Unhappy New Year?
I am surprised how many of my friends dislike New Year's Eve. I guess it is a sense that it is tempting fate to celebrate the year ahead when it may hold disaster and trauma instead of joy and hope.
Those inclined to miss the bubbly and stay in for the night will be gloomier than usual this time round. On this New Year's Day more people than usual will be looking to the future with fear and foreboding. The big story in Europe this year will be the economy, stupid. 
Oh I know, 2009 is a big year for the EU in the institutional sense. European elections in 27 countries in June. A second referendum in Ireland. A new commission. If Lisbon is passed, the implementation of the treaty. If it isn't, another crisis and another institutional crossroads. I will be writing about that a great deal.
But for most people and politicians the recession will be at the front of their minds. If 2008 has taught us nothing else, it should make us painfully aware that we don't see the big ones coming. This year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Few saw that in their crystal ball. The financial crisis was equally unheralded by prophets, commentators or seers. But I feel it will be just as powerful a force in reshaping our world as the collapse of the communist empire.
So in a sprit of journalistic humility, I will essay not smooth predictions but awkward questions.
Even the most optimistic predict that the first half of the year will be tough, with many job losses and companies going bust. In much of mainland Europe this hasn't hit home. Particularly in Germany there is a sense that "it's not our fault" - which is substantially true... and leads people to think "so it won't be as bad for us" - which is arguable but, I fear, wrong.
What will unemployment, and increasing poverty do to our politics? So far there have been few vocal protests, few on the streets, marching against the bankers, or politicians or whoever else people might think to blame.
In some ways the economy is seen as a bit like the weather: it may be miserable but there's not a lot you can do about it. Will that change?
As governments turn to what might be called left-wing solutions will people expect more and more intervention? Will a Left that has lost both courage and rationale over the last couple of decades reinvent itself? Or will there be a surge of support for right-wing parties, an increase in nationalism and a move against immigration?
Or will protest find a new outlet in some movement that probably isn't yet more than a foggy notion in its future founder's mind? Will people vote again incumbent governments or hang on to the familiar?
What will happen to Europe's relatively generous health services and social security systems, as tax takes fall and those relying on state help increase?
Will the EU stick to its rather limited role in urging member countries to coordinate their recovery programmes? If so, is this a new modesty, an acceptance of a redefined, more limited role? Or will it press for a bigger budget so it can press ahead with new Europe-wide projects?
Will the rise of a new protectionism undermine the rationale of the EU? Or will there be a European protectionism that turns its face from global free trade?
So far, to the chagrin of those of us paid in pounds but living in the eurozone, the single currency has held up astoundingly well. But it is almost inevitable the strains inherent in the project will begin to show. If Greece needs a different level of interest rates than Germany, how will that be resolved? If the euro weathers the storm it will have proved itself beyond the reach of its critics, but can it survive the inevitable strains?
Conversely, how will the British see the pound if it continues to take a battering? Joining the euro seems politically inconceivable, but will other commentators follow Will Hutton in calling on people to look at the idea afresh?
I suspect that the economic crisis will eventually force a more profound revaluation of Europe's role in the world (and I am not just using the E word as shorthand for the European Union).
At the moment some European politicians think they have won the argument that European social market capitalism has proved its moral superiority to Anglo-Saxon free market liberalism. Are they right?
Or does the crisis see Europe not leading the way in the world, but revealed ever more clearly as an adjunct of the United States? With FDR Mark II in the White House will Europe be able to match the level of spending planned in the USA? If not, does it just sit by and wait for America to refloat its economy?
I wrote earlier in the year (or perhaps I just thought it) that the term "financial tsunami" was more apt than those fond of using it actually realised. The wave was towering above us, the chatter on TV and radio terrifying, but describing a situation that was having more of an impact on our morale than our wallets. That has begun to change and this year the full impact of the wave will be felt. But it will be a while, a long while I fear, before the tide recedes and the full account of the devastation can be made. In that smashed-up, battered, re-made world, will the West have a new, lesser role than before? Will Europeans have to get used to a substantially lower standard of living than before?
The old idea that China and India may have a cheap workforce but they don't have the creative dynamism or intellectual firepower, if ever credible, is now laughable: so how does Europe earn its living in the new world order?
Not by nature gloomy, I must admit at the end of this I feel rather more at one than usual with those friends who prefer to miss the parties and sit in the dark turning over memento mori in their unfestive minds. And a Happy New Year to all my readers!
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~06~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Looking on the bright side, last night's global TV reports would suggest that it has been a profitable start to the year for fireworks manufacturers at least.
Complain about this comment
"Will a left that has lost both courage and rationale over the last couple of decades reinvent itself? Or will there be a surge of support for right wing parties, an increase in nationalism and a move against immigration?"
The idea that there are alternative 'left' and 'right' wing visions of the future is misconceived. The two alternatives offered are not mutually exclusive. Indeed they are two sides to the same coin: national socialism.
If it comes down to this then the outcome, either way, will be an essentially statist ideology. The only difference between left or right will be which party, in each country, finds an acceptable way to enunciate it.
Complain about this comment
Happy New Year, Mark!
Staying away from raucous, noisy crowds drinking over-priced poor-quality sparkling wine on a freezing New Year's Eve, is more a sign of maturity (aka 'middle age') than gloom.
Your thought-provoking article does indeed hit the nail on the head, basically asking Europe (not - as you thankfully point out - the EU) "Quo vadis?".
Will the direction be towards unleashing the creative entrepreneurial energies of Europe's diverse peoples, or towards the stifling protectionism of statist 'socialism*'? (*'National', 'democratic', 'communism' - whatever: they all, ultimately, lead in the same direction).
The USA, for all its faults, is a much more dynamic and flexible society able to adapt and bounce back quickly in the face of adversity.
The EU - in spite of all the gloss of its communications and 'messages' - tends to be moribund and regressive. It is about a larger 'state', conformity and control. (The EU motto of 'United in Diversity' is a sham: any meaningful diversity is stamped upon).
I'd like to see 2009 as the year when the 'European Project' was reversed.
The year when the headlong rush towards 'ever closer union' (and the Lisbon Treaty) was quietly dropped.
The year when the nations of Europe concluded that their best interests - and the best interests of their citizens - would be served by fruitful multi-lateral co-operation and commerce, rather than by the binding and suffocating ties of a socialistic supra-national superstate.
Cheers! Santé! Salud! Prosit! etc., etc.,
Complain about this comment
A lack of idea is always the most worrying. Mutual understanding, first of all to avoid wars, unification, in order to improve the position in the hierarchy of powers, etc., are just the basics.
What about the idea for better life of an individual resident of EU? What should make me feel better? I'm afraid it is not, for example, a situation of exclusiveness and ignorance for the living conditions of the rest of the world. The idea of Europe should be, in my opinion, the idea of the whole world. A developed idea is the only way Europeans could take over the lead from Americans. That is, naturally, the idea of democracy.
But how has been the democracy understood in Europe? "Some European politicians think they have won the argument that European social market capitalism has proved ..." I remember the time of high and unbreakable walls built by the Eastern-block countries to stop its own citizens from crossing them on their ways toward West. Everybody knows it was a prison. The oposite boundary, almost ridiculously open, was a real symbol of freedom. And today? The situation has gradually reversed. It is called today the Shengen border. Shall we say, in similar manner, the EU is heading toward a new union of socialistic republics?
What is exactly the idea for the future, in the minds of European so self-content and institutionalized potilicians? The institutions will be built. There is no doubt about that. The question remains for what kind of state.
Complain about this comment
Mark, just to comment few notes...
"So far, to the chagrin of those of us paid in pounds but living in the eurozone, the single currency has held up astoundingly well. But it is almost inevitable the strains inherent in the project will begin to show. If Greece needs a different level of interest rates than Germany, how will that be resolved? If the euro weathers the storm it will have proved itself beyond the reach of its critics, but can it survive the inevitable strains?"
What you and many others seem to forget is that in real life what you get is mostly not what you want. The question then is what options you have...
Without Euro, Greece and Germany could set their interests rates, but there would be limits to their actions. If either of them would decrease interest rates too much, they would have capital flowing out, and in worst case scenario they could have run into a bank, that is especial concern if you have external trade deficit. If they would have a run into a bank they would have to increase their interests rates immensely causing the local economy to run into a wall.
The thing is, the smaller the country is, the less choices it has and the less it can move. If in example we go back 19 years, into beginning of 90s we had close runs on the bank not only Sweden and Finland, but Britain too was out played. Now could that happen again today? Of course it can, Iceland was just hit by a run into a bank and other countries such as Hungary and Latvia have been in the edge and without the help of ECB and neighboring countries they would have fallen into it.
No. The thing is that countries don't have any choice, especially not smaller ones and even big ones like UK are not out of harms way when it comes to currency speculation, thus countries have to try to get the next best option, or from worse options the lesser one. In case on currencies, from smaller to bigger countries, the best option is combine forces and change the game itself: that is the Euro.
PS. Mark, you didn't note that Euro just turned 10 years old and the lad just became bigger. It even got a commemorating coin for this special occasion which is rather suiting for the age.
http://www.eurodesigncontest.eu/
Complain about this comment
I think European Union needs a minister of economy, well, it's not thinkable to have one for the whole EU, it will be enough to have one for the eurozone.
If the Lisbon Treaty will get in, there is a way for a common governing of economy: enhanced cooperation.
So we need to give actual powers to the head of the eurozone, which means the possibility of imposing taxes and of making debts. This will create a federal compensation to the "stupidity pact", more or less as US has (in time of recession the 50 States cut their spending but this is, sometimes..., compensated by the Federal Government). And we need a way to control how the whole stuff is managed, which means giving the European Parliament the power to really check it. Well, not the European Parliament as a whole, but a subset of its MEPs, just the MEPs from the countries which joined the enhanced cooperation.
Note that this can be a solution also in case the Lisbon Treaty will be eventually rejected.
Let's leave the common rules as they are and let's create a scope limited enhanced cooperation.
Formally you will have the EU with a Commission, a Parliament and a Council on one side, and a Government and a Parliament of the enhanced cooperation on the other. Formally the European Council and Parliament will lend the places where to keep their meetings to the Government and Parliament of the enhanced cooperation. Actually this will be only a formality because the Government and Parliament of the enhanced cooperation will be just a subset of the Council and Parliament of the EU (with the important difference that the head of the Government of the enhanced cooperation will stay for five years and could be elected again one time, no more).
Of course this will make things even much more complicated than they are, but, how to say... Americans did it simple writing down a federal Constitution before the proper time... and they got a civil war...
Complain about this comment
"The financial crisis was equally unheralded by prophets, commentators or seers."
That is a curious statement. It suggests that nobody saw the crash coming. With respect, a vast number of people understood 3 things, and predicted a crash:
1. Housing prices had no sane relationship to their capacity to generate income.
2. Debt was everywhere, and extremely cheap.
3. Hedge funds are based on debt and lies.
I repeat, a huge number of people saw these facts, and predicted a crash. We were told that we were idiots, that we didn't understand the market, that we were jealous because we were poor, and a host of other insulting, degrading things, all designed to get us to shut up. Some of us were sacked, because our emotionally based hatred of the market was no good for business.
I was not sacked, but I was absolutely ridiculed. Furthermore, now that the market has crashed, I am told that I am a doom shouter, and that it was mere accident of chance that I was correct.
The reason the financial crisis was unheralded by the prophets and the seers and the commentators is because these people (the mass media) fawn on power and reprint everything they are told by someone from the city.
Indeed, that is precisely how these bubbles come to grow to such massive proportions. Chatter, chatter and more chatter from people who only want to say things that make them popular.
It was the press and those educated by the press who did not see this coming, not the rank and file of educated people.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (3):
Lets just put some facts out in the open concerning different economies.
UK is an oilstan. It produces domestically the same amount of oil that it consumes.
USA is an oilstan. It produces domestically approximately 40% of the oil that it consumes.
EU is not an oilstan. Besides UK there is no other major oil producing country in the EU and that means that EU countries have mostly import the oil that they use. This puts a tremendous encumbrance to European economies.
The growth of economy and prosperity in both UK and USA is quite much attributable for them to being oil states not because their respective systems, not on them being less socialist or more free. They have been just pumping oil up and that is it. Now compare this to continental Europe that actually has to pay for its oil consumption by producing exports. Even then, Germany and France, by GDP nominal, are very close to both USA and UK, and some more social driven states like the Nordic countries have even higher GDP per capita than either UK or USA.
When we take oil production into context, my question is why both UK and USA fare so bad in comparison to European countries without large natural resources? Maybe its the other way around, maybe both UK and USA have inefficient economies that cause waste and low productivity?
I should also add, in regards of Marks comment about US spending spree, is that the Federal Reserve is already printing dollars in increasing manner and this will cause with too low interests rates possibility for increased inflation or even hyper inflation. We should also note that because Euro is taking its place as an leading reserve currency, as oil states are contemplating on moving to trading oil with Euro, the Fed and USA will eventually run into a brick wall as when they loose their position as an leading reserve currency they loose their ability to print dollars with impunity.
No. The year 2009 will be major showdown where the old world order, lead by the USA, will be started to be replaced in economy by Euro lead multi centric order.
Complain about this comment
"At the moment some European politicians think they have won the argument that European social market capitalism has proved its moral superiority to Anglo-Saxon free market liberalism. Are they right?"
Mr Mardell, I put it to you that one trendy academic construct cannot be morally superior to another trendy academic construct.
If what you are really asking is whether the Euro will replace the US dollar as the reserve currency of choice in the markets of the world, the question has merit.
The answer depends on China, India, Brazil and Russia. If these nations decide to trade in Euros, they will no longer hold their US dollars and they will buy euros to underwrite their international trade.
If these nations decide to stick with the dollar, they will buy more dollars as their economies expand, and the Euro will face a bleak future as Europe discovers how weak it really is, in terms of energy supply and military power.
I would say that the dollar will win, because China and Russia both trade in weapons, and they have huge existing trade ties with the USA. Brazil is vulnerable to US power, and India will follow the other three.
There are compelling arguments for the euro, but they all rely on the peaceful development of the second world over the next 20 years. Population pressures and ecological fragility across the developing world force even an optimist to wonder where this growth can come from, and how war is to be avoided.
In short, if Europe becomes an economic threat to American power and welfare, what will prevent the US taking steps to rectify the situation?
Russia? You can hear me laughing from Zurich.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat @9,
You are correct - up to a point. The EU's economic development is not a threat to the US. Protectionist measures to free trade, however, may be.
Lucliky for the EU, the old adage of 'democracies not waging war against each other' is largely true. The EU has much more to fear from its southern and eastern flanks. (As well as the large colonies of fifth-columnists in many of its urban centres).
As for military prowess, the EU can be likened to a eunuch in a whorehouse: useless.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat @9, don't know globally, locally all euros there were around are bought. Now exchange sells them at 45 roubles per euro (official state bank of Rus. exchange rate 41 for 1, but banks sell to the population at 45).
Compared to the exchange rate 35 roubles per euro just three weeks ago it is quite a jump, and quite a collapse for rouble simultaneously. All run into cash euros.
Dollars aren't so popular with population, to ran away from rouble into something, and normally dollars were.
Of the interesting news otherwise (cut-off of gas supply to Ukr. I don't count, what's new, became a tradition on New Year Night to negotiate till very midnight) we had mass un-rest in the Russian Far East un-reported in any TV channel and neglected by all newspapers but one. Vladivostok and Khabarovsk men went out to the streets with peaceful demonstration (nothing like Greece), all pre-agreed with authorities, the walking route, the posters, all organised. No shop window breaking, Molotov cocktails or any fights, day time and all. The protest was against the new tax levied on imported Western cars ages 3 to 5 yrs old (very popular second-hand foreign cars). The tax was doubled for import of such cars, since Jan 1st.
Since lots of people in the Rus. Far East live on second-hand car import from Japan, likewise Kaliningrad lives on car import from Germany, etc. , and since Russian cars to be protected there is only one factory left and they are traditionally very very, how to say, reliable, of course, but very basic Russian Lada-s, that nobody wants to drive these days, there began mass protests in many parts of Russia. Men felt they are being deprived of second-hand foreign cars.
Normally Russians don't protest about anything, mind it. That's why an unusual thing.
Now, to "manage" the protes in Vladivostol special police troops were air-shipped from Moscow, federal forces. Because local police were unwilling to choke own locals very much. In spite of the protest being peaceful and "allowed" it was very cruelly hushed down! People grabbed away into prizon in masses, anyone passng by down-town, or sitting in nearby cafes, just in case.
Mum just had a call from her friend, who relocated from Vladivostok to St. Pete.
Her friend in Vladivostok, a 74 yrs old pensioner, a woman passing by was grabbed to the police station, and fined, then released. And her grandson is in hospital, beaten mercilessly, he was also passing by in down-town Vladivostok, and garbbed and beaten.
So she says "just imagine we are all now not law-abiding Russians but some revolutionaries or whatever." Gossips of the events spread from hands to hands.
Heard that Khabarovsk protested bought a Lada and scribbled it all in inscriptions for Putin, "Volodya, drive it yourself!"
Complain about this comment
I wrote earlier in the year (or perhaps I just thought it)
Ah, yes, my blog is a wonder of eloquence, original thought, and deep insight in those terms, too.
Complain about this comment
Yes 11#
Those imports of cars from Japan are useful. Most if not all are right hand drive which is very good for a country that drives on the left. But then I suppose it keeps the hospital industry busy though.
Complain about this comment
Re: #9. Precisely. In this crisis countries can resist better through cooperation and what better way than having a common currency backed by 3 of the G7 economies.
I keep reading about the interest rates and how in Euroland countries will never be able to be strong because they cannot set them separatrely. 10 years on the same argument and yet the same people don't mention the fact why Wales (for example) with an economy much differnt to that of say Greater London can have (and have been having for decades, centuries even) the same Interest rates but either failling. Well it is the same principle as in Euroland and the US and in India etc. and other big multi-stated countries: Interest rates is not the only tool for achieving economic stability. Administration of finances especially on the regional level has been working for centuries and this is why countries do not fall apart.
A last comment about Greece and the Euro. I mentioned on another comment in a different article that had Greece been outside the Euro and had been suffering a 30% drop of its currency (not an unlikely scenario) like the sterling did it would be bankrupt because it would not be able to repay all its debts. That is why Greeks are happy at the moment sticking to the Euro besides its main trading partner is the Euroland so it makes sense to have a stable exchange rate which keeps exporters and importers happy wether the market is up, down or sideways.
I suppose everyone realises (and has been mentioned previously by various people) that Interest rates are the same accross
Complain about this comment
alanbloggs #13, good observation, right hand wheel Japanese cars the Russian powers tried to cancel several times before, but political will wasn't enough I guess, as all Russian Far East was getting hysterical about that.
Seemingly, all Russian Far East and much of nearby Siberia drive with driver sitting on the right side, along the roads with right side traffic as well. Not good for safety but then they all got used to it. And def. prefer this to the Russian cars where the wheel is on the left side, but no air cushions or anything.
But the European Russia got used to use European second-hand cars, and with the new tax Russian new are cheaper, and Ford and GM and Toyota-s assembled in Russia, new, are also cheaper than second-hand.
Anyway the right-wheel aren't prohibited now, only old foreign cars, in essence, are.
Hilarious how all gets more expensive here where every place else in the world things we heard get cheaper. No sales, discounts for Christmas and New Year, all up in price.
Because all imported from the West, and rouble plunged, you need more roubles to buy the same note-book or food in euros or dollars.
Complain about this comment
bobinaki @ 14 wrote: "10 years on the same argument and yet the same people don't mention the fact why Wales (for example) with an economy much differnt to that of say Greater London can have (and have been having for decades, centuries even) the same Interest rates but either failling."
I think you'll find people do regularly explain the simple answer to that: major financial redistribution by a central Treasury from the very prosperous areas of the country to the less prosperous ones.
Does the eurozone have that vital pillar of a single currency system? No. And as we recently saw over Germany's reluctance to bankroll the EU's 'financial stimulus' plan, there's little hope of such a system in the near future.
Of course, the problems with the lack of that system have not been so obvious in the last 10 years of relatively good times. But as we know, those times are now over.
A currency devaluation for a euro-free Greece may well cause problems with their debt, but it's a question of where you're going to let the pressure of economic problems escape. There's no pain free answer in the short term. Such a devaluation would help exporters boost the economy, just like it has here in Britain. But at the moment, due to the euro, Greek people are bearing the burden in jobs and wages. No surprise they're out on the streets. They certainly don't look "happy" about anything right now, even if the euro rather than their government has not yet got the blame.
We can do without all that thankyou, and maybe before too long the Greeks and others will decide the same too.
Complain about this comment
Re: 14:
I meant the trail #5 at the beginning of my comment
Complain about this comment
"This year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Few saw that in their crystal ball."
Err last I checked, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. You might be referring to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 instead....
Complain about this comment
StuartC re: #16.
That is exactly what I implied i.e. redistribution by a central Treasury of the money available which in this case the ECB is for the Euro. The financial stimulus plan you refer to is rather an EU thing not specific to the Euro like the coherence framework funding which small countries like Greece and poorer regions within the EU (e.g. the Merseyside in the UK) have benefitted from in various areas like infrastructure projects.
With regards to the last 10 years of the Euro that people keep calling "easy", do people recall what a bumpy start it had and yet it survived. The point is why the pound is not faring so well now in exactly the same crisis and Euro does? Most importantly why in the last 10 years when good old Eurosceptics kept saying every year that the Euro will fail in the subsequent year, quoting financial and political reasons, it did not happen. How come and they did not predict the Sterlings fall?
With regards to Greece and the Euro, I can tell you as an ex-pat leaving in this country that people are glad they hold a strong currency as they have nasty memories from the past when the good old drachma was devalued and made everything utterly expensive and their country vulnerable. Greece is not a big exporter (aside from tourism) to benefit massively from a devalued currency.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
It doesn't look like a very [un] happy new year for most people....
But, it has only started the new year of 2009....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Mark:
i also would like to wish everyone in the bbc who worked to produce your reports and blogs...a happy new year and also to the others bloggers who contribute to the service....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Mark:
You did not mentioned that Slovakia was the newest member in the EURO currency club?
I do not think it was reported....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Re 9: democracythreat: "The answer depends on China, India, Brazil and Russia. If these nations decide to trade in Euros, they will no longer hold their US dollars and they will buy euros to underwrite their international trade."
It's not as simple as that, most of these countries, especially China (you forgot Japan and the Oil Producing countries, by the way, who trade also largerly in USD), hold large amounts of US Treasury bonds. In fact, this the single most guarantee asset that the USA has to cover its huge debt. Switching to the Euro would mean to weaken even more the ailing USD, and losing most investment in the US economy. As someone in the US government said "the dollar is our currency, but it's the worlds problem".
Complain about this comment
bobinaki @19 wrote:
"That is exactly what I implied i.e. redistribution by a central Treasury of the money available which in this case the ECB is for the Euro."
Sorry, the ECB is certainly *not* the equivalent to a national Treasury. It does not have a remit to direct where money is spent, nor the required reserves to balance the eurozone as some countries suffer worse from the recession than others due to appropriate, centrally-set interest rates.
The ECB is responsible for conducting monetary policy for the euro area - ie. the quantity of money available (not how or where it is spent) and the rate of interest on that money.
My point about the critical lack of such a eurozone Treasury stands. Whole countries of people will suffer - have suffered - for the sake of others. I find that all rather unnecessary, given the euro's purpose is far more political than economic.
On sterling, I don't understand why people say the pound is "not faring well". It is adjusting in response to government policy. How does the currency get the blame? A more reasonable response if people do see the exchange rate as a problem is to change the government or their policy than seek to abdicate large aspects of economic control from elected national control altogether.
In fact, its recent 'weakness' seems to be causing many in the media to fret, but has been a huge help to British exporters to the eurozone, and caused shoppers to flood from Europe to spend money in struggling British retailers.
That's fantastic news towards economic recovery. It's exactly what floating exchange rates are supposed to do, and that it can still happen reinforces how smart Britain was to stay out of the euro in the first place. Exchange rate movements are rarely bad per se - it's almost always a two way street.
Finally, let's be clear that *nowhere* in the UK has benefited from EU funding. Britain is a significant net contributor to the EU. £6bn net a year in the 2007-13 deal. That's an astonishing £115 million flowing to the EU every single week.
That means any grants Merseyside or anywhere else receives have been paid for by British taxpayers nearly twice over. Crowing by the EU and its advocates about its financial generosity to poorer regions is profoundly dishonest.
Complain about this comment
24. At 00:52am on 02 Jan 2009, -StuartC- wrote
a really excellent posting. His other postings are also excellent.
StuartC! Thank you for what you are doing for us all. I do hope you will keep it up.
I do actually think that there is not a lot of point in trying to communicate with the some of the "EU"-lovers who post here. Their arguments are "dragged near by the hair" as the Germans say.
It is impossible to discuss with them sensibly because they do not come out with their real reason for being pro-"EU". They want a Greater European Empire.
The main reason for going through the motions is to communicate with those who are undecided and never post.
I wonder how many of those there are.
Here is a classic of the dragged-near-by the hair variety. I heard it in a seminar in a German university:
We should be in a political union with the Greeks because they gave us our alphabet.
Ours is different to theirs, but that got overlooked. They got theirs from the Phoneticians who got it from the Egyptians. At least that is what I have read. That also got ignored. The Americans also use the same alphabet, so why should they be excluded? Because it is just a silly excuse for integration!!! All their "reasons" for integration arfe excuses.
Complain about this comment
What I want to know is how where are all the weapons going to come from after the oil has run out, which according to the oil companies will be in less than 20 years, at current exponential consumption rates ; why weapons ? 'cos right now for every $1.00 invested in new greener technologies, $100.00 are invested in new weapons technology. The old guard of capitalism won't allow it's lifestyle to fade away quietly....... How are your field survival skills ? Anyone younger than 50 is going to need them......or a means of defending what ever you have left from the nomadic hoards ; what about communities I hear you ask ; Ho Ho Ho, in post Thatcherite Britain where the Individual is King ?Meet the new Boss , the same as the old Boss...........
Complain about this comment
Hello Mark,
Concerning your remarks about Germany, Greece and the Euro:
The idea that asymmetric shocks are better dealt with by having an independent currency has been factually wrong several times in recent years (see Iceland and the Asian currency crisis).
The economic theory behind the convergence criteria used by the British government in determining whether the UK and the EuroZone form an Optimum Currency Area is based on Robert Mundell's A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas from 1961. This theory is severely flawed and had been disavowed by its' creator in 1973 [see Robert Mundell's A plan for a European currency, 1973].
Some Eurocrats have said that the UK would have faired better if they had adopted the Euro. They are right.
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
To -StuartC- (24) and SuffolkBoy2 (25):
Again as you talk about exchange rates you bring only half of the situation in light.
Lets put some more facts on the table on what effects does the Pounds decrease of external value has...
First, direct consequences...
1) External debt increases when the value of currency decreases. That means that the value of loans in foreign currencies increases, thus obliging individuals and companies to spend more on their abbreviations and interests, effectively decreasing capital available for investments or consuming.
The whole British external debt right now is 376.82% of annual GDP. Compare this to Germany (159,92%) or France (211,86%) whose external debt is now decreasing as the value of Euro is increasing thus making them have more money to invest or consume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
2) Capital is taken from all to subsidize some.
When the Pound goes down, exporters do gain, but in the same time savers and all who invested to UK lose as the value of their positions go down. In effect what happens is money is transferred from all people and companies to those gaining most from exporting and handling foreign trade.
From these two points I would more or less draw the conclusion that British Pound sinking won't do nothing good for the whole British economy as in reality money is just transferred from one coffer to another.
Secondly when we talk about exchange rates, again what is not noted in discussion are the benefits what the Euro gives. There are many benefits to Euro, but from view of business the most important things are decrease of currency risks and costs of protection against currency fluctuations, in other words lowered transactions costs.
In times of economic crisis when external rates of currencies fluctuate wildly, even more money has to used against protecting against these risk. That puts British industries in even more adverse position and makes them use more time and money on non-core items as in comparison Eurozone companies can use more time and money on their core competencies than on transactions.
Thirdly currency exchange rates and interests have nowadays less impact as they did before. In yesteryears when most of the production input and raw material for example to a car made by British Leyland came from Britain: steel from British Steel, energy from British Coal, work by British workers etc.. In then currency taking a dive made the British Leyland produced car more competitive as the currency rate decrease involved the whole manufacturing and production process from assembly to raw material harvesting. Compare this to nowadays when for production of a MINI raw materials and components come from all over the world and the value added by British companies and workers to it is considerably smaller, the British Pound taking a dive probably doesn't have any considerable effects on the competitiveness of the MINI.
No, in my opinion country having its own currency and interests rates is a lesser good than having a stable single currency and lowered transactions costs as its more widely used.
Complain about this comment
-StuartC- @ #24
I fail to understand why your critique of the ECB not being able to control disbursement of the the Euro but only being able to manage and control the currency suppy and base rate interest is anything different to what bobinaki @ #19 was saying within the totality of his (or her - not to be chauvanistic!) comment.
The ECB solely prints the money and sets the Base Rate Interest Rate for the the Eurozone and the EU redistributes the wealth among the 15 (now 16!) Euro Zone countries through grants, loans and investment.
By comparison, the Bank of England has sole control of the money supply of the GB Pound and now has apolitical authority to set the UK Bank Base Interest Rate.
The UK Treasury (under direct government control and through the Chancellor of the Exchequor) acts as the recipient of UK taxed income and trade revenue tariffs and controls the mechanisms for the redistributions of wealth from England (where 85% of the UK population is live) to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland where the remaining 15% of the UK population live.
Thus, bobinaki is correct in that the UK Treasury IS the organ of State in the UK that redistributes wealth throughout the UK (sometimes very unfairly in my view) but nevertheless, bobinaki is correct and the symbiotic relationship between the ECB and the EU is mirrored exactly in the relationship between the Bank of England and the UK Treasury/UK Government of the Day.
In regard to your last paragraph, strange to say the UK does receive EU Grants but EU Funding is supposed to be negligible as part of the inital agreement that Margaret Thatcher brokered to receive the UK Rebate on the UK EU Contribution as the UK's ploy to try to force the French, in particular, to give up the hated-by-everyone-else Common Agricultural Policy. The reduction in EU funding was Britain's choice and the burden of the UK Politicians being self-righteous prigs.
Arguably, the UK receives the UK Rebate from the EU so if you have any project(s) that you know have not been successful applicants for EU funding then a nicely worded letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequor who runs the UK Treasury (which controls the Rebated Funds) might see your projects come into the funding they richly deserve! Yeah right!
Sometimes it is very easy to blame the EU, the ECB and the rest of the world for the misfortune of being British and the UK woes but the truth is that many of the problems faced by Britain and the British are due to the political decisions made by British Politicians and their minion civil servants.
Complain about this comment
Post #18:
"Err last I checked, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. You might be referring to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 instead...."
Or to the Round Table talks in Poland in February-April 1989, or to the first partially free elections in the Eastern Bloc held in Poland in June 1989 with the landslide Solidarity victory, which started the process of dismantling the communism in Eastern Europe and paved the way for the fall of the Berlin Wall later the same year.
Complain about this comment
#18:
"Err last I checked, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. You might be referring to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 instead...."
Or to the Round Table talks in Poland in February-April 1989, or to the first partially free elections in the Eastern Bloc held in Poland in June 1989 with the landslide Solidarity victory, which started the process of dismantling the communism in Eastern Europe and paved the way for the fall of the Berlin Wall later the same year.
Complain about this comment
People like StuartC continue to bang on about the one-size-fits-all and the central treasury redistribution arguments, but I think they don?t really realise that there is always a downside to their arguments.
Regarding the central redistribution argument, whatever redistribution there is in the UK is a very limited one. Last time I looked at these statistics, GDP per capita in UK regions compared to the EU average was as follows:
- London had a GDP per head around 140 of the EU average
- The South East had a GDP per head around 105/110 of the EU average
- There was no more than one other region that had a GDP per head roughly equal to the EU average.
- ALL OTHER UK regions had GDP per head BELOW the EU average
Yet UK interest rates are set for the WHOLE of the UK and, if the redistribution system was working, how come the British GDP is so hugely different region by region?
People like StuartC, MaxSceptic et al should clarify (and be careful with) what they wish for. They obviously want the UK to leave the EU, but what they are not going to achieve is for the EU to ditch the euro or Schengen as, among other things, it makes ZERO sense to have a Single Market with 27 different currencies and 27 sets of policed borders to move between these 27 countries and 27 different visas for third country nationals (e.g. Chinese, Russian, Indian, etc) being required to travel to each of these 27 different countries.
So, if they want the UK really to be out on its own, the UK would have to leave not only the EU, but the Single Market as well, as if the UK doesn?t leave the Single Market, they won?t achieve their aims:
- Being able to fully close British borders to EEA nationals ? They will have to clarify what they intend to do with the 1m British *legal* immigrants in other EU countries who then, on the basis of reciprocity, would become *illegal* immigrants* (as well as already being, many of them, impoverished by the keep-the-pound fundamentalism, i.e. those who receive their income in pounds).
- Not being ruled, ala Norway, by the EU?s single market rules, without being able to influence, let alone vote on them, i.e. the so-called *fax democracy*
So basically, they should make clear if they want the UK to become a real island inside the EU/EEA with import/export tariffs and movement of capital controls reinstated and free movement for British citizens inside the EEA abolished.
Complain about this comment
I propose a New Year resolution with ZERO chance of it being achieved: The UK to drop its schizophrenic (for the moderators: no abuse intended for mental health patients) relationship with the EU.
There is a prime example of the half-in, half-out, want-to-have-it-both-ways attitude of the UK towards the EU. It is a real classic, one that, no surprise there, has received virtually zero coverage in the British media.
It is a known fact (although only known in small, informed circles, not among the general public or even the media) that the UK is the only country in the EU/EEA that has *refused* to join Schengen. I say *refused*, because there is also the case of Ireland, which has opted out of Schengen not out of its own conviction but rather forced out by the UKs opt out.
As part of Schengen, two things have been/are being developed in relation to the operation of the common Schengen border system:
Frontex, the EU-Schengen border agency, and the Schengen Information System (SIS and SISII).
We know how much HMG likes the issues of border control and databases of any kind.
So when HMG were told that the UK could NOT participate in Frontex neither have access to the full data on SISII, on the basis that the UK is not a member of Schengen (only a participant in police and judicial cooperation on criminal matters), the UK gov kicked up a big fuss, so much so that it appealed to the ECJ against its exclusion of Frontex. Needless to say the ECJ rejected the appeal forthwith. In the same way the House of Lords EU Committee (I believe chaired by a Tory) is adamant that the UK should have access to the full SISII data.
This is like a child who refuses to eat their dinner but kicks up a huge fuss when told it will not be allowed to eat their pudding.
Any chance of 2009 bringing a change to this British attitude towards the EU? Zero IMO
FRONTEX (House of Lords EU Committee, March 2008)
[Unsuitable URL - PDF file removed by Moderator]
SISII (House of Lords EU Committee, March 2007), 148, 149
[Unsuitable URL - PDF file removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 :@ 32 and 33
I can only say that I agree whole-heartedly with everything you have said.
I sense too, that you (like me) are also fed up with the UK Government's (mis)use of the EU to promote its own power and control both over citizens of the UK and as well over anyone else it can wield any sort of power over, yet failing to let the residents of this country enjoy the benefits that the EU could provide. It is quite right that the ECJ refused the UK access to Frontex unless and until it signs up properly to border free travel within the EU.
Some hope - with 'e-borders' about to come into effect, the UK is moving in the opposite direction. The border controls coming in and out of the UK will go way beyond the simple passport checks that were envisaged in the Amsterdam Treaty, with huge queues at airports and major delays and inconvenience at the Channel Tunnel and ferry ports becoming inevitable. (How useful the 'terror threat' is to the Government - how else could they persuade the UK public to accept this nonsense? Any thinking person, however, must realise that these controls have little if anything to do with the terror threat.)
The Amsterdam Treaty allowed the UK and Ireland to opt out of Schengen, but formalised the 'Common Travel Area' passport free zone between the UK/Republic of Ireland/Isle of Man/Channel Islands.
Yet the UK Government is now in effect reneging even on that commitment by unilaterally ending the Common Travel Area - much to the consternation of the Irish - and yet more power and control is taken from the individual by the state.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR
Thank you for your comment which also contains excellent and very true points.
Sadly, the pro-Schengen, pro-TRUE freedom of movement inside the EU camp is a very lonely place to be in this part of the world, but glad to see that there is some support out there, if only from a small minority. Because it is not only HMG who is dead opposed to join Schengen (nobody would expect anything different from a government who has embarked on a systematic curtailment of civil liberties and boasts of having one of the *toughest borders in the world* a claim that would be the envy of the old Stasi); it is an astonishing fact that all three major British parties oppose Schengen. I personally found this out myself when I enquired from the LibDems on their policy on Schengen and was surprised that their response was a carbon copy of HMG stance, i.e. an embrace of the New Fundamentalist Dogma that in order to protect this country from terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime you need to remove ever more freedoms from your citizens, including the (true) freedom of movement inside the EEA which 25 countries now enjoy.
What nobody in the HMG (or the other two major parties) explains is why the 25 Schengen countries have not suffered disintegration at the hands of international terrorists or organised crime gangs.
Complain about this comment
On the EUR/GBP polemic, what I like about Mark's blog is that he clearly states that "Joining the euro seems politically inconceivable" in nowadays UK. And so UK politicians are loath to admit that the only reason for not joining is political, not economical, so they have to make up complicated arguments along the one-size-fits-all and five-economic-tests to justify the rationally unjustifiable. All the arguments brought forward by -SuartC- and MaxSceptic on this blog against the euro may have some logic but in the event they are just "economic make-up" to a political motivation and don't withstand debunking. Similar arguments are made for other "exceptionalist" UK policies, for example the decision to stay out of Schengen. No logical explanation was ever given to such a decision (even the Swiss and Norway joined in!), and one will be forgiven the feeling that the UK acts irrationally just for the sake of "proving independence", an anachronism in a world where small-scale nimby-style nationalism is rapidly dissolving.
Complain about this comment
Mark, a small correction: The Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991, not 1989. 1989 was the year of regime change in all the *other* Eastern European countries, but the Soviet Union itself survived for two more years.
Complain about this comment
Mark
I expect the Irish Euro-Sceptics will be getting the Euro scare stories ready. (Babies to be eaten alive, Grandmothers melted down. Irish flag to be abolished.)
I see we also have the usual Euro-sceptic interest rate stuff on various places (e.g. #5) above comments on Germany and Greece. Surely the same argument applies between Frankfurt am Main and Frankfurt-am-Oder. (One is rich in Western Germany, the other struggling in East Germany). Both were in the DM at the same interest rate ..... (Ditto Wokingham and Liverpool in the UK)
Complain about this comment
34 - SuperJulianR and JorgeG1 :@ 32 and 33
The British government have been using national security as an excuse to operate a siege mentality since 9/11 but in this they have been ably assisted by the police and security services who have continued despite all the evidence to the contrary to assert that they need extraordinary powers to fight the threat.
Some agencies have pointed to the fact that there has been no significant disruption or fatalities since the London bombings of July 2005. What they fail to point out is that there have been none in mainland Europe since Madrid. This has nothing to do with draconian regulation and everything to do with good intelligence gathering and remaining, operationally speaking, one step ahead.
The Home Office now believes that it needs even greater powers to tap phones, monitor internet use and increase surveillance, without reference to the courts or any other form of judicial oversight. It has expressed concern over it's 42 day project being thwarted. Personally, I find it very difficult to find a plausible alternative explanation for this behavior other than to assume that the descent of the UK into an over regulated and undemocratic police state is a deliberate policy of the government.
I live in a country which is a member of Schengen but also has to police land borders with 4 countries which are not. It had forces in Iraq until 2006 and has an ongoing presence in Afghanistan including command of Kabul airport. It is not as if this country is not a potential target. Yet there appears to be no inconsistency between this status and the freedom of movement that Schengen allows.
I am afraid that the UK government is using a perceived threat as an excuse for an altogether more sinister agenda and those countries which are a party to Schengen are right to take the view that Frontex is a tool to facilitate increased mobility, not another mechanism to further constrain it.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark,
I see no reason to be gloomy. Maybe the rest of the world should panic, but why us?
Are German values suddenly incorrect? I listened to the things the Lutheran Pastor said and realised that he was right. Will hard work have no value this year, will thrifty saving suddenly be inappropriate compared to reckless abandon, will wild fads be more enduring than solid value, will people who import cheap junk have more of a future than those of us who have built our businesses on solid values? I doubt it.
I wonder about the rest of Europe, but not Germany. The old fashioned German values are as relevant today as when we emigrated more than a hundred years ago. I was in Texas for Christmas and was amazed at the optism of the German-American community there. These people tend to maintain their own production capability instead of farming it out oversees, whether they produce beer & sausage or computers in Austin. The result? They are not held hostage to overseas suppliers and money fluctuations. Since their religion doesn't believe in borrowing wildly, these market fluctuations do not wreck us!
Hard work, solid education based on real skills, a good value system, paying for our purchases instead of borrowing and food that provides lots of energy for work.
The future is bright is we don't have to save the rest of the world. Europe will fel better about itself when its run from Berlin (EU).
I remain optimistic, even when I prepare for a Wagnerian style Ending.
Complain about this comment
#40 - politejomsviking
The last time someone tried to run Europe from Berlin I seem to remember it all ending in tears - a bit like Gotterdammerung (- yes I know but the moderators don't like umlauts).
Complain about this comment
#40 - politejomsviking
A fascinating extract from your comment "The future is bright is we don't have to save the rest of the world. Europe will fe[e]l better about itself when its run from Berlin (EU)."
But is that not dysfunctional statement of the German mentality at this crucial time for Europe.
As one commentator mentioned above, Germany has shown a remarkable reluctance to follow Britain and then France and the other Eurozone nations in applying fiscal salve into the State Banks to initally strive to foreshorten the effects of the Credit Crunch.
The German Finance Minister even dropped all pretense at diplomacy and called into question Gordon Brown's solution for the UK giving much ammunition to his UK political opponents.
An earlier Blog entry from Mark identified the problem of the Eurozone for Germany (as a, lteral, successful economy) versus Greece and Spain (as, literal, unsuccessful economies) where high bank base rate interest rates were crippling the future prospects for Germany exports whilst the then high Euro rate was designed to help the less-fortunate Euro nations with weaker economies. The voices from Germany were that Germany does NOT have or feel any responsibility to the rest or the world - NOR, presumably, the rest of Europe!
Thus to what benefit to the EU or Europe is the EU being controlled from Berlin?
Or was your comment meant entirely tongue-in-cheek? If so, please enjoy my laughter as I roll on the floor at the thought of the Germans being in charge of the EU - that would be comical if it were not so unfunny!
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @32 wrote:
"People like StuartC, MaxSceptic et al should clarify (and be careful with) what they wish for. They obviously want the UK to leave the EU... "
Please don't make assumptions.
It all depends on what kind of EU we are all talking about.
If you mean a free-trading zone with seamless exchange of goods, services and people, I'm in favour.
If you mean a federal supra-national entity with one currency and one political leadership then the answer is indeed that I want out as this type of EU is not what the people of Britain assented to in 1975 when they voted to join the European Economic Community.
Since then 'ever closer union' has been affected by semi-stealth, and as all three major political parties are party to this sell-out of national sovereignty, for the past 34 years the British people have not been able to express a view on the matter in referendum.
As for the Euro, even today with near parity, over 70% of British people are still against joining. One doesn't have to be an economist of political scientist to realise that in spite a Single European Currency is primarily a political measure to further European political integration.
If our political masters want the British people to cede our independence and be subsumed by a federal European Superstate then they should have the guts and integrity to say so, make their pitch to the people and let us vote on it one way or the other.
It is the sneaky and duplicitous of both British and EU politicians and Commissars that really rankles with the British public.
As for the EU 'shunning' Britain and 'relegating' us to the margins: fat chance! Britain is a nett contributer to the EU budget - and a prime importer from the rest of the EU . If Britain is 'relegated' and is 'kicked out' (together with its contribution to the overblown EU budget) who will buy all the German and French cars, etc., and who will support all the 'parasites' - sorry - 'nett beneficiary states'?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @42,
The Germans are, however, absolutely right about the stupidity of Brown.
And they are quite right in their reluctance to join Brown's orgy of debt.
The Germans obviously know a deluded, destructive 'leader in a bunker' when they see one.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic, Britain is indeed a net contributor, but it still enjoys the (in)famous British rebate that needs to be made up for by other EU countries:
"The method of calculating the rebate is complex, but its effect is to increase contributions required from all other member states, to make up the loss from the overall budget. Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria all have their contribution to make up for the rebate capped to 25% of the figure which would otherwise apply, leaving France to make up for the main part of the increase in what Britain would pay without the rebate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
I am OK with Britain longing for a different kind of EU; the problem is, many other EU countries want to achieve the "ever closer union" and if Britain stands in their way, good riddance and good luck in trying somewhere else - just don't spoil things for the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
Dear Threnodio,
true the European Union has been tried twice before and had the problem of the Federalists not prevailing in Civil Wars I and II. However, we should remember that Germany is the biggest economic power in the region, is at the very center of the EU & continental Europe, was invited to share power with the minor states and once their Armed Forces has the ability to raise a decent size military under a EU flag instead of a German flag, who knows what progress lies ahead.
Who stops Berlin? France? Euro Disney? A commitee from Belgium? A group of Bobies without guns? Please explain that scenario.
Admit it, there are wosre things that could happen to Europe than have somebody clean it up, fix all the cars, build decent highways, put Ramstein on the radio for auto-drivers, educate the children, arrest the criminals and fix the electronic items.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be Berlin, you can use Bonn now. It already has an excellent infrastructure and the weather is nicer.
Where do you think the capital will end up? I don't know were your from, but surely you can see the logic in this.
Complain about this comment
Regular contributors will know that I am the last person to jump to the defence of the UK in it's ambivalent attitude to it's European partners but I am clear - and do make an exception - in the case of the rebate. This is a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. The rebate will come to revisit us again and again all the time that other European countries fail to address the manifest unfairness and wastefulness of the CAP.
It may have begun as brinkmanship but it is now so entrenched in the political landscape that it is not going to go away until a new generation of leaders with real vision feel able to address it. Sadly, it has also become a feature of UK domestic politics seized on by both sides as evidence of the others intransigence. When national interest collides head on with internationalism, the only winner is the leader who sees political self-interest in it. The rest of us are losers and are destined to remain so for a long time to come.
Complain about this comment
#46 - politejomsviking
My response was of course frivolous but you have a point. Actually, I don't think it matters a damn whether it is Brussels, Berlin, Bonn or Barcelona so long as we begin to realise that isolationism is an exercise in navel gazing and that the only way forward is by positive collaboration. What form that should take is the very stuff of this forum and it can be a very interesting debate. I personally have no doubt that the EU presents a huge opportunity to any member - new or established - who engages positively with their partners.
The answer to your query is that I am a Briton living in Hungary with life long connections to the German speaking world.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @ 43
*If you mean a free-trading zone with seamless exchange of goods, services and people, I'm in favour.*
A SEAMLESS exchange of goods, services AND people is *exactly* what Schengen is about. How on earth can you have a *seamless* trading area if you have 27 sets of border controls to check movements in that free-trading area? And, how, most importantly can you say that there is freedom of movement of a) goods, b) capital, c) workers, but NOT of human beings (which is the UK position by rejecting Schengen)? So are you in favour of Schengen then? That would make you a very bold EU-sceptic and I think you would be kicked out of UKIP and/or the Tories if you dared to voice that opinion.
And once you have Schengen then you have to pool sovereignty on a single asylum and immigration policy, because a visa for one country equals freedom of movement across any and all 25 Schengen countries.
Or perhaps, you probably refer to a free-trading zone with free (but not seamless) exchange of goods, services and labour, and a policed exchange of people, which are allowed to transit if they hold an EEA passport which gets scanned by the border police and the data stored for 12 months (as stated by the HO, in reality I doubt if they delete the records, considering that they do not delete the DNA records of innocent people that were arrested and then cleared.
On this one I agree with you. I cannot for the life of me understand why the UK is a member of the EU when all it wants AND ALREADY HAS is a free-trading zone (not seamless AND neither applying to people) with the rest of the EU. It would be easier to have a bilateral agreement with the EU, from outside the EU. But I think the other part of the schizophrenic brain says to the policy makers: *I want to be in control, I dont agree with this project but I want to feel in control of it from inside*
*As for the Euro, even today with near parity, over 70% of British people are still against joining. One doesn't have to be an economist of political scientist to realise that in spite a Single European Currency is primarily a political measure to further European political integration.*
Whether the Euro is political or economical matters very little for most Europeans, me thinks. The euro is a practical tool for a functioning single market of 27 (plus 3 non-EU) different countries. Not sure how that single market could be workable with 27 different currencies. But it requires a political commitment because you cannot just have a common currency and leave everything else to chance.
The Euro definitely *is* a political issue for the UK, which HMG has disguised as economical, in its ever muddled, confused, hypocritical and have-it-both-ways policy on the EU.
Complain about this comment
dj1979 @45,
What you said in a prolix way is that Thatcher saved us from throwing away more taxpayers money than we currently do.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @49
Some brief responses:
1) It is possible to have seamless trading and - even border controls - without full political integration.
2) I'm not in favour of Shengen for Britain. Britain is an Island has natural borders which it can and should use to secure access.
3) I am not a member of any political party. Never have been, never will. I am a Marxist of the Groucho* tendency.
4) I agree that HMG has a 'muddled, confused, hypocritical and have-it-both-ways policy on the EU'. They are a sham.
Complain about this comment
Some questions for 2009.
1) What will the Czech presidency achieve?
(A good result would be 'nothing').
2) Will the PIGS* be forced to leave the Euro due to burgeoning debt and their inability to devalue, or will the EU, not wanting to see a political failure for the 'Project', bail them out?
3) What will Sarkozy do now? Is France a big enough stage for his ego?
(personally, I'd spend more time with Carla.....)
4) What happens when the Commissars find out that the Irish can neither be bribed or cajoled?
5) When Russia has finished toying with Georgia and the Ukraine, and turns its attention to the Baltic States and the EU needs to make a stand and instead lies down, will it be supine or prone?
6) Will there still be a Belgium come 2010?
*Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (52):
1) Fall of Klaus. Resignation of the current Czech cabinet.
2) No of course. You just don't get it.
There is no option to leave Eurozone as any country that leaves it will face economic collapse with high probability of run in to the bank and defaulting of debts. Euro is the best thing that happened to Eurozone countries: they have one less thing to worry and can concentrate on making real changes to their economies instead of false remedies.
Also there is no need to get the PIGS countries out of the Eurozone. The Eurozone is about scale of economies, it works by being big, just being big is enough to take the US dollars place as an reserve currency. Then after we can buy oil with Euros we can externalize our inflation and concentrate just being rich and consuming like there is no tomorrow like the Americans have done.
And no. ECB won't bail out individual member states and there won't be even need for it. All Eurozone countries can get loans, some like Germany get them with lowest rates, some like France and Finland get them a percent higher, and others like Spain and Greece get them with slightly bigger interest. These interests are however nothing compared to what we have been used on previous times. Also even if countries wouldn't get loans, it wouldn't be the end of it, the US Federal govermeant and many of its states have had many times their money ran out. If some Eurozone country couldn't get loans, then simply it would have to just cut its govermeant spending, nothing more nothing less.
3) Like I previously have said, the European Intelligence confirms that UK has weapons of mass destruction and Sarkozy is now secretly preparing for the invas.. I mean liberation of the British island. A feature that hasn't been achieved since the Normans. I have heard that they are already clearing room in Brussels for a new triumphal arch.
4) If that would happen they would just go back to the desk and start designing again how the European integration will be advanced, this time maybe with an multi speed model.
5) Russia doesn't have any money left to toy with Georgia, Ukraine nor Baltics. What they will do is to return to their shells and start to think what went wrong with their sovereign democracy.
6) God hope not. They could do all of us an service and separate. They should also let Brussels become a city state so we could have our own D.C.
Complain about this comment
#52 - MaxSceptic
1. Absolutely nothing.
2. No. If anything, they will be forced to stay.
3. Carry on as normal running around like a headless chicken.
4. See 1 above.
5. Neither but it might run short of gas.
6. Probably yes, but will it have a government?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @53,
Whilst I disagree with you on almost every subject under the sun, thank you for your courteous and detailed reply.
Complain about this comment
Mark maybe you could help me.
I have listened to Prof. DR. Schachtschneider on line, he was giving a lecture on the EU con/treaty.
According to him Germany has not yet rattified the con/treaty.
Is this true?
Complain about this comment
@ 56
German ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon was placed on hold on June 30, 2008. While parliamentary ratification has been completed, formal ratification requires the signature of the President, which has been withheld pending a ruling from the Constitutional Court on its compatibility with the Basic Law, Germany's constitution. Which followed a challenge launched by German MP Peter Gauweiler a member of Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU), who sits in the Bundestag, claiming the treaty unconstitutional. Mr. Gauweiler launched a similar challenge to the European Constitution in 2005 but after its failure the Constitutional Court made no ruling and a presidential signature was never given.
In October 2008 Germany's president Horst Köhler has signed the German law which prepares the implementation of the treaty on a national level and has agreed to sign the instruments of ratification of the treaty, but will wait to sign and deposit it in Rome until the Constitutional Court has given its approval, which is expected to take place in 2009.
-Taken from wikipedia entry on Lisbon Treaty
Complain about this comment
Re 45: "I am OK with Britain longing for a different kind of EU; the problem is, many other EU countries want to achieve the "ever closer union" and if Britain stands in their way, good riddance and good luck in trying somewhere else - just don't spoil things for the rest of us."
The fact is that Britain has not much choice. They will have to thumb their nose and join an ever closer union. What do you want Britain to do?
To revive the Commonwealth? It's all gone now, those countries got rid of British imperialism and are happier now, even a cash-strapped Zimbabwe won't accept the old master, let alone a booming India and flourishing Australia.
To join Uncle Sam? The US don't want any monarchies among their states... and 1776/1812 are still engraved in memories.
To knit the famous "Anglo-Saxon" alliance with Australia, NZ and NAFTA? Unfortunately it's France, Belgium and Ireland that you get 30 miles away from British shores not those far-away English speakers.
Join Norway, Switzerland, Iceland in a anti-EU block? Iceland, after this autumn's humiliation, is now applying for EU membership, Norway is accepting more and more EU-binding agreements, and so is Switzerland, which would have already joined fully were it not for its neutrality stance and some bank accounts which are better left in the shadows... and, with all the respect, have you seen Swiss trains? No, NO, CH and IS are not going to let any poor quality countries join into their club, if any.
So what's left?
Cozy isolation? Lifting the bridge and locking up the fortress Britannia, attractive as it may seem to many Daily Mail readers won't work if you want an economy that rolls.
I think 2009 will be a pivotal year for the British psyche. True, 70% of them favour keeping the GBP for now, but many things happen in a year, and it looks like we're set for a bumpy ride, but British people are not stupid. The average Briton will soon realise, now that Cool Britania dreams are revealed to be what they are (dreams), that very soon a choice will have to be made between useless proud patriotism and efficient smart integration.
To paraphrase Gore Vidal "Unhappy is that who loves his country."
Complain about this comment
Re 52. At 6:56pm on 02 Jan 2009, MaxSceptic wrote:
1) What will the Czech presidency achieve?
Answer: They'll try to convince us all to put a human face to the EU and it will all end up with Belgian tanks rolling into Prague by late spring?
2) Will the PIGS* be forced to leave the Euro due to burgeoning debt and their inability to devalue, or will the EU, not wanting to see a political failure for the 'Project', bail them out?
Surely, GB would like Italy to leave the EU, now that the UK has fallen to 3rd economy in the club, you wouldn't want it to be 4th by the end of the year with that annoying Berlusconi clown grinning.
3) What will Sarkozy do now? Is France a big enough stage for his ego?
Take an English course.
4) What happens when the Commissars find out that the Irish can neither be bribed or cajoled?
They'll try with Guinness.
5) When Russia has finished toying with Georgia and the Ukraine, and turns its attention to the Baltic States and the EU needs to make a stand and instead lies down, will it be supine or prone?
As long as the gas keeps on flowing, why should we mess with the Bear? To protect some nazi-nostalgics? They could settle it at basketball.
6) Will there still be a Belgium come 2010?
Of course, once they're done with Prague, they'll be rolling their tanks to all European capitals. Who knows maybe all the way to Moscow via the Baltic triad. By the end of 2010, the Europe will have finally be unified under the Belgian crown. By 2011 the Empire will be ready to reunify the Congo too.
Complain about this comment
@Sturat C - 23. "Finally, let's be clear that *nowhere* in the UK has benefited from EU funding. Britain is a significant net contributor to the EU. ?6bn net a year in the 2007-13 deal. That's an astonishing ?115 million flowing to the EU every single week."
NOwhere?
EU funding going to parts of the UK is not the same as the UK spending the money on those same areas.
Remember for hundreds of year Ireland was part of the UK, and being a province (unable to set it's own interest rates?) Ireland fell behind England in many way.
There are parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which still fall far behind, and that is largely the failing of the UK government. So if they aren't going to equally distribute their wealth, then EU redistribution is something which is being given to these areas that they would otherwise not get.
@maxSceptic 52.
"1) What will the Czech presidency achieve?
(A good result would be 'nothing')."
I must disagree, nothing would be a rather poor result.
Governing your nation 101 tells you to increase the influence and power of your nation.
A good result would be the Czech Presidency improving the EU's influence and power. A bad result would be the Czech presidency allowing the squabbles of the EU members states (each of whom is also trying increase their own influence and power) to undermine our common goals.
(and I happily admit It would please me to see a successful United Europe at peace.)
Complain about this comment
Mark,
On this site there is a picture of people burning the "EU" flag. Underneath is written
"Mardell's Europe
Will economic pain trigger more of this in 2009? "
It is nice to see people burning the flag of this lousy, arrogant, megalomaniac dictatorship.
Please can you tell us when and when that was?
Complain about this comment
Don't be to quick to deny England and/or Great Brittian US statehood.
True, there would be issues, not least the lack of a written Constitution and the fact of a Monarchy. However, since the Monarch is only a figurehead without any real policical power I think this could be overcome. That Scotlald and Wales could be considered at the same time, either as part of a package deal or on their own merits would be a plus. But Scotland seems bent on going its own way, and Wales might not be far behind. Good on them. I say. Northern Ireland, however, would not be considered, though the Irish Repubic might be, but that's not doable without re-unionafication, which today dosen't seem to be in the cards.
In reality, England alone would be a natural canidate, not the British Empire with all its baggage. Lets face it, the US hasn't had a good canidate for statehood in many years. and what better canidate than the Mother Country of the origional colonies?
Some might even say it would only be a formilisation of reality.
Complain about this comment
my predictions for 2009:
- there will be a global popular backlash against the super-rich and "anglo-saxon" capitalism (as mark mentions, this will really get going once people feel the direct financial pain of the recession). mainstream parties (left and right) will respond to this with much bigger taxes for the rich, high profile criminal investigations of financial services, nationalisations and interventionist industrial policy, heavy-handed financial and business regulation, and trade protectionism. poverty amongst the retiring baby-boom generation will become a big issue. unemployment across the eu will rise to 15% by 2010, although thanks to the social safety net this will not lead to any serious resurgence of the far right or left except in countries where these groups are already well established in the mainstream (e.g. the right in austria and france, the left in germany). don't expect a rerun of 1930s (or even 1970s) politics.
- a big move towards collective eu protectionism aimed in particular at china, will help re-cement unity among the eu governments. china's slowdown will turn into an outright recession far far worse than anyone expects, prompting protectionist measures in china (currency devaluation, export subsidies, import restrictions, etc) that lead to retaliation from the eu and us (trade relations between the eu and us themselves should remain good). no risk of explicit protectionism between eu countries, although bailouts of national champions (esp in france) will clash with eu competition policy could become a hot topic.
- russia will be a very big headache. low oil (and gas) prices could cause a fiscal / currency crisis and a possible re-run of 1998. putin's legitimacy is built on stability and his powerbase on oil and gas revenues. most russians see him as just another gangster, but better to have one gangster with a monopoly than the chaos of many competing gangsters. a return to chaos could be fatal, and putin may turn out to be russia's stresemann. in a 1998-style scenario, an territorially expansionist fascist movement in russia could get political traction, especially as all liberal opposition has been suffocated / discredited.
- the euro will come through the crisis well. a dollar collapse is a very real risk in 1h09 particularly if markets perceive a lack of appetite among the chinese to finance the usa's twin deficits (much more likely in the protectionism scenario). the euro will also lose value later in the year as the ecb is forced to cut rates to zero and print money like other major central banks. there may be a number of other icelands (in cee, scandinavia and possibly also the uk) that will incentivise most countries to join the eu / euro.
- tension between germany and other eurozone govts over management of the crisis/recession will intensify, but will focus on fiscal policy not interest rates. as the recession in germany becomes really nasty (germany is very very exposed to the collapse in demand for exportable consumer durables like cars and electronics), germans will come round to the benefits of "crass keynesianism". in fact, as a trade surplus country and the eu's strongest credit, germany has the biggest responsibility in the eu to implement a fiscal stimulus. greece, spain, italy, austria and others may suffer a serious fiscal crisis (inability to fund themselves), leading to direct fiscal support from germany and other stronger credit nations. some kind of formalised fiscal union is a possible medium-term outcome (new fiscal rules, joint govt bonds, intergovtal lending / guarantees, but probably not a bigger eu budget).
- there is a reasonable risk that the uk will suffer a proper currency crisis (i.e. a rapid fall in sterling coupled with a massive increase in the cost of borrowing for the uk govt and a new and unmanageable banking crisis - so far sterling's slide has gone hand in hand with a rally in gilts). only in this scenario will public opinion about the euro experience a strong turnaround. the govt and boe will use the pound's decline to engineer a bout of surprise inflation by 2010 which will significantly ease the country's debtload in the short term. the uk will suffer by far the worst recession in europe in 2009, but will be one of the first to stabilise (thanks to the boost to manufacturing from sterling's fall), although growth will be anaemic for many years.
- another round of the global banking crisis will occur by the summer, killing off the stock markets' 1q09 rally. the new crisis will result from renewed credit losses that arise out of the global recession. large parts of the banking sector in the eu and usa will be fully nationalised. direct involvement in banks' management to ensure continued lending will lead to a new industrial policy via the back-door (as governments decide which industries are the most deserving of the govt's and banks' credit). conflicts over industrial policy within the eu will therefore become pronounced because of competition policy issues.
- ireland may well suffer an unmanageable fiscal and banking crisis, leading to a bailout from other eu nations. this will have a major influence on the lisbon referendum 2, and a positive vote is a strong possibility. a negative vote may finally focus the eu's attention on the democratic deficit (maybe just my wishful thinking). in any case, all institutional issues will be kicked into 2010 at the earliest, although the financial crisis is likely to stimulate a new round of integration once the dust has settled, in particular wrt fiscal policy, industrial policy, broadening of the eurozone, etc. with a tory govt, this is likely to leave the uk even more isolated than ever, unless cameron decides to do a de gaulle in algeria / sharon in gaza (betray his own supporters and use his credibility as an unquestionable patriot to carry public opinion - again very likely my wishful thinking).
- europe's place in the world will be enhanced (a) as a model for "social" capitalism (a big lesson for the usa) and (b) the eu as a model for international cooperation (which will be particularly influential in the far east and latin america, as the collapse in global trade / global protectionism will lead to more focus on cooperation within regional trading blocks where the smaller number of govts and the closer common interest allow for much deeper cooperation than is possible via e.g. the un or wto). however, unless an ireland no to lisbon miraculously leads to the solution of the democratic deficit and the creation of a meaning european presidency, the eu's / european govts' voice in the world (i.e. in promoting their own interests rather than as a development model) will decline greatly.
Complain about this comment
You might be referring to the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 instead..
..I remember that, it was quite scary really, not knowing whehter the ruskies were going to kick off, I lived up north at the time, not far from the UK no2 target,
had the balloon gone up then we would have had a lot less than the 4 minute warning. (We could all roll and smoke a joint in less than 4 mins, we practised constantly (duck and cover)).
I don't want my kids growing up under that kind of shadow.
I will do anything to prevent it, credit crunch, who gives a toss, at the end of the day
my kids deserve a better life than the one I've had, I owe it to them to create the conditions whereby they can thrive.
The arguments of the past mean nothing unless we can learn the lessons of history.
If you are not with me looking forwards into the future then you are against me looking back into
the past.. and that is where you will be left.
There is a future, it is the one that is in your hands, please don't drop the ball.
Complain about this comment
I want to be out of the "EU". That doesn't mean I want to be part of the USA!
For me roughly the same goes for both. I do not want to be part of them but want to co-operate with them.
Co-operation, not integration.
Complain about this comment
Dear # 65;
This is the problem. You've defined it quite well.
You do not want to be fish or fowl, but good red beef. Well, you can be part of the EU, or part of the States, or you can continue on your own, tippy- toeing between the two, picking and choosing without commitment.
The choice is yours; but I fear the game is almost up. In 2009 you may have to cash in your chips. Chips will most certainly be cashed, anf there is some doubt your bank can pay off.
Are you Europian? No, your whole history says not. You are England, Great Brittian and no less. You may have internal divisions but that's your concern and no one elses. America understands that, having internal divisions of our own.
Can you go your own way? Sure. But sooner rather than later you will have to decide where your loyilities lie. Can England compete on an economic level playing field with the EU? Can the Pound survive on its own? Will the US help?
No, not even, and yes, because it's in our self interest. We do not want to see England fail.
A State of Old England would be a foothold for the US. Not that anyone wants there to be an American Empire, you understand, but Statehood would be a political and econimic blessing for all of us. Thus America woul gain the blessings of the Parlimentary system, England would gain the blessing of security, and Europe would be rid of a state that never played the game by anything except it's own rules.
Who knows? Perhaps Paris and Berlin will have a yard sale, and Brittian and Italy will be on offer. Along with Greece; but Greece will have no buyers. Well, except Turkey...maybe.
Complain about this comment
Will interfere with gas news a bit.
I thought we were supposed to hold the handle to Europe? But no it is Ukraine.
31 Dec Russia still pumped regular 390mln cubic metres. 300 to Europe and 90 to Ukraine.
1 Jan Russia cut off Ukraine and pumped 300 mln only.
By midnight Berlin time no complans about gass fall from Europe, but general sense of acute alarm in the air.
2 Jan Russia pumped 326 mln to Europe, just in case Ukraine might wish to steal.
And they did! Not 26 mln extra only but more, by the afternoon of Jan 2nd three EU countries recorded fall in the pressure.
Romania got just 7 mln, instead of its normal 10 mln per day, for the 2nd Jan.
Poland said it got "6% less pressure in the tube, by the 2nd Jan afternoon.
(Polish "Gas-Sistem" record).
Hungary complained of about 30% loss in pressure!
Only to Poland we were able to fill up to norm, for Jan 2nd, by increasing amount normally due to Poland via the 2nd tube, that passes through Belorussia.
So Romania and Hungary both ended 2nd Jan with losses.
I don't know what Gasprom will do tomorrow, all say the only option is to increase 326 mln to Europe further up, hoping that Ukraine will steal but still something will be left.
The "clean" option seems to pump via Ukraine same 390 mln cubic metres per day to "Europe", that is, pretending it is "for Europe". Which will allow Ukraine to steal theirs 90 mln and leave Europe its standard 300 mln.
I think Gasprom would rather do that and lose 90 mln cubic metres per day than step back at this stage and give up to Ukraine's blackmail.
It's a total war, all Dec 31st was spoiled here with news every hour, how the talks with Ukr. go. Until at 11pm TV said Youshenko called off his delegation from Moscow and closed up the talks.
Overall hilarious, we've offered Ukr. the price of $250 for 2009 in writing back in September, when Julia Timoshenko was in Moscow and carried Gazprom's written offer away with her. To delay signing the agreement till Dec 31st; and still not decide they take the offer or not.
$250 a good offer IMO, given EU countries pay over $400, and what is so great about Ukraine I wonder?
As if Slovakia etc. are not Slavs as well, or is it we depressed-opressed them less in USSR times? Why do we have to owe special prices to Ukraine in particular?
Because half of their population is Russians, granted... Oh God.
But as a country they behaved nasty to us in the Georgia conflict.
To remember the Ukr. base in Georgia shooting down Russian airplanes with Russian own air systems... Or how they tried to block the fleet to return back to Sebastopol...
Thinking of that - it is the other way around - Germany and France ought to get gas now at 250 dollars, and Ukraine - at over 400!
Russia knows of course why Ukraine dealyed to agree to $250. Ukraine was jealous with Belorussia, who pays the least in the world - $ 129!
But Belorussia never stole gas in transit to Europe A./
Didn't mis-behave in the Georgia affair B./
Belorussia of course now also flirts with the EU, and hasn't recognised South Ossetia or Abkhasia as countries.... But they said no nasty words to Russia either, simply mind own interests, beig friendly to both Russia and the EU now. All understandable, their interests, they mind them.
And they sign Russian gas offers the moment they get the offer, a safe year or even two in advance, for as long ahead as possible, and pay in advance, and only ask for prolongation of the contract.
We've also pre-paid Ukraine for the transit of our gas to Europe, for 2 years ahead I heard.
Ukraine would love to return us money now in hysterics, and close the transit contract, but can't.
Brazenly steals instead!
Youshenko said yesterday to Ukrainians that he has got safe 16 bln cubic metres of gas accummulated and kept in reservours underground, that will last them till the end of this winter, without any new gas pumped.
Hell knows, may be he has stuffed the reservoirs in advance indeed. May be lies, who knows. If they have stocks till the end of the winter - why do they steal? Just for the hell of it, to quarrel EU and Russia?
___________
The attitude of both sides to each other is best characterised by 2 jokes.
Russian: "Coca-Cola company stopped sending Coke trucks via Ukraine. They steal gas from the bottles."
Ukrainian: "Putin called Youshenko and warned of grave consequances if he stops his contractual obligiations as a transit country. Now we owe Russia for the phone call from Moscow to Kiev as well."
Complain about this comment
@66, willybedamned, LOL.
I see now you're simply bored there far away without a say in Europe, feel isolated from the main arena on your continent, and want to have a foot-hold on the island!
A formalised foot-hold, aj jaj jaj.
Complain about this comment
Dear # 68; No, I really couldn't care less. Because after all Europe, Asia and the rest of the world don't compete with me...Oh, wait! Yes, they do.
I have customers in Europe, suppliers and customers in Asia. Customers in China and Canada and South America. Customers in Great Brittian, England and Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. Customers in Isreal and all through the mid east. Customers in Africa. Whereever there are cell phones (moblies) I have customers. And where ever I have customers I have competitors.
My products are used in Europe, we ship there every week. I have no desire to dominate that market, just to sell in it, at a profit. I don't want to become that involved in Europian concerns- you guys go ahead and figure out your own issues. Just don't impose restrictions on my exports; that wouldn't do any of us any good.
Complain about this comment
It seems all the chickens are coming home to roost at the same time. Europe was in a slide before the economic tsunami became evident. Europe's basic problem is that it can't or won't compete with the outside world. Its expensive social safety net makes it cost prohibitive to manufacture anything there. The EU is a bundle of contradictions. "If Germany and Greece require separate interest rates...." Now why didn't someone think of that before they adopted the Euro? The Russians assured their European gas customers that gas would continue to flow to them. Last I heard, the French claimed the flow was down 30%. I still don't understand why Ukraine doesn't hold Russia's use of their pipeline to deliver gas to the EU hostage to free gas for Ukraine. Or let the EU pay for Ukraine's gas, they seem willing to pay for everything else.
It was interesting seeing that Stalin was the third most popular historic figure in Russia. Has Putin banned publication and sale of the Gulag Archipelligo or have Russians simply neglected to read it? BBC reported that Stalin may have killed as many as 25 million Russians. Figures I've read put it at closer to 80 million. But unlike the Germans, the Russians didn't keep meticulous records of how many victims of mass murder they caused. Speaking of Germans, many in Russia still believe that the pact between Russia and Nazi Germany was used to buy Russia time to prepare for war. Nothing could be further from the truth since the invasion by the Germans came as a complete surprise. How nice to have an adversary waste its temporary windfall profits from oil sales on useless weapons which can never be used because to use even one of them on its intended target, the US would be an act of national suicide. This and deterring foreign investment by nationalizing or stealing foreign owned assets the way Russia did with Shell and BP will assure that Russia will remain weak and poor. How nice to have such an incompetent like Putin in charge of their economy.
The EU doesn't talk much about global warming anymore. I wonder why. Where is all that fervor about Kyoto and GHGs we heard so much European rhetoric about just a few short years ago. If the Europeans think Uncle Sam will come to their rescue, I expect they should think again. Uncle Sam will have a lot of other things on his plate and Afghanistan will be one of them. If anything, Uncle Sam will want to know what excuse its NATO allies have for not having done their fair share of the fighting in Afghanistan. That war looks ready to heat up. Meanwhile you don't hear much lately about Iran's nuclear weapons program. I wonder how many of the demonstrators against Israel in Europe are Moslems and how many are not. Will Europe resume sending aid to the Hamas controlled government only to have the Israelis bomb what is built with it again in the next war?
So as the polar ice caps melt and the deserts spread, Europe's economies drown, the wars in the middle east, Afghanistan, and elsewhere like Africa continue to explode, Iran develops an atom bomb to use against Israel while Israelis contemplate their navels wondering when to strike first, Pakistan and India face the prospect of nuclear war, Bird flu, SARS or some other forgotten or unknown menaces make a return appearance, and the world looks like it is headed for an end, there is only one thing left to say. Happy New Year :-)
Complain about this comment
#59, lacerniagigante,
You wrote "6) Will there still be a Belgium come 2010?
Of course, once they're done with Prague, they'll be rolling their tanks to all European capitals. Who knows maybe all the way to Moscow via the Baltic triad. By the end of 2010, the Europe will have finally be unified under the Belgian crown. By 2011 the Empire will be ready to reunify the Congo too."
Hey, I know the tank you mentioned, it rolled past my office before the National day a few years back, I just hope we've got a lot of spare parts for it if we're to achieve the project you mention, lol.
Complain about this comment
One think is for sure. the EU without the UK would be much better off. What does the UK add to the proceedings after all? Her major export is after all the chavs roaming the touristic resorts and some eurosceptic MEPs that think stealing from the EU organisations they participate is a fair play.
Complain about this comment
It is nice to know that the interest rates in Wales are the same as those in Greater London. Perhaps the future could bring also Greece more close to London. And also, nice to have our afternoon tee.
It is all about that, isn't it. To keep all the comfort of our modest ordinary life. Someone above told us, with high sense for reality, that the subject of the present discussion should not be so much abstract. Really, shouldn't we wait for better times, maybe for a politician, to get sufficient intelectual capacity, to be able eventually to put on paper one concrete EU constitution.
However, the constitution is the real start. The only real subject about the EU today. How concrete is the idea which has brought us together under the same roof? We still don't have the constitution, a mutual agreement about the future.
In the meantime, the institutions of the EU are working. Everything necessary for the comfortable living conditions of a huge administration has been being built in due time. My question is, has it been built for right purpose? It is not so much unrealistic, unbelievable, that the EU has been gradually converting to a state more and more similar, in its present constitutive elements, to one of the former suprastates of socialistic republics.
Those are mine concerns, and reasons to join Mr Mardell in his not so optimistic look to the future.
Complain about this comment
71 - Buzet23
We used to have a tank in Hungary too but it was hijacked by protesters a couple of years ago.
67 - WebAliceinwonderland
Neither side is going to achieve anything by playing politics with gas supplies. Russia needs the foreign exchange and does not need the reputation of being an unreliable supplier. Ukraine certainly does not need to be seen as stealing gas from the very organisation they hope to join.
There must be a paper trail somewhere to establish whether or not Ukraine has paid the USD20 billion Gazprom says is outstanding. 20 billion does not simply disappear into thin air. Whichever way you look at it, the Ukraine are playing fast and loose with both sides. They claim that they should, as a major transit nation, be compensated preferably by way of subsidised prices for their domestic supply. It seems to me that a differential of USD 160 is generous enough (the difference between the 250 offered by Gazpron to Ukraine and the 410 which is the current market price to the west). They should realise that, if Russia does reroute the service, there is no longer any reason to subsidise the Ukrainian supply. For those of us who receive our supply directly through Ukraine, there will be a drop in pressure until this situation is resolved and much anger that so called friends are being made to suffer because two big kids cannot sort out a playground brawl.
Complain about this comment
REAL NEWS
Italy has announced that it might take steps to stop using the euro as its currency unless EU regulations restricting the Italian government's control over money flows are eased.
Complain about this comment
#75 - jaws1912
I can find no reference to this story - not even in the Italian media. Can you please tell us where it comes from?
Complain about this comment
threnodio, @74. Yes, all bad. A scenario I see is today the same, nervous, on Sunday the same, trying to increase gas amounts pumped via two other tubes to Europe, with same little success.
We negotiated with Turkey all night and Turkey did help, increased amounts pumped to Europe by their tube, The Blue Stream, we'll pay them for that, but Turkey increased the pressure in their tube to Europe by 6% only. Gasprom says Turkey can do more, but doesn't want to, as min. at this point. Vaguely referring to technical difficulties. Anyway Turkey has helped a bit, but this is exactly a bit.
Belorussia increased pressure as well, but this would cover Poland only. Poland registered fall in the gas pressure arriving via Ukraine by 11% today and demands this to be compensated somehow.
Places like you are in, in fact, Hungary the worst case, only via Ukraine. And Romania.
EU observers sit now in Russia's territory gas departure, last station point, from where it leaves to travel via Ukraine to Europe, and take readings, what we pump out.
Similarly the EU gas inspectors are now in Slovakia gas arrival point, and take readings there, how much is lost daily in transit via Ukraine, protocols are signed etc.
With paperwork we are covered, but there isn't more gas from it.
Ukraine didn't let EU observers into their stations to take the readings.
Instead, scares with some "technical difficulties" that will start in 2 weeks' time, like now - 10% loss recorded is "technical", "to maintain overall pressure in the Ukrainian system that is now empty, we have to re-route out a bit" (????), but in 2 weeks' time - "the system might start closing up the whole flow automatically, by itself" (????)
Then on Monday comes the EU meeting Russia asked for, where we will be nagging and complaining about Ukraine. Having made our point publicly how nasty Ukrainians are, shaking up some papers in the air, protocols on gass loss in transit, debt money transfer bills if there will be, shoving signed contracts whatever Gasprom has to everyone's nose in Brussels, I guess Gasprom will have to sign up something with Ukraine. A lousy price a blackmail price whatever, for 3 months.
To ensure Europe is covered till the end of the coldest times.
That is, if someone from Ukraine will show up in Moscow to take the offer. Because their delegation left at 11pm Dec 31st and nobody heard a word from Ukraine here everafter. No indication here they might return back.
We watch Ukr. TV of course where Youshenko is telling Ukrainians "We have nearly reached a consensus with Russia, the deal will be signed by Christmas don't worry (7th Jan/Rus./Ukr Christmas) (Youshenko wants to be Santa Claus)"
but then Gasprom office is on TV every round o'clock where their spokesman says "no, not a single e-mail or a phone call from Ukraine, saying "Happy New Year, Gasprom" or "We will come back" or "Hi! We might still negotiate" - nothing at all.
Ukraine plays very cool, steals away enough to make all hysterical but no enough to freeze out Europe, they must have figured out 10% is about as much Russia can compensate via Belorussia and Turkey, poorly, and not to all, but still can.
And is playing on Gasprom nerves, threatening with "technical collapse of the system, in 2 weeks' time."
Apparently at an old gas price Ukrainian system didn't plan to collapse for years ahead, and will be miraculously fixed by itself the moment the gas starts being pumped for Ukraine in particular.
Ukr. tubes are so sensitive! They practically feel when it is their gas or European gas passing along. And with no EU observers let to go to their stations - who the hell knows what takes place there. Nobody to help them ! to sort out sudden technical problems
I am sure Ruhr gas a couple of chaps would have "sorted" all technical problems-to-start-in-Ukr-stations-in-2-weeks'-time - in no time at all! By means of one big hammer without even a sickle, to knock on someone's clever head.
Germany is already counting stocks in their underground reservouirs to figure out for how long these will last "in 2 weeks' time" and for which countries in the EU would fit as well. Very eager to "help" Ukrainians in their mysterious gas stations - immediately.
Anyway this is all words, I hope we take a temporarily retreat, sign with Ukr. next week whatever lousy tempo contract, to exclude Europe out of the trouble till the end of the winter.
But then please don't wonder if /when in April-May Gasprom will announce to Ukraine the next price of 1000!
Complain about this comment
England join the US? Why would they want to become another state? They already have the ability to snap their fingers and get us to jump into a World War? The US government never responds to states that promptly.
The Monarchy a problem? The Queen is way more popular in this country than any of your liberal politicians or Lords. We really didn't have a problem with good King George. What we were trying to do in the revolution was establish our right not to pay taxes. That's what we meant by Liberty, the right to cheat on your taxes and if you have taken a look at the US tax code, you will see why we are called the world's only sucessful revolution. Mission acomplished, another six whiskey lunch (it's tax deductable as a business expense). In fact I don't think the Queen pays taxes either, so we better check she might already be an American.
Now that you think of it the whole family might be American already. Look at those pictures of Couragous Prince Henry banging away at the Taliban with the machine gun. What is the real difference, between the Bush twins underage drinking and that young Duchess getting drunk and doing the fairy dance in the middle of the night at college. What American Frat boy can't identify with Harry posing in his Nazi coat drinking. They are kith and kin, no union that did not preserve a family business's like this could be tolerated. We are after all Saxons all.
Unfortunately, they would only be able to be Queen or King in Britain, because to expand that to the other 49 states would put Congress in the position of establishing a title and that would be unconstitutional. On the good side in all the former states of the Confederacy (the south) she is already considered and refered to as the Queen instead of as a Queen.
Of course there would have to be an affirmative action program to the Britains to provide them with rifles, pistols, cars and trucks with V-8 motors, free television, attorney access so they can sue each other and tons of garbage from China.
We would need to improve your infrastructure by putting up a fast food restraunt with drive through window every 100 yards. We would have to replace all those kobs in your cars with goofy emblems with ones that say "headlights" in English and probably a phase out period to get rid of the metric system. You would all have to learn English, because none of us speak Pakistani, Urdu or Romanian.
On the good side Lord Nelson is already a hero on this side of the Atlantic, so you can still despise France (isn't it great when we can all agree on something! )
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @ 51
A 'free-trading zone' which relies solely on tariff free import rules will never allow seamless trading.
A customs union is a pre-requisite, otherwise checks are needed on goods being imported via third countries. This happened into the 1980s when France tried to block imports of Japanese cars and electronic equipment which were entering the country via other countries, especially the UK. For a time, the French even tried to block the import of Japanese badged cars and equipment made in the UK.
Fortunately, the European Court of Justice stepped in and ruled against France. There followed a boom in the manufacture of 'Japanese' cars in the UK, many for export to the rest of the EU, which still continues. Thus, with the arrival of Nissan, Honda and Toyota, a key EU institution saved the UK motor industry from near oblivion as Rover collapsed, and Ford and Peugeot have totally ceased vehicle manufacture here.
Another pre-requisite for seamless trading is the adoption of common technical standards. Germany, particularly, was notorious for imposing its own technical standards through the TUV system, to keep out imports. A big multi-national can easily afford to type approve, say washing machines, in 27 different countries, but small local makers of specialised goods cannot do so. This was the driving force behind the adoption (by that great European, Lady Thatcher) of the Single European Act, leading to the setting up of the single market. This though pre-supposes some kind of supra-national 'government' and judicial system to prevent the rules being broken by individual states - that is what the EU does.
A proper functioning seamless economy needs to have free movement of capital - many readers will be too young to remember that until 1979 the UK had exchange controls, which is the ultimate in the state saying that money belongs to the state, and not its citizens. Even the Eurozone has some way to go to achive complete freedom of movement for capital.
It should be possible for, say, a German to buy a house in Germany using funds borrowed from an Irish bank, or obtain a credit card from one, to escape the overlly strict lending requirements in that country, but it is not.
The UK, of course, lags hopelessly behind by its self-exclusion from the Eurozone. Just an example of 2 ways this manifests itself:-
1. despite the general deflationary climate, I would guess that new car prices in the UK will have to rise just as they should fall. A Euro 30,000 car will have to go up from around £22,000 to near £30,000 as a result of currency fluctuations. That cannot happen in a seamless economy.
2. try opening a Euro-denominated bank account in the UK as a UK resident - despite an allegedly sophisticated banking system there are virtually no products available, and those that exist are little publicised and not very good.
Free movement of labour has enabled the Germany and the UK to draw on a pool of willing workers from other counries to fuel growth, whilst Polish and other countries who have exported labour have been beneftied as wages rise there towards the European average, thus increasing living standards.
As for Schengen, MaxSceptic is right that Britain is an island, but the UK most certainly is not. We do of course have a land border, which our politicians and their civil servants seem to be blissfully unaware of, presumably because they never go near it. It is open, like most other European land borders with traffic travelling freely across it, and the Government has acknowledged that that cannot change (thankfully someone has some commonsense!)
The UK Government's response to this? To consult on imposing passport controls on the UK/UK crossing from N Ireland to Scotland - the first internal border control in Europe since the re-unification of Germany. There are only 2 possible conculsions to draw from that:
1. either the citizens of N Ireland are second class citizens, not worthy of proper protection from terrorists, marauding European criminal gangs and illegal immigrants who we allegedly need protecting from; or
2. the residents of GB are being needlessly frightened into submitting to being interned on an island that they may only enter and leave with the gracious permission of the Stasi-like 'border police'
Complain about this comment
And, threnodio, @74, re the debts.
I have a feeling someone from Switzerland convinced Gasprom sufficiently enough (on the morn Jan 2nd) that Ukraine did some steps towards Gasprom receiving $ 1.6 bln on / by January 11th.
At the mom. certainly no money seen. Why so long it will take to transfer also a mystery. Apparently some row of deals and transfers will follow that will end up by the debt arriving.
But Gasprom publicly expressed hopes the debt money will arrive (without Ukraine speaking to them) so whoever in-between convinces them from the bankers and financiers in Europe that it will be done has convinced Gasprom that it will.
Has also convinced that 0.6 bln more due will not arrive, only 1.6 out of 2.2.
It's not 20 bln, threnodio. Modest 1.6 for gas and 0.6 in fines accummulated for payment being long overdue.
The total bill overdue was 2.7.
0.5 Ukraine transferred a month ago by itself, when they received the first draft of IMF (4.5 bln of the total IMF loan to Ukraine of 16 bln, to be transferred in 4 pieces.)
2.7 - 0.5 = 2.2 left due (1.6 +0.6) we will all learn aritjmetics with this Ukraine!
0.6 part Ukraine didn't convince anyone in Switzerland to convince Gasprom that this will arrive, either wasn't able or decided to skip.
And Gasprom of course hoped that from the very first IMF shipment Ukraine will settle the gas debt in full, three ha ha.
Complain about this comment
Looked up Ukrainian "popular politics" site called Censor Net. Mmeaning - to censorship - No (niet).
pity no one here knows Ukrainian and Russian; they keep a great jokes section updated every hour, split into sub-divisions "Youshenko and Co", "Putin and Co", "Saakashvili and Co", who only not, and "Gas wars' chronicles".
Youshenko calls Medvedev: "Ok, we'll pay you the 2 bln for the gas debts, but where from is additional half a billion?"
- This is in compensation for Russian military airplanes kicked off by your specialists in Georgia in war.
- Hmm... And by which accounting line would you register this?
- As fines for violation of transit via third countries!
Journalists don't call Julia Timoshenko a "gas princess" anymore. Seeing how she manages the gas talks with Russia, she's been up-graded to the "gas tsarina".
In the competition for female logic the winner was a generator of chancy numbers.
In the competition between generators of chancy numbers the winner was the Ukr. parliament who took the budget for 2009.
31 Dec. Youshenko calls Putin. "Last year you were interested to buy Ukraine; would you still be interested?"
- Yes.
- With Ukrainians, or without?
- Better without.
- Then I'm afraid we'll have to talk again in a year's time.
Why Putin didn't mention gas debts to Julia Timoshenko when she was visiting him in Moscow?
- Because nearby such a woman one forgets all. Youshenko, for example, forgets he is a man.
Year 2012. TV news. Exchange rate of Ukrainian euro versus Russian juan keeps being stable.
Complain about this comment
2009!?
The year the English Electorate finally get to use their vote in a Referendum on England's membership of the EU?
No, of course not: This is the EU and therefore some 28 to 31% of the enfranchised English electorate will turnout to vote for MEPs who will claim a DEMOCRATIC MANDATE to continue to rob the English Citizens of their sovreign individual rights within an independent nation.
2009: Almost certainly the worst year since 2008 for the abandonment of principles of Democratic accountability in the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
#82 - ikamaskeip
I am not clear whether you are complaining about the fact that the English are unique within the UK in not having some form of democratically elected government - in which case I agree completely - or whether you are complaining that only a small proportion of the electorate will bother to turn out for the EU parliamentary elections - in which case I have no sympathy because it is their choice not to turn out.
On one thing I am absolutely clear. England is not and never has been a member of the EU. The United Kingdom is. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Westminster.
Complain about this comment
It always makes me smile when the British claim they are losing democratic rights.
They never had any.
Many years ago they were serfs beholden to landlords and ruled by despotic monarchists.
Landed Gentry who gained membership of a Parliament that was ruled by royal decree rebelled and disenthroned their monarch and then subsequently re-introduced the monarchy to that of subservient role.
Until the early 20th century only men under the age of 21 could vote and even now, when teenagers and women have been enfranchised, the British still stupidly think, even though they have been beguiled with the one-person-one-vote system, that they can change anything that the the British Establishment wishes to happen. Prior to the 20th Centruy the limitation on voting right was an insult to the democracy as only men with certain attributes, such as wealth and land ownership, could vote disenfranchising the poor and the homeless. Democracy!
Bah Humbug! The British don't really know the meaning of the word Democracy as they certainly do not employ real democracy,
The British populace at large remain serfs, albeit no longer tied to arable land and landed gentry, but serfs nonetheless of established cronyism, elitism and shabby politicians who connive with one another to rule Britain and simply make life as better they can for themselves and pursue their own objectives.
Cynical, you bet I am.
Complain about this comment
83. At 8:40pm on 03 Jan 2009, threnodio wrote:
"#82 - ikamaskeip
...
On one thing I am absolutely clear. England is not and never has been a member of the EU. The United Kingdom is. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Westminster."
We have taken it up with Westminster and have been ignored.
We can take it up with Westminster and we can take it up with anybody we like!
The "EU" and countries within it have complained about a lack of democracy in other countries but they have ignored the disgraceful goings on in the UK. They are part of a megalomaniac, anti-democratic conspiracy.
I can tell any "EU-citizen" what he or she can do with their "EU"-treaties. I can sit on any bus or train or in any restaurant anywhere in the world ringing up the offices of the "EU" and/or the embassies and/or the ministries of our "partner countries" complaining about the anti-democratic nature of the "EU" and asking them if they really think that people like me are going to defend it for them. I can sit next to any soldier and tell him that he represents a lousy dictatorship.
Their arrogance and cheek are unlimited. We should be less restrained in our oposition.
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports that the Irish government will seek assurances that there will be no military conscription. Apparently a study carried out last year showed that about one third of the Irish thought that the Lisbon treaty would result in conscription to an "EU"-army.
Defence minister Willie O'Dea is reported as saying that there was never going to be such a thing anyway, but they had to take away peoples anxieties.
We have had loads of assurances before which have been shown to be worthless.
I won't believe any assurance they give. However if they are going to give one it should be in BIG LETTERS and simple, very clear language. It should be part of the Lisbon Treaty and not be something they are gong to fix to the future treaty about the accession of Croatia.
One thing that I believe has not been widely reported in the UK is that Slovenia is blocking the accession of Croatia. So there may not even be another treaty to stick the assurances on to. They have to be part of the Lisbon Treaty.
If the Irish are to get such assurances then we in the UK should get them too.
My interpretation of these concerns of the Irish people is that they are not happy about the way the "EU" is going. They don't want the Fourth Reich. They want friendship co-operation, trade etc. They don't want a superpower.
Complain about this comment
#85 - SuffolkBoy2
You are preaching to the converted SB2.
Menedemus above is quite right. The idea that Britain is or ever was a democracy in the real sense is a myth. Certainly Britain progressed further down the road than any other established old world nation then they simply stopped, the rest of the world caught up, overtook and left you in a time warp in which 19th century values somehow meet modern democratic standards. Now those remaining standards are being stripped away systematically by a control freak government and most Brits are either too blind to see it, too hide bound to question it or too lazy to care.
What I don't understand is why you think we do not enjoy democratic freedoms this side of the Channel. We can make those phone calls and post to the internet just as easily as you. And, unlike the British, many Europeans have only secured those rights in the last 20 years. They will not let them go lightly and they certainly won't let an overbearing paranoid control freak government take it away from them whether it be in their own country or in Brussels.
Complain about this comment
# 65. SuffolkBoy2:
"I want to be out of the "EU". That doesn't mean I want to be part of the USA!
For me roughly the same goes for both. I do not want to be part of them but want to co-operate with them.
Co-operation, not integration."
Have ye started up the Suffolk Liberation Front yet? I'm guessin' ye don't mind co-operatin' with those furriners in Norfolk an' Essex but ye dawn't want integration with 'em do ye?
Complain about this comment
I am unable to reply to threnodio as for the umpteenth time on the umpteenth topic this Blog page tells me there is HTML mistyped.
Complain about this comment
Mr Mardell might I suggest you get this Web Blog Technical deficiencies sorted as it does you and the BBC no credit at all.
Complain about this comment
I am not alone in suffering this Web Bklog page problem.
It occurs so often with some of us anti-EU commentators that we are beginning to think it is a deliberate ploy.
Complain about this comment
I have now posted 4 comments that add up to the length of my intended but HTML mistyped unpublished comment.
All these get through! How very, very, very, very, very, very, very, verry, very, very, very odd!?
Complain about this comment
threnodio I object to 3 UK nations having devolution without an English Parliament for the English.
Complain about this comment
threnodio I object that England is a part of the EU as you will see if you check M Thatcher's Maastricht betrayal wherein all4 UK nations are listed separately in certain clauses.
Complain about this comment
threnodio I object that you insinuate we anti-EU who do not vote are not bothering.
In fact nothe huge majority millions of English do not vote as they have seen the overmighty, venal, corrupt EUrotocracy overturn the democratic vote of Danes, Dutch, French and Irish in Referenda.
Complain about this comment
threnodio the anti-EU English who do not vote realise the undemocratic EU would deliberately misuse and misconstrue any increase in the English vote as an indicator of the EU becoming more acceptable in England.
Complain about this comment
threnodio we anti-EU huge majority millions of English take up the issue of enslavement to the EU with the Westminster Parliament and with 10 Downing Street every year but we are ignored in every instance.
Complain about this comment
threnodio since the time of Simon de Montfort English Law as set out in the Statute book has prevailed on the Citizens of England.
It is the betrayal and disregard of these English Statutes by Westminster MPs in deference to Brussels MEPs and the allowance of EU Regulation taking precedence over English Law that is the curse of EU affliction on England.
Complain about this comment
threnodio the European Unions' constant reinterpretation of every Referenda result and of the aggrandizing Political and Judicial powers to Brussels that makes all English Citizens who value their 2000 years of hard won Freedoms oppose this EU as it year-year creates a new version of a dangerously centralised, impervious to public sentiment Soviet Block.
Complain about this comment
@ SuperJulianR 79
Excellent post
*As for Schengen, MaxSceptic is right that Britain is an island, but the UK most certainly is not. We do of course have a land border, which our politicians and their civil servants seem to be blissfully unaware of, presumably because they never go near it. It is open, like most other European land borders with traffic travelling freely across it, and the Government has acknowledged that that cannot change (thankfully someone has some commonsense!)*
But one small correction. The government has acknowledged that the Northern Ireland ? Southern Ireland open border status cannot change, but that has definitely *nothing* to do with common sense. It is something to do with the Good Friday agreement, which was signed in 1998 when the New Fundamentalist Dogma of the War on Terror and Border Controls wasn?t yet in full swing.
Another thing that HMG or anybody in the UK political elite want people to know is that while the euro is not a legal pillar of the single market Schengen IS, as stated in the preamble to the Schengen Convention:
*WHEREAS the Treaty establishing the European Communities, supplemented by the Single European Act, provides that the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers*
So basically HMG is not only abolishing the CTA and introducing a new UK/UK
Stasi-like internal border, it is also reneging on the vote in favour of the Single Market in 1975. Because just in the same way politicians and people in this country confuse an electoral system (FPTP) with democracy, there is a huge confusion about the difference between a FREE TRADE AREA and a SINGLE MARKET
A Free Trade Area is, as the name implies, an area of free trading with no import/export tariffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_area
A Single Market, such as the EU?s common market that this country voted in 1975, involves the following:
1. Free movement of goods (i.e. a free trade area)
2. Free movement of capital
3. Free movement of labour
The UK has all this three, but then comes the crucial fourth element:
4. Free movement of HUMAN BEINGS = Schengen
As the UK has refused to join Schengen (it is incompatible with HMG New-Stasi policies) it has therefore refused to the FULL implementation of the rules of the Single Market, when that is precisely what the British people voted for in 1975. Although perhaps most of them thought that they were voting for a FREE TRADE AREA (they didn?t read the small print, it happens to many of us with our insurance policies, mortgages, etc.)
Complain about this comment
#93 -ikamaskeip
"I object to 3 UK nations having devolution without an English Parliament for the English."
We agree
At #94
"wherein all4 UK nations are listed separately in certain clauses."
So are several other regions within the EU to take account of special constitutional provisions relating to them, for example Catalonia.
At #95
You are entitled to take that view. My view as that you will change nothing by boycotting elections even if you object to the institution. Change from within is better than no change at all
At #96
I disagree. A significant turnout in favour of candidates who oppose the status quo would give pause for thought in Brussels.
At #97
I could not agree more but you cannot blame Brussels for a democratic deficit in Westminster. I dispute you "huge majority". It has never been tested electorally and is highly suspect.
At #98
Nothing that Simon de Monfort signed was ever enshrined in Parliamentary Law. Magna Carta predates the creation of a working parliament by more than 4 centuries.
At #99
No fewer than than 9 EU states are former members of the Soviet bloc. If you think they are going to allow themselves to be subservient to another non-democratic centralised power unit, you seriously misread the mood in continental Europe.
Complain about this comment
It seems pointless to bash the EU anymore since it has done such an excellent job of it itself. It has made fools of itself at every opportunity from its sudden retreat on demands for economic sacrifice to slow global warming now that it will feel the pain of such sacrifice itself, its failure to fight terrorism in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan allowing it to be exported to its own territory, its impotence in stopping genocide in its former colonies like Sudan after proclaiming it would never happen again, its attempts to warm up to America again now that it feels threatened by Russia and loss of its energy supplies, its rejection of the vote on Lisbon in Ireland and clear loss of any vestiges of pretense of democracy with it, and in so many countless other ways. Confused, paralyzed, a bundle of insurmountable contradictions, utterly without direction, it sinks slowly into the east. I'm of the belief that history plays itself out exactly as it should in the only possible way that it can, and that nations like people usually get exactly what they deserve, the inevitable result of the actions they take with only occasional intervention of fortuitous good luck. The louder Europe screams how important it is to the world, the more irrelevant it seems to become. The US and UK one country? Never! The UK is a European nation or nations, with a European view of the world. The US is not. Their paths are diverging sharply, increasingly.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @ 100
Yes, you are of course right about the Good Friday agreement, and I stand corrected. It would be interesting to know whether that agreement refers only to NI/ROI or ROI/UK, because in the latter case any controls on the N Ireland/Scotland crossing would be a breach and capable of legal challenge?
I suspect that e-borders itself will be capable of legal challenge, if it is used to stop legitimate free movement of people within the EU. it is rumoured for example that persons with unpaid fines may be denied the right to travel.
On the principal that preventing travel to someone because they have, say, failed to pay Council Tax or a parking fine is not proportionate that would ceratinly be capable of being challenged as being in breach of EU law, in my view.
Took time last night to look at the latest House of Lords report on FRONTEX (JorgeG1 post 33) - talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it! Well done to the EU for telling the UK to get stuffed. Either the UK is part of Schengen or it is not!
Complain about this comment
No good years to come anytime soon
genocide in gaza, russia cuts gas to ukriane *eu( and economy is going down the
Complain about this comment
On the gas as of Sunday no improvements.
Ukr. still hasn't returned back to Moscow to continue talks, as they left Dec 31st at 11pm - not a sound from Ukraine everafter.
Gasprom now does a funny thing - a constant news strip hangs on Russian TV main channels -
"Gasprom offers Ukraine a price of $450 for 2009. Which is determined as price of gas for EU countries bordering Ukraine minus cost of transit via Ukr. territory."
In the hope they see satellite TV in Ukraine and will read this, LOL!
And speed up to Moscow, apparently, happy! Having refused to pay $250 on Dec 31st and now being offered $450 instead!
Complain about this comment
If the EU is a government representing the constituent parts, would the US be unreasonable to ask for all these embassys back in washington, DC? This is all very valuable property and would allow us to make corresponding cuts to our Department of State staff. The Staff of the EU embassy could represent all members. Mississippi, Florida, Minesota and New York do not all have embassys in Paris or London, let alone the UN.
Should the UN not be restructured to take into account the new status. One federation equals one vote, that or extend the vote to all states, like Mississippi or New York. If all states will recieve a vote should the United Kingdom not recieve one for England, Scottland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If everything is one country the savings in foreign/military aid to the US is substantial and would probably be better spent on weapons for ourslves. After all it is one country, so theoreticlly a Greek Field Marshall out ranks and has the ability to give orders to an English General as to troop movements, so Greece has more than adequate resources to defend itself.
What about these Monarchs? We broached the subject in relationship with the US, but if it is one country how do you expect the rest of the world to recognize a king or Queen in Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland. Maybe you should get together and pick one Monarch?
What about benefits? If you allow a dole for a Scottish kid who is a countryman, shouldn't you pay for one for a Turkish kid when his country joins or a French kid?
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR @ 103
JorgeG1 @ 100
I would point out that both the UK and ROI have negotiated opt outs on Schengen so it is not correct to describe the UK position as one of "reneging on the vote in favour of the Single Market in 1975".
I do, however, take the point that the grounds the government gives for the opt out are entirely spurious and Í agree absolutely that refusing the UK access to the Schengen database is a wholly proportionate response.
On the point of the Stasi like approach to border regulation, I can only reiterate that this is merely a part of the siege mentality which has gripped the government as a whole and their ill disguised full frontal assault on the civil liberties of the British people should be a matter of grave concern. I am quite simply bewildered at the way that some people post to this thread complaining about the democratic deficit they perceive within the EU but stand hopeless by and let their won government trample roughshod all over them.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, my reference to de Montfort was for his role in calling the first directly elected Parliament in England.
It is immaterial to me and to millions of freeborn English Citizens how a bunch of Est european nations choose to behave after they have been rescued from the yoke of Soviet domination.
Mind you I suspect several of those nations' populations flush with the democratic ideals of a 'new Europe' will have voted themselves into the Serfdom of the EU much as after the Black Death English nobility set-up the Statute of Labourers supposedly to face up to the new conditions but actually to try to maintain the ancient status quo of Villeins owing homage to the Liege Lord and Manor!
Complain about this comment
#108 - ikamaskeip
Rescued?
Like the Hungarians in 1954 or the Czechs in 1968 you mean?
Complain about this comment
#108 - ikamaskeip
- and there is no such a thing as an English citizen. Having an opinion is fine. Inventing an entitlement to reinforce it is a whole different ballgame.
Complain about this comment
take it easy, EU will resovle all bad things in this world.. just wait and see if they sole themselves out
Complain about this comment
# 99. ikamaskeip wrote:
" English Citizens who value their 2000 years of hard won Freedoms oppose this EU "
Please learn a little history.
The "English" were immigrants from the plains of northern Germany and only arrived in Britain during the AD 400s.
As a nation England only came into existence in AD 927.
Complain about this comment
an island speaks to the mainland
Complain about this comment
I think I finally got it... All the problems with the English and the EU, with the continentals... its because Britain is an island! ...and I have a perfect solution for it! Lets drain the English channel and make Britain part of continental Europe... Then there would be no need to object against Schengen, against Euro, against the EU in general because then we would finally just one big happy continental family...
Now which EU funding form should I use to apply a grant on draining the English channel? Anybody know?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ 114
Write to Gordon Brown, esq. c/o No 10 Downing Street, Whitehall, London.
He's apparently bringing forward tax-sponsored projects to create 100, 000 new (yeah, honestly, he think they will be new as in N E W!) jobs in 2009.
I'm sure he'll be delighted to find more government money (he has not got) to spend on such a project.
Just be sure to emphasise how many people you might need to help you fill in the English Channel.
Oh, and by the way, the UK has a surfeit of recycled material it cannot recycle as the price has collapsed. We could use that to soak up and dam each end of the Channel.
ROTFL
Complain about this comment
114 - Jukka_Rohila
So long as it is not a sinking fund.
Complain about this comment
Russia loves grand projects... can give us the missing "national idea"... if every tourist, say, develops a sudden interest... for viewing exactly white cliffs of Dover... and casually kicks down by left hind foot a bucket of cliffs, standing on the edge, while "taking a picture" ... is there "an edge"? will there be chalk enough?
I am only worried for Golfstream. Where is Golfstream there? Not there? hopefully not there. Golfstream should survive.
Complain about this comment
Alice, the Gulf stream is insignificant. The newest computer models show that the thing keeping Europe warm is actually Rocky Mountains in US which push warm Pacific air up and over here. The day Americans decide to dismantle those mountains, then we are truly in deep do do over here.
In either case... I think before this whole project goes on I will be buying some shares of Areva, just in case... for example if some quark incident happened and this grand new, joint project between EU and Gordon Brown, would plunge Europe into a new ice age, which of course it wouldn't and couldn't do, I think we would need some new nuclear plants just to keep us warmth... And then it doesn't even matter that Areva isn't particularly good at delivering working plants at time... Time to get filthy rich!
So lets see.. Things to do... Mail Gordon Brown... Mail the EU commission... maybe structural funds could do it... cultural funds too should go there... hmmm... lots of work to do, better get starting.
Complain about this comment
While you're busy with business planning, tell me when you have a minute, how wide is the channel?
Since ships can take their own ways freely there, when, say, a two meet head to head... not less than 10 kilometers?
1 km Russia can do then, we've closed Yenisey river once. In a day, in -40C in winter, in 1 day. Through the ice and down. Was an emergency, the project was to be cancelled, the order was on the way to be delivered from Moscow.
The project engineer said now or never, and decided if he closes up the river in 24 hrs, when the order from Kremlin will arrive, to NOT build there a hydro electric station, it will be too late. So he said hey hop everybody, let's do it.
So on 1 km you can count on us.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, it's bad. 34 km. 34 Yenisey-s.
Though shallow, just 45 metres.
I think another tactics will be better, for the hydro-electro-station-to-be ? Need to check the current speed. Is there a drift to one side at all?
Not hey-hop in one day, but Peter I approach when building St. Petersburg on an empty place. A tax of 1 rock per paedestrian entering the area, 5 rocks per a horse cart. This way he collected far more stones, enough to pave the whole city and build house bases underground. 100 times more than the dam here would require.
So, easy, each EU tourist drops down into water a rock of, say 3-5 kg, as an entry tax.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @107
It is true that the UK and Ireland negotiated an opt out to enable passport/frontier checks to continue when entering these islands.
In the Republic of Ireland's case, this had nothing to do with an objection in principal to joining Schengen, but was solely because joining without the UK would have meant erecting border controls on the N Ireland/Republic border, something that the Irish state did not want to do for entirely understandable reasons (so, despite the fact that the Irish thought that they achieved full independence from the UK in 1922, HMG is, in effect, still able to force them to toe its line).
However, the opt out was linked to a parallel passport free zone, the Common Travel Area ('CTA') - which the Amsterdam Treaty formalised. The UK has unilaterally given notice to terminate that arrangement, so arguably the whole question of the opt out ought now to to be re-opened, with the end of the CTA.
Furthermore, the opt out did NOT entitle the UK to impose any controls which would hinder free movement of UK/EU/EEA nationals across its borders. Although I have always supported UK and Irish entry to Schengen, in truth, I personally have had little objection to the quick passport checks to which one has been subjected at, for example, Calais, before boarding a UK bound ferry.
The new proposals encompassed in the 'e-borders' programme are a different ball game altogether, requiring advance notice and state 'clearance' to come and go. It is quite openly stated that UK and other EU/EEA nationals may be denied boarding - either to come or go), and that I believe is almost certainly contrary to the treaty.
You may also wish to read some of the posts on yachting web-sites, among people who have freely come and gone between the UK, Channel Islands, France, Netherlands, Ireland without any formality whatsoever, and will soon have to send official notification of journeys between all of these places, in advance, with details of all passengers, and a myriad other information - just for a day trip across the Channel! They are very worried indeed at the loss of freedom.
Complain about this comment
threnodio the claim to English Citizenship is long established and is one of the few matters in which the EU has moved the issue forward.
As I pointed out the Maastricht Treaty (see Article 15 through 19 and EU Citizenship) does infer/confer an English presence within the United Kingdom.
Of course genetically the 50%+ Germanic Y-Chromosomes gene-pool suggests a lineage not too disimilar from the Royal Family for that 2001 Census grouping - white-british - however, I do not want to get into the race issue as it is a minefield of misunderstanding & mischief-making (particularly as non-white respondents to the 2001 Census either born or emigrated to England predominantly claimed 'British' nationality).
Suffice to say the 2011 Census will give legal recognition to the Scottish and Irish as in 2001 and for the first time to the English and Welsh with tick-boxes allocated to these National identities.
No, I prefer to lay claim to English Citizenship by the great and legally often tried method known as Custom & Practise.
The Westminster Parliament in its wisdom over hundreds of years of Committee stages assessing, developing, amending and eventually proposing Bills that following thorough public debate in the Commons and Lords were passed as Acts and entered on the Statute book has entered into Law no less than 7,000 referring to English Law. Not welsh, not scots, not irish, but pertaining to English Law, i.e. applicable only to the people resident in the land whose boundaries make up the Political-Judicial-Geographical entity known as England.
Among the more prominent of these particular Statutes are those for English Taxation, especially from the 18th Century and the Walpole administration; there has also been English law such as the Poor laws, the Judiciary system, the Customs & Excise provisions, Highways & Traffic... etc. All of which are entirely different matters to those dealt with by other Laws for 3 other members of the UK.
Then there's the quite incidental Cultural apportioning of Citizenship in Sports, Language, Costume etc.
Of course who could deny there is a Medieval origin for, ".. this blessed plot, this realm, this England...", or, from earlier times look north from Hadrian's Wall without grasping the significance, but, I would rather bring us bang upto date with the OED's ringing endorsement that 'technically England fulfills the definition of a nation state..' & is indeed a 'Constituent Country' of the UK which therefore confers upon its legal residents the humbling rights & responsibilites of full ENGLISH CITIZENSHIP.
Complain about this comment
threnodio the claim to English Citizenship is long established and is one of the few matters in which the EU has moved the issue forward.
As I pointed out the Maastricht Treaty (see Article 15 through 19 and EU Citizenship) does infer/confer an English presence within the United Kingdom.
Of course genetically the 50%+ Germanic Y-Chromosomes gene-pool suggests a lineage not too disimilar from the Royal Family for that 2001 Census grouping - white-british - however, I do not want to get into the race issue as it is a minefield of misunderstanding & mischief-making (particularly as non-white respondents to the 2001 Census either born or emigrated to England predominantly claimed 'British' nationality).
Suffice to say the 2011 Census will give legal recognition to the Scottish and Irish as in 2001 and for the first time to the English and Welsh with tick-boxes allocated to these National identities.
No, I prefer to lay claim to English Citizenship by the great and legally often tried method known as Custom & Practise.
The Westminster Parliament in its wisdom over hundreds of years of Committee stages assessing, developing, amending and eventually proposing Bills that following thorough public debate in the Commons and Lords were passed as Acts and entered on the Statute book has entered into Law no less than 7,000 referring to English Law. Not welsh, not scots, not irish, but pertaining to English Law, i.e. applicable only to the people resident in the land whose boundaries make up the Political-Judicial-Geographical entity known as England.
Among the more prominent of these particular Statutes are those for English Taxation, especially from the 18th Century and the Walpole administration; there has also been English law such as the Poor laws, the Judiciary system, the Customs & Excise provisions, Highways & Traffic... etc. All of which are entirely different matters to those dealt with by other Laws for 3 other members of the UK.
Then there's the quite incidental Cultural apportioning of Citizenship in Sports, Language, Costume etc.
Of course who could deny there is a Medieval origin for, ".. this blessed plot, this realm, this England...", or, from earlier times look north from Hadrian's Wall without grasping the significance, but, I would rather bring us bang upto date with the OED's ringing endorsement that 'technically England fulfills the definition of a nation state..' & is indeed a 'Constituent Country' of the UK which therefore confers upon its legal residents the humbling rights & responsibilities of full ENGLISH CITIZENSHIP.
Complain about this comment
threnodio I have resubmitted my Comment as over half was somehow left out & the content cannibalised of the Published version (#125)
Complain about this comment
118. Jukka_Rohila:
"Alice, the Gulf stream is insignificant. "
Insignificant? It has been calculated that the North Atlantic Drift component delivers about a million gigawatts of heat to Europe.
"The newest computer models show that the thing keeping Europe warm is actually Rocky Mountains in US which push warm Pacific air up and over here. "
New? That idea has been running around for at least 2 years (maybe longer). American Scientist published an article to this effect by Richard Seager in 2006.
"The day Americans decide to dismantle those mountains, then we are truly in deep do do over here."
No, the winter following the shutdown of the NAD by freshwater run off from polar regions of Canada would probably see the Channel coast of England under 2m of snow (I know that's nothing to Russians and Finns but I'm neither!) and just possibly enough ice in the Channel to make it possible to walk from Calais to Dover.
That is do-do deep enough for me to worry about global warming putting England in the freezer ( very counter-intuitive isn't it ? )
Complain about this comment
@70 "it was interesting seeing that Stalin was the third most popular historic figure in Russia".
Re "Name of Russia" project, copied/stolen from US/UK, Germany etc TV.
Or, rather, the stress was changed here to add more paphos "Name: Russia".
The results overall look like state order fulfilled, as the top trio is Alex Nevsky, for the modern-singing phrase "Who comes to us with a sword - from the sword shall perish",
a state minister patriotic-pro-Russian-reformer Stolypin (whose very name know 2-3% of population),
and tov. Stalin.
Pushkin fourth - this nobody believes as this is the universal Russian pass-word and the second word after "mama" every Russian learns, Dostoevsky fifth, etc.
However if the voting was done honestly good chance ab 80% Stalin would be in the top trio ayway, sadly.
Alex Nevsky definitely chosen by the organisers as a compromise figure for the country, a half-mythological creature, suiting all tastes. Some think he is the hero from Eisenshtein movie, others think he is an icon in the church (which he is, long canonised as a saint, and my patron-saint in particular, if to remember), the rest view him as a fairy-tale time Novgorodian young prince. A cloud not a live person.
Russians and Europeans are different creatures. If Europeans are dogs, Russians must be cats. Or mice. We live in a pre-historic fairy-tale village. Full of myths and images. Our image-creation takes so intricate routes that even gets attractive to others, and created Rus. literature.
For a sec. - Europeans lived through
Renaissance, Enlightment, (Reformation?)Romatisism.
We lived through neither stages. Not yet, sorry.
Russians are normal, dogs, when they get abroad. At home it's a matrix. Self-repeating. Created and up-kept by us. Self-reproducing system, as someone said "There's definitely a world coup against Russia. All Russian population participates in it." Even the country itself developed not from North to South, like everyone else, to better warmer more productive places. But having began in the South stretched up North, even - North-East. Why? To run away from the system, from the state, as far away as possible, to be able to self-realise yourself.
Stalin is a myth, adored, "won the war".
Putin is Ivan-Tsarevich, from the fairy tale. Medvedev is. We think in terms of fairy-tales, myths. No Enlightment yet, no Education stage, no connection to reality, in the national mind-set.
Thomas Mann predicted Germans will forever stay unliberal and undemocratic. By nature. He couldn't imagine they'll be raised down by tanks, dismantled and have liberal values and democracy imposed on them by sword.
This is one way.
Which is Russian way - unclear.
Still, how wise was Germany. They took Hitler out of the original list. Simply said - not to be voted for, theoretically. Does not exist, as an option, in "Name of Germany."
Which reminds me! Need to look up in the dictionary what is MarkAvreliusII, forgot.
Complain about this comment
88. At 00:32am on 04 Jan 2009, greypolyglot wrote:
"# 65. SuffolkBoy2:
Have ye started up the Suffolk Liberation Front yet? I'm guessin' ye don't mind co-operatin' with those furriners in Norfolk an' Essex but ye dawn't want integration with 'em do ye?"
Dear Grey Polly,
You can take it out of me as much as you like. I will not take it out of you as there would be nothing left.
I have sometimes thought that we should have an independent, nuclear armed Republic of Suffolk. Enormous ditches, earthworks and walls on the Essex border. Machine-gun posts, minefields etc. Not ever seriously.
I would like to be rid of the rubbishy House of Commons. If I was in Scotland I might well vote for independence, not because of the English, but because of the useless HoC.
That is something I have in common with many "EU"-lovers. They despise the rubbish in Westminster and think that the "EU" would be better. But they are badly informed.
We need a radical overhaul of our "Democracy", not subservience to something in Brussels which is even worse.
Complain about this comment
87. At 9:36pm on 03 Jan 2009, threnodio wrote:
"#85 - SuffolkBoy2
What I don't understand is why you think we do not enjoy democratic freedoms this side of the Channel. We can make those phone calls and post to the internet just as easily as you. And, unlike the British, many Europeans have only secured those rights in the last 20 years. They will not let them go lightly and they certainly won't let an overbearing paranoid control freak government take it away from them whether it be in their own country or in Brussels."
Threnodio, please cut and paste me at least one of my comments which would justify you making that assertion about my thinking.
As I see it:
The voting system in the UK is rubbish which is why we have the wrong people in the House of Commons.
The "EU" is even worse rubbish.
As regards democracy on the continent:
They frequently use the list system with proportional representation.
That seems to work well in some ways as in the recent case in the Tyrol when Fritz Dinkhauser's List went from not existing to being the second biggest party in the Tyrolean Parliament.
However it did not work well at the recent Austrian national elections*.
The socialist party , the SPOe had changed its stance on referenda and promised referenda on any new "EU" treaties. Once the elections were over it agreed not to ask for such a referendum if its coalition partner, the OeVP didn't want one, which seems to me like a betrayal of their voters*2.
The far right anti-"EU" parties, which are said to be racist, got an increased number of seats whilst the anti-"EU" Party "Rettet Oesterrreich" (= Rescuer Austria or Save Austria) which I believe is not racist did not get in.
I believe that we all need the Single Transferable Vote system, which I believe they have in Australia. And of course more referenda.
Further, I reject the sort of constitution the Americans and the Germans have and consider it to be undemocratic.
*All "in my opinion."
*2 Any informed Austrians please comments. I believe I have my facts right. Have I?
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports Czech Foreign Minister making statement in conflict with the official "EU"-line.
Whatever statements they make they have no right to claim any legitimacy at all.
We were promised a referendum which we did not get so the "EU" has no right to exist. It represents an anti-democratic clique that has grabbed power.
We are all victims of a stealth-putsch.
Complain about this comment
#123 ikamaskeip
For the sake of accuracy, you should note that English Law was not extended to Wales and Berwick (territories conquered by England) until 1746 after the Jacobite Rising, when the predominantly English Parliament realised that there was a legal loophole within the island of Britain with these territories - Welsh law had never been codified, but still ran as a system not controlled by the UK Parliament, and Berwick still used Scots Law.
btw Can we have our Berwick back please? :-)
Complain about this comment
@ SuperJulianR 121 and threnodio 107
HMGs plans to abolish the CTA are a prime example of the New Stasi gone mad. Not only they are inherently absurd but they are technically illegal under EU law.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
They are absurd because they basically involve breaking the CTA between the ROI and the UK BUT there is no mention of controls from journeys from NI to the UK mainland (can you imagine how that would go down with the DUP and other hardcore Unionists?) AND (quote) *There is no intention to introduce fixed immigration controls on the land border between the ROI and NI*. I think Kafka (possibly even more than the Stasi) would have been immensely proud of this.
They are also technically illegal because they discriminate between a CTA national or a non-CTA national. Apart from the fact that there is no such legal concept as a CTA national (the CTA relates to a geographical area where there is freedom to travel without passports, nothing to do with nationalities) an EU or EEA member country CANNOT apply a discriminatory treatment to different EU or EEA nationalities at border controls. For example if you fly from Paris to Heathrow you follow the EU/EEA nationals passport route, there is no difference whether you are British or French and the only controls for both nationals have to be limited to checking that they are nationals of one EEA country.
Finally, the talk about a two-speed Europe is now totally obsolete. The UK gov has made that obsolete as it is not just going at a different speed as the rest of the EU (being the only EU country that is neither in Schengen or the Eurozone); in terms of freedom of movement INSIDE the EU it is actually going in the total opposite direction. The EU is removing internal borders (in 2007 countries joined Schengen and recently Switzerland joined as well), the UK is erecting them. And to top the absurdity, where it is erecting them it is only partially doing so (introducing immigration controls from the ROI to the UK from air and sea but not from land).
Kafka here we come.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @ 131
Unfortunately, HMG is planning to erect borders on the ROI/UK ferry crossings, albeit slightly later than at airports.
What is more, controls on the N Ireland/Scotland crossing are definitely under serious consideration (although, not surprisingly, given the explosive nature of this proposal, it is keeping very quiet about it).
I can recommend to you and to threnodio107 an exchange recorded in Hansard in the House of Lords which took place on 21 November 2007 (column 832-834), where it became clear that ID controls on the Irish Sea crossing from N Ireland to Great Britain were on the cards. I found it be entering 'e-borders trimble House of Lords' into Google.
It would be laughable if it was not so serious - it becomes plain in that text that Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-secretary of state, Home Office) does not actually understand that N Ireland IS part of the UK, a point not lost on Lord Trimble or Lord Glentorn.
Lord Spithead also acknowledges that 'considerable inconvenience' will be caused by imposing e-borders between GB and ROI, and ending the CTA. Strange that the same 'considerable inconvenience' is never admitted in the context of travel to other EU/Schengen member states...
It fails to inspire me with confidence when those who profess to govern us do not seem to have a clue where the territory that they profess to govern either begins or ends.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR @ 132
Absolutely true. Not only the Public School elite that rules this country doesn?t know where their territory begins or ends but neither what is the nature of that territory. When I personally asked HMG (mainly to annoy them, not expecting any change of heart) why is it that the UK is the only EU country that has refused to join Schengen and if that did not place Britain in total isolation, both physically and ideologically, from the rest of the EU, this was the response I got from the FCO:
*UK policy is to retain control of our frontiers and the Border Immigration Agency's first core objective is to strengthen our borders. Our policy has been to remain outside the Schengen travel zone. This is not least due to our island status, and the threat posed to the UK by irregular migration and cross border organised-crime.*
So basically, according to HMG the UK *IS* an island after all. Has anybody told the DUP?
I also find the silence of the vociferous Civil Liberties lobby hugely suspicious. And what about the silence of Eurosceptic quangos such as Open Europe? What Open Europe are they referring to? The one that allows undisturbed freedom of movement between 25 European countries or the *Big Brother-controlled internment island*, as superbly defined by one of their own camp?
FOREIGNERS BE WARNED ? PARANOIA RULES AT THE BRITISH BORDER
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a395ccd4-9fb1-11dc-8031-0000779fd2ac.html
ps. SuperJulianR, I am not sure if I want to read the Hansard link that you have mentioned as I am depressed enough as it is? but I will get round to it, thanks for the tip !
Complain about this comment
#132 - SuperJulianR
I have followed your search hint and read the exchange in the Lords. Living on the other side of Europe, I confess that I have not to date concerned myself too much with the question of the British Irish border but now I have investigated it, I tend to agree with JorgeG1 that this is simply a specific instance which points to a far wider government paranoia regarding national security which is in danger of descending into xenophobia.
I do not honestly see how much longer the rest of Europe can stand idly by and let the British continue to negotiate opt out after opt out. To do so in the context of the national border issue is to encourage them in the belief that can build a police state with impunity and without regard either to the individual liberty of their own citizens or their fellow EU citizens.
There must be absolutely no question of cooperation regarding Frontex while the government maintains this stance. I think it is only a matter of time before increasingly angry and frustrated European countries start to contemplate retaliatory action to make travel as inconvenient and bureaucratic as the British are making it for their fellow Europeans.
What I find extremely curious is that, while there is not a single political party of any note in the UK that is willing to put its head above the parapet and come out against British membership of the EU, neither is there one which promotes the idea of flexibility and closer cooperation. Even the LibDems have been seduced by the absurd notion that secure borders are necessary and enforceable. The ambivalence of the British in regard to its relationship with the EU can no longer be ignored. On the one hand, it bundles ratification of Lisbon through with indecent haste and virtually no consultation while at the same time throwing up borders and barriers which cannot be justified unless you accept the view I have expressed earlier that Britain living in a siege mentality which is wholly disproportionate to the threat.
If the UK really is doing all this as a response to the Islamic militant threat, when can we expect them to start work on a wall around East Yorkshire?
Complain about this comment
Scrouge's are not for new year anythings. I got the worst possible NY present - the order of the boot. But I am not moping around. Had a bottle of bubbly with the wife and little one and a bunch of firecrackers and rockets. What am I going to do - Start something on my own probably - at least I cant fire myself!
Complain about this comment
Oh and I would like to add, that dear old England (that I left 43 years ago) is still unable to get a serious political march together and I am not talking about strikes. I am talking about a peaceful march taken up by MILLIONS across the country to inform Brown and Co that the public has had enough. BUT, it just isnt cricket is it old chap! - seriously sad for the Brits, no brass balls and gumption left
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot @125, yes i'm also all for Golfstream which seems to be in reality Gulf stream? and not "golf" how we Russians got used to call it?
I somehow associated it with warming up England, so golfstream seemed reasonable, LOL.
But must be "gulf", mum says starts from the Gulf of Mexico something, where it is warm, Cuba and places, so may be that's why "Gulf"? She says it's a river in the ocean, goes to warm up Iceland then turns sideways a bit and heats up Sweden, but alas by reaching us in Murmansk all expires and basically ends up. That's why it's total South in Sweden while total freezer and disaster with climate in Murmansk, only Gulf/Golf makes the difference. While on the map both places are nearby.
Having got these explanations, I conclude the Golf/Gulf it's a useless thing for Russia entirely, however since mum likes it and approves a lot as a meteo person, the river in the ocean should be left alone, as I said. A big and substantial natural thing, why, sounds well.
Mum also remembered how we nearly turned Siberian rivers upside down, that is, to change their flow direction, to feed with water Southern steppes, Kazakhstan must be, or Mongolia, don't know, to make liveable, and how good was USSR exactly ran out of money by the time and the project was not done.
Complain about this comment
To greypolyglot (125) and WebAliceinwonderland (137):
Glad to note that the Rocky Mountains theory is also known. I'm not an climatologist so to me that is the newest theory... but alas... don't worry about Gulf stream, I can assure that there is no danger for the public in my project to fill in the English channel.
And Alice... No no no... where have you lost your Soviet imagination. You don't fill up the English channel by moving dirt or chalk into it. No no no. Real man and Soviet Engineers use nuclear weapons for that.
What we do is place thousands or even tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on Earths crust at the English channel. We will make two lines from them, one from Plymouth to Breast and one from Dover to Calais. We drill the explosives very deep on earths crust and then with series of timed detonations we will breach the Earths crusts, let the magma erupt and fill the channel with it. Of course there maybe some side effects on detonating thousands of nuclear weapons at one place nearly at the same time, but in any case they would be more than manageable.
So Alice, do you have Putin's number? I need to start making calls to get those explosives in place.
PS. If you are a producer for James Bond movies and would like to make a movie about evil Eurocrats filling the English channel then just call me, I can sell the rights for this plot with a reasonable price.
Complain about this comment
I wish you a Happy New Year Mark and also to all those who post in this blog.
As a European and a firm believer in the EU, living a Spain, probably the most committed member of the EU, I do not really care whether Ireland says Yes to the Lisbon Treaty or not. The EU is about the peoples of Europe and now beyond and not much about treaties or Brussels. We here in Spain approved the Draft Constitution by National Referendum. We now leave it to others to get on with it.
We have problems of our own including a glut of unsold flats and a general slowdown, particularly bad for the motor sector.
Fortunately Spain has a relatively low level of foreign debt, about 80% of GDP compared with 100% for the USA, 375% for GB and nearly 1000% for Ireland. Running up Credit Card Debt is almost impossible as the banks, under instruction from the Bank of Spain, take the whole amount owing out of ones current account on the first of the month. Not enought to pay it off - you go overdrawn there an then. Some with mortgages. There are no mortgage brokers and your bank will only let you borrow what you can pay back. etc. etc.
Spain is to become the centre of the new Mediteranean Union with the Headquarters here in Barcelona. Spain also has ever growing links with Latin American. These are the directions we look to for the future. Yes the Uniteed States will remain important at least but thier star is fading.
2009 will be difficult but Spain has endured far, far worse - we will get through this crisis too.
Complain about this comment
#138 - Jukka_Rohila
The Royal Navy really needs to be able to get in and out of Portsmouth and Plymouth otherwise it will be like the Russian Black Sea fleet - all tooled up and nowhere to go. So if you could see your way clear to just blowing up the eastern end of the Channel, we would be very grateful.
By the way, why don't we assume that Turkey will be joining eventually and blow up the Dardanelles too? Then we could walk from John O'Groats to the Cape of Good Hope without getting wet!
Complain about this comment
threnodio, the 36 km nuclear dam currently in constructive planning by Finnish-Russian Chamber of Commerce is to the east, of both Portsmouth and Plymouth, so no worry. Since 36 is the shortest cut, btw Dover and Calais, we wouldn't be interested to move the dam westwards.
The British fleet would still be able to go out, to the left, that is, LOL. To the right, why would you wish to go? All attractive things, like USA, places, are to the left. Really, not much point for the fleet to go to the right.
Instead, in consolation, like you suggested, Jukka's branch office will blow up the Dardanelles, and you would take excellent walks, from what is the name, John O'Groats up there, to down there. In good hope, of course! lots of fresh air, jogging and all.
Now need to think what happens to the Russian Black Sea fleet without the Dardanelles. Somehow can't imagine georgaphically.
But suspect there is a trap in this Dardanelles' suggestion. No. No, no, no. Bad idea.
Unhealthy interest, what's this Gallipolli persistent attraction, no, the Dardanelles we leave like Golfstream, where they are!
That British diplomacy! "to walk, without having feet wet", aha.
you can't relax for a sec! in strategic planning.
No the Finnish-Rus. consortium suggests another jogging route: From John O'Groats, as a starting point no objections, on the new dam, and to Europe, to Europe, via all Rosy O'Grady's on the way (do you really wish to end up in Gallipolli?), and turn right, and to Siberia instead, you know, lots of options there, think Big!
Complain about this comment
#121 - SuperJulianR
I am afraid I missed your earlier post regarding the yachting community. I was a member of that community for many years racing out of Cowes as well as many leisure trips during which we encountered minimal interference either going out or returning. There were customs check occasionally of course and a watchful eye was kept for visiting Europeans tempted to bring pets ashore but that was about it. This was the case long before Schengen.
The problem I have with this is that people do tend to get the governments they deserve - especially in a so called democracy. So it ill behooves the yachting community to winge about the new restrictions inflicted upon them by people they voted for. (Yes, I know a Labour candidate has about as much chance of winning the Isle of Wight or Chichester as fly - but the parties have the same policy).
Until someone is prepared to stand up to the erosion of civil liberties that is casting such a long shadow over British life and launch a credible political challenge to the tendency, the people will continue to be the victims of their own choices. As for me, I was recently offered quite an attractive possibility to return to the UK and turned it down flat. Britain is no longer a democracy and I do not want any part of it until personal liberty is restored. If that means permanent exile, so be it.
Complain about this comment
#128 - SuffolkBoy2
"Threnodio, please cut and paste me at least one of my comments which would justify you making that assertion about my thinking."
How about at # 61
"It is nice to see people burning the flag of this lousy, arrogant, megalomaniac dictatorship".
Complain about this comment
Gas Update Express Gazette
First of all I am very sorry and ashamed we can't supply you normally. Whatever the reasons leaves a scandalous trail ab Russia, the country around which always some scandals seem to happen.
Secondary, the EU does need to look into Ukraine with un-misted by sentiments of "Orange revolution, dear small darling" eyes, and see it like it sees Russia - for what it is.
The latest developments are:
1-3 Jan Ukraine stole a bit, about 10% of volumes due to Europe. Seeing the loss on entry the first gas-measurement & distribution station (10 km off border with Ukraine, Slovakia, Velki-Kapushany town), Gasprom increased amounts pumped into Europe via Ukraine, to above the limits. To allow Ukraine to steal a bit, and still feed Europe with gas normally.
So far so good.
However Gasprom naively thought the EU countries would start blaming Ukraine and do smth example shove into Ukraine nose the EU Energy Convention, that Ukraine signed and ratified, ahead of the time, willing to eventually become a EU country.
Chapter 4 of it apparently says transit obligations are separated from other gas relations; a transit country fulfills it in spite or irrelative of what other commercial disputes may arise btw the gas-supplier country and gas-customer country.
Gasprom said 35 times in statements since Jan 1st - "we hope Europian countries under-receiving gas would corner Ukraine by Chapter 4 of the EU Energy Convention.
Russia itself can't apply this to Ukraine in any court, because unlike Ukraine we only signed the Convention, but have not ratified it. So are in idiotic situation ourselves now. Russia hasn't ratified as ratification means free access to oil&gas extracting business on Russia's territory by any EU company. So Russia wanted to keep the attractive business of natural resources as own monopoly, and be able to let in only the companies it is willing to/or un-willing, and do with them later on all it pleases (TNK-BP example, etc.) Should Russia ratify, no such fooling around as with TNK-BP would be possible, the EU Energy Convention is very strict and detailed.
So Russia can't sue Ukraine as not a full-rights member in the EU Energy deal.
Hoped EU would instead, but three ha ha.
The new Chech one is not Sarkozy (oj we miss Sarkozy), cooly said it's commercial dispute btw Russia and Ukraine, Europe won't interfere. "We're managing, there are undeground reservoiurs/stocks of gas in Europe, in case of emergencies like this one, let Russia and Ukraine quarrel without us."
So far so good. But Gasprom got disappointed, seeing that no help to punish naughty Ukraine is going to come from outside. And Ukraine took a very bulldoggy stand as well, not a word not an e-mail, no intention to resume the collapsed gas talks, since Dec 31st when Youshenko called his delegation off from Moscow's Gasprom office. No desire to come back at all.
Meanwhile it became Jan 4th, we pump extra-s, Ukraine steals extras and more than extra-s, and pretends nothing happens. When Slovakia addressed Ukraine they cooly said "Yes, we take a share from European gas, but for purely technical reasons, to maintain our networks in order."
Gasprom made the next step - on Jan 4th morning announced via Russian TV main channel (directly with Ukraine we don't speak anymore) it offers Ukraine a new price - 450 dollars instead of 250 they turned down as a crazy offer on Dec 31st.
Don't ask me why Gasprom thinks it's a wise thing to do. Seemingly they simply decided to play hardball with Ukraine, threaten to charge them nearly European prices.
Ukraine responded by their Energy minister
applying to a local court in Kiev, on Jan 4th afternoon, to question the validity of the Ukraine-Russia transit contract, signed in 2002 until 2010.
On the morn Jan 5th a district Kiev court took the decision surprise surprise that the contract is absolutely wrong and stupid, and ruled "We prohibit Ukr. Energo to privide gas transit services according to this contract."
So Ukraine got a lousy and self-invented but still a paper allowing it to stop working as a transit country.
Gasprom got very happy and went to a further meeting with Putin to get own sanctions blessed unclear which or what to do now. Saw the official meeting btw Gasprom and Putin in direct broadcast (what they talked about un-officially no idea of course) (but I guess the same. only more interesting expressions were used), Gasprom waved in air papers, see the records etc., EU observers signed, loss of 63 mln cubic metres in transit via Ukraine during 1-4 Jan.
Putin said in which case we won't allow them to continue stealing in comfort, you stop pumping extra-s, instead pump less
from 5th Jan evening, we need to get our 63 million re-gained within the nearest days. Gradually decrease the amounts pumped into Ukraine, so that Jan 1st - Jan 10th total via them will be exactly the amount we ought to have done to Europe.
Read "We do our obligations, pump into Ukraine what's due to Europe, and what Ukraine does with it - is not our business." Not these words said, but clearly the meaning.
Gasprom said Aye aye Sir.
Then it became even more quicker, with the news. Having got this piece of news, ab the mind of Putin about the future, Ukraine introduced into practice its Kiev court decision.
At 4:30 am (2:30 Slovakia time last night) (night 6/7th Jan) closed up 3 tubes out of 4 going via their territory.
Left only 1 tube working, "for technical system maintaining."
Whatever we pump into Ukraine now simply doesn't get through, well, by one tube it does, but it's a tiny reek. Velky Kopushany Slovakia station of this morn records entry of 1 mln cubic metres per hour instead of 7 mln the previous night.
All got alarmed, a new meeting with Gasprom this morn., to pump all we can via Blue stream tube via Turkey, via Belorussia, via anything possible, but as not much is possible ther anyway - to pump out of Gasprom-owned underground reservoiurs in Europe. Luckily, there are some strategic Russia-owned stocks, last reserves, on the EU territory here and there hidden.
Because the weather also got mad very unlucky, -26C for this night planned in Germany, total Siberia in Europe.
Honestly that's a very brazen decision of Ukraine to shut up transit tubes, even Gasprom didn't plan for such.
But what can you do with Ukraine, start a war with them? Half of them are Russians there, and they don't even know who they are ruled by, Youshenko with who we quarrel is supported by 3% of Ukr. population only. The "gas princess" Julia Timoshenko is supported by 20% of Ukrainians. The third chap, of their 3 powers, old communist etc. Yanukovich, supposed to be pro-Russian - by 20% of population as well.
There is nobody in their power who they like, and they only quarrel in the parliament meetings and fight with each other, total mess.
Complain about this comment
TV says this minute EU commission in Ukraine convinced them to resume talks with Russia. Ukraine sent e-mail to Gasprom saying will come back to Moscow "On January 8th to resume the talks."
Gasprom's head Miller now addresses Ukraine on Russian TV, saying - "Come today! it's a crisis! we'll be waiting the whole night."
Finally some sensible words.
I wish EU takes this Ukraine ASAP, or we split them 50/50, or they stay independent but some EU/Russian commission is allowed to control their tubes' network.
Russian Kremlin-opposition sources say Ukrainian tubes' network asks for immediate up-grade or fixing, something technical done, as they didn't invest money into it since USSR times, and their claims that all can collapse without gas in are kind of alas realistic.
Ukraine has gas saved underground for a year in advance. They don't or can't lift it up!!!!
Complain about this comment
#144 - WebAliceinwonderland
Thank you for you detailed comments.
However, a suitable western response is characterised by the Czech presidency and is very simple. Basically, we don't give a damn at this stage whose fault it is. We have contracts for the supply of gas, we are paying the market price for it and we expect it to be delivered according to the contract.
The blame game we can play later.
If it emerges later that Ukraine was helping itself to western gas supplies, I would hate to be in the delegation attempting to negotiate future EU membership. Death by laughter would be a new twist.
For the time being, both sides have a clear duty to negotiate a settlement. They can argue all they like about politics. This is a purely commercial arrangement and it must be honoured by all means possible.
Complain about this comment
146. threnodio:
"#144 - WebAliceinwonderland
Thank you for your detailed comments."
Yes. Well done, Alice. That's probably not the version that will be served up by the press in the UK. No doubt they'll contrive to make it all the fault of the wicked EU.
"If it emerges later that Ukraine was helping itself to western gas supplies, I would hate to be in the delegation attempting to negotiate future EU membership. Death by laughter would be a new twist."
I suspect the Ukrainians are beginning to work that one out. The European Commission prefers to play nicely but, given that it often negotiates on the basis of mandates handed down by the Member States, it certainly knows how to play hardball as well.
Complain about this comment
#86
There are some rumors, indeed. But it can't be serious. Some news for BBC! One super-member Slovenia is blocking one newcomer from becoming the member. As if Scotland, after separating from England, in a hypothetical situation, lay claim to the teritory of Windsor, or perhaps London. Slovenia, after separating from Croatia, is laying claim to a piece of Adriatic See. That can't be serious. Even for Bruxelles bureaucracy that is an obvious act of sabotage of Croatia's effort to join the EU, with no proper reason.
Complain about this comment
bonybbony @148,
I don't care one way or the other whether or not Croatia joins the EU.
If Croatia do join, however, the main beneficiaries will be translators and printers, as with the adoption of Serbo-Croat as the EU's 23rd official language, the number of possible permutations of translation will jump from 252 to 275.
I wonder how many people can translate from Serbo-Croat to Maltese? Or from Finnish to Gaelic? Answer: very few - that's why English is used as a 'bridge' language.
Now (just to set the cat among the pigeons), if the EU was serious about integration it would ditch its 'United in Diversity' rubbish and conduct all its business in English (as all serious international institutions do anyway).
It would be much more efficient, and would have the added bonus of seriously annoying the French ;-)
Complain about this comment
About the Ukraine - Russia gas dispute...
I think there are few things missing from this conversation explaining why Ukraine is so reluctant to buy gas at 250$.
1) I read an column on Helsingin Sanomat that noted that the price of gas may decrease under 300$ in western markets before summer. Thus if the market price falls into that figure, then Ukraine with price of 250$ will be buying gas nearly at market prices. So they want lower prices.
2) Belarus gets gas with 150$. This is a problem for Ukraine as, I suspect, their exporting industries are similar and their destinations are the same: Russia and the EU. So if Belarus gets gas in cheaper price than Ukraine then it starts to hurt Ukrainian companies and their economy.
3) Its not actually about the price of gas, but an way to extort EU behind the curtains. Ukraine wants to get Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU as soon as possible as it open European markets to them and as other countries with whom they compete, from ex-Yugoslavia, are becoming members like Croatia or signing the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. What better way to extort EU than make trouble with Russia, get gas cut off from Europe and the EU then rescuing everybody giving Ukraine the Agreement they want.
Now that is the Ukrainian side, but we should also note that the EU has also vested interests in the gas dispute and reasons on why escalation of the gas dispute serves its interests.
Having the gas cut off from Europe means...
1) ...having the money flow from Europe be cut to Russia. Its handy way to send a message behind the curtains to Putin and his friends: "you need our money so remember that in good times too".
2) ...having a wake up call for all member state politicians and citizens who object on achieving energy Independence. It serves a message of "see, people are cold because we used Russian gas and didn't build that new power/nuclear plant by ourself".
3) ...having a wake up call for all those who object on diversifying our fossil fuel energy sources which translates to "we need to do business with the Iranians" as they have lots of gas, which translates to "so what if they are a theocracy, they have gas and oil so they are our best friends forever no matter what".
So the EU has its very own interests on not solving this crisis not too soon. Also there is the thing that the EU can't just let aspiring member states extort it, of course it doesn't want to make them angry or insult them, so doing nothing and letting both Ukraine and Russia be in their own spots serves a purpose, and letting citizens take reality check is even a better one.
I think that this whole gas dispute is not a thing to get all warmed up. All three, Ukraine, Russia and the EU, are just playing poker with each other and seeing who folds up first.
Personally I hope that this "crisis" will allow the EU to both become more energy independent and diversifying its energy sources. That would be an all out victory for the Europe.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (149):
Using English as the only EU language wouldn't advance integration but assimilation. The EU is about integration, not assimilation. Also EU is for the people and thus it needs to present it self with the language of the people.
However if the EU would settle on using only a one language, then it couldn't be English nor France as those are languages for puny and weak people. No! We should adopt German as it is strong and punctual language suitable for masters of the world!
Complain about this comment
#148 - bonybbony
I find this very curious because you may recall that the beginning of the Slovenian presidency in January 2008 began only a few days after Schengen came into effect for the accession countries. Part of the commitment on the part of the new Schengen nations was to beef up land borders between themselves and non-Schengen countries. I do not know if this was reported in the UK but there was some coverge here that Slovenia and Croatia had to hastily convene a border commission to establish exactly where the border was since nobody had bothered with it for years. The borders should have been clearly defined in December 2007. If Slovenia is now disputing them, how can they possibly be living up to their Schengen obligations? If Croatia is admitted and they sign up for Schengen, this will all be a bit academic anyway. There has to be a more complex reason for this.
Complain about this comment
#100 JorgeG1
"1. Free movement of goods (i.e. a free trade area)
2. Free movement of capital
3. Free movement of labour
The UK has all this three, but then comes the crucial fourth element:"
+
We certainly do NOT have number 1.
UK citizens are only allowed to bring in small quantities of certain items.
This is due to an imbalance in taxation in some countries in the Economic Union?
Complain about this comment
#150 - Jukka_Rohila
You make a good and valid point about brinkmanship but there are two points you have overlooked (or understated as the case may be). Firstly, your argument sounds a little hollow when viewed from a central European perspective where we are currently heavily dependent on the supply coming from Ukraine and the pressure is dropping dramatically as I write. The second is that Ukraine have placed themselves in a completely untenable position. Their story changes on an almost daily basis from unsatisfactory infrastructure (how can it possibly cope under full pressure but not under reduced pressure?) and they are creating a very bad impression amongst ordinary Europeans in this region who will experience the problems first hand but are still expected to welcome them into the S and AA with a view to membership.
The increasing speculation here is that they simply cannot be trusted and this will persist until they sit down once again with Gasprom and try to sort this out. As someone has already posted, the EU can play hardball too.
By the way, the Kazakh field is closer and as large as Iranian reserves and that is the obvious next port of call. But we are warned of serious disruption within the next ten days and I really don't think we can build a pipeline or a nuclear power station within that time frame.
Complain about this comment
#149 MaxSceptic
" .... It would be much more efficient, and would have the added bonus of seriously annoying the French ;-)"
+
While we are at it, make them abandon the annual expensive non-green pilgrimage to Strasbourg.
The French would be even more peeved.
Complain about this comment
#137 WebAliceinwonderland
"But must be "gulf", mum says starts from the Gulf of Mexico something, where it is warm, Cuba and places, so may be that's why "Gulf"? She says it's a river in the ocean, goes to warm up Iceland..."
Your mum is clever.
That is what I was taught at school.
I guess you missed classes that week.
- Rocky Mountains? I will have to read up on that.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @151,
Gott in Mimmel!
They had their try(ies) a while back and flunked it ;-)
Much as I love Germany and German culture there are some things that are better left to other nations (You probably know the old, old joke that describes a European Heaven as a place where the chefs are French, the engineers german, the lovers Italian, the administrators Swiss, etc... and European Hell as a place where the chefs are British, the administrators Italian, the police German....).
Anyway, how could the German language conquer Europe when most blogs can't even handle an Umlaut?
Mark Twain wrote at length (with German it's unavoidable) about the 'Awful German Language'. Enjoy.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (154):
True. Kazakh fields are closer, but then again Kazakhstan is in the Russian sphere of influence and I don't think that Kremlin would let Europe to tap Kazakh fields directly without a row or a showdown as that would not only decrease their power, but deny the profits from lucrative gas transit business. Besides, there is an added benefit on going with the Iranians: if they ever have an working nuclear weapon its not likely that they will use it against their closest customers and trade partners. Thus Iranian approach will not only diverse energy sources, but secures Europe.
You are also right that in ten days its impossible to build gas pipelines and nuclear plants, but ten days and few cold nights are enough to reverse peoples opinions on energy Independence and on allowed energy sources. For example people in Germany would probably lift the ban on nuclear power if they were enough hard hit with a energy crisis. So short term pain can make long term policy changes.
However my central point more or less is that for EU countries, even those hard hit in central eastern Europe, having people out in cold for few days just doesn't matter as benefits on changing long term policies are much more lucrative. The thing making this possible is that both Ukrainians and Russians are going to get blamed for this. After an example of not relying on not only to Russia but to Ukraine is set, then EU can come and save the day.
As for Ukrainians, it really doesn't matter if they get the blame, EU won't accept Ukraine anyway to its member state in the next 10 years, thus their objectives for now should just be getting the SAA process going on and getting the gas from Russia with lowered price. EU may get some bad publicity on giving on SAA, and Ukraine gets bad will too, but then again in few years all have been forgotten and when we welcome them as a member to EU nobody will remember these times.
The only way Ukraine can loose this came is that their people will start protesting first against their govermeant on having gas cut off, but then again ordinary Ukrainians already should know on how troubling times these are and thus be willing to make personal sacrifices in order to benefit the country.
Sounds cynical, but that is how I would play this game.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @154 wrote:
"As someone has already posted, the EU can play hardball too."
It is highly debatable whether the EU has any balls - hard or soft - with which to play.
Complain about this comment
#158 - Jukka_Rohila
Out of interest, how are you going to route this Iranian gas - through Afghanistan and Iraq and Georgia? Why not just buy it from Azerbaijan?
#159 - MaxSceptic
And there was I thinking you regarded the EU as all balls :-)
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (160):
Easy my dear fellow. Let me introduce our newest discovery: Turkey. This Turkey, as we like to call it, lies between the EU and the Iran! Marvelous!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish-Iranian_natural_gas_pipeline
And behold, I give you the future!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_Pipeline
Do note that with this project Iran currently isn't accepted to supply gas by the objection of both EU and USA. However as the US position as hegemonic power has waded and Europe's need to diversify energy sources is more pressing than ever, I really don't think that EU has no reason to object on getting Iranian gas. Also this whole project suites perfectly on getting gas from Iran and if Iranians would accept Euros as payable currency I don't think there is no reason on not buying from them.
Another added benefit on buying from Iranians is that we can then sell them back, besides usual German luxury cars, also nuclear and weapons technology. That's win-win scenario!
Complain about this comment
#161 - Jukka_Rohila
I apologise and am deeply embarrassed. I must make a mental note to check maps before shooting off my mouth. I must confess I had not realised there was a direct land border with Turkey in the north west until I looked. I take it all back.
Being serious, I think a lot depends on the outcome of this year's presidential election. If Ahmadinajad loses it - and there are signs of waning popularity - the religious leadership is much more conciliatory towards the west and I can see no reason why relations could not be normalised fairly quickly. Iran has become something of a hate figure in recent years but we would do well to remember that it is a civilised and technologically advanced country with an elected government. A new administration in Tehran could bring about a whole new dynamic which we would be foolish not to use to our advantage.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @161,
Crikey - and I thought I was cynical....
If a theocratic Iran ever comes really close to the production of a working nuclear weapon, then we are all likely to experience 'interesting times' - probably courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.
I wouldn't invest any hopes or trust in Iran until it has undergone a change of regime and rid itself of its repressive fundamentalist outlook.
Complain about this comment
149. MaxSceptic:
"if the EU was serious about integration it would ditch its 'United in Diversity' rubbish and conduct all its business in English (as all serious international institutions do anyway)."
If the UK was serious about the EU the idea might have merit. As it is.........
I'm only joking. Have you ever tried working all day long in a foreign language? I doubt it. I have. It ain't easy, even if you have an excellent command of the language.
Complain about this comment
159. MaxSceptic:
"threnodio @154 wrote:
"As someone has already posted, the EU can play hardball too."
It is highly debatable whether the EU has any balls - hard or soft - with which to play."
The EU seems to have at least enough to annoy you.
I'm surprised that you're not blaming Brussels for the cold weather.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (163):
You said "Crikey - and I thought I was cynical...."
Thank you, thank you, I rarely hear this kind of appraisal.
You said: "If a theocratic Iran ever comes really close to the production of a working nuclear weapon, then we are all likely to experience 'interesting times' - probably courtesy of the Israeli Air Force."
Actually that is for arms dealers a fire sale or commission paradise.
Those Iranians need new armaments and lots of them to not only counteract Israel, but also Saudis who by the way are a repressive fundamentalist theocracy to witch Brits and Americans are competing to sell newest weapons technology. Of course it would be unethical to sell the same Eurofighters and F-16 to Iran that have been and are sold to Israel and Saudis. However selling Dassault Rafale and Jas Grippen should be a-okey as with other weaponry.
I don't think it should matter for us Europeans on do the Iranians have a theocracy or not. Our need for energy diversification and need to sell European products out on the world is still the same. Actually selling as much and as advanced weaponry to Iran is a sensible thing to do as it will balance middle east: it will restrain both Israelis and Saudis and thus encourage to them solve their problems peacefully.
Of course there is possibility that an all out regional war will ignite and whole middle east will be bare death radioactive dessert from Tel Aviv to Teheran and Riad, but then again... as long as we have working air and missile defense protecting Europe I don't see that this would be a problem for Europe... then again that would bring eternal peace to middle east... so actually we have another win-win scenario! ;-)
Besides, if we don't buy gas from Iran and sell weaponry to them they will just turn to Chinese and Russians.
PS. Of course one thing preventing Iran from democratizing is more or less their nationalism. If Iranians fear that their country is in jeopardy to be taken as a vasal state or been seen as wake, they rally for support of their state and its leadership. Now if we would give them security against Israel and Saudis, it could allow Iranians to breath more freely and let the leadership to make the country more free.
Complain about this comment
#163. MaxSceptic wrote:
'interesting times' - probably courtesy of the Israeli Air Force"
There goes the last vestige of a 'superpower' - it can't even summon up enough intestinal fortitude to do its own dirty work and admits it intends to rely on its agents, much like it did when it armed an financed Saddam Hussein's regime to wage war on Iran!
Complain about this comment
Happy New Year Mark and enjoy it now for who knows what is to come. This reminds me of my ailing grandmother who suffered from arthritis and was for ever, justly I must add, complaining. I used to console her by telling her to be happy now as things will only get worse.
And now something different; can you please explain to me why only you have the privilege of giving your full name so that we can properly wish you a Happy New Year while I have to hide behind an assumed name? Reading the blog from the intelligent to tedious, from flattering to insulting, from arrogant to conceited I only wonder what would happen if we all had to declare our full identity. Why couldn?t all this be a transparent debate? This is a public place and like attending a public meeting at Trafalgar Square we should not wear face masks. Anyway it would be interesting to see what others think about this.
May I fully agree with so many commentators who so rightly object to border controls imposed by the UK. As a frequent traveller not once do I feel annoyed having to wait for long time to check through the UK/EU passports line. At the same time the Non EU queue seems to be non existent or small. In good old days it was usually the foreigners who had to wait longer, not that I advocate such course.
The argument that we are an island in need of protection from criminals and illegal immigrants does not hold true. Most of the illegal immigration does not come through airports and seaports and no amount of immigration control seems to stop them. Before long it will become easier to come into the country illegally then by holding a valid UK or EU passport. Sadly I think the government is introducing stricter controls to cover up for its inability to stop illegal immigration. The paradox is that the controls usually affect those who would be entitled to come in while those who are bent on coming in illegally are let off.
On the gas issue I am awaiting to hear from a relative in Belgrade how they are going to cope. According to the Serbian TV the gas pipes will be dry from tonight as all gas supplies to Serbia are cut off. But then who cares it is only a Christmas Eve there, they can roast their Christmas roast on a bon fire while running round in circles to keep warm. Merry Christmas.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ 134 and 142
My interest in the UK/Irish border stems from its huge symbolic significance of how the UK gets on with our closest neighbour, more than any direct connection myself with Ireland, although I have visited both the UK part and the Republic part, and (purposely) driven over the border.
The UK/Ireland border should have been the proof that the UK can live with an open border, like any normal 21st Century European state, the example to HMG that an open border CAN work without the sky falling in, and at the same time bring huge benefits to those who live on both sides of it. It should have been the evidence that even the UK could safely join Schengen, and the European family, eventually.
Ireland - well worth a visit if you have never been there - is a real role model for the UK: modern progressive, everything the UK could be if only it could only wake up to the 21st Century. It has accepted Europe, the Euro, metrication of all its speed limits and distance signs, building modern infrastructure including excellent motorways, but yet still keeping its own Irish identity.
The UK and the Irish Republic may have a troubled history in some ways, but it is a close history, with (in practice) a common language, a great deal of shared history, close family connections, and many ex-servicemen who fought and even died for the UK coming from that country; it also has no land borders except with the UK.
Instead events have proved the opposite - the UK has become like the neighbour that refuses to get on with ANY of its neighbours, and soon, as I think you are saying, the one no-one will want to live next door to.
What do you think causes it?
A deep insecurity complex on the part of HMG?
The fear of losing 'control' of its people?
A failure to move on from 19th Century nation-statism (presumably because HMG is all to conscious that the UK is not, and never has been, a nation state in the first place?
An inferiority complex that stems from a refusal to accept the obvious - that the UK has declined in half a century from being the centre of a world empire to nothing more than a small to medium-sized European state of little significance, desperately trying to cling to the USA in an effort to be noticed?
I would be interested to know what others think.
PS on not returning the UK I sympathise. I left in 1979 to live in another EU country, not wanting ever to come back. By 1982, the country seemed to have changed - we were modernising, Lady Thatcher was leading Europe towards the single market, borders were tumbling down, inward investment boomed, and the economy seemed to move out of the dark ages - and I came back. Sad that the place is reverting now to type.
Complain about this comment
There seem to be two or three entirely different threads going here.
I will keep out of the one about filling in the English Channel. A motorway bridge from Kent to Pas de Calais would do me, like the one from Denmark to Sweden.
More useful in the long run that all the stuff Gordon Brown will waste our (borrowed) money on, AND he'd get most of it back via tolls eventually. He'd also go down in history for more than just wrecking the economy.
Complain about this comment
Merry Christmas to anyone else here who has it tonight. Just returned from church and snow-storm and all.
Second festive night poisoned by gas; on the N.Year instead of Kremlin stars and tower clock jingle bells - total Ukraine and Gasprom on TV, ugh, and now again.
Jukka, Turkey all yesterday was agreeing with Iran to buy gas from them instead of from Russia, for the record. Don't know how it ended, yet.
Kazakh gas (and Turkmenian) you've got right feelings about; Russia has a deal and sells their gas. Gasprom tried to advertise to Ukraine an option to buy Middle Asia gas (contracted by Gasprom ahead) at 320 dollars. Because Gasprom buys it from them at 300. More expensive than ours but not ours, LOL. Since Ukraine has developed such an allergy to contract buying "Russian Russian" gas. Ukraine didn't show any interest, as you can imagine.
Your proposition that Ukraine dislikes the price of 450 as by summertime gas to Europe might cost just 300 is void.
The price of 450 Gasprom offers to Ukraine is now for January only. Repeated a 100 times - "for the January only.
As punishment for failing us before the main and only customer.
What's next hell knows, we need to get out of Christmas frosts. If the main customer freezes out with human casualties...
And "Christmas frosts" notion is followed in the Russian calendar by "Epiphany frosts".
Since you all got Russian weather now all of a sudden, you might like to know the schedule of frosts we use at home. 18th of Jan your time, next wave, Ephiphany here.
Jukka, Ukrainians themselves won't freeze out, don't worry. They make gas themselves. Covers only 20% of their needs but they are a gas-producing country. Last two years they were even selling gas.
Joushenko didn't take Gasprom offer of 250 dollars simply because Putin made the offer to Julia Timoshenko and not to him. When she came to visit Putin in Moscow, and returned back with the glorious (as she thought) paper. And advertised it a lot, that she obtained for Ukraine a nice contract, tore out of the jaws of Putin. Joushenko needs a better offer, to beat Timoshenko.
Putin won't give him a better offer, ha! to the man who tried not to let Russian Black sea fleet back home to Sebastopol! (after it drowned a Georgian navy ship.)
The best offer Putin made for the girl, as she was more cool towards Russia during the Georgia conflict. Cool to the degree that Joushenko accused her of "treason of national interests" and started a court case against her, setting on her his pocket Prosecutor General. The court case failed by Nov, but the sediment stayed. When she returned back home with the Russia's gas offer feeling a victorer, the first thing Youshenko did instead of thanks he tried to put her to the prison.
You really need to take all components into the picture, it's all very intricate and under the carpet bulldoggy.
Ukraine loses money by all means by this affair. But Joushenko owes Saakashvili a favour, and pays the favour, by causing Russia troubles. This is Georgian war continued.
What Ukraine pays does not matter.
As Ukrainian latest jokes go "Why to worry? We haven't paid Russia at 120, haven't paid at 179, won't pay at 450 - what's the difference?"
Or does IMF seriously plan to ever get back its loans to Ukraine, from which Ukraine pays its gas contracts to Russia?
Whether they return us the debt doesn't matter either. Gasprom stopped mentioning debts locally here on TV since Jan 1st. Not interesting anymore; the only thing that matters is they transit to Europe.
Europe always pays and on time, very accurately.
Debts are used a bit to complain to Europe, who likes to respect debts and all things Western.
Likewise nobody here is seriously angry with Ukraine for stealing gas. It is again for you, to explain problems in parameters understandable by Europeans. Who can't imagine stealing things and get horrified.
If Ukraine would steal extra-s but still transit to Europe the European share in full, there wouldn't be such hysterics.
As a matter of fact it is masochistically kind of pleasant to see Gasprom in tantrums for once. They thought they are omnipotent. And hop - a nobody - Ukraine - closes down the pipes. And try to do anything with them!
What's the point to have all the gas there is if you can't deliver it. French boxing. How do you call it, when you can fight by legs?
Here a St. Petersburger speaks in me angry with Gasprom for bullying through their intention to build a head office in St. Petersburg. A glass high building to spoil our historical down-town.
To be fair must add I'm not jealous with Ukraine, Gasprom is the worst company to negotiate a deal with, must be, in Russia.
To give you an example: the new Gasprom office in St. Pete, the building, the city budget has to cover the construction of - by 49%. LOL.
A very poor organisation. Can't build itself an office. Without municipal money.
And we are doomed to have this new glass disaster, because city council is all crawling on hind paws before Gasprom, as where the WHQ will be - there will be the taxes.
That's the consolation we get for the sponsoring the construction.
Still might be avoided, city council is playing now the crisis card seemingly cleverly, trying to run away from this 49% sponsorship.
Anyway this is our local troubles.
Germany is least likely to get frozen or to be convinced to use your favourite nuclear reactors, Jukka. They have biggest underground gas stocks of the whole EU,
I think. And I think that Gasprom-owned underground stocks in Europe, from where the gas in pumped now to compensate for Ukraine full stop, are also in Germany.
Neither you in Finland is going to get frozen, the pipe to you goes by my dacha, from St. Petersburg. No Ukraine in between us.
Balcans is worst hit, no alternative routes.
Russian TV main news channel 24 hr has a running line with awful percentages, how much every EU country gets now. Several show zero. It is a huge concern here, in fact I think we are more worried and hourly informed than you are.
Still, all this could have been forecasted, and instead of sponsoring football teams Gasprom should have sponsored Joushenko or did whatever in Ukraine. All of this "whatever" would be illegal interferance into another country internal affairs but what to do. Why would they think the new year end of the contarct would go easily, based on what grounds?
It's not enough to have gas, it is also a must to think in advance how to deliver it.
Complain about this comment
SuperjulianR-
Do you really feel your being fair to Britain/England calling her just medium size European power? As an American I would evaluate her as a lot more.
Well she is a nuclear power. Note I said Power, part of being a power is a willingness to use the weapons at your disposal, not just own them. Britain maintains one of the few militarys that really work in Europe. The wars in the middle East really showed off the militaries nicely and three European countries were really better than the rest. They were not bigger, or better armed, but they sent Warriors, not soldiers to the conflicts. Any idiot conscript can be a Soldier, but a warrior for that nation is something more, something that goes beyond orders, it is an adittude and a skill level that can not be bought, taught or forced on people. Their people arrived armed (both weapons AND MENTALLY) for conflict. They were universally good, whatever the task was put before them. They had a deep sense of national pride and unit love. You wouldn't wan't to face warriors like that in battle if you could prevent it. They were Britain, Poland and Denmark. There is no doubt in my mind that these guys could/would push the button if ordered and would do just about anything to defend their Country or Comrades. Most of the mainland European militaries were pretty unimpressive. Go on You tube and take a look at the countries in Iraq or Afganistan, which Army would you want to go with?
Ideology, Britain is considered a first tier democracy throughout the world. Although a lot of garbage was slung at her during the cold war by the supporters of the Soviet Union, not many educated people who know anything about Freedom don't rate Britain right at the top. Freedom and Democracy come and go like fat neck ties and skinny neck tie fads, but in Britain the rule of law and democratic principles stand before the whole world as a beacon. Her ideas influence other democracys around the world and set standards for those democracies, not just the US, but has anybody ever heard of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Denmark, Iceland.
Why are we on the BBC speaking English? It certainly wasn't the Language of my Ancestors when they got off the boat from Cottbus, Germany. I bet it wasn't the language or cultuer of a lot of us in the world, but it was part of adopting a culture that valued the individual, the democratic, the free, the reasoned.
Admit it a person is hard pressed to convince anybody you are of any importance or intellectual achievment without a little English at your command. English is the language of science, literature and intellect around the world. That is certainly not the norm for the other languages of Europe.
Brittain trades withe the whole world? She owns a lot of the raw materials around the world necessary to defend herself. Do the other countries of Europe? They may have contracts to buy, but they do ot own and control the actual resources. In the US one of the most common gas stations is BP (British Petroleum), go figure.
In the US Britain is one of the few opinions that we care about. Don't believe me? Tell the man on the street that France or Spain or Russia objects to something were doing. They'll laugh.
No Britain is a very special place and definetly not your run of the mill european country. By the way Britain, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are all countries whose products become less valuaeable when you describe them as being European instead of by the country. That says something.
Complain about this comment
169. SuperJulianR:
" events have proved the opposite - the UK has become like the neighbour that refuses to get on with ANY of its neighbours, and soon, as I think you are saying, the one no-one will want to live next door to.
What do you think causes it?
....
An inferiority complex that stems from a refusal to accept the obvious - that the UK has declined in half a century from being the centre of a world empire to nothing more than a small to medium-sized European state of little significance, desperately trying to cling to the USA in an effort to be noticed?"
That's the one that'll do for me, Julian. The UK simply cannot shake off it's imperial past. We even seem to have many people who fail to understand that Great Britain (Grande Bretagne) is called that only to distinguish it from Brittany (Bretagne). Although the "great" has nothing to with quality or other attributes of "greatness" many cling to that mistaken belief.
As for our Common Travel Area that was simply a refusal to acknowledge that Ireland had gained its independence. The same thing applied in respect of voting rights in UK elections for Irish citizens resident in the UK.
So, the UK had a precursor to Schengen and a precursor to modern European voting rights.
It also had a precursor to a single currency used in different countries (England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland).
What is the UK's problem with the euro? It's not as if the pound is particularly British, it's just the local name for a Roman measure, the libra, which became the lire in Italy and the livre in France.
Complain about this comment
172. politejomsviking:
"As an American ..."
Can you, as an American, offer any explanation as to why your country, having fought and won a war of independence against a colonial empire, stubbornly clings to that Empire's weights and measures (pounds, gallons, feet) when just about the whole of the rest of the world has gone metric?
Please understand that I'm not "having a go at a Yank", I'm genuinely curious and perplexed.
Complain about this comment
Re:174
The British system of weights and measures is better. I do know both systems better than most.
The argument that metric -lovers tend to come up with is that it is easier to multiply by tens or hundreds in the metric system.
It is indeed. But it is easier to multiply by three, four, six or twelve in the British system. The flag of the "EU"has twelve stars because twelve is a (or the?) perfect number. I could say they are not stupid, but I will pass on that one.
But anyway, the ordinary bloke seldom multiplies his measurements. Apart from my activities as a maths (math) teacher, I cannot remember having ever to do it.
The British system is built around the practical needs of humans measuring. For that reason it tends to produce smallish whole numbers.
The metric system is built around the sick minds of continental European intellectuals. There is very little on this earth that is as daft as a continental European intellectual. I do know. I have studied at continental universities.
The British system is better.
Complain about this comment
173. At 09:04am on 07 Jan 2009, greypolyglot wrote:
" ... That's the one that'll do for me, Julian. The UK simply cannot shake off it's imperial past. ..."
Bullproduct!
The "EU" is a lousy dictatorship. Resisting the "EU" has almost nothing to do with the British Empire.
The British are not alone in wanting to resist it just as they were not alone in resisting the Third Reich. You don't hear as much about opposition in other countries partly because their media are less inclined to publish robust anti-"EU" comments.
The online bit of the German magazine Focus has refused to publish my comments which were mild by the standards of what I have published here.
Complain about this comment
165. At 9:52pm on 06 Jan 2009, greypolyglot wrote:
" ... . MaxSceptic ...
I'm surprised that you're not blaming Brussels for the cold weather."
That would be no more illogical than the "EU" claiming be responsible for peace in Europe since World War II.
It claims to have been bringing peace before it even existed. It is claiming to be capable of time travel.
Complain about this comment
@ 176
The "EU" is a lousy dictatorship. Resisting the "EU" has almost nothing to do with the British Empire.
I am always utterly mystified why the Anti-EU camp has this selective, Orwellian perception of how undemocratic the EU is BUT how great a democracy the UK is. 99.9% of Europhobes foam at the mouth that the EU is a lousy dictatorship but are quite happy with the British FPTP system. I think you are lamentably confusing an *electoral system* with *democracy*.
The FPTP IS an electoral system. It is NOT democracy.
Democracy = Rule by the people
So unless *Rule by a government from a party voted by less than 25% of the people* equals democracy then, FPTP is not democracy.
I am convinced that, with all its democratic deficit, which I am the first one to acknowledge, the EU is actually MORE democratic than the UK itself. It is a community of 27 countries where all the important decisions are taken by unanimity or QMV at the European Council, which is nothing other than the (democratically elected, or at least 26 of them) heads of government of those 27 countries sitting around a table. So much for this myth of unelected Brussels bureaucrats.
For example, who agreed that Ireland is to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
Answer: (Tick the option that apply)
A. Unelected Brussels bureaucrats
B. The 27 heads of government of the 27 EU countries (26 of them democratically elected, one elected by the FPTP) at the Brussels European Council, 11 and 12 December 2008.
The solution to the quiz can be found here:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/
Click on English language section (left hand side, eight row), click on Press, click on European Council (below, left), click on 2008, then open the document: BRUSSELS EUROPEAN COUNCIL 11 AND 12 DECEMBER 2008 - PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS
(This is how you have to place some links on the BBC website as the full link makes the message to bounce back. Could we expect the BBC to spare some of our BBC poll tax to upgrade their technical systems?)
Complain about this comment
@ SuperJulianR 169
Excellent post as usual.
*What do you think causes it?*
All the factors that you mention plus this one:
*The reason has been simple. Blair's (and now Brown's) press operation lives in holy terror of the tabloids.*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/ecstasy-drugs-policy
(Interesting that the author of this article used to write (or perhaps still writes) in The Times, if my information is correct. He must have changed jackets now that he writes for the Guardian).
Complain about this comment
@175
12 is NO perfect number. 6 and 28 are the first two perfect numbers (6 = 1 + 2 + 3; 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14.
12 is a very nice number though, because it can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12, while 10 can only be divided by 1, 2, 5 and 10.
However, when your world would extend beyond 12, the decimal system becomes nicer.
The benefits are obvious when comparing amounts in pre-decimal Sterling with the current decimal version.
Complain about this comment
#168 - Agora9
There is no reason whey you should not use your own name when registering to contribute. I think the main reason people do not - including me - is that BBC pages achieve good rankings in Google and other search engines and you are then very easy to trace. I do not want my mailbox filled with junk mail and abusive material simply because I have a point of view but my true identity is no secret. A Happy New Year to you as well.
#169 - SuperJulianR
I think the case that Britain is living in the past and hankering after the days of empire is overstated. Even the die hards cannot be that naive. There is a combination of things going on which are understandable in isolation but taken together have a detrimental cumulative effect.
There is a political dynamic which can only get worse as the economy deteriorates that employment is being taken up by immigrants, many of them illegal, at the expense of indigenous workers. This is demonstrably untrue. The illegals for the most part either become absorbed into the general workforce by passing through an underground and emerging with falsified documents which make them indistinguishable from the entitled or they take up jobs which, until recently, were 'beneath the dignity' of many indigenous workers. As more lucrative or comfortable employment becomes harder to come by, locals will increasingly be willing to undertake this work and resentment that it is already being done by illegals will surface. This is sheer prejudice and the body politic should be ashamed to be reduced to this level.
Legal immigrants fall basically into three groups. EU migrant workers have used their entitlement to 'go where the money is' and also to learn English as it is increasingly becoming the international language of choice. The vast majority have no intention of migrating permanently and, as the job supply decreases, all the evidence is that they are returning home in droves. The second group, legitimate asylum seekers simply take such work as they can get. The third group are the professional specialists, especially in medicine and the sciences whose contribution is wholly positive and pose no threat unless they become radicalised.
This perception is regrettable but understandable. However, throw in a perceived terrorist threat and it becomes sinister. The argument goes that you can reduce the terrorist threat by carefully monitoring who comes and goes and excluding undesirables. This fails on three grounds. Firstly it assumes that potential terrorists do not have the understanding to circumvent regulation. They are highly sophisticated groups who know precisely how to work systems to their advantage. Secondly, it panders to the idea that British borders are literally water tight (the island nation). In fact, it leaks like a sieve and the Channel makes not the blindest bit of difference. This, in the view of the current administration, is the issue to be addressed but is totally spurious. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Schengen nations are any more vulnerable than anyone else. Thirdly, it distracts attention from the uncomfortable fact that the threat is mainly home grown. Why would terrorist organisations risk detection by the bureaucracy when they have native volunteers apleanty and the means to radicalise more? By confusing immigration and terrorism in the public mind, the government has created a climate of fear in which their siege mentality can flourish.
Now add in the factor of the police and security services claiming they need additional powers to tackle this threat. Unauthorised phone taps with no judicial oversight, monitoring of internet activity and random surveillance do not make the country any safer. What it does is to remove the need to go to a magistrate and obtain a warrant and virtually give a free hand to the authorities to watch whoever they want and for any reason. Thus local authorities are now using the technology and the freedom use it to detect everything from trying to place children into the wrong schools to dog fouling. I do not condone either, by the way, but the evidence gathering methods are wholly disproportionate.
Again, a climate of fear has been generated and the problem is that government sees how easy it is to get away with. Once they have started monitoring you for, say, involvement in drug trafficking or terrorism, what is to stop them looking at your accounts for evidence of tax irregularities? The safeguards are meaningless when there is no judicial oversight.
Finally, throw in the insidious combination of economic prudence and political correctness. It is obviously cheaper to collect rubbish once every two weeks but politically unacceptable to simply cut services so the answer is to pass the buck to the public forcing them to manually sort their rubbish using multi-coloured sacks and bins and conveniently inventing eco-crime to justify it when it is manifestly cheaper to employ a system of frequent collection and sorting at an organised level. Why?
Because the British government mentality has become, as I said before, control-freak oriented. They want to control every aspect of personal behaviour simply because they can. They will tell you that it is all about anti-terrorism, drugs, child abuse, anti-social behaviour and environmental responsibility. This is a myth. All these are being achieved in continental Europe without the use of such draconian powers because the governments concerned have not sacrificed public goodwill on the alter of control freakishness and because there is a genuine desire to make life as simple as possible for ordinary people - an ambition sadly lacking in the UK.
Meanwhile, the people fall for it hook line and sinker in the mistaken belief that their democratic rights are being protected. In fact they are being eaten away by the very institution which claims to champion them.
Complain about this comment
To SuffolkBoy2 (175):
EU flag has 12 starts partly because of aesthetic reasons, but also for mythological reasons.
To quote Wikipedia...
"Twelve was eventually adopted as a number with no political connotations and as a symbol of perfection and completeness[6] because of the ubiquity of the number for groups in European cultures and traditions
"The circle of stars bears a striking similarity to the twelve-star halo of the Virgin Mary seen in Roman Catholic art. The flag's designer, Arsène Heitz, has acknowledged that the Book of Revelation (which is where the twelve-star halo of the Virgin Mary was first mentioned) helped to inspire him. Revelation 12:1 is cited to explain the symbolism: "A great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (a crown of stars can be interpreted as a "Crown of Immortality").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_flag
I'm rather fond of the idea of the EU flag representing the Crown of Immortality. Suites remarkably well for an aspiring world power and better yet, it allows future European film makers to make similar kind of movies like the National Treasure. Thought I have to confess that I haven't seen nothing noticeable or suspicious in Euro coins or notes... The suspicious thing have seen is the new Finnish version of the 2009 commemorative 2 euro coin which has an small pyramid with four circles under it... What does that mean? A mystery? A conspiracy perhaps?
http://www.bof.fi/en/suomen_pankki/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/2008/tiedote35_2008.htm
Complain about this comment
#176 - SuffolkBoy2
"Please copy and paste . . . etc?"
Quote
"The "EU" is a lousy dictatorship. Resisting the "EU" has almost nothing to do with the British Empire."
Complain about this comment
178. At 10:43am on 07 Jan 2009, JorgeG1 wrote:
'@ 176
The "EU" is a lousy dictatorship. Resisting the "EU" has almost nothing to do with the British Empire.
I am always utterly mystified why the Anti-EU camp has this selective, Orwellian perception of how undemocratic the EU is BUT how great a democracy the UK is. 99.9% of Europhobes foam at the mouth that the EU is a lousy dictatorship but are quite happy with the British FPTP system. I think you are lamentably confusing an *electoral system* with *democracy*. '
I certainly do not claim that the UK has a functioning democracy.
" ...99.9% of Europhobes foam at the mouth...."
Where did you get that statistic from?
Have you got any pictures of Europhobes foaming at the mouth?
I am not a Europhobe. I am an "EU"-phobe.
Stop inventing pseudo-facts to argue against. It indicates that you cannot argue against the true facts and our genuine arguments and concerns.
We in the UK were promised a referendum which we are now being denied. About 80% want that referendum and about 70% want to vote NO. At least that was the situation a while ago.
Of course the "EU is undemocratic.
Of course the governance of the UK stinks.
Complain about this comment
Further to my comment #179, the enormous political power wielded by the tabloids in the UK, effectively holding the government to ransom, is another example of the great *democracy* we live in, a *tabloid democracy*.
At least the limited power of the Unelected Brussels Bureaucrats, the favourite demon of the Europhobes, stems from their appointment by elected bodies, e.g. the governments of EU countries who each appoint one Commissioner, who in turn has to be ratified by the EU parliament. Can SuffolkBoy, MaxSceptic et al please advise which elected body appoints the Unelected Tabloid Bureaucrats?
Complain about this comment
Threnodio!
I stand by those comments.
Complain about this comment
Some people here have commented that the UK is insignificant. The attitude of British "EU"-phobes has been linked to the "loss" of Empire.
It is all tosh.
My communications with Swiss opponents of the "EU" indicate that we agree on an awful lot.
Switzerland has never had an empire. So the empire bit cannot be part of their "problem."
In making these comments the "EU"-lovers are revealing something about themselves. They are obsessed with the empire thingy because they want to have an empire. They want to be part of something which is "significant."
They are like those in Russia who lament their loss of empire. It brought them nothing except a feeling that they were great as they waited in the queue for bread.
They are like some beer-swilling couch potato who watches "his" football team win and then feels that he is fit and strong.
The Swiss have good reason to reject the "EU"-dictatorship. They are very similar to ours.
Complain about this comment
185. At 11:28am on 07 Jan 2009, JorgeG1 wrote:
" ... Can SuffolkBoy, MaxSceptic et al please advise which elected body appoints the Unelected Tabloid Bureaucrats? "
Don't know. Don't care. I don't read them, much. They are not the problem The anti-democratic "EU"-lovers are the problem.
I have to go now. It is time for my annual bath.
Complain about this comment
@ SuffolkBoy 184, writes *We in the UK were promised a referendum which we are now being denied. About 80% want that referendum and about 70% want to vote NO. At least that was the situation a while ago.*
The only referendum that is worth having IMO is a *grown-up referendum*, i.e. this one:
**
Do you think the UK?s relationship with the European Union should be:
1. Join the *real* EU, with Schengen, Euro et al.
2. Leave the EU and become an EU-associated country, i.e. make the current situation official: The EU can continue to integrate while the UK, who has already refused to join the key pillars of EU integration, will remain a semi-detatched associate member.
3. Leave the EU and just sign free trade and possibly other bilateral agreements with the EU
**
Any other referendum is just a worthless distraction, because it just kicks the problem further into the future, i.e. the day in which the UK will ACTUALLY have to grow up and make a decision about its relationship with the EU.
So, you see? We are in agreement after all. There SHOULD be a referendum; it is just that we disagree on the nature of that referendum.
Complain about this comment
@187 Quote: "The Swiss have good reason to reject the "EU"-dictatorship. They are very similar to ours."
I fail to see how the Swiss dictatorship is very similar to the British dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
# 175 SuffolkBoy2
"The British system of weights and measures is better. I do know both systems better than most"
Oh dear, you set yourself up. The metric system is originally British.
google "mattwardman and bishop john wilkins"
(bbc doesn't like the link)
and
bbc metric system was british
(bbc doesn't like the link)
"Apart from my activities as a maths (math) teacher ..."
No, I'll refrain from writing what I first thought.
"I have studied at continental universities."
I suppose everyone was too polite to point out to you that the weights system you erroneously call British "avoirdupoids" (hey, does that give you a hint) came from the continent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoirdupois
Oh, by the way, inch, foot and mile are Roman. The Romans, if I remember correctly, were continentals.
Complain about this comment
# 188 SuffolkBoy2:
"I have to go now. It is time for my annual bath."
Oh my, oh my. No! No! I'll resist the temptation.
Complain about this comment
#169 - SuperJulianR
I was somewhat carried away in my earlier post to the extent that I missed a central point.
In my view, the United Kingdom has always been an artificial construct. This was fine during the age of imperialism when it fitted well both into the world order and to the 'British' way of doing things. Today, it is creaking at the seams and beginning to look anachronistic. Brown and his colleagues are attempting to fight a rearguard action against the fragmentation of the union which, I would suggest, will become manifest if the SNP score significantly later this year.
They are not defending Britain against those nasty foreigners, they are defending it against themselves. The future is the component nations - either within or outside of Europe. The Union is slowly sinking in the west.
Complain about this comment
#189. JorgeG1 wrote:
"The only referendum that is worth having IMO is a *grown-up referendum"
in response to yet another of the interminable, pointless, unedifying and unilluminating contributions from the tedious SuffolkBoy2.
The problem with any referendum is that it is highly undemocratic and generally only serves to inflame feelings on irrelevant matters. Your idea of a three choice referendum is also highly likely to produce an uncertain and unclear response. If that is what you are seeking then that is fine.
We pay 650 odd responsible people to decide things for us, so why should we have to do their job for them? The 650 are not delegates and are not representatives - we pay them well enough to act on our behalf.
Complain about this comment
#194 - John_from_Hendon
You pay 650 odd people to decide things for you. That they are responsible seems to me highly questionable - unless of course you mean their responsibility to do what the whips tell them.
Complain about this comment
#195 threnodio wrote:
...That they are responsible seems to me highly questionable...
I refer to the fact that we (in the UK) have a system of responsible government, not representative etc.. This is our 'democracy'.
Complain about this comment
Polyglot-
We did ight a war for independence. Approximately a third were for, a third disn't care and a third were loyalist.
The reason that revolution suceeded is because it had limited objectives. Repeatedly the founding fathers stated that there were fighting for their "rights as Englishmen".
Now on my fathers side that is pretty bizzare, because both maternal and paternal sides had come from Germany. That said one sie fought with the rebels and one side fought on the Loyalist side(Google search William Augustus Bowles). It is significant though that both were fighting for their percieved rights as Britains and one of them was being told by a bunch of petty Bureacrats that they o longer existed.
The shot heard round the world at Lexington was nothing but an attempt by a bunch of idiot bureacrats to disarm a civil population that correctly thought the definition of it's rights were being changed. The resultant revolution established a representative parlimintary government, based on elected representatives and a mercantile economy.
With the exception of an elected Chief executive instead of a heriditary monarch we came up with basically the same system.
It should be noted that we almost immediatly granted Great Britain such an excellent trade agreement that we almost threw the Francophile into shock.
The relationship was cordial, but certain hard cases on both sids of the Atlantic contiued to Antaganize each other. Britain armingthe indians, pressganging sailors that were now US citizens and Americans selling to anybody who had cash (the French) reslted in the war of 1812.
That said, a British Empire seems a great idea as long as we are no forced to be part of it. A British empire provides stability to the world, spreads democratic values that are not native to the region ( america), provides a vehicle and basis for trade, and builds on shared values. At least there was no starvation in Rhodesia, can we say the same about Rhodesia? Wouldn't the Philpines be better off as a State than they are? All the craziness about Empire, imperialism and Capitalism is a bunch of Marxist bunk. If it wasn't for Imperialism the inhabitants of the US would still be shooting flint arrows at each other and wearingear hides, like the Vikings in frustration left us.
Where Britain ran into trouble with the Empire was when she started to send send petty stupid bureacrats overseas to fix things. There is nothing on the planet more useless than a European bureacrat. Soviets=Bureacrats, French Empire =Napoeon a notoris Bureacrat, Hitler=even killing can become Bueacratic, get the picture. The US government doesn't work, because we planned it that way.
The founding fathethers planned a very limited government. The government in the US and Britain aren't supposed to be all powerfull. We the citizens are supposed to be able to get away with absolute murder. No where in the constitution does it give anybody the right to tell me how to measure the socket set that I work on my cars with. We can put both metric and English sets in every tool box, we can put miles and kilometers on every speedometer and traffic sign, but if the people choose to continue to use the English system, what the hell does the government care.
Really, who are we to tell somebody whose parents immigrated to the US from Italy or Poland that they can't use the English system and just because a few idiot leftist want to tear her down, really whats wrong with Great Britain. I'm personally proud that American automobiles have dashboards that have lots of little words in English on them instead of goofy continental european hyroglyphics. If a person can't read English do they really need to be on a US highway, anyway with traffic flying by them on both sides at 90 miles an hour?
No if you read the Declaration of Independence we walked away from a government that had gotten to big for it's own britches, we never really gave up on Great Britain. I still think that Great Britain has a great future. She should mark her products proudly made in Great Britain. Lots of Americans wear Doc Martin shoes, for the very reason that they are made in Britain (with attitude). If you wrote on the box made in europe, they just wouldn't be as appealing. The word Europe conjurs up images of a Bulgarian sweat shop, not a Manchester factory.
Complain about this comment
Happy New Year Mark
Of course in reality this will be a very unhappy year for the vast majority or people.
However it seems that the Euphile and EU phobe comentators are agreeing more than ever which is a good start.
Points of Agreement I have noticed in this thread.
1.) there is a Democratic Defacite in the E.U
2.) Democracy in the Uk is broken. The English in particular have no representation.
3.) The Ukraine is as much to blame as Russia in the current Gas fulled situation.
4.) Iran is seen as less of a threat than previously believed
5.) The current president of the E.U will achieve nothing of note
6.) English should be the language of the E.U (provided the U.K are will to participate fully)
7.) The UK will cease to exist as an entity within the near future.
8.) England should and will not become a State of the U.S.A
9.) The U.K government like the U.S government uses fear as a reason to errode civil liberties and Democratic principles
10.) The British Solider is the best europe has to offer.
11.) Gordon Brown's plan for ecconomic recovery ie. borrowing more money he doesn't have is idiotic.
I'm sure there are more that i have missed.
I have come to accept the E.U is here, but i believe that it needs to change.
Part of the problem is we have only been offered one version of what the e.u should be and even when people have said no that same vision has been offered up again.
Maybe we should try to agree some principles for the E.U that would make it more acceptable to the Majority rather than just slagging each other off.
Complain about this comment
#197. politejomsviking
Historically correct - but what of the war of 1820 which the British lost? (Nobody remembers the war of 1820!)
The word Europe conjures up images of a Bulgarian sweat shop, not a Manchester factory. It should summon up an image of a Manchester distribution warehouse run by Bulgarian temporary workers relabelling goods made in the sweatshops of Asia etc..
Your rosy historical vision of the noble British Empire is as unreal as that of the noble savage of your historical tradition - this is the 21 century - we are all one village! Where different nations take it upon themselves to use more than their fair share of the Earth's natural resources!
The biggest danger is that the rosy factually selective vision of some sort of historical nirvana that in fact never existed is the aim or pursuit of any country or people.
Your country may soon be a majority Spanish speaking one and you will then have to deal with car dashboards and displays in Spanish!
Complain about this comment
#198 - WhiteEnglishProud
"Maybe we should try to agree some principles for the E.U that would make it more acceptable to the Majority rather than just slagging each other off."
Maybe if someone were ask what would be acceptable . . . ?
Complain about this comment
Re 169. SuperJulianR on Schengen
I'm ever more convinced, that the reason the UK did not join Schengen has nothing to do with security and all to do with politics and culture. It's the same situation as Maastricht and the euro: you will hear all kinds of contorted arguments as to why the UK couldn't and shouldn't join, but the bottom line is that both agreements mean further integration with the UK neighbours and that is the red-line that no legislature in the UK dares trespassing. It's a question of culture.
Britain has a very rich history of "passive courage", i.e., resiting negative change coming from the neighborhood (violent invasions), but it is quite poor as to "active courage" where one needs to join in for positive change or to contrast negative change elsewhere on the continent (the rise of fascism was tolerated until the late thirties, when it was too late and the UK was forced to take sides).
Many in the UK would like to integrate with the EU, as this is what a rational analysis of the economical situation dictates, but they don't know how to deal with it, i.e., how to talk to their neighbours. I live in an area of the UK where there are many foreigners, I recognise the natives among my neighbours by the way they avoid looking at me, let alone saying "good morning". I also work with a mixed crowd, and I find it sometime harder for the natives to listen to my ideas. There are notable exceptions though, which makes me think that in the long run the UK will espouse integration. Because it will become a question of integration or disintegration and the Brits have also a very good sense of self-preservation. We're just not yet there, it will happen in 10 or 20 years time.
Complain about this comment
Maybe if someone were ask what would be acceptable . . . ?
did you mean 'to Ask'?
I'm asking!
Complain about this comment
198. WhiteEnglishProud:
"it seems that the Euphile and EU phobe comentators are agreeing more than ever which is a good start."
Hmmmmmm
"Points of Agreement I have noticed in this thread."
Again. Hmmmmm.
"I have come to accept the E.U is here, but i believe that it needs to change."
OK. A large part of that is what the Lisbon Treaty, in a stupidly worded way, set out to do. I think a lot of the problems there stem more from presentation than content.
"Maybe we should try to agree some principles for the E.U that would make it more acceptable to the Majority rather than just slagging each other off."
Agreed! And I have long argued that one way forward would be to start off with the most anodyne parts of the Lisbon Treaty and hold an EU-wide referendum on it article by article until we finally get to the sticky bits. That way we'd at least we'd get something. I suspect that it's the all or nothing, take it or leave it approach that's sticking in people's throats.
Just by the by, can anyone refer me to a national constitution that was agreed by referendum of the electorate?
Complain about this comment
#197. politejomsviking
I don't wish to be impolite but that's one the longer non-answers to a straight question that I've come across in a while.
Complain about this comment
#197. politejomsviking
'I'm personally proud that American automobiles have dashboards that have lots of little words in English on them instead of goofy continental european hyroglyphics. If a person can't read English do they really need to be on a US highway, anyway with traffic flying by them on both sides at 90 miles an hour? '
The reason for the 'hyroglyphics' is to reduce bureaucracy! Just imagine if all 27 EU Member states imposed their own requirements for dashboard labelling, in all of their own languages, it would require 27 separate approvals instead of one, with additional costs for car manufacturers. Ford, GM and Chrysler would have gone bust even sooner!
Complain about this comment
194. At 12:48pm on 07 Jan 2009, John_from_Hendon wrote:
*Your idea of a three choice referendum is also highly likely to produce an uncertain and unclear response. If that is what you are seeking then that is fine.*
Well, we agree on one thing. Referenda are an awful way of making informed decisions.
However, my point is that my proposed referendum (which incidentally, has virtually zero chances of taking place, given a.o. things that the Public School elite who rule this country are, on average, far less intelligent and informed that the electorate themselves) makes a lot more sense that a referendum on the so-called Constitreaty, which, as everybody acknowledges is beyond the understanding of the average mortal.
I totally disagree with your point that my idea of a three choice referendum is highly likely to produce an uncertain and unclear response. You could actually run it in two stages, with the least voted option eliminated for a second vote on the remaining two options. Or alternatively, you could run it as one event only with ranking of the options.
What is highly unclear and uncertain is the current status quo, of *yes I want this, but no don?t want that*, the Have-Your-Cake-And-Eat-It and Have-It-Both-Ways approach that has characterized the British relationship with the EU since it was a sparkle in the milkmans eye.
This three choice referendum would achieve several things:
1. It would clarify the current position to the electorate, most of which, including HMG, erroneously think the UK is a FULL EU member, something which is not in any shape or form by virtue of the long list of opt-outs from key EU pillars. This doesn?t take away the fact, highly ironically, that the UK is (almost, due to the Thatcher rebate) a full paymaster, but not a full member by any stretch of the imagination. And due to the devaluation of sterling, the membership fee is rising enormously!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/weak-pound-adds-more-than-1633bn-to-britains-eu-bill-1224486.html
2. If option 2 were to prevail, something quite likely, then the UK would have to renegotiate an associate membership status, i.e. make official what already is to a large extent a fact. That would set an example for others, e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, Turkey, and it would have an enormous benefit for those EU countries who want further integration (the majority it seems to me) as they wouldn?t be slowed down (or even stalled) by those countries who want little more than a glorified-free-trade-area (e.g. the UK, in fact). This associate membership status for the UK (diplomatically called special status) was been recently proposed by Giscard D?Estaing (needless to say, with zero coverage in the British media, they were as usual, the BBC the first one, too busy finding out how the US president had slept the night before).
Complain about this comment
Gas Update Express Gazette (Obituary)
Billions of blue boiled and barbecued blistering barnacles!
Ukr. closed the last (fourth tube) at 4 o'clock this morn.
Pressure at the clocks in Velky Kopushany showed zero.
Velky is unknown tiny village in Slovakia, but an important hub on the European gas networks' map. Entry point for gas from Russia to Europe. Now the station is famous, swarming with media attention. Austrian, Chech, Slovakian, Italian, Bulgarian inspectors are there, all tearing hair out. Stare silly at the screens. In-coming - zero.
Meanwhile we pumped to Ukraine 226 million.
Putin sat this afternoon with Miller again. Miller said "We pump, they take." Putin said - "Full stop. We don't pump either."
System stopped. Both Russia and Ukraine now crawled into their independent bottles.
There is an expression here, a warning "Don't crawl into the bottle!" Meaning, you do it yourself, squeeze into the narrow neck of the bottle, and sit there, like a toy ship. How will you get out - unclear, will be your own hands' making.
And all on Christmas!
Complain about this comment
On the other hand, since gas supplies can't get worse at this point, we've reached the bottom - they can only get better.
Unless, of course, crowds of Ukrainians ran out into the field and physically dismantle the pipes.
_____
Greypolyglot @203 "can anyone refer me to a national constitution that was agreed by referendum of the electprate?"
I know one but you'd laugh. I checked myself by wiki, as certainly remember the joy and hopes and how we all liked it, was a darling constitution. 12 Dec 1993, Yeltsin ran it via national referendum.
Complain about this comment
#202 - WhiteEnglishProud and others.
I really do not understand how my post can be misconstrued. Perhaps I should spell it out. By 'ask', I mean a scientific and reliable assessment of what the majority of people, both in the UK and Europe wide perceive as the way forward. The only way I know of doing this is electorally.
Let me begin with the obvious. Referenda by their very nature are incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty. I understand that this is a major issue in the UK and elsewhere. However, I also do not believe we can go on indefinitely 'slagging each other off', as WEP puts it, as we have no idea what majority opinion is. As far as the UK is concerned, this would not be an issue if the political parties would come forward with contrasting views and seek election on that basis. So deep seated is the ambivalence to the EU within the UK political system that there is no prospect of that. This really only leaves 2 options. Either Britain keeps muddling through with endless opt outs and half hearted engagement while trying to balance common sense with public opinion (which, by the way, government is instrumental in engineering) or it suspends the principle of parliamentary sovereignty for the one-off purpose of conducting a referendum the result of which will be binding on parliament.
What should the question be? I agree with those who have posted that a three question ballot would be messy and lead to an inconclusive result. A simple 'yes or no' to Lisbon might be the answer in that a 'yes' vote would be a mandate to pursue the European project with all that might involve. However, a 'no' vote would leave the UK no further forward. In my view the options are that 'the UK should engage fully with the EU process which will embrace ongoing integration' or 'the UK should withdraw from the EU'.
When should it take place? Certainly after the EU parliamentary elections since this may answer some of the outstanding questions and after any referendum on Scottish independence since this could potentially change the dynamic within the UK. I also think that progress needs to be made on the CAP-UK rebate issue first as it will be very influential on the outcome. Complete resolution is a long way off but some momentum would certainly be desirable.
I am open minded about a Europe wide referendum on Lisbon.
Complain about this comment
#194 John_from_Hendon
"We pay 650 odd responsible people to decide things for us, so why should we have to do their job for them? The 650 are not delegates and are not representatives - we pay them well enough to act on our behalf."
+
RESPONSIBLE? In the way that GB is responsible? The buck stops with him!
"-not delegates and are not representatives"
You are RIGHT! It is the problem. None of them are doing what we want. They please themselves. There are many people unhappy with this arrangement and want it changed.
If things had been otherwise, we would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Treaty of Lisbon would not have been ratified.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
you know i agree with your sentiments as we have discussed before.
My original comment was not really aimed at you as i see you as part of the solution due to your ability to accept true Democracy ie. reasonable compromise.
Complain about this comment
From the Ukrainian news site
1.
"Russian PM called Israeli PM to discuss situation re the ground operation in the sector of Gaza. Both agreed it's high time to start ground operation in the Ukrainian
"gazovoy" sector."
2. Head of Ukr. gas station at Sudzha (Russian gas entry point into Ukraine) at 6pm Moscow time (4pm Central European)
informed the Ukrainian media that
"In spite of Putin's TV statement and Gasprom's statement it stops gas transit to Ukraine entirely, Gasprom still masochistically continues to pump gas into Ukraine.
The No 2 is not a joke. Must be we all got mad.
Complain about this comment
#194 John_from_Hendon
"We pay 650 odd responsible people to decide things for us, so why should we have to do their job for them? The 650 are not delegates and are not representatives - we pay them well enough to act on our behalf."
+
RESPONSIBLE? In the way that GB is responsible? The buck stops with him!
"-not delegates and are not representatives"
You are RIGHT! It is the problem. None of them are doing what we want. They please themselves. There are many people unhappy with this arrangement and want it changed.
If things had been otherwise, we would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Treaty of Lisbon would not have been ratified.
Complain about this comment
Hendon John,
I have no problem with Spanish words on dashboards. In fact why can't the cars knobs be programable for your language.
You seem to embrace the EU, even though the example you give trades all your jobs away to Bulgaria or China?
I'm not a big free trader. This as a philosophy doesn't work. Anybody who thinks the enemy that they allow to destroy a vital national interest in peace time, will continue to deliver that item in wartime is a nut.
We're all one village? Please, lets all sing the International now. That was the dumbest thing said by a President's wife in my lifetime. No John it doesn't take a villlage to raise a child. The history of the English speaking world is filled by rugged British pioneers who cut their future from the wilderness and raised independent, self reliant, intelligent, hard working children and they didn't do it in just one country either. All that Socialism has done is make those same children's offspring weak and dependent of others. Living for bigger and better handouts is still living on handouts, thank you.
I do not Support the goofy "North-American Union" idea either. Hands off Mexico and Canada. The policy of the United States, should be that of a good neighbor respectful, but obviously different. There is no need to have us wear the same little Chairman Mao suite, I can wear a baseball cap and you a sombrero without fighting, it's ok. Sorry to be an individual, but that is how I was raised.
This Union stuff is a cloak by the left and their Right wing bussiness buddies to get a lot of stuff passed that would never become law if it came before the US congress. Gun control, damned right if your going to share a country with us Americans you Mexicans and Canadians will need that. Free speech better limit that too, because last time the Americans got all excited you know what happened at the Alamo. Hell, let's just go full blow and ask the American part of the Union to wear elctric monitoring bracelets, drive smart cars, eat tofu and learn Chinese.
The North American Union is treason. Anybody advocating it should be jailed for conspiracy and turned over to the nearest drunken mob.
If we aren't going to modeled after Britain I would prefer the country be modeled after the Lakota Souix or Creek Nations than any European alternative. At least we wouldn't be ruining the children and could have a casino.
Luckily, we still have our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, so it's going to take a pretty crazy government to try and force this North American Union stuff on us. We have already stopped the big superhighway from Mexico to Canada.
I prefer the current form of government, mob rule with it's own repesentatives in Washington, DC, making widely ignored, un-inforceable laws signed by a President who is a bufoon that nobody thinks is better than himself.
Like the Ron Paul girl says "Let's just do what we want, we can all agree with that can't we." Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, now that would be real change leadership.
Complain about this comment
#211 - WhiteEnglishProud
Thank you for that. I was not having a go at you either. I thought the 'slagging each other off' phrase summed the situation up nicely so I borrowed it.
Complain about this comment
If you guys are going to form a new nation wouldn't it make more sense to join Russia or China? Russia has natural resources and China has your factories. China would learn English quickly.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio @ 209
*In my view the options are that 'the UK should engage fully with the EU process which will embrace ongoing integration' or 'the UK should withdraw from the EU'.*
I couldn?t agree more with you. The problem is that unfortunately neither the British electorate nor the two major parties want to *engage fully with the EU process, embracing ongoing integration* (shall we start with Schengen and the euro which were both 1990s integration, i.e. Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties?).
So, basically that leaves only one option: FULLY OUT. But guess what, the above lot doesn?t want that either! Growing up is soooo hard to do!
That?s why I had proposed a third way, i.e. to formalise the current semi-detached position in a coherent form and the only one I can find is an associate membership.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @164 asks,
"Have you ever tried working all day long in a foreign language? I doubt it. I have. It ain't easy, even if you have an excellent command of the language."
Yes. I often do.
But that is not to detract for my admiration of all those polyglots who are able to converse in 3, 4 or even 5 languages.
We native English speakers are fortunate - and hence lazy. Knowing other languages is a great joy and of some benefit. But the reality is that it is possible to get along in the world on English alone. It's much harder if you are a monoglot Italian or Finn.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @165 wrote:
"The EU seems to have at least enough [balls] to annoy you.
I'm surprised that you're not blaming Brussels for the cold weather."
A drunken, old toothless hag can annoy. So can a spoilt brat. Testicles not essential....
What cold weather? We're experiencing 'global warming' - oops, I mean 'climate change'.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @185 asks:
"Can SuffolkBoy, MaxSceptic et al please advise which elected body appoints the Unelected Tabloid Bureaucrats?"
People in Britain are free to buy or not buy tabloid newspapers. (Personally I wouldn't be caught dead with one, but then I'm a snob).
Contrary to the usual conspiracy theory enthusiasts, the tabloid-reading publicare not lead by the proprietors and/or editors of the tabloids. In fact, it is the tabloids who follow their public. The newspapers want to sell papers and make money, not preach.
Complain about this comment
@152 - trenodio
As far as I understand the problem you are absolutely right in saying that "nobody had bothered with it for years". There had been no any physical border between Croatia and Slovenia, until the independent states separated from former Yugoslavia. It seems the Bruxelles bureaucracy is extremly efficient, when it comes to rescind the freedom of movement. In case of Slovenia, the Schengen zone was apparently something premature and imprudent. But I don't think any of recently admitted eastern EU countries have received a stroke of good luck, as far as the role of the EU guardian is concerned.
Complain about this comment
@149 MaxSceptic
I do care, in the contrary, whether Croatia joins the EU. Diversity does not hurt, particularly if it comes from the very centre of the Europe.
Please be careful when you wish so loudly to the English language to dissapear. You know what happen with Latin. How many dialects of English language is already in existence? What is the one you wish as an official EU language?
Complain about this comment
#217 - JorgeG1
I think in a roundabout way, we are both saying the same thing. The only realistic options are full engagement or withdrawal because, as I see it, the damage is being done now precisely because of the 'semi-detached' attitude which prevails at Westminster. It plainly isn't working and we have to find another way.
Withdrawal would not preclude an EEA agreement providing the remaining 26 were prepared to play ball. Personally, I would find that very distasteful. It would be an open admission that no British (as opposed to regional) political party had the guts either to take or position or to entrust the decision to the people but it would at least resolve the central question.
Contrary to what some posters seem to believe, I am not an unquestioning and submissive EUphile. I think there are very serious debates to be had about the CAP, the CFP - especially if Iceland joins - and security related matters. I would prefer this to be by constructive engagement from within but the other option has possibilities. What in view has no future is dawdling around mid-Channel just as the UK has dawled around mid-Atlantic for half a century. Britain either is or is not a European country. It's make your mind up time.
Complain about this comment
#222 - bonybbony
I have spent some time in Croatia in recent years and am impressed with the way it has embraced and sustained it's democracy since the departure of Tudman. They have a good record of cooperation with tribunal at the Hague, unlike some countries in the region and have succeeded where others have not in creating a stable and open society. It would be unfortunate indeed if Slovenia were you use a little local difficulty to block what appears to be a logical next step.
Complain about this comment
219. MaxSceptic:
"
We're experiencing 'global warming' - oops, I mean 'climate change'."
May I invite you to go back and read the end of 125.
Complain about this comment
218. MaxSceptic:
"But that is not to detract from my admiration of all those polyglots who are able to converse in 3, 4 or even 5 languages."
Hey, we agree on something. In fact I'm working on becoming hyperpolygot but I don't know if I'll live long enough to get there.
Complain about this comment
#214. politejomsviking wrote:
about 535 words...
It all depends on where you draw the boundaries.
At your own picket fence, you own country, your own continent. Selfishness and greed have become rampant and substantially contributed to the recent unfortunate monetary collapse. I must say that I am not a big fan of beating up the little guy, just because you can, as a model for international relations, be they military or trade. As I said it is about boundaries. Human rights matter, not just for oneself but for the other guy too.
And if we want to sell to the Chinese we will need to learn Chinese! (Mandarin or Cantonese) And no, I can't, but I wish I could. I once, over 30 years ago, purchased the book (Teach yourself Mandarin)! But I think it went in the purge of 85.
I know next to nothing about the 'if it ain't in the constitution I wont vote for it' Republican Ron Paul and the Democrat Dennis Kucinich save that they were also rans or bit players for recent high office. In fact I have a problem distinguishing between the Republicans and the Democrats - weren't the Democrats the pro-slavery party? I guess their attitudes have changed a little or a lot. Again it is all about boundaries.
Complain about this comment
208. WebAliceinwonderland:
"Greypolyglot @203 'can anyone refer me to a national constitution that was agreed by referendum of the electorate?'
I know one but you'd laugh. I checked myself by wiki, as certainly remember the joy and hopes and how we all liked it, was a darling constitution. 12 Dec 1993, Yeltsin ran it via national referendum. "
Oh, Alice! What a joy it is to have you amongst us!
So now I see that the current Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by national referendum on December 12, 1993 and came into force on December 25, 1993.
54.8% of all registered voters participated in the referendum and of them 54.5% (32,937,630 people) voted for adoption of the Constitution.
That's real irony when one considers that the nearest England and USA came to having referenda on their Constitutions were their respective Civil Wars.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot you absolutely have to boast at this stage a bit which languages. OK, I'll be more straight forward - is there Russian among them? that you've got the angle of? Since you seem to have read the same article in wiki that I read, in Russian.
Yes, good old darling Yeltsin's constitution. Amended with undecent haste now! oj what if not for the last time...
Absolutely all courts against Russia, initiated by its citizens, in the EU court, any place, are being won (as a final resource), by checking something done against "humanity" in the wider sense, versus Russian constitution.
If it was ever observed, we'd be the happiest creatures on earth! a good team put up locally worked on it, of really talanted and enthusiastic people, fed up and sick and tired of the iron curtain and freedom choking and things. They put up piles of other best worlds' constitutions and seem to have copied from their the most attractive pieces! for such a constitution - to vote for - ha! a piece of cake.
Complain about this comment
In case this continues and neverends.
I mean us, freezing out Europe, tomorrow morning as well.
Damn who'd I talk with if 1/3 of BBC bloggers will be frozen? And who'd talk to me?
Will go throw out Ukrainian sugar now! And salt! And girlcott own Russian goods as well, just in case, combined! Russian Extraordinary Situations minister Shoigu should fly with his fat airplanes not to Gaza but to non-"Gaza" territories, immediately! With condensed gas!
Some inadequate jokes. As antifreeze measures.
________________
All thought her a blond... and she was thinking at nights.
Two mens' talk. "So I came home, went to the bedroom, and there is my wife, with a lover. I thought - that's it, here we are.
The end. Went to the kitchen, opened the fridge, took out a bootle of vodka.
Drank it.
Sang sad songs a little bit.
Then I look around - and the apartment - is not mine!
Two girls' talk. "..and he says it is uninteresting to him with me, that he doesn't love me anylonger, that I should improve my silicon! And I just did, half a year ago, and it's still not enough for him.
- Not silicon, silly, lexicon.
Crisis. Two bosses' talk. "Did you try reducing salary to yours?
- Sure but they still come, work.
- Yeah, bad. Let's try to charge money for entrance?
They meet again in a week.
"So, how are they?
- Still come, work! But got adapted, scoundrels, now come on Monday - leave on Friday!
Attention! In the markets there appeared fake Christmas toys.
From the first look - they are exactly like the real ones.
Only happiness from them - none.
The biggest bribe in the world history was recorded when the head of the anti-corruption committee addressed his audience with the question: So, where shall we get money?
In Russia smokes every second man and every sixth woman. So if you're smoking, sort out yourself who are you - the second man, or the sixth woman.
Georgia addressed the Int'l Olympic Committee with the suggestion to transfer Olympics-2014 from Russian Sochi, bordering with Abkhasia, to a safer place.
The IOC took a Solomon decision - to transfer Georgia to a safer place.
Weather forecast. Today will be temperature and air. Possibly precipitation and atmospheric air pressure.
An ad. "Attention! There was lost a VERY clever dog. Fluffy! If you're reading this - call home, please!"
The summer in the middle stripe of Russia is very pleasant. Warm nights with tender, caressing wind; hot, sunny days, though easied by the shadow of the woods, freshness of the water basins, and cool pleasant breeze.
The main thing is not to miss these 2 days in the year.
How to get acquainted with a nice girl in the internet?
- Easy. Take her out somewhere. For example, to a site of a good restaurant.
I'm sick and tired of your questions!
- Why?
A toothpaste ad. "A shark - 1500! A panda bear - 24! A man - 32! 32 - it is the norm!"
- Oh God. I'm a panda.
Why an elephant needs a tail?
- So that it wouldn't end, suddenly.
- Is it 911? Come immediately! A roller rolled over a man!
- Which address?
- Lenin street! House 52, 54, 56...
Yesterday to the 911 service in the middle of the dark and stormy night there was made a very alarming telephone call.
The saviours got all nervous somehow and didn't dare to pick up the receiver.
Ukraine applied for NATO membership. Now it is waiting until NATO will add her to "friends" and mark up on pictures.
Complain about this comment
@224 - trenodio
Of course it would be unfortunate for Europe if all those good old known relations between its states, mutual envy and xenophobia, were come back, to disregard all their recent achievements. And that is, in my opinion, exactly what is lingering through the politics of some of new stars of the EU flag, if taken seriously. What is not "allowed" any more to the big-star members, Italy, UK, etc., now is coming out through the voice of such nicely polished countries like Slovenia. Illusory unnoticeable. Like a hole in the dike.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @226,
I'm sure there's lot of things we can agree on.
Complain about this comment
They say a week is a long time in politics, it seems an eternity in currency changes. It seems hard to believe that juist a week ago people were talking about the sterling crisis and even possible collapse. The BBC (and other news organisations to be fair) were screaming about it from the parapets. Since then it has made up about half it's losses of the previous 3 months (currently almost buys 1.13 euros. This is despite yesterday's B of E interest cut and a Government that would not be too worried if sterling did stay low as it helps exports in a recession. Still not where it was 3 months ago, but heading in that direction. Wonder when the BBC will make similar high profile but this time positive headlines about this, won't hold my breath.
That said a week is a short time, so is a month and I would go further, a true test of a currency is 10-20 years. It may well go down again, as I said before that's what currencies do.We are already seeing tensions in the eurozone countries over monetary policy and interest rates, interesting to see how it develops. Still glad the U.K. can make decisions which it thinks is in it's best interest.
Complain about this comment
to Alice #230: Dearest Alice, we've got enough coal and cut wood (thank Lord) but it won't help. I am actually on leave because I'm ill. My wife is taking care of me, of our lovely dog, of our six cats, and of our wooden little cottage (located just 17km outside of Sofia, at the skirts of the Balkan mountain, in a village called Lokorsko). The 'tshugunka' is still working well. I'm fine in my bed and look ahead for fresh news. Our PM Mr.Stanishev Sergey Dmitrievitsh (his mother was born in Herson, Ukraine) is at this very moment in Kremlin discussing with Vladimir Vladimirovitsh the gas crisis and its disastrous consequences for Bulgaria. After that, Mr.Stanishev flies to Kiev to meet Julia Timoshenko. But I have little hope that the gas war between Moscow and Kiev will stop just because the little Slav and Orthodox brother from the Balkans is freezing. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the conflict becomes more and more serious and nobody can predict who will be the winner (if any)... So far, no gas at all. Bulgaria, Sofia, Jan. 14
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot: Regarding comment 174, a quote from a US government report from the year 1821 might provide an answer :
... as final and universal uniformity of weights and measures is the common desideratum for all civilized nations; as France has formed, and for her own use has established, a system, adapted, by the highest efforts of human science, ingenuity, and skill, to the common purposes of all; as this system is yet new, imperfect, susceptible of great improvements, and struggling for existence even in the country which gave it birth; as its universal establishment would be a universal blessing; and as, if ever effected, it can only be by consent, and not by force, in which the energies of opinion must precede those of legislation; it would be worthy of the dignity of the Congress of the United States to consult the opinions of all the civilized nations with whom they have a friendly intercourse; to ascertain, with the utmost attainable accuracy, the existing state of their respective weights and measures; to take up and pursue, with steady, persevering, but always temperate and discreet exertions, the idea conceived, and thus far executed, by France, and to co-operate with her to the final and universal establishment of her system.
The 'energies of opinion' in the US have not yet consented to its establishment, even after more than a century of 'steady, persevering, but always temperate and discreet exertions'.
Complain about this comment
There are a few good websites that provide helpful tips on how to save and certain exstensions that have help during this global economic crisis. One of which is www.mycitystop.com.
myCityStop.com is a website designed create a network of members affected by our current economic crisis. The goal is to help people who have unemployment questions on filling claims, questions about recent extensions, would like to share helpful tips on saving or keeping busy, or would just like to use this site as a resource to find a jobs through networking and different groups.
Complain about this comment
235. Jan_Keeskop:
A guiding principle in my life is "learn something new every day".
Therefore I thank you most sincerely for that gem in answer to my query about the USA's continued use in this metric age of what were originally British weights and measures.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS