analysis to guide the re-negotiation of our EU membership.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (40)
Iceland demonstrates the problems that a small country with open economy faces nowadays if it is on its own. Their size was simply too small to fend off the currency speculations. Such problem can not happen with euro or the dollar (at least it can not happen that easily). Their economy is simply too small and not diversified to manage it on its own. If they had as much oil per capita as Norway or pharmaceutical industry as strong as Switzerland I doubt they would have been in the current trouble.
I personally believe that EU is hugely beneficial for all its members, but it needs on tactical level reduction of the wastes and red tape and on a strategic clear vision for the future: What the people of Europe want it to be.
Complain about this comment
#39 jordanbasset
You're right, but it's still not what the core of the argument is about. I think the way decisions are made on an EU level today is quite undemocratic (but not as much as the anti-federalists want you to think), but I'm still a federalist. Real federalism doesn't look like this; it means decisions are taken on as low a level as possible, and only those powers necessary are given to the federal state. Furthermore, decisions on any level can only be taken by directly elected representatives of the people.
The problem with the way things work today is that national governments have too much power over EU decisions. The Council is the source of the majority of decisions that most people disagree with, and these are the "unelected bureaucrats" that so many despise. What they forget to mention is that they can't really do much without the support of Parliament, and MPs are directly elected and you can influence decisions by voting for the representative that fits your views the most.
Most of the arguments that are made by anti-federalists have no base in reality and are only a red herring to distract from their real agenda, but there's some truth to everything. I would personally like to see the Council transform into an upper house/senate in which people directly elect representatives for their state, but national governments won't let go of their powers, and they're the ones making decisions like that. The flaw is that the EU is run by governments and not the people.
Your point that Norway has control over its own affairs is way off. Norway implements about 80% of all EU laws, but the state or its citizens have no say in the making of those laws. I don't have a representative in the Parliament like you do, and I can't vote in local elections elsewhere in the EU like you can. Basically, I have no say in the way things are run. This is the price being paid for having access to the common market while staying outside the union. And why should it be different? Why should the EU give Norway special treatment because they don't want to contribute as much as other states?
Complain about this comment
#41 Freeborn-John
I'm all in support for global free trade, but free trade still doesn't equal a single market, which has huge benefits over several smaller markets. And you can't have an efficient single market with wildly different regulations, and this is why it will always have to be political.
But the argument still isn't about pragmatic decisions regarding commerce and free trade, it's about identity and where someone wants to "belong" to. Your inclination is to want what's best for the UK, while mine is to want what's best for Europe, and that fact underlies all our arguments.
Complain about this comment
There you go Freeborn-John; post 38 has your similarity between the UK and Norway, namely expensive home-made crap :)
Maybe another similarity is that of language, a drunk Geordie certainly sounds like he's speaking Norwegian ;)
You could compare the UK banks to anybodies at the moment; they've all lost pots of money: UBS, BNP Paribas, Fortis (which has nearly disappeared) the list goes on.
Oh and Shell is Anglo-Dutch. HQ in The Hague, a clue is in the name (Royal Dutch Shell).
I'm looking forward to visiting Norway next year though.
Complain about this comment
CaptainEurotrash (44): You have to distinguish between economics and politics. The identity issue is indeed fundamental to understanding the progressive de-legitimization of the EU project, but economic organisations like the WTO have not suffered this fate. Any politically sensitive decision imposed on a nation against the majority opinion of its national 'demos' will be regarded as illegitimate and there are more and more such cases of this as the EU takes power in more politically sensitive policy areas and as more decisions are taken by QMV with reduced blocking thresholds. But economic rules related to markets are not in general sufficiently political sensitive for this to be a problem. This explains why the WTO has not experienced the same legitimacy problems as the EU, and indeed why the EU has only become de-legitimized as it moved from economics to politics.
The existence of the EEA proves you are wrong in saying you cannot have a common market without political union. The EEA should be reformed such that EEA members have as much influence in single market regulations as EU members. The EU could then easily be abandoned by those nations that wish to retain a democratic political system legitimized by their national 'demos'.
Complain about this comment
Re post 43, Captain euro trash (great name by the way) we disgree fundamentally on both our perceptions of what is currently happening in the E.U. and what we want it to become.
They way to make sure decisions are taken at the lowest level possible is to repatriate powers back to the Nation states. Get rid of the E.U. Parliament and the commision. Any decisions that need to be made should be done by unanimity of the council of ministers. They will need the support of administrators, but these should be servants rather than masters, which is how I see the current commision.
Don't think we will agree will we - best wishes
Complain about this comment
#46 Freeborn-John
I don't think we can distinguish between economics and politics. Commerce touches on a broad aspect of political issues, and regulating cross-border commerce will always be a political issue, whether we like it or not. If we want a single market, we need common rules or it won't work.
The WTO doesn't create a single market, and thus doesn't need to regulate it. It's an FTA, not a union, which is why competence creep doesn't occur like it does in the EU. The fallacy in your argument is that you try to make it look like the EU started out as merely a free trade orginisation, but it has always been a political union, and so claiming you want to "go back" to when it was what it never was doesn't make sense. This also means your point about the EU being de-legitimised does not hold, because every state that has joined did so by referendum or at least a vote in parliament. Neither can you argue that the citizens were mislead, because nobody tried to convince them it wasn't political. Anyway, the power to leave or join still lies with each state and its citizens. If the citizens of a democratic state want to leave the union, they will vote for a party with this agenda, which will hold a referendum on the issue. That this is nowhere near happening even in the UK shows that most people are happy with the status quo.
Your point that a decision "imposed" on a national demos is illegitimate doesn't make sense because you're assuming that those decisions are not legitimised by a larger demos to which the national demos has transferred those rights, which is the case.
I've not claimed that you can't have a common market without political union; I claimed that within a single market you can't avoid having to regulate the way in which it works, which is a political process. The EU has always been a political union, so you can't claim that the demos was being mislead because nobody tried to convince them it wasn't. They approved it, and you can't "go back" to something that never was. Still, they can choose to leave as they wish, it's each state's prerogative.
The EEA is non-EU states leeching off the achievements done by the EU, and there can be no leeching if there's no source to leech from.
Complain about this comment
#47 jordanbasset
What you're proposing is undemocratic and is the source of democratic deficiency today. The Council is the unelected elite making decisions behind closed doors - they're the ones nobody likes. Only the people's direct representatives should have the power to approve laws, and that's the Parliament. The Commission should be formed from Parliament as in a parliamentary democracy, or its president should be directly elected. Or better yet, just get rid of it altogether and let Parliament decide everything - but that might not be a viable option.
Having a parliament and a president doesn't mean they have the power to make decisions. Those have to be given to them by the states (the states' citizens), which makes sure decisions are taken on the lowest level possible.
We won't agree because your idea is one of intergovernmentalism where the states and their governments make the decisions while mine is that citizens should be as close to the decision making as possible.
Complain about this comment
Oops, sorry for the duplication in #48.
Complain about this comment
Re post 48 eurotrash, the council of ministers are ministers of democratically elected Governments, how is that undemocratic ! Governments can and do get removed from office at elections if the people are not happy with them - how is that undemocratic!
I am starting to question my initial opinion of you
Complain about this comment
Bastion of all that is non-EU and prime example of the Nation State in full flow deciding its own destiny whilst fulfilling all international obligations: Norway.
Ah, that England and the English were to be given the Ballot box opportunity to express such a similar, unequivocal desire for FREEDOM.
They may consider Whale-hunting a legitimate enterprise when most of the world know that it is not, but, at least Norwegians look to their own, blessed, independent Oslo and not to Brussels every morning for guidance like the Quizling UK Government!
Complain about this comment
CaptainEurotrash (48): In post 44 you recognize that identity is the central issue, but in pst 48 you fail to draw the conclusions. The principle that the majority decides is only accepted when there is a strong solidarity in a community. This strong solidarity is what allows the individual to accept decisions he does not like so long as they are supported by the majority in society. It is only national identity which generates a solidarity sufficiently strong to bear the weight of democratic politics. Civilizational identities (e.g. Europe, The West, etc.) are simply too weak to hold a democratic state together. That is why there is a growing number of nation-states in the world today and why democracy has only ever existed within the context of the nation-state.
In your posts to jordanbasset you suggest that the EU problem is only that it is run by governments and not the people. But there is no European people. The real Europe consists of multiple peoples each of which aspires to self-government. You suggest that some institutional tinkering can fix the EU democracy problem, but the 'problem' is not in the institutions but in these multiple national identities. You could take institutions of the highest democratic credentials (those of the USA for example) and replicate them for the EU and the result would not be democratic at all, because it would mean that small nations would be forced by more populous ones to do things they do not want to do.
Much of your post #48 is a claim that the EU was pre-programmed in 1957 with a federal destination and nobody alive today is allowed to alter this direction. That I am afraid is hogwash. Monnet made a critical mistake which is going to bring his project down. He assumed that the self-aggrandizing institutions he set up would (over time) automatically attract the loyalty of the peoples of Europe away from nation states. This has not happened. Indeed the EU's own polling data shows the strength of European identity has become weaker since 1990 as the peoples of Europe increasingly reject the Brussels institutions as an alien transplant into their body politic. Political institutions cannot last without legitimacy. The EU has willfully thrown its away and is now going to suffer the consequences.
Complain about this comment
Once you get beyond the situation where every qualified adult in a community can have a direct input into policy - in other words anything larger than a city state, democracy becomes a relative concept. You can argue, for instance that 'first past the post' delivers you a local representative who is accountable to a relatively small segment of the population and is accessible. It also, however, delivers governments which reflect the views of only the minority of the total popular vote. The various forms of proportional representation will generally produce a result which more accurately reflects public opinion but is often dependent on forming short lived alliances of convenience to form governments whose positions are precarious.
In Britain, you have had a government in office for something like 11 years which appears to be ideologically at odds with whole swathes of the country but would anyone seriously argue that it cannot therefore represent the interests of, say, West Sussex? Of course not. The trick is to find a system which is workable but, at the same time fairly represents the views of a wide cross section of the electorate. The problem that arises is that the larger the unit to be governed, the less likely it is to represent a wide cross section of public opinion because not only will there be wide regional variation but the traditions from which these regions have developed vary considerably.
If you apply this to the EU, it is clear there will always be policies which tend to suit some countries better than others and it is further complicated by countries whose democratic institutions have been long established and evolved over centuries as against those for which it has been hard won in recent times and jealously protected.
The question therefore is whether the people who run the EU should be responsible for the national interest of the nations they represent or should their priority be for the greater good of the community as a whole. If you believe that the national interest should always take priority, there is little point in proceeding any further. Nations will simply cherry pick the aspects of the union that suit them and the whole thing will descend into farce. If, on the other hand, you believe that the EU does have an important role for its citizens and within the wider world, it is necessary for it to have real decision making powers and enforcement capability. Some pooling of national sovereignty is unavoidable.
With great respect to JB above, who always argues logically and eloquently, the problem I have with the concept of a single market divorced from politics is the question of administration and enforcement. If there is no mechanism for ensuring that the rules are applied fairly and universally, there has to be an element of supranational supervision which needs to be effectively enforceable. Without it, there is nothing to prevent members from flouting it with impunity. To whom do you entrust this authority and who polices their rulings?
Norway and Switzerland can have their cake and eat it because they both have something to offer the EU which makes it worth while to keep them onside. Iceland does not and it looks as though they are now minded to come in from the cold. But imagine the chaos that would ensue if one of the really big players decided to adopt an 'our way or not at all' attitude. Where does standing up and fighting your corner end and being willfully obstructive begin?
This is why I believe that we should be moving now to ensure as great a degree of democratic accountability in Brussels as we are able to devise. My personal view is that this will only be achieved from within and the point is rapidly approaching when the UK must decide between full engagement or withdrawal.
Complain about this comment
threnodio (54): The WTO does just fine without any supranationalism. We should now make maximum use the WTO to get as close to global free trade as possible and then let the EU wither on the vine.
Complain about this comment
#51 jordanbasset
I was exaggerating a bit perhaps when describing it as undemocratic, but I still stand by my critique of the Council. Governments represent the states, not the people. It's as simple as that. The Parliament consists of directly elected representatives, and the electorate can vote for those persons who represent their views the best. They don't represent the states so they will vote on each matter the way their constituency wants, and the result is a much more balanced representation of the entire population. This is a good idea for the same reason it is for the UK parliament to represent the people of Britain and not the governments of England, Scotland and Wales. (Yes, I know there aren't really governments in the "Home Nations", but the point still stands)
I guess my point is that it adds a level in between the citizens and the making of laws, which is less democratic than being represented by an MP.
Complain about this comment
#53 Freeborn-John
You assume that everyone is like you and identify stronger with whichever country they were born in than with Europe, but you shouldn't make assumptions like that. This is why I say that identity is the main issue in this argument.
Still, I think you're wrong in your view that democracy can only exist in a nation where "solidarity is strong" and not across nations as in the EU. India, for example, is a successful multinational and federal democracy, and it functions quite well.
I did not claim that the general direction cannot be changed, I said that the direction has always been political and towards federalism since the very beginning 50 years ago and that you can't go back to "just free trade" as so many claim, because there was never anything like that. The direction of everything can be changed if the will and the support is there.
Complain about this comment
#52
Norway is a bastion of selfish protectionism and nationalism. Not that this disqualifies it from being good at other things (it is), but it's not in any way a protector of freedom and liberty for its citizens.
You assume that its citizens and the citizens of any state in Europe want to "got it alone", but this clearly isn't the case, or there would be no EU.
Complain about this comment
#55 Freeborn-John
Again you make the mistake to think the WTO is in any way comparable to the EU. This isn't the case, however much you would wish it was. The EU is a federation of states that formed a union to better achieve their goals. The WTO is an organisation formed by governments to assist free trade across the world. This is an effort I support very much, but it's not the same as what we're doing in Europe.
I take part in these discussions not to try and convince anyone (that would be a huge waste of time) but to learn something and better understand my own reasoning by putting it in writing. I usually stop when the discussion becomes repetitive and I become aggravated, when there's nothing for me to gain from continuing. This discussion has now reached that point, so I will now bid you all adieu. Take care :)
Complain about this comment
Re post 54, Threnodio, thank you for your kind words, I fully reciprocate them.
Re the final arbiter in trade disputes, the E.C.J would be ok for me, but with much tighter drawn script as to what is and as importantly what is not within it's remit. This would be drawn up by the council of ministers, again unanimity would be required.
As to people acting in the national or regional interest, if there is a confict nations have and will act in the national interest, France probably being the prime example. I for one do not blame them, it is what nation states do, they just do it better than any one else. Where interests coincide there is of course no conflict.
Appreciate this is very much a distant dream at this time, but like the original E.U. project, you have to start some where, in the mean time I will continue to campaign to prevent any further ferderalisation of the E.U., loss/sharing of soverienity and encroachment of QMV etc -
Complain about this comment
Re: 41
You are right to say there should be a full cost/benefit analysis of EU membership. As far as I know, Switzerland is the only country to have carried out this kind of exercise. It found that EU membership would cost six times the current bi-lateral trading arrangements.
Complain about this comment
CaptainEurotrash (57): You will not find me making assumptions, though i note you make a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions as to what the WTO or EU are for. I do not need to make assumptions about the weakness of European identity because the EU has been polling on the topic for 20 years and publishing the results in its Eurobarometer surveys. Page 21 of Eurobarometer #64 has a diagram showing that Luxembourgers are the people with the strongest sense of European identity. But even in Luxembourg there are more people (27%) who say their identity is "national only" than either primarily European (13%) or European only (9%). Only 15% of Belgians and 12% of French or Germans say they have a stronger European identity than national. In Britain, Ireand and Finland it is 3%. Eurobarometer #62 has figures which show the strength of European identity has been on the decline since 1994.
Have you ever been to India? I have traveled throughout that country. Community in India is defined primarily by religious identity but I think it is still fair to say that India is one nation, with the possible exceptions of the Punjab (a Sikh province) and Kashmir which has a large Muslim population. Both these provinces have experienced considerable political violence in recent decades and may become independent states in the future. When British India became a democracy it was necessary to partition it into the separate states of India and Pakistan because (in the words of Lord Mountbatten) "There can be no question of coercing any large areas in which one community has a majority to live against their will under a government in which another community has a majority. And the only alternative to coercion is partition". Therefore South Asia is an excellent example of the relationship between identity and democracy that I described in my last post. The EU should be partitioned today to restore democracy.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, ...West Sussex..
What an ideal area to choose: One of the strongest regional UKIP votes at the 2004 EU Election.
West Sussex, bastion of Conservatism-Lib Dems, and, you are right not a NuLab MP in sight.
Then again, West Sussex, antithesis of EU interests: A robust, entrepreneurial small-business area where the much lauded EU-finance initiatives have never been taken up in any valid number & the rural, agricultural, pro-fox-hunting community would happily turn their hounds on any MEP that dared to show his/her face!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#63 - ikamaskeip
Ah yes - like the BMW factory building Rolls Royce at Goodwood, GlaxoSmithKline at Worthing and Crawley, American Express at Burgess Hill, Virgin Atlantic at Crawley, Aviva in Horsham - those kinds of entrepreneurial small-businesses, you mean.
I will ride to hounds with you over the Downs at a drop of a hat but I am damned if I am going to be dragged back into the 19th century to do it.
Complain about this comment
I grew up on a very small farm. We had a cow for milk, a couple of beef cattle, some pigs and chickens and even though we had a large kitchen garden the farm couldn't provide enough for us to live on. It was a good way of life, yes, but it didn't pay the bills.
Therefore both my parents had to hold down outside jobs. If we could have sold our excess produce at a profit that might have changed, but there wasn't any market for that.
Not surprisingly we lived in a rural farming town. But there were two cities not far away and jobs were aviailable. As I was growing up, though, the cities were getting smaller, industries were being stressed. The first to go were the cotton mills, followed by the woollen mills. (The paper mills, however, prospered, mostly because of newer and better meathods of production.)
Why? The markets were changing. The margins of profit were getting thinner and thinner, and when they got razor thin the plants were closed. Now, the State could have stepped in and given those plants a subsidy, but the writing was on the wall. The State, which only gets its money from the taxpayer, had the foresight to see that it couldn't afford that course of action. Instead, it paid the dis-placed workers 26 weeks of unemployment and washed its hands of the whole affair.
The point is that the markets, be they small and local, or large to the point of being global, are always going to change. The product you make a buck on today may be passe tomorrow and if you don't adapt you're toast.
Sometimes the markets go up, but as surly as they rise they are bound to fall. When they fall, people suffer. The best any State can do is provide some safty net. Sometimes, as in the Great Depression, everything falls apart and there's not much any particular State can do. But in these times, in this situtation, many States acting in concert may be able to avert the worst of the pain. Maybe. That is still to be seen, I guess.
Norway is doing fine on it's own at the moment, though there has been some impact. The Swiss have yet to feel much of the pinch. The UK is in the middle of the beginning of it all, as is most of the world.
The question seems to be, What will Europe and its Union look like in ten years time? Shuddering and helpless in the cold as are some of its eastern members, dependant on Russian gas, bought and paid for but not delivered? Or will it be a land of milk and honey, with all people living in peace and harmony?
Or somewhere between the two, arguing about little things as the big things fall apart, as it is now?
Complain about this comment
#62 Freeborn-John
I have no idea why my #64 was referred. I was simply saying that you have to be careful of arguing consistency between identity and the wish for particular political structures.
There have been regular surveys of Scottish v British identity. The research of Prof David McCrone suggested that 80% of Scots thought of themselves as primarily Scottish, but this does not translate into political allegiance in terms of voting for/against independence.
He added -
"Being Scottish seems much more attached to 'a sense of place' rather than a 'sense of tribe', as the historian TC Smout observed. That is, the sense of territorial, civic, identity appears stronger than an 'ethnic' one such that people can claim to be Scottish by living here. The parliament reinforces that sense of 'place' insofar as people participate because they live here, not simply because they were born here. Further, the evidence seems to suggest that the longer people who were not born here live in Scotland, the more likely they feel able to make a claim to be Scottish. It is also noticeable that young people of Asian origin are likely to operate hybrid identities such as Scottish Muslim or Scottish Pakistani, whereas the 'English' descriptor is missing in their peers south of the border. Historians back this up by telling us that 'the Scots' have always been plural in cultural and regional terms, in McIlvanney's phrase, a 'mongrel' people."
Complain about this comment
Having lived in Norway now for some years I (a Scot) see none of the lack of "quality" referred to by one comment to this article.
The other thing of course that has not been mentioned with regard to Norway - It's rate of tax. For 2009 I have been informed that my basic tax rate for this year will be 48%. Now let's see Mr Salmond or Gordon of Cartoon sell that to their respective electorates.
On the tax thing, in Norway everybody pays it, they have to, there is no choice, because you are automatically issued with a personnummer, without it you cannot do anything, you cannot be paid. For the UK think ID cards, makes tax collection easy because without the ID number you don't exist.
Norwegians are prepared to pay the price to maintain their way of life, the "bottom line" is not the main consideration - Greatest good for the greatest number is. They also realise full well that you get nothing for free.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-john(32): Thanks for your comment on my comment again.
"Norway has one half of the North Sea; the UK has the other half."
Agreed!
"There is no country in the world more similar to Britain in terms of access to resources than our near neighbour Norway."
No - half the area does not translate to half the resources. The UK currently pumps a little more than half the oil that Norway does. As I've mentioned before, this wealth (through tax and other benefits) is distributed among a much larger population, so the oil per head of population is less than 20x that of Norway.
You say yourself in comment 8 that the "oil wealth means the people are very wealthy", and that beer in Oslo "is 7 pounds a pint", for example. I don't understand then why you suddenly decide to discard this and pretend that the economies are directly comparable, just because both countries share the north sea, or both have economies involving oil. Surely you see it's more complicated than that?
So to hold Norway up as an example of how the UK can go it alone, as you do, is misguided, since the UK would does not have the same access to resources per head of population that Norway does and the luxuries that are associated with that. I have respect for people on both sides of the debate, but you can not selectively choose your facts to suit your own prejudices.
Complain about this comment
"It is a sad fact though that the main reasons for Norway staying out of the EU is greed and selfishness. Our mistrust of foreigners is proportional with our inflated self-image."
Oh sorry Jonhlie, i wasn't paying attention, where did you say you were coming from ? England i presume?
Sorry, just joking...but am I ?!
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
It is easy to give examples of 'large' businesses for any county of England! That is not to say they are not 'rural' in make-up which by any definition Sussex clearly is.
I note your derision for the small business/individual, so, classically the EU attitude to the ordinary person in the English street.
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
"Drag you back to the Victorian era"! Which part of England are you thinking of?
Surely you are not objecting to the Victorian concept of full adult enfranchisement (admittedly male only until post-WW1), or the extension rights under the law to every member of society, or, the development of trade unionism enabling the individual to have an effective voice & protection in the workplace, or, surely no objection to the development of working-class political representation etc? You know all those curious concepts that emerged with Citizens' Freedom.. their Rights, electoral Accountability, their Responsibilities within a framework of UK/English Law etc. that gradually evolved through the Victorian era into a nation/state of Liberty. The English were fortunate enough to enjoy, all too briefly, this open society from about 1928 to 1972: Democracy.
Complain about this comment
Asamorgan (69): I have provided a logical argument for why the UK economy is more similar to that of Norway and Switzerland than almost any other countries on Earth. This is based both on the shared access to North Sea resources (in the case of UK and Norway) and the principle industries in Norway and Switzerland being oil, banking and pharmaceuticals which are the sectors where world-class British companies like BP, Shell, HSBC, Glaxo, etc are clustered. Threnodio has said (post 9) that this is "cloud cuckoo land material" but he provides no counter-argument to support his claim. You have supported (in post 14) his statement and accuse me of prejudice.
Since you seem to dislike prejudice you will no doubt be able to support your own argument with some facts? No doubt you will be able to list some countries with a more similar economic structure to that of the UK than Norway and Switzerland. Which EU countries (other than the UK) specialise in the oil, pharmaceuticals and banking industries? Can you name even one country?
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
My allusion to the fox-hunters was the metaphor (as you know) for the general Citizen.
Citizens whom no MEP (in Sussex) has yet to receive 29% of the miserly 34.66% votes cast in 2004 (Sussex) in orer for them to claim a seat in Brussels & to speak for the public!
Complain about this comment
threnodio:
My allusion to the fox-hunters was the metaphor (as you know) for the general Citizen.
Citizens whom no MEP (in Sussex) has yet to receive 29% of the miserly 34.66% votes cast in 2004 (Sussex) in orer for them to claim a seat in Brussels & to speak for the public!
Complain about this comment
threnodio: My allusion to the fox-hunters was the metaphor (as you know) for the general Citizen.
Citizens whom no MEP (in Sussex) has yet to receive 29% of the miserly 34.66% votes cast in 2004 (Sussex) in orer for them to claim a seat in Brussels & to speak for the public!
Complain about this comment
threnodio. My allusion to the fox-hunters was the metaphor (as you know) for the general Citizen.
Citizens whom no MEP (in Sussex) has yet to receive 29% of the miserly 34.66% votes cast in 2004 (Sussex) in orer for them to claim a seat in Brussels & to speak for the public!
Complain about this comment
I JUSWT give up!
Nothing seems to get through this wretched HTML Data error once it gets started.
threnodio, I wont give up on loathing the EU but you can win this round as I haven't time or inclination to battle Mr Mardell's utterly INCOMPETENT BLOG system!
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (67): You make a serious point. I would answer that there is a time lag between this strengthening Scottish identity and the reshaping of political institutions. I would also say that the misalignment between identity and political institutions is only revealed where there is a contentious issue and there is not currently a poll-tax like issue that might act as casus belli for Scottish independence. The lack of a divisive issue now does not mean that there will be no such issues in the future, for example during the lifetime of the next Conservative government.
80% is a higher figure for Scottish identity than I have seen elsewhere, but I do not doubt that Scottish identity is both strong and getting stronger. If Scottish identity continues to strengthen (relative to British) then it will lead to questions of the supremacy of the Westminster parliament over Scotland. It has already led to the establishment of devolved institutions in Edinburgh which suffer from none of the legitimacy problems of the Brussels institutions, but these institutions and their powers have not been fixed for all of time. They will continue to evolve to better the contours of identity.
If British identity in Scotland were to fall to the 3-4% level then it would certainly lead to an independent Scottish nation-state. The problem with Brussels is that the extremely weak level of European identity is woefully inadequate to legitimise 'ever loser union', i.e. the one-way ratchet of an ever-growing body of European law whose supremacy nullifies conflicting national legislation. But without legitimacy the institutions will eventually be swept away. The growing gulf between the peoples of Europe and politicians is an early indication that the EU system is going to crack.
Complain about this comment
#71 - ikamaskeip
That is an absolutely groteque characterisation of what I meant. I am a native of West Sussex who also lived for many years in the Isle of Wight and the New Forest. Nobody is more aware of the value of small entrepreneurial business, especially rurally oriented ones. My point about large industries is that it is foolish to characterise any county as dependent on small local business because of their semi-rural nature. All the counties have mixed economic profiles with large internationals living comfortably alongside local firms many of whom exist because they provide a service to their bigger neighbours. What is more, small business continues to flourish in many inner city areas. To take an example of one environment and try to build an anti-Eu case on it is absurd.
My '19th century' comment was precisely about this. It is perfectly possible to lament the ending of field sports and all sorts of other urban-centric government ideas that are doing great damage to rural communities through sheer ignorance about country life or, worse yet, blind prejudice. My point is that this has nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with the idiot tendency in Westminster and I can see no reason for not being able to oppose these without taking a progressive view of the modern world and Britain's role in it .
Talking of problems being closer to home, Mark's blog is functioning well and I think you have a browser problem. Try Firefox.
Complain about this comment
#67 - oldnat
#79 - Freeborn-John
It is relatively straight forward to to define an identity for a region and loyalty towards it is a natural response to living in it. In small units, it is possible for people to identify with their systems of government because they can observe and participate first hand and satisfy themselves as to its democratic credentials. This is going to be the case especially where the status quo of government from a remote and disinterested distance (Westminster) seems less and less relevant to the regions needs. Not only was devolution destined to succeed but it was bound to create an appetite for increasing local accountability which might well lead eventually to full independence.
It is entirely a different matter to persuade 500 million people to put their trust in a supranational organisation, whatever the benefits, if they do not see how they can call it to account. So yes, if the case is - as I have often said before - that there is a perceived democratic deficit within the EU which must be addressed by looking again at its institutional structure, I agree. But if the argument is that it simply is not feasible to build a democracy on such a grand scale, I would simply refer you to the example of the United States. To use that argument simply to dismiss the project out of hand seems to me a cop out.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (81): The argument is not that it is impossible that it build to democracy on a large scale but rather that the people so governed must share a common identity if majority rule is to be accepted. This common identity does not exist across Europe.
The USA is a nation-state. The federal government in Washington DC is however only accepted as legitimate because it is a national government. If Mexico was ruled by the current US political institutions, Mexicans would not regard rule from Washington as legitimate because they do not see themselves as part of the American nation. Yet the US political institutions that Mexicans would reject would not have changed at all, which shows you are wrong to say that a democratic deficit can be addressed simply by changing institutional structures. If the political institutions of the USA would not have a democratic legitimacy when applied to two North American nations what makes you think they offer any answer to the EU democratic deficit?
Democracy has only ever existed within the context of the nation-state. It is no mere coincidence that democracy is disappearing in the EU. It is inherent to all forms of multi-national governance that abandon unanimity. There is a hard choice to be made between European political union and democracy, and it is vital that the latter prevails.
Complain about this comment
#82 - Freeborn-John
I do not disagree with that view. The problem seems to me to be a uniquely British one. Oldnat has already pointed out that racial minorities in Scotland do not have an identity problem and are happy to think of themselves as say Scottish Muslims. Glasgow has a thriving Scottish Italian community. But notice the Scottish - not British. In the States, you constantly hear references to African Americans, Hispanic Americans and so on - people see themselves as first and foremost Scots or American. Their racial origin is secondary. Much the same is true in France, Germany or Spain. Of course Bretons, Bavarians and Catalans have strong regional identities and traditions but that does not bring into question their national identity.
The problem with Britain is that it is an artificial construct. You cannot be both Scots and English but the Scots are, de facto, British so there is a tension. This is especially evident in racial minorities in England who tend to avoid national identities not really knowing whether they are English, British or simply members of a minority grouping. You will hear phrases like British Muslim at Westminster or on television, but how often do you hear it on the streets?
So my question to you is about the status of Britain as a nation state. If it is that, where is the sense of national pride? Alive and well and living in the shire counties, no doubt. But that is not the basis of nationhood. For a nation state to be confident and secure, you need a significant proportion of the people to identify clearly with it and be loyal to it. I suspect that the next few years will see the emergence of a form of English nationalism which will be anglo-saxon, Caucasian and possibly racist in outlook.
I do not share your confidence in Britain as an institution and I suspect that the time is not too far off when it will split into it's component parts. The danger is that some of those parts will embrace the European project while others - notably England - will emphatically reject it. Small nations exist comfortably within the European fold - Luxembourg, Hungary, Estonia and so on do not struggle for national identity but neither do they suffer 'big fish in little pond' syndrome. How is England going to cope out there in the cold? Like Norway perhaps? But then Norway could close it's borders and survive very nicely thank you. Could you?
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (83): You have a severe case of the EU herd mentality. You cannot argue in support of it, have no idea why it is failing, but you cling to it anyway like a comfort blanket. The UK must leave the EU. British industry would do as well as the very similar industries of Switzerland and Norway, and British voters would regain their democracy.
Complain about this comment
62. Freeborn-John :
" Eurobarometer #62 has figures which show the strength of European identity has been on the decline since 1994."
You wrote a Constitution for The Anglosphere of which you are a proponent
See
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/10/02/an_embarrassing_example_of_anglosphere_unity
(for those that don't know that's Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom & the United States of America - in essence the British Empire without the black or brown bits) so do please tell us what the strength of identity is in the Anglosphere?
"Have you ever been to India? I have traveled throughout that country. Community in India is defined primarily by religious identity but I think it is still fair to say that India is one nation, with the possible exceptions of the Punjab (a Sikh province) and Kashmir which has a large Muslim population."
So, are you implying or claiming superior knowledge of the country because you've been there? If not, why mention it?
I've been to Japan and Kazakhstan amongst others but I certainly don't claim any superior knowledge of those countries because of it.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ #84
Similarly, you speak of the UK as if it is a Nation that is sovereign, independent and populated by a people that think similarly to yourself.
In reality, the United Kingdom is an artificially constructed State that is breaking apart into its constituent nations of Scotland and England with the strong likelihood that Wales will then also seek independence from England.
Threnodio is absolutely correct that the breakup of The Union will herald an English National Party and I, too, think it will create an Anglo-Saxon backlash against recent immigrants and anti-English legislation and liberal anti-English dogmatism of the past 10 to 15 years.
Nevertheless, the break-up of the the-not-so-United Kingdom will herald the need for England, Scotland (and probably Wales) to seek the sanctuary of alliance with the eventual European State that is being created (despite your wishes) as the reality is that much of the oil that you think is British is Scottish, much of the "British" Pharmaceutical Industry to which you think is a key British manufacturing industry is American run and "Americanized" (a fact to which I can attest from personal experience) and much (if not entirely all) of the British pharmaceutical manufacturing base will eventually be transposed to China, India and Costa Rica where the cost of production per tablet, vial or bottle is so much more cheap to produce. British banking has had its bubble burst and if you think that the British Banking system will ever recover from the recent credit crunch and its need to be rescued by tax-payer funding then I suspect that you may also believe in the Tooth Fairy, that elephants can fly and that the British Empire still exists.
The reality on the ground is that the United Kingdom is screwed and has no future unless it recognises that it is an artificial construct like Yugoslavia and aligns itself with the nations of Europe in a European United Nations organisation such as the EU.
Outside of the EU England is merely 60 million souls of which many are employed in government-funded employment or extended education and training and the GNP of England is based upon industries that are either going to vanish from its shores or be circumscribed by political regulation to the point where its value to the English GNP is severely handicapped and diminishes.
Complain about this comment
Greypolglot (82) Yes, I would certainly claim superior knowledge than most Europeans about India and its democracy. As another example of the relationship between identity and political institutions I would point to Darjeeling which is currently part of the state of West Bengal but where there is a campaign for local autonomy. Darjeeling is high in the Himalaya and there is significant distinctions (including ethnicity) between the people who live there and those who live further south on the Indian plane and in the state capital of Calcutta.
Everywhere you look in the world there is pressure to shape political institutions to the contours of community. So threndoio is totally wrong to suggest that this is a purely British phenomenon. The EU is guaranteed to collapse if it continues to ignore human nature.
Complain about this comment
382 Freeborn-John
"Democracy has only ever existed within the context of the nation-state."
Since the UK is a multi-national state, then (by your argument) it cannot be a democracy!
The critical difference between the UK and Norway in terms of wealth is their different treatment of the oil wealth.
While Norway invested in a sovereign wealth fund, and a relatively slow extraction rate, (as the SNP wanted to do) the UK Labour and Tory Governments squandered the revenue to bolster the UK's failed economy, and their pathetic posturing as a world power.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus (96): Have you ever noticed the relationship between losers and British pro-Europeans? It is quite strong in you. Naturally if you start from the position that Britons are incapable of anything then you will conclude that we have no alternative but to become EU serfs. Fortunately most Britons are made of better stuff than that. There is a poll in tomorrow's Telegraph that shows 64% of Britons want to weaken ties with the EU. The revolution is coming and afterwards even losers will shake there heads that wonder why it took so long.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4214369/Loosen-Britains-ties-with-European-Union-say-two-thirds-of-voters..html
Complain about this comment
#87 Freeborn-John
"Everywhere you look in the world there is pressure to shape political institutions to the contours of community."
You ignore the fact that people can have multiple identities. The fuller 2000 data on Scottish identity which I included in my referred #64 contained the responses on the fuller scale of choices -
Scottish not British - 37%
More Scottish than British - 31%
Equally Scottish and British - 21%
More British than Scottish - 3%
British not Scottish - 4%
A question that has not been asked in a Scottish context is about European identity.
Like many SNP voters, I'd describe myself as Scottish and European. Since the most recent poll suggested that over half of Scots want to join the Europe immediately (a bad deal that would be!) or as soon as possible, I suspect there is much less resistance to membership of a wider union here than in England.
Complain about this comment
87. Freeborn-John:
"Greypolglot (82) Yes, I would certainly claim superior knowledge than most Europeans about India and its democracy. "
I can do that as well but so what?
"As another example of the relationship between identity and political institutions I would point to Darjeeling which is currently part of the state of West Bengal but where there is a campaign for local autonomy. Darjeeling is high in the Himalaya and there is significant distinctions (including ethnicity) between the people who live there and those who live further south on the Indian plane and in the state capital of Calcutta."
If you think that you're making a point, you're not. I could equally point to Cornwall which is currently part of the state of England but where there is a campaign for local autonomy.
89. Freeborn-John:
"There is a poll in tomorrow's Telegraph that shows 64% of Britons want to weaken ties with the EU. "
The poll can only be an extrapolation of answers from those polled i.e. 2,157 adults between 6 January and 8 January.
You fail to mention that the survey was undertaken by YouGov for the TaxPayersAlliance and Global Vision, the Eurosceptic pressure group. There would of course be no question of the results reflecting that wished by those footing the bill?
Complain about this comment
re my #90
Sorry - should have read
over half of Scots want to join the Euro immediately
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @89
And quite who are these "Britons" that make up the 64% of the poll in The Daily Telegraph?
English, British Muslims, British Indians, Scottish, Welsh, Afro-Carribeans, emigres of Somalia, Ethiopia, South Africa, Brazil and all compass points of the globe? Are these your "Britons"?
All these various ethnic groups have a diverse self-interests for the future of the not-so-United Kingdom and its relationship with Europe . They have been fed a diet of anti-EU propaganda for years through newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph and they have voted for liberal-socialist UK governments that squander British wealth in good time and have seen the demise of British manufacturing to a point where, as recently as yesterday, our illustrious Prime Minister suggested that the future properity of the United Kingdom lies in the tourism industry.
One suspects that Gordon Brown is a drowning man in charge of a sinking ship and he has no future. Something, I suspect, that can be said about the prospects of the United Kingdom where the British voter blissfully believe that his or her vote can actually make a difference. However, in reality the British remain serfs as much as the did in the 1700s - the only difference being that nowadays the employer is the tax-payer and most British Citizens either receive handouts or work for government or its agencies in non-productive bureacratic employment.
Please do keep feeling superior, "British" and isolationist. It suits your mentality which is also that of someone who pulls up the bedcovers over their heads in the middle of the night saying, "I don't believe in Ghosts" repeatedly - as if that were all that were needed to protect you from ghosties and ghoulies of the EU!
Complain about this comment
82. Freeborn-John:
"Mexicans would not regard rule from Washington as legitimate because they do not see themselves as part of the American nation."
And possibly because Santa Anna was captured and forced to sign the Treaties of Velasco under duress so that the Mexican government never ratified the treaty ceding Texas.
Different times different mores. I don't think that anyone anywhere in today's world would recognise a treaty signed under threat of execution.
87. Freeborn-John:
I note that you carefully refrain from telling us what the strength of identity is in the Anglosphere.
Complain about this comment
#87 -Freeborn-John
"So threndoio is totally wrong to suggest that this is a purely British phenomenon"
I meant within the context of the EU.
Complain about this comment
#89 - Freeborn-John
"Have you ever noticed the relationship between losers and British pro-Europeans?" I cannot speak for Menedemus but I can't say I have noticed it. I have, however, noticed a correlation between proponents of Euroscepticism and their tendency to resort to insults rather than argument. 'Loser' is an insult, is it not?
I am tiring somewhat of the reliance on opinion research of fairly small sample groups as credible evidence one way or the other. It is high time the people were consulted in an inclusive democratic process.
Complain about this comment
89. Freeborn-John:
"There is a poll in tomorrow's Telegraph that shows 64% of Britons want to weaken ties with the EU."
Oh it gets even better FBJ. I see that YouGov's panel of over 200,000 electors comprises a self-selected group who have actively volunteered to be consulted. On this occasion about 1% took part. I find this highly convincing and conclusive evidence of your contention (not!)
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (96): In that case you will no doubt wish to underpin your "cloud cuckoo land" insult of post 9 with some logic. No doubt you will be able to list some countries with a more similar economic structure to that of the UK than Norway and Switzerland. Which EU countries (other than the UK) specialise in the oil, pharmaceuticals and banking industries that Norway and Switzerland excel in?
Complain about this comment
#97 greypolyglot
YouGov follows standard polling sample techniques. It weights the sample to try to be representative of the UK demographic. The details of the poll are not yet up on their website, but I'll try do see if I can provide a more detailed report when the data is published.
#98 Freeborn-John
England has very little oil. You'll get some more after Scottish Independence, since the maritime division of UK waters will follow the principle of equidistance from the coastline, and the current line between Scottish and English waters will move from eastwards to north eastwards (unless Berwick chooses to return to Scotland - in which case the dividing line will move south eastwards, and you'll lose most of the little you have).
So your oil reference is irrelevant to the UK economy, when we leave it.
Complain about this comment
99. oldnat:
"#97 greypolyglot
YouGov follows standard polling sample techniques. It weights the sample to try to be representative of the UK demographic. The details of the poll are not yet up on their website, but I'll try do see if I can provide a more detailed report when the data is published."
That's helpful of you. Thank you. However, until someone demonstrates the opposite I'll remain sceptical about the degree to which their polling pool can be representative of the population at large when it is self-selected comprising only those with the means and motivation to register online.
Complain about this comment
99. oldnat wrote:
"England has very little oil."
I hate to provide information that might help FBJ but in the interests of honesty it has to be noted that England has the largest onshore oilfields in western Europe at Wytch Farm, Wareham and Kimmeridge in Dorset. These are in the western extremity of the same strata containing North Sea oil.
Complain about this comment
89. Freeborn-John:
"There is a poll in 'Sunday's) Telegraph that shows 64% of Britons want to weaken ties with the EU."
No, the poll shows that 1,380 people (64% of 2,157) do.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-john (73):
You are quite right that both the UK and Norway have strong industries in both Pharmaceuticals and Oil. Fundamental to the economy however is the distribution of wealth as I said before (69). You choose to ignore this because this makes Norway incomparable to the UK and doesn't suit your secessionist views. Unless you move on this point, our discussion will continue to go in circles.
ps, your request that I name a third country strikes me as slightly odd. If I name a pear, does it make the apple any more like the orange? If I name a third country, does it make the UK any more like Norway?...
Complain about this comment
#98 - Freeborn-John
There was nothing insulting about the 'cloud cuckoo land' comment.
The answer to your question is, pharmaceuticals and banking, Germany. Of course, no other EU country has the oil reserves that the UK has but how you can describe the oil industry as something the UK excels in simply because a fortuitous coincidence of geology is beyond me.
I still hold to my position that there is no comparison and share asamorgen's view that introducing another contender would not change the basic fact.
Complain about this comment
Asamorgan (103): The argument is not going around in circles. You are simply refusing to accept that you have lost it. I already answered in post 36 that there is no link in the modern world between size of population and prosperity. Norway (3rd richest), Singapore (5th) and Switzerland (8th) all show that providing you open up to the global market you can become rich, even with no natural resources.
Neither you nor threnodio have been able to name even ONE country that has a more similar economy to the UK than Norway or Switzerland. Sine you obviously cannot provide even one counter-examples to support your earlier claim that comparing the UK to these countries is "cloud cuckoo land material" then you must accept it is wrong and indeed that there is absolutely no reason why the UK would not prosper as well as them outside the EU.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (104): The principle industries in Germany are car manufacturing, machinery and chemicals (not pharmaceuticals). That is quite different from the UK, Norway or Switzerland. There are no German equivalents of BP, HSBC or Glaxo, but Norway has Statoil and Switzerland has UBS and Roche.
Complain about this comment
Bayer, with a turnover of 44.2 million USD and 106,000 employees, is the third largest pharmaceutical manufacturer in the world ahead of both GlaxoSmithKline and Astra Zeneca. Deutsche Bank AG is listed as one of the top three investment banks in the world and Allianz Global, the insurers are rated as in the top 5 global active investment managers. It currently owns Dresdener Bank.
I have already conceded that since Germany doesn't have any oil to speak of, it really does not need an oil industry. I still do not believe the fact that Britain is sitting on an oil field is down to sound financial planning so much as geological serendipity.
Complain about this comment
About Pharmaceutical Industry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Market_leaders_in_terms_of_revenue
According to that table it would seem that both UK and Germany are more or less in equal footing. What we should also remember that remember is that Sanofi-Aventis is half located to Germany. Of course from the German GDP the Pharmaceutical industry accounts a lower stake than in UK.
We should also remember that Banking and Finance are growing industries in Germany. Deutsche Borse is the next biggest trading place in Europe after LSE. Frankfurt is growing in importance and in influence, that is fact that should be taken into account.
Complain about this comment
May I insert here a small comment on the beneficial no doubt influence of Russia on the EU shape-up and formation? :o)
Every time you get a new country on rotation every 6 months into the "leading" shoes - we start sorting out a neighbour.
And nearly immediately, in fact, absolutely synchronised, ask/demand and implore for EU involvement.
What was it said after Sarkozy, "EU is coming of age, getting a common voice?"
And now the Chech seem to have sorted it out btw us and Ukraine; what a quiet, warm, unproblematic beginning of the presidency for them.
No doubt by active part-taking in hot and cold wars' standouts btw Russia and its "ex" - the EU structures will get more lean, energetic (the Chech PM Toployanik, for instance, is reported to not having slept last 3 days), mature and "weathered".
Red-tape and buraucracy is already diminishing in direct observation. By now it takes just 1 day and a half to collect signatures and consent of 18 EU countries!
Un-needed structures will die off; new, answering the call of reality, to be able to pursue own interests side-by-side the dear bully turbulent neighbour - will emerge!
I think in fact we should start charging for the practical, on-site training :o). How to be a EU. Nobody wrote a text-book yet, it is being composed at the moment, along the go.
Now, can't promise we'll have case-study material available for all the next EU presidents; only 14 ex Russia had, and 2 are already spent.
Clearly not enough to provide intensive training to all the future EU leaders, 28, is it?
Still, 12 still available. On this encouraging note...
Complain about this comment
threnodio (107) : If you are suggesting that that financial services sector plays the same role in the German economy as it does in the UK (where it has been estimated at 30% of GDP) or Switzerland then i suggest it is you that is in 'cloud cuckoo land'.
Bayer is mainly a chemicals and biotech group. Glaxo was reported to be a bidder for Bayer's troubled pharmaceuticals division which was valued at only 5 billion pounds, a fraction of Glaxo's capitalization and far too small to suggest that this German company is the major drugs player that the British and Swiss firms are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2833897/Glaxo-eyes-5bn-deal-with-Bayer.html
Please try again.
Complain about this comment
For those who are having the "whether or not UK's economy is similar to Norway and Switzerland" may I suggest you guys head over to the CIA factbook site and see for yourself if the economies are similar? To spoil the surprise the answer is no.
Complain about this comment
#108 - Jukka_Rohila
Plus, of course, when the UK did not take up the opportunity to be part of the Euro on day one, the ECB was given to Frankfurt. It would have gone to London had they joined without doubt. The site had already be earmarked and approved.
Complain about this comment
#110 - Freeborn-John
I am not an expert and did not claim to be. I simply did some research and that's what I came up with.
However, since you raise the point yourself, does it not worry you that an economy that generates 30% of GDP from a single industry within the service sector has an economy which is seriously out of balance? Not to mention how much of it is now owned by you - the taxpayer - since the Treasury bailouts.
Also, if the UK economy is simply 'turning over' for the duration of the recession, where would it be if, like most EU members, it had no oil? If anything, I find it slightly worrying rather than a cause for celebration.
Complain about this comment
Just to add to the mix with regards to the value of Glaxo (or GSK as it is now having firstly merged with Wellcome and then SmithKlineBeecham) and it's value to the UK Economy.
Historically, Glaxo is a UK company and is still, currently listed on the London Stock Exchange as a major player in the Pharmaceutical industry.
However, it is a global pharmaceutical company and 60% of its manufactured product is sold into the US market and many of its top Business Operatives and Executives are of American origin. The company has slowly but surely been americanised over the past 15 to 20 years and many of its remaining British Executives are being replaced by international executives as the company seeks to maintain its share of the pharmaceutical market in both America and the rest of the World.
Yes, the company has several research and manufacturing sites within the UK but it also has many sites elesehwere around the globe. In particular, GSK has a strong presence in the USA where it has a greater representation and influence over its main market place.
I have no doubt whatsoever that GSK will eventually delist from the UK LSE in due time and relist on the US New York Stock Exchange as this will help with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who micro-manage foreign Pharmaceutical Licences but are definitively more kind to "US-owned" pharmaceutical and Food Manufacturing operators.
Once this happens, the UK GSK manufacturing sites will find that the "parental" love for UK-based manufacturing will end and many of the UK manufacturing plants will close or be reduced to new innovative product manufacture to dry run manufacture in small scale before manufacturing is transferred to more economical but large scale operations elsewhere in the world. Manufacturing costs and high employemt costs will inevitably drive this change (in fact, it already has happened with many former Glaxo, Wellcome and SKB sites having closed during the past 15 years within the UK).
Thus, GSK business behaviour is symptomatic of a UK manufacturing giant being allowed to whither within the UK and a reason to suggest that UK employment will further move from manufacturing and profitable ventures to more and more Public Sector employment which produces no profit and merely keeps people artificially employed in paper-shuffling and bureaucratic work.
Once Great Britain was a hive of private sector manufacturing. Now it is a hollow shell where employment is becoming mainly Public Sector government-funded and profitable private enterprise is becoming irrelevant.
I just wonder what will happen to the UK when the UK government finally runs out of money and credit.
Complain about this comment
#114 - Menedemus
From your experience of the industry, how does this compare with the pharmaceutical division of the Bayer operation? FBJ is very dismissive of the 'troubled' division quoting The Telegraph as evidence. Wikipediia lists it as the third biggest operation of it's kind in the world. They can't both be right.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio @ #115
Since you ask.
Since the 1980s, most of the major Drug Companies have sough to expand through mergers and acquisitions.
Inevitably this has led to shrinkage of staffing levels globally but not all of the marriages have been as successful as might have been envisaged.
GSK formed from the merger of the of Glaxo-Wellcome (an over-the-counter Prescription Drug manufacturing company) and SmithKlineBeecham (some OTC but mainly retail products ranging from cold remedies to toothpastes) has been a relatively good merger but the key success of any merger or acqisition is the bringing together of new or innovative drugs that creates a pipeline of new drugs that will bring massive profit return on the amount of investment put into research and development.
Initially, GSK was not so successful in this area but it now has a pipleine and is going from strength to strength.
Other companies such as Bayer will have the same problem and each pharmaceutical giant is entirely dependent upon its pipeline of new products (the prescription drugs) which are the cornerstone of profitable returns sufficient to recompense the company for the amount of cost it incurs to develope and test those drugs through to being safe to produce in bulk.
The major problem for the European-based companies is that the US market is tightly controlled and regulated but the demand is consistently profitable. On the other hand, major European Drug companies whose profits are based upon rest og the World sales are being more and more squeezed by the ROW countries agreeing to allow their own national drugs companies to produce generic drug copies despite copyright protection and countries like the UK which push for companies like GSK to sell to the NHS cheaply or face higher taxes such as a "Windfall Tax".
Hence, the drugs companies that have a foothold in the USA Drugs market will survive and prosper, other drugs companies that have a European or ROW market (and no US foothold) will struggle to achieve the profit threshold necessary to survive.
Bayer falls into the latter category as do the Swiss and other European drugs companies which do not have the US market share that GSK enjoys.
In the longer term, further acquisitions and mergers will occur and it may well be through such mergers that "British" pharmaceutical companies will join with American drug companies and become entirely american-owned and operated.
I can well see GSK and other British pharmaceutical manufacturers going that route as they follow the money to the profitable American market.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, German pharmaceuticals like Russian market, well established.
Apparently because no threat we'll start making own medications/generics of their product (too late to start to catch up; Russia makes the simplest medications only)
and does not impose any controls on how expensively to sell. One of the richest busineses here are pharmacies.
There is no state control after how much a medication should cost in a pharmacy, and no prescription is needed to buy whatever except for few medication categories, (general anesthsia liquid solutions, strong pain-killers labelled as "narcotical drugs".)
Accordingly alas the same thing in two pharmacies in one street is priced differently, with difference being like some Bayer antibiotic would be 400 roubles or 600 roubles. Can be anything. Depends on your luck and persistance in search. Many of course first phone 10 pharmacies or so to find the one that sells for the least amount (the same thing) and then to go buy there. Because the diff is 1.5 or twice often.
At that there are no "cheap pharmacies" but each has a mix, and you never know where best to go buy from.
Sanofi-Aventis is written I don't know, on every other thing at a Russian pharmacy. No, of course not every second, simply - a lot.
Bayer is also popular, and other German ones. Boehringer Ingelheim.
My favourite brand used to be Phizer though, somehow, LOL. And the Belgian one, what is the name. Janssen.
Complain about this comment
#100 greypolyglot
YouGov poll
Full details can be accessed via here.
While YouGov's polling is conducted to industry standards, the questions are those requested by the Taxpayer's Alliance, and that's where the potential distortion comes in.
The question was - "If there were a referendum tomorrow on whether Britain should join Europe's single currency the Euro how would you vote?"
Since the current conditions are not right, even I would vote "No" for immediate entry, but "Yes" to a more sensible question on supporting entry to the eurozone in principle.
The breakdown of the referendum question by voting intention is interesting. Only the Tories, BNP and UKIP supporters at the euro elections have a majority against entry to the euro.
More importantly, 69% responded that they wouldn't vote or didn't know how they would vote.
I've learned never to trust press reports of opinion polls, but always to go to the actual data.
Complain about this comment
Lots of ignorance in this thread. First of all, Norway doesnt really rely on oil, no more than 6% of the oil revenues are allowed to be sued. The rest is invested. The high standards of living comes from taxes alone.
Second, Norway has really very little farmable land, but Norwegians agree that we should be able to feed ourselves. It's just not Norway that subsidie farming, the EU does it to, especially France. The EU is also completely clueless when it comes to fishing policy. Spain dominates EU fishing policy, and EU is overfishing. Norway protects its fish from overfishing. We dont want EU trawlers emptying the ocean just because Europeans with lower GDP wants cheap goods. If you want an overly liberl amarket with low cost goods, then move to the US.
Complain about this comment
wildStantheman @ #119
I do not think it is ignorance.
It is simply that people who dislike the idea of the UK being part of the EU and wish to see the UK withdraw from membership of the EU alliance will always seek to find comaparison with countries like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland as examples of countries that are on the periphery of the EU area and, on the face of it, are successfully managing their affairs separatel from the EU.
Iceland has had its bubble burst, Norway is successful because it is a small nation that has maintaine a nordic/scandinavian economy of high tax but self-sufficiency. Switzerland is an accident waiting to happen as its economy is so reliant upon the fortunes of the Banking industry.
The Eu-sceptics try to compare Norway and the UK but the two States are like chalk and cheese. The UK is based upon being a united nation (which it is not), a liberal-socialist government-financed economy and massive publicly-financed social services that are no longer the envy of the world.
Norway is able to sit beside the EU but the UK would flounder faster than the SS Titanic if it left the EU and become a very unattractive place to reside . . . although, to be perfectly frank, it is no longer such a great place to live hence the massive anglo-saxon emigration from the UK to other parts of the world currently occurring.
Complain about this comment
118. oldnat:
"#100 greypolyglot
While YouGov's polling is conducted to industry standards, the questions are those requested by the Taxpayer's Alliance, and that's where the potential distortion comes in."
Thank you for the link. I agree that phrasing of poll questions is important.
Students, informed that dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) had been found in damaged lungs and livers, etc., could cause death if even small quantities were inhaled and that contact with solid DHMO could cause serious tissue damage voted almost unanimously for action to be taken to remove it from their study environment.
DHMO is another name for water.
"I've learned never to trust press reports of opinion polls, but always to go to the actual data."
Again, agreed. However, even the raw data can be totally misleading if the preparatory information or the questions are biased appropriately.
What concerns me is that YouGov's polling pool is self-selected comprising people who seem to sufficiently opinionated as to believe that their views are especially important and who have the means to volunteer and be consulted online.
Can the polling industry be trusted to set its own standards?
Complain about this comment
#118 - oldnat
#121 - greypolyglot
My problem is not so much the question - although I do agree with you - but the sample size and the use to which the data is subsequently put.
I do not trust the profiling mechanisms which purport to ensure that sample groups match as closely as possible the wider population. If the data itself is untrustworthy, then the political messages extrapolated must be too.
The ultimate logic of this is the absurd assertion a few weeks back that because a couple of thousand people in Luton thought the EU was a bad thing, everyone in England wanted out. Complete hogwash.
Complain about this comment
The YouGov poll was only one of two published last week that covered Britons attitude to the Euro. A BBC poll found that 71% of Britons are against the Euro with only 23% in favour. The EU is a club for losers with an emotional need to herd together for shelter. EU supporters in the UK are just going to have to accept that they have lost the argument on the Euro, which like Schengan is a dead issue in the country. The coming debate is on renegotiation of the terms of UK membership. EU supporters are going to lose that one too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7806936.stm
Complain about this comment
@Menedemus, Iceland was a disaster waiting to happen regardless, because of the insane Icelandic spending policies. Basically the people of Iceland has been using money they didnt have for decades now. My brother in law is Icelandic and I recall him telling me back in 2002 that something like this could happen. The Icelandic banks has been spending money in Europe like drunken sailors. It was an accident waiting to happen.
I doubt the Swizz will be as affected. Yes they have banking but they also have a solid and stable platform.
Complain about this comment
There is yet another poll out today which shows that 71% of Britons want a referendum on the country’s membership of the EU and 83%want UK law to have supremacy over EU law.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news//opinion-former-index/foreign-policy/british-support-eu-hits-rock-bottom-$1260210.htm
The pro-EU losers are out in force here today. Menedemus is even saying there is migration from the UK which the official statistic show is absolutly not the case.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?id=260
Why is that the only way EU supporters can talk up the EU is to talk down the country? Perhaps it is because they do not actually have any convincing arguments for EU political union? Given your bad case of pessimism Menedemus i would not leave the country if i were you. The world has no need for any more whingeing poms.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John #125
I don't understand why you have to insult me but nevertheless . . .
The net immigration to the UK is greater than that of emigration from the UK but I would disgaree with your assumption that (a) I am a loser and/or (b), as I wrote before (and which you seem to wish to misrepresent), there is a massive year-on-year emigration of Anglo-Saxons from the UK.
Even your provided link betrays the weakness of your point at #125 as the net emigration from the UK was still higher in 2007 than it was in 1998 through to 2004 - indicating to the observant that, although 2007 saw a fall off the preceding year's peak emigration from the UK, the trendline is still indicating upwards growth in emigration fporm the UK.
No doubt, if you were to ask yourself why this desire to exit the UK is so high, you would probably think it was the fault of the EU.
I ask myself why there is this desire of Britons to leave the UK and I think it is because the UK's indigenous population has seen liberal-socialist governments since the Second World War years leave the UK in a mess and these governments have not provided good governance for them.
Complain about this comment
Mendemus (126): Apologies for insulting you or other EU supporters. It is just that the paucity of some of the pro-EU arguments is getting hard to stomach. Congratulations on post 116 though which shows that companies with a myopic focus on the EU single market will fail unless they broaden their horizons to the global market.
The UK is one of the few European countries with a rising population. Indeed it is projected to have a larger population than Germany by 2050. All the English-speaking countries (especially US) have rising populations and all the Continental countries (except France, which has significant immigration from North Africa) have declining populations. So we must be doing something right here. The conclusion should be that Continent is on a downward slide and the UK needs to rebalance its economy and foreign policy away from the EU and towards North America and Asia which are also growing strongly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7583776.stm
Complain about this comment
It doesn't make sense for any European nation apart from Russia to not join the EU.
It doesn't matter what nation we are from because there are now 3 or 4 new players on the International scene: China, India, Brazil and Indonesia.
Now I expect some nationalist/conservative people to reply back and give arguements to how the EU is bad... but, when put into contect the negatives are a few lightyears behind the positives of the EU!
For instance, our life now will be different from our childrens and grand childrens lives in the future. Not only is there China, India, Brazil and Indonesia but the USA and Russia wil still be there as well!!! So what does this mean for the UK... or France... or Germany or Norway???!
It means life is going to get a lot tougher as more and more people want to buy the same stuff! And I can assure you now... the UK, France, Germany or Norway will never be able to compete against those other super-nations by 2020 financially. End of arguement!
All the negatives have just been throw out by one positive... the strengthening of the European Economy! If you can't understand this then you don't have the intelligence tp pass an opinion on this subject. Frank... but fair!
Complain about this comment
@127 Freeman
The UK is one of the few European countries with a rising population. Indeed it is projected to have a larger population than Germany by 2050. All the English-speaking countries (especially US) have rising populations and all the Continental countries (except France, which has significant immigration from North Africa) have declining populations. So we must be doing something right here. The conclusion should be that Continent is on a downward slide and the UK needs to rebalance its economy and foreign policy away from the EU and towards North America and Asia which are also growing strongly.
----
Sorry but you have it all wrong at the end of the statement I am afraid. The UK needs to move in with the EU more so than it has before... and so so all the other EU member's. The only way the any European nation will compete with the 2050 Super-Powers (USA, China, India and Russia) and Super-Power-Elects (Brazil, Indonesia) is to become the Ultra-Power ( essentially a united Europe - insert potential name here).
I am not even religous but to put a spin on things... the Bible speaks of the United States of Europe. A second coming of the beast! Of course in the Bible the Beast is not the Devil as said so by America... but the Roman Empire and now is the time it predicts it rises once more to dominate the world with unrivalled power (you listening USA and Russia???!!!) and unlimited money!
Europe is getting ready to rise once more... we have done it before and we can do it again. The 21st Century "Roman Empire" - Treaty of Rome anyone lol.... - will be the only power beyond Super-Power. A power that can influence all other Super-Powers is the Ultra-Power and only one Ultra-Power has existed. The last time it lasted over 600 years... let's see how the most civilised continent in the world can do this time around.
Complain about this comment
I love all the above comments. 2 years ago my wife and I briefly visited Norway, and our tour guide quickly said with a very happy smile that Norway was a rich country due to its oil wealth. Good for her, and good for all the people in Norway! Hooray for them! I wish all of them the very best. I feel that so many of the writers are just jealous, jealous, jealous of the Norwegian's good fortune. Sorry (smile), but warm regards to the Norwegians. David
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ 127
Yes, many of the Anglosphere countries are seeing a net increase in their population numbers and that is because they are an attractive destination for economic and asylum seekers who leave behind their native lands for the prospects of social provision and better life prospects than they get in their native countries.
If I were Brazilian, Somali, Ethiopian, Zimbabwean, Afghanistani or pretty much any third or second world country which is prone to sickness, famine, war and strife then I, too, would have become an economic or asylum seeking migrant in my youth.
The problem is that although immigration to the Anglosphere countries might reflect that those countries are somehow superior or better in quality of life than the rest of the world I actually believe that overpopulation and uncontrolled immigration will lead to a reversal of fortunes for those countries.
It is my view that because net immigration to the UK is higher than net emigration from the UK that the end result will be a UK population that is larger year-on-year but that, because of the nature of the demographics, the UK will (if it has not already!) develop third world mentality and the UK will whither away from being a leading nation of the world in terms of GNP, stop being contributor to the global science and intelligentsia as university quality declines and stop being a leading light in terms of democracy and freedom.
Complain about this comment
One day, when the going gets tough, Norway will join the EU. Jingoism, national identity and self determination are all part of this complex mix.
The self centred "I'm all right,mate" syndrome is maybe fine for now, but few in the right minds would see Norway as a "must go" tourist destination because of the very high prices when you get there.
Several Noweigans that I know are very concerned about the increasing isolationism of the country. Yes, and eventually the oil and gas will run out...
Complain about this comment
#127 Freeborn John
"The UK is one of the few European countries with a rising population. Indeed it is projected to have a larger population than Germany by 2050. All the English-speaking countries (especially US) have rising populations and all the Continental countries (except France, which has significant immigration from North Africa) have declining populations. So we must be doing something right here"
Yes we do do something right here. We speak English, and therefore offer a more attractive working environment to the majority of immigrants from non EU (and EU ) countries who have English as a second language. Our language is our most successful ever export (although some might argue that our general inability to speak any language other than our own could harm us in the long term)
Complain about this comment
A few points I’d like to address about Norway…
Being outside the EU:
It isn't all the glory it's cracked up to be. As Norway still an EEA member, it must follow quite a lot of the directives imposed by the EU, despite not being an EU member. Some of the directives are of an advantage to Norway, but a good deal of them are not.
One example:
Norway used to have a ban on artificial food additives, until EU imposed a directive which required allowing these in food products sold in all EEA countries. If Norway was an EU member, it would at least have some power to influence that directive, although the likelihood of the outcome being the same is a bit high.
Oddly enough, it seems that Norway follows more EU directives than quite a lot of the EU countries out there.
I don't think joining the EU will be too much of a disadvantage for the farmers in Norway.
A good comparison would be with an EU country that’s demographically close, say, Ireland.
The population is roughly the same (about 4.8 million in Norway and 4.9 million in Republic of Ireland), and so is the amount of farmable land (Even though Norway has about 4.7 times as much land, a lot of this consists of mountains and preserved areas). Yes, we’re capable of growing potatoes at a 45 degree angle, and yes, that’s taken into the calculations.
In respect of the way farms are run in Ireland (the majority consists of small, independent, organic farms), they get quite good subsidies from the EU, and the CAP has actually done a lot to promote the independency of the smaller farms there.
The Irish are quite patriotic about their agricultural products, and that shows in statistics. They're willing to pay more for a piece of steak if it's Irish, than if it's from, say, Belgium, even if the Belgian steak is from a naturally raised cow, rather than one that's been fed hormones all its life.
But, back to Norway:
Kids start learning English in schools from the age of 9 or 10, so there are only smaller groups of people who're not so good at it:
1) Kids younger than 9 (although some of these may have learned a few phrases from watching English-language programs on the telly)
2) Some of those who grew up during or before WWII ended
3) Those who paid no attention at the back of the classroom during English lectures.
As for the Lutefisk, it's not supposed to be a wobbling lump of jelly. If it is, it's not done right.
When it's served, stroke the fish gently with a fork. It's supposed to spread like a deck of cards.
As for the condiments, these have a regional variance, but boiled potatoes are mandatory in most parts of the country.
In central east and southeast Norway, including the Oslo region, pea stew and melted bacon fat (often including thick, diced chunks of bacon) is common.
Other parts of the country may prefer to serve it with either a white sauce (bechamel-like cream sauce), or with brown cheese (most likely the same type of cheese you got served by Odd-Einar at his farm).
My personal preference is with bacon fat and pea stew.
Still not convinced? Have some more brown cheese instead. In fact, enjoy a slice of Irish wholegrain bread, with Irish butter, Norwegian brown cheese, and Norwegian low-sugar (no artificial sweeteners) raspberry jam.
Complain about this comment
What I can gather from the comments is that it is far,far better to have a small population.This is absolutely not what the freemarket fundamentalists like Brown,Bush,etc. wish for.They believe in ever more growth and more and more competetiveness;for every one but the privileged few of course.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS