Learn EU-speak
Do you know what the EU acronym that sounds like the croak of a cartoon frog really means? Just croak "Gerk" if you do. 
Does the EU shroud itself in obscure language on purpose or does any work of detail produce its own arcane language?
Of course it is not just the lingo: the EU does seem difficult for people to understand. What's at the heart of the problem? Hear my answer on Radio 4 this Sunday 22 February at 10.45pm (2245 GMT) at the end of the Westminster Hour. It will be repeated on Wednesday 25 February at 8.45pm on Radio 4.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It has smth to do with ezoteric science :o) ex imagine the dollar symbol, the euro symbol.
The dollar one looks like a snake winding up around the walking stick (In God We Trust) and the Euro symbol absolutely means Embryo.
(rouble sounds suspiciously like rubble. LOL) (no symbols yet)
Complain about this comment
Must I wait until Sunday or may I venture forth now and suggest the EU is covering itself in gobbledygook language because like any organisation wishing to impress and suppress individual Citizens the use of selective-elitist language is key to the effectiveness of those twin ambitions.
To be utterly fair to the EU (once and only time) this is a historically well-tried practise that has never showed any sign of waning.
From all the major Faith's tomes of their record of a divine one's words through to current Medical Insurance documents the art of bafflement is at a premium. By stating one thing on page# to contradict whatever is written on page# in order for the Head Office to be the only arbiters of what is actually intended is the ultimate hierarchical masterstroke.
Unfortunately for groups like the EU the development of Internet etc. has enabled expose of these malpractises to be much more widely known (hence recent referenda knock-backs).
To their credit, or perhaps for this very reason, two incredibly influential and ground-breaking documents that have survived the test of time and publicly accessible language are: Magna Carta and American Declaration of Independence. The principles these documents underscore are incontrovertibly fair, just and advance the cause of humanity.
By comparison the unfair, unjust and restrictive EU Constitution stank the Continent out with its spectacular use of 'obscure' and 'arcane' language.
Complain about this comment
*Of course it is not just the lingo: the EU does seem difficult for people to understand.*
Mark, it might be easier to understand if there was a more balanced reporting (or just reporting) of it in the British media, for example the EU Council summits.
The British media, with the BBC on top, are obsessed about what colour of tie the US president is wearing each morning, but are stubbornly reluctant to report, in a balanced way, what goes on at a EU Council meeting, for example. Conversely, if there is a G8 meeting, Davos, etc it gets blanket coverage.
Perhaps if there was a balanced coverage (or some coverage) of the EU in the British media, British people would realise, for example, that the EU is not run by Brussels bureaucrats, but rather that all important decisions are made by the heads of governments of the EU states.
Complain about this comment
It is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation of the real agenda for the EU - if people understood the true anti-democratic nature of the EU they would be rioting in the streets, and we can't have that, now can we ?
Complain about this comment
I read of a recent academic survey that claims that most pro-EU people have a medium level of knowledge about the EU and support it because of a vague feeling that it is good for countries to work together. The same survey shows that most EU-sceptics have a high level of knowledge about the EU and oppose it on more specific grounds such as the lack of democratic legitimacy, concentration of political power into the EU Council with a bypassing of national legislatures, fraud, etc. It is also clear that opposition to the EU rises during referendum campaigns when the EU issues are debated more widely. And the EU response to its unpopularity is very often to try to obscure the issues, e.g. by rewriting the EU Constitution in a deliberately impenetrable format as the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore I think it is the case that jargon is one of the tools that supporters of 'integration by stealth' like to use to disguise what is going on.
One role of journalists should be clarify and shine a light on EU issues, but unfortunately some of the Brussels-based press owe their lifestyles to the EU project. Some of them (even at the BBC unfortunately) would rather be picking up cash prizes from the EU parliament than asking awkward questions of the EU institutions as to the corrosive effect that the EU system is having on the very fabric of our democracies.
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (3):
Its all fine and dandy to make simple and eloquently sound speeches and papers, but the problem with these is that their content goes to interpretation all the time.
For example the US constitution has caused legal fights from its beginning. From value of a black man to right to retain guns. Just look at the whole legal fight about gun rights, its never ending as the text giving the right is so vague.
I'm sorry, but I want my legal documents to have one meaning, not two or three, not them being questionable, I want just one meaning and for that we need legal and professional language.
PS. Mark, what is with this attack against practise of using fine toned language to express things? Surely BBC hasn't a secret agenda to bring down the Europe to levels of Idiocracy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0
PS2. Should the universities too go to use language that ordinary people use? My own master's thesis would have exploded from 80 pages to 120 or 160 pages if I couldn't have used professional language.
Complain about this comment
Re post #3, the Declaration of Independence guarateed all men are created equal yet was produced when slavery was legal. Then, as now, words in one specific document are essentially meaningless. they need to be backed up with jurisprudence and case law.
Even with the US Supreme Court, the guarantors of 'correct' interpretation of the Constitution can not even agree on what was intended by the document. Segregation legal, then not legal, etc. Should the interpretations 'evolve' with the times or be strictly construed as to the intent of the Founders? Do US citizens have the right to bear arms or only when part of a 'militia'? And how the heck do we interpret the odd punctuation! (particularly relevant with teh 2nd Amendment). And so on.
What is also critical, in my opinion, is system of checks and balances. This is essential for democracy. Whether its a separation of powers, free press, NGO, bloggers, whatever, we must have countervailing forces in play.
Complain about this comment
"Do you know what the EU acronym that sounds like the croak of a cartoon frog really means?"
'Ribbet' : "We surrender. Where would you like to build your minarets?".
'Croak': "Our economy is very, very poorly"
'Spawn': son of Mandelson. (A scientific oddity).
'Frogs legs': Sarkozy's - as opposed to Mick Jagger's 'ugly' calves (according to a conversation with the divine Carla)
Complain about this comment
I am a firm supporter of a european confederation where areas such as foriegn affairs, trade and defence can be addressed at a european level. Our empires and world power status are gone. Deal with it by uniting people!
I sometimes feel (but very much hope i am wrong) that euro-sceptics are middle english empire thinkers who hark but to the good ol days of old Great Britain.
However the democratic deficit must be addressed sooner rather than later. Euro speak is an unfortunate result of people united not by the ideals of the EU but by the greed and corruption of the elite who benefit mnost from the common market....
Complain about this comment
'Gerk' = GAERC = General Affairs & External Relations Council = Ministers for European and Foreign Affairs from all Member States.
"Greffe"?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila and Comment 7 that "...you want your legal documents to have just one meaning... not vague.."
Well then, "all fine and dandy," Democracy is not for you, mate!
No wonder you mistakenly support the EU!
You actually believe the EU lays out your rights and removes the "vague" from your life!
Whereas Democracy is about our Rights and Responsibilities to every other Citizen who shares the air we breathe. Thus, we can never have one opinion, one view, one possibility in Democratic discussion. We can only collectively arrive at the mutually acceptable and even then not all with permanent parameters. So, in some matters the conclusion is clear from the start, e.g. it is easy for all good men and women to commonly concur the paedophile must be outlawed: Whereas, whether the termination of a pregnancy is or is not allowable under Law is the basis for Democratic discussion in which there cannot possibly be one final definitive version. When one is discussing and deciding on the provision of the Rights of Man it is as well to remember Tom Paine was not a fool, but, Msr Valery Giscard d'Estaing most assuredly came close with the multi-thousand word EU Constitution!
Like the ubiquitous but demonstrably utilitarian colander your wonderfully naive and utterly unnerving idea that a legal document must have one defining meaning quite literally does not hold water!
Now, you do have the advantage over me: You can puhua ja kirjoittaa Suomea ja Englantia (read and write in Finnish and English), so, like so many Finns and Europeans in general 'language' is a strongpoint, unlike for us weak and feeble-minded English.
Nevertheless, English is the medium of International Communication: This stems from the revival of Democracy (i.e. post Greek States and Imperial Rome) which very largely was down to its intellectual ideas being expressed and supported by the use of English in the 17 to 19th Centuries (with a faint/feint nod to Gallic egalite etc.).
Therefore, I must insist your EU has absolutely no persuasive power in the longterm so long as it dresses itself in overly "fine tones" that are a discourtesy and vexation to the ordinary Citizen!
Complain about this comment
GuyI35 (10): European confederation makes no sense at all. We should treat all other countries equally whether they are European or not. It makes no sense to have a common foreign, defence or trade policy with European countries whose national interest is more often contrary to the British interest than complimentary. It is far better that we work in ad-hoc alliances with our natural partners wherever they are in the world on issues where we happen to agree with them, than get locked into a coercive confederation that would require us to subordinate our interest to that of European countries even when we disagree with them.
The recent debacle of the WTO trade round where a British EU trade commissioner ended up negotiating in support of a protectionist agricultural lobby that was directly AGAINST the British national interest shows that what you propose is non-sensical.
I very often have the feeling that EU supporters cannot think straight.
Complain about this comment
Carlos SanchezGuerra and Comment 8.
I was not and am not going to get into a long and undefined debate about the merits or otherwise of the American Declaration of Independence.
Please refer to my Comment 3 again and note that I offered the ADOI and Magna Carta as examples of text that had stood the test of time in their influence. Hence,
yes, both Documents are still up for discussion and judicial decision-making which points to their language accessibility.
Anyone who supposes the EU Constitution or version2, the Lisbon Treaty, or further back, Maastricht etc. will be up for discussion by any sensible person (except as historical curiosities) in 50, never mind 250 or 1,000 years from now is simply and in plain English and French, delusional.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @6,
Do you have a link to the survey you mentioned? I'd be interested to peruse it.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Coming from a legal background, I should like to make the point that the dictum that 'less is more' seldom applies. As Jukka writes above, what you need is clarity and precision and that will sometimes mean complex language and complicated explanations. It may be mystifying to the lay person but it is often necessary. To brand it as willful obfuscation is simply unfair both to the bureaucracy and the law makers. Now multiply that by 23 official languages.
This is in marked contrast to the practice of inventing phrases to make something stupid sound palatable - quantitative easing anyone?
Complain about this comment
We really should revert to Latin.
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (12) and (14):
No.
Lets make an example...
The second amendment...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If we look at the text we have few major uncleared question, a) what is a regulated militia, b) how does regulated militia involve the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and c) what arms?
Should we go with view that keeping and bearing in any arm is legal? Rifles a-okey, Uzis a-okey, grenade launcher a-okey?
Or should we go with a view that only people who have joined a militia, are part of a militia can have arms?
But what about militias themselves? Do they have to be state militias or could example Klu Klux Klan have militia, what about Black Panthers, what about Al-Qaida?
The real problem is that if you use short and vague language, then what you will end up is laweyristan.
When we are dealing with legal documents, documents that give or take rights or set obligation, then we must use language that makes it fully clear and unquestionable on what the document is all about and what is it meanings.
For crying out loud, even simple commercial contracts can take at least 10 pages and some contracts that I have signed are near 40 pages of legalese and this is just to make sure everybody knows where we are.
The thing is, we make laws, directives, contacts, etc.. to handle and make our world work, thus what we should do is to make legal documents workable, to make them function as they were intended, to be clear and precise, on not leaving question marks, that is why we need to be thorough in expressing our matter. Legal and professional speak and terms and long clear explanations are thus needed in legal documents to make them work.
And again...
Remember what country in the world has most lawyers per capita?
USA: 1 lawyer per 265 people
UK: 1/401
Germany: 1/593
France: 1/1403
Scandinavian countries get even higher rates.
You know I'm sorry, but to me its unacceptable to make important legal documents vague as that opens up an Pandora's box of eternal misery.
Lawyers. Its sad that BBC doesn't permit hate speech against a group of people.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @18
"Lawyers. Its sad that BBC doesn't permit hate speech against a group of people."
It certainly didn't stop Shakespeare.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila and Comment 18.
Sorry, not getting into the finers points of US Law for which there is a Supreme Court.
Number of Lawyers is no indication of good or bad Law, and even less of good or bad use of Language.
I refer you to my previous Comments and to Comment 14.
Complain about this comment
Max (15): Unfortunately I have lost my link to that study.
Jukka (18): Every EU treaty has been written to be deliberately ambiguous because this creates the flexibility to sell the treaties to sceptical publics but then later re-interpret them as more federalist than originally advertised. It is the job of the ECJ to clarify what EU law and treaties mean when cases of ambiguity arise and this court has long been famous for using its ruling to re-interpret European law to the maximum federalist extent possible. The deliberate ambiguity in the treaties is what has allowed the ECJ to play such a major role in the unwanted EU integration. It is therefore complete utter total drivel to say that European treaties are written to unambiguous. Ambiguity is a design feature.
If you were serious when saying that 'to me it is unacceptable to make important legal documents vague as that opens up an Pandora's box of eternal misery' then you would have opposed every European treaty ever created.
Complain about this comment
Hmm, assuming that all the non-English speakers in the EU speak, read, write fluent English with all the nuances? Well most in the UK, don't so why should this be the case?
I have worked in International standards (ISO/IEC, CEN/CENELEC) for 15 years and its patently obvious that the English of the non-English speakers is lets say, challenging sometimes. I'm not beinga rogant her either as my French, although quite good, is not THAT good.
We want English texts and we don't pay to have them written by educated, English mother tongue speakers. Thus, you get a lot of gobbledy gook.
PS those who get to translate into their local langauges, invariably get better texts as they can correct the goofs in the English
Complain about this comment
#21 - Freeborn-John
With respect, the original draft constitution was pretty straight forward - and yes I know I shall be told that this is why it was rejected and had to be binned - but it is not true that everything that comes out of the EU is willfully obscure. I would agree, however, that Lisbon is complicated. Whether this is fine tuning to iron the problems with what was possibly an over simple idea or whether it is obfuscation depends on whether you sympathise with the objective or not.
I am inclined to agree that too much European law tends to be ambiguous and ends up as a result at the ECJ but to some extent, this is inevitable given that 27 different interpretations of everything that is enacted are going to be enforced depending on national interest. It is after all the national governments which pass the enabling legislation so, to some extent, it is their responsibility to minimise ambiguity when putting the enabling powers in place.
Complain about this comment
Most of the European politicians who voted for the EU Constitution or the Lisbon treaty admitted that they hadn't read it. What they failed to admit is that they couldn't have even if they'd wanted to.
Complain about this comment
Speaking about not having read the EU constitution, the Lisbon Treaty (or the Red Line UK opt outs) but urged people to support them anyway on blind faith alone, who said these famous last words:
"Trust Me."
a) Judas Iscariot
b) Bernie Madoff
c) Gordon Brown
Complain about this comment
England raus aus der EU! - There's a nice foreign soundbite for the BBC to translate. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Max Sceptic,
"We really should revert to Latin."
I agree with your post yet again. (Lets see if this one gets censored, too)
Complain about this comment
I am not a lawyer, I am an engineer. We have formal methods of checking programs such that all their possible outcomes are defined. We use these when writing safety-critical software (i.e. not Microsoft, before anyone starts). Why can't we use these methods when writing legal agreements?
It wouldn't stop badly written treaties, or ones where the user requirements don't involve the user - but it would mean that you couldn't argue what the results would be for a given set of inputs.
Yes, I know I am naive and there is a very good reason we pay lawyers so much to translate the law for us....
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @21 - thanks anyway.
Gheryando @27 - if you keep expressing support for my statements you'll be placed on the BBC's list of 'undesirables'
Complain about this comment
As a full time composer, i already use a universal language to 'communicate' with fellow musicians.
"The Lisbon Treaty Concerto"
Act 1.
All we need is the lyrics.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#30 - alex1658
That sounds about right.
A slow introduction, a first subject (simple enough), a second subject (simple but different), mix them all together so nobody understands them (development), go back and say it all over again (recapitulation), given up and let them make it up for themselves (cadenza) then a quick rush for the exit (coda).
Complain about this comment
#32 threnodio
You have it.
Stick the whole thing in latin, add full choir, organ, and confusion would rein universally.
And you'd have the music to soothe the savage beasts...............
Complain about this comment
"I sometimes feel (but very much hope i am wrong) that euro-sceptics are middle english empire thinkers who hark but to the good ol days of old Great Britain."
I am a very profound eurosceptic - and proud of it. I also have a long record of working for European co-operation and have served as European president of an international association. I was elected to that position by my peers from across the continent. Their appreciation of my efforts and what I achieved was shown at a meeting held in July last year.
There seems to be a tendency with EU enthusiasts in the UK to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them and, if that doesn't work, resort to name calling. It brings to mind the old age that there is nobody so illiberal as a liberal when they are faced with someone who disagrees with them.
"However the democratic deficit must be addressed sooner rather than later. Euro speak is an unfortunate result of people united not by the ideals of the EU but by the greed and corruption of the elite who benefit most from the common market...."
Euro speak goes back to the founding of what is now the EU and illustrates the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of the "project". The rhetoric was that it was about international cooperation, peace and the rest of it. The reality was that it was a trade off between the interests of German industry and French agriculture.
Complain about this comment
#33 - alex1658
That's the first movement, Alex.
That's followed by a set of variations (saying the same thing in a lot of different ways until someone eventually votes 'yes') and a rondo finale - you know, going round and round in circles.
What about a text?
Complain about this comment
The Finns had parts of the EU official website in Latin during their presidency - it was quite good! I wonder why the Germans didn't keep it up... :)
Complain about this comment
#35 threnodio
Hang on i'm writing all this down.
you know.....
Enthusiasticum Carborundum.
Complain about this comment
One other thing the EU does to confuse and baffle Mark,
It has rafts of rules and regulations that are impossible to keep up with.
All these come from the politicians that are at least partly responsible for the mess we are in now.
Time for a change now, get rid of the very expensive EU and all it's problems.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1: I totally agree with you. It is a shame to see how much the tabloid style influences the public and the other media, such as the mighty BBC. It would be useful if people were informed in an objective manner on what happens in Brussels and also on what happens on the other EU countries (e.g. coverage of elections as good as for the US and Israel). Unfortunately, we have to be informed daily on Carla and Sarko intimate details, various gossip and fashion on Obama and family, etc. This is not journalism the way it should be. I don't have a PhD but I have no difficulties in understanding EU communications, obviously official documents have to be written in the appropriate language, even in the UK! I am amazed at people who enjoy displaying their ignorance with pride, the fact that so many people can barely read and write is hardly the fault of the 'eurocrats on their gravy train' in Brussels!
Complain about this comment
@Jukka_Rohila (7)
It is not just about the language of the US constitution, when we discuss the reasons the document has survived the time. It is well known that Benjamin Franklin changed some expressions in order to adjust the document with some achievements of his contemporaries in Europe. All those people were of great personalities, great thinkers, and all that was ordinary language.
The same ordinar expression could be as blunt as profound. It depends on content, of course. Perhaps on a person who stays behind the expression.
One-meaning documents you could find in mathematics, or perhaps in the legal system of the former USSR. There was no necessity for a well versed and just judge. Everything was defined, straightforwardly written in the "documents".
Complain about this comment
secretpcjunkie: you wrote:
"Time for a change now, get rid of the very expensive EU and all it's problems."
I am not surprised you don't understand 'the EU language': you don't know the difference between 'its' and 'it's'! I suggest your knowledge of your own language is not too good... Back to school?
Complain about this comment
I think "Eourospeak" may not be obscure on purpose. Living in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, I realize that many people speak English by speaking Dutch with English words. English is so common here, a second rather than a foreign language, and people assume they speak it well because it is everywhere. In effect a Dutch dialect of English has been created. That is OK when spoken, but it can be incomprehensible when written, when people do not write as they speak but get all 'literary'. The programme in the National Opera had a synopsis of the story in English but I could not understand it. I have been sent technical articles to edit and when calling for explanation, thinking my techical knowledge was at fault, I have realized that the problem was withe
the strange English (I call int Dinglish). Maybe, re. the EU, there is also resentment that English is the majot language and not French. One the strengths of English is also a weakness: we are quite lax about rules, so 'non- native English speakers' probably feel more free to say and write whatever comes to their minds rather than if they were working in French. That indeed may be another aspect; since the French dominated the EU for so long, maybe EUlish is really pretentious French technoctrat English. Maybe it is intentionally obscure after all.
Complain about this comment
The EU, like any political body, has a split between two languages: that of politics, which is grand, broad, and vague; and that of policymaking, which is precise, and nitpicking to the extreme. The first is reflected in summit declarations, slogans and suchlike; the second in rules and directives. Treaties, unfortunately, tend to mix both.
However, the EU is not any more obscure than, say, Westminster or Washington. Indeed, because it is a much younger organisation, it does not suffer from as many archaeological layers of arcane language and procedure. Indeed, it has coined some wonderful neologisms: who doesn't understand "trialogue" or "comitology"?
Now, political language is often difficult to understand by purpose. It is the old high-priestly syndrome of using hieroglyphs to shield what you say from the hoi polloi (more often than not, to prevent them from noticing that you, in fact, aren't saying anything of substance).
Policymaking language, on the other hand, is difficult to understand by necessity. Complicated matters need complicated rules, and complicated rules are difficult to follow for the layman. For example, in my very specialised line of work, I often have to produce reams of what, I am afraid, may read like pure gibberish to 99.9% of the population, yet be intensely meaningful to the remaining 0.1% (or less). I wish I could use less intricated language, but there is no way I can without making a hash of my work.
The difference between obscure rules and obscure political statements, in short, is the same as that between physicists having meaningful discussions about quantum physics, and gurus using the language of quantum physics to peddle their snake oil.
Complain about this comment
The only way to make the EU function efficiently is by adopting English as a common language throughout the EU. By this I mean that English, in addition to and in parallel with the existing official languages, will serve as an official language in all EU, national and local institutions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
threnodio @45,
Latin started to go downhill in 313 AD when the Roman Empire adopted a single almighty mumbo-jumbo in place of the laissez-faire melange of religions that were tolerated hitherto.
Complain about this comment
#44 - oulematu
I am inclined to agree that a single working language for institutional matters might be sensible although you will have to wait for a new generation of bureaucrats and lawyers who have mastered it. I would probably accept the case that there are more people in Europe who have English as a second language so it warrants consideration.
However, until Britain can make up its collective mind where it stands on Europe, is is appropriate for that language to be English? You could end up with a situation where the lingua franca was that of a non-member state. Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg are all French speaking locations so they have a claim.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (47):
I should add to this discussion that the EU having only one official language is unacceptable proposition and will never be accepted by the majority of EU countries.
One of the most important things that makes the EU acceptable and desirable organization especially for small countries to work with is that it treats all languages and cultures as equals. If you take that away then the EU becomes undesirable organization and what you have in hands is mutiny.
Just ask yourself what it would feel to you if the EU dictated that the only official language would be Germany and ability to use it would be prerequisite to working with it.
I'm sorry, but having only one official EU language is just fantasy and should be forgotten. English is just another minority language amongst others.
I would also like to note that many who argument on having the English as an one and only official EU language seem at least to me hard core nationalist who think that the English language and culture are somehow superior to other languages and cultures.
Complain about this comment
to #47, threnodio:
For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring not just to EU institutions but to national, regional and local authorities as well. Therefore, I do not see why it is relevant which language is used in Brussels or Lux. This is not about communication among eurocrats, but about official and unofficial communication between authorities and private persons or between different authorities. Everyone should have the right to opt to communicate in English with authorities in all 27 MSs.
The UK's position on the EU does not make a difference to me. The English language would be the most sensible way of implementing the "four freedoms" even if the UK and Ireland were to leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
to #48, Jukka Rohila:
If you read the original posts carefully, you will see that making English the only official language was not a part of the proposal. English should be used in addition to and in parallel with the existing official language.
Everyone who has to deal with national beaurocracy in several member states will agree that having the option to communicate and to make filings in English would be a huge benefit. It would facilitate the implementation of the "four freedoms", which otherwise remain only on paper, at least to a large extent.
Complain about this comment
#48 Jukka_Rohila
One of the problems in talking about the "English" language, is the assumption that it is in fact a single language representing a particular culture (and certainly assuming that either has anything to do with "England").
I agree with you on the need to preserve individual cultures and the languages that express them - and giving them some sort of "inferior" status is the easiest way to kill them off. That's why my grandmother was the last in our branch of the family to speak Gaelic.
I totally recognise what chriscrosscomment said in his #42 re English in the Netherlands. My father spoke English, but the underlying grammatical structure was Gaelic - not a problem in Scotland, but he had to learn a more international "version" of English for communicating outwith* Scotland (or use French, in which he was much more fluent than I).
An international version of "English" may end up as the de facto lingua franca (!), but it should never become the official language of the EU.
outwith* [it was only when the spellcheck flagged that word, that I checked it and found it is the Scots for "outside" - I hadn't realised that other English speakers may not have recognised it]
Complain about this comment
#48 - Jukka_Rohila
It is not often I disagree with you violently but you really should re-read my post. What I suggested was that there may be a case for a lingua franca, not one official language. I was responding to oulematu at #44 in which he also made it clear that he meant "in addition to and in parallel with the existing official languages". I agree with that. I also went on to suggest that, even if this were to happen, it should not necessarily be English.
I think you should also consider before dismissing the idea out of hand that India, with its many languages, would not function administratively had it not adopted a common language of law, commerce and bureaucracy and that South America, with the exception of Brazil relies on Spanish for the same purpose.
On this occasion, you have completely misunderstood or misinterpreted me.
Complain about this comment
#49 - oulematu
Here we do part company. The idea that a Catalan farmer should be required to make a planning application for a barn in English is absurd.
As someone living in eastern Europe, I have noticed the considerable lengths that government is going to to make information accessible by publishing it in a western European language, typically English where I am but for historical reasons German in the west of the country.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (52):
Well my comment wasn't not only to you but also to oulematu, in this sense I should have addresses both you or made a note that the comment is for the general discussion.
And no.
What you and oulematu forget about setting one language into lingua franca position is that it makes citizens from different member countries unequal benefiting those who talk the language as natives. If some language put in a official working language then in all fairness to make the situation equal to all citizens, citizens who speak the language as their native language should be denied the right to work in the EU or method be created that removes favoring of the native language speakers of that official language.
If the EU would have to have an lingua franca, one working language or one official language, then it would have to be a language that is not used as an official language in any member country nor should it have any native speakers. Thus the only option would be either to use a foreign language or use a dead language like Latina or use artificial language like Esperanto. Of course with the usage of Latina or Esperanto we will create another Pandora's box of inequality as even now there are people who speak Esperanto as their native language.
The first prerequisite for the language question is how does it treat citizens from different member states, inequality is unacceptable.
The second prerequisite for the language question is that it doesn't lead into linguistic and cultural colonization of other member states.
The third prerequisite for the language question is that it doesn't lead into formation of an linguistic elite that by their ability to speak the official language as native get competitive advantage against non-native speakers.
If those three prerequisites aren't fulfilled then there is no reason replace the current system which works well and fine and does guarantee linguistic and cultural equality.
Complain about this comment
If people can live as Americans in the USA as a united people of various ethnic origins - shouldn't we Europeans living on this side of the Atlantic do so as well?
I think we have to accept that every nation is justifiably proud of its culture, traditions and language. There is a reassuringly unambiguous declaration and common will that these matters are to be safeguarded in the EU. That is very important to ALL.
It is either unite or stagnate in this global village which is now in dire straits financially.
Can we afford another European confrontation or just as worrying, to stop making progress on all fronts; be it economic well being or the pursuit of genuine social evolution and well-being?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @48 wrote:
"I would also like to note that many who argument on having the English as an one and only official EU language seem at least to me hard core nationalist who think that the English language and culture are somehow superior to other languages and cultures.'
I certainly don't think that English culture is superior to all others. But the English language is the world's de facto lingua franca [Latin again!] and as such is self-evidently 'superior'. The fact that you, a Finn, post here in English is a demonstration of this fact. How many other nationalities contribute to a Finnish language Blog about the EU?
You also said that "One of the most important things that makes the EU acceptable and desirable organization especially for small countries to work with is that it treats all languages and cultures as equals."
The idea that all languages and cultures are equal is patent nonsense. Can the modest cultural achievements of (for argument's sake) Latvia, Malta and Finland really compare favourably to the magnificent cultural acheivements of (for example) France, Italy and Germany? Of course not.
So will the EU ever be 'United in diversity'? No chance. That is why there is such a movement for artificial 'regionalisation' - i.e. 'Divide and Rule'
Complain about this comment
To oulematu (50):
In Finland there are two official state languages Finnish and Swedish. If you can't use either of them then its your problem to learn to use one of them or solve your problem otherwise. If you can't handle it, there is the door, don't let hit you on your way out.
I'm sorry, but this totally ridiculous, how hard it is to learn language of the country where you are residing? Besides my mother tongue I can speak English, Swedish and German. To be honest both Swedish and German are rusty but then again my friends which have relocated into Sweden or Germany have re-learned the language in just few months. Now if I would for example want to relocate to Spain I would get introduction courses here and then at the place just learn the damn language. Its not that hard. I have engineers brains and still I can handle few languages with ease and actually plan to learn French, when I can kill time of from my calendar, so I can perhaps go there and study.
Yes, there are four freedoms, but its up to a individual citizen of him or herself to use them. It shouldn't be the responsibility of states to lower the playing field into lowest nominator.
Again how hard can it be to learn another language?
Another thing that I will note is that I think you really don't understand how important thing language is. The last time when we had bunch of foreigners telling us that Russian should be an official language what they got in return was suicide terrorism, armed rebellion and ethnic hate that has withstand in general almost to these days.
No. Your proposition is totally unacceptable. If you want to work in another language, learn the language, it is simple as that.
Complain about this comment
To oldnat (51):
It is good that you took Scotland in to this discussion as Scotland is an example model of slow colonization and domination of an foreign language and culture via setting up a system that favors one language and puts other languages in inferior position.
Note, this is comment is for the general discussion...
Lets imagine that English would become a lingua franca of the EU, that it could be used in parallel with native languages.
Direct implication of it would be lowered willingness of non-natives to learn the native language and thus decrease integration and assimilation process. As time would go on, more and more people would not learn the native language and numbers of non-native speakers would increase. As native language speakers would be still required to learn the foreign language, the system would favor directly the foreign language and native speakers would either abide on using the foreign language more and more or tensions between language groups would tighten more and more.
In time, maybe 50 or 100 years the number of non-native speakers would go so high that they would have to be recognized as an official minority and given minority status. As the time would go on, as the system would favor one language, the minority would just increase its share until some point it would become the majority language and replace the native language.
This is what happened in Scotland. The Scotland that was is no more. Scotland was colonized and subjugated and transformed into just another English region.
When English or any other language is proposed to be an lingua franca of the EU, to be a parallel with native languages, what the end result will be is a colonization and destruction of local native languages and cultures. That is unacceptable position. That would make the EU just another USSR which is totally unacceptable and to be violently rejected.
Personally, as a Finn, if we would allow a foreign language to be made an parallel language with Finnish and Swedish, that would be a betrayal against all generations who have struggled, suffered and died in order to protect our country, our nation, our nationality and our right to be Finnish. In this matter I do think that many others all around the EU join my voice and position.
Complain about this comment
#54 - Jukka_Rohila
OK - for the sake of clarity, let me explain exactly what I suggest.
All official documents should be published in the national language of the country of issue, the regional dialect (if appropriate) and the lingua franca. So, to take my Catalan farmer for example, his planning application forms would be in Catalan, Spanish and the lingua franca and a Welsh summons would be in Welsh, English and the lingua franca.
An EU directive would be published in the lingua franca with translations available to all 23 languages and the enabling parliamentary instruments would be in the language of the national parliament concerned and the lingua franca.
In this way, EU citizens living or doing business in a country other than their own would have no excuse for not understanding legal documents. At the same time, all citizens would have all legal documents and legislation available in their own language.
Does that satisfy you?
Complain about this comment
#59 threnodio
If the Catalan farmer is submitting a planning application within Catalonia, why on earth would you want it to be multi-lingual? Catalan would be quite sufficient.
Should anyone else (lacking knowledge of Catalan) require to understand it, it could easily be translated.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (56):
I studied English as an first foreign language out of free will, I could also have studied another language instead of it. I post here using English as an medium of exchange as out of my free will. The choice was mine, the choice was not dictated nor preselected.
As of cultural achievements, no, all languages and cultures are equal. Yes, the are much to appreciate in French, German or Italian cultures, but so there is also in Maltese, Latvian and Finnish cultures. And if talk about cultures in general, for example using Hofstede's dimensions, then how do you define what culture is better than another? The same questions goes to languages, how is one language better than other?
The thing that you don't seem to note about 'Unified in diversity' is that Europe is diverse. Germans, English and French together combine 44% of EU citizens and with Italians and Spanish 65%. The EU consists of 27 different countries and from 23 different languages and their combined will to protect their individual languages and cultures is what makes the Unified in diversity work.
To threnodio (59):
Unacceptable. The official languages of Finland are Finnish and Swedish and they and they alone are the languages that the state will use. Using any other language besides them would open Pandora's box. If somebody comes to Finland, my suggestion is to learn the language as quickly as possible, as that is the same thing that I would do if I moved into another country.
Learn the language, how hard can it be?!
Complain about this comment
a language... for Europe...
:O)
Complain about this comment
#58 Jukka_Rohila
Nice theory re Scotland. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit the facts.
The Lowland Scots (one half of my family) set out to destroy the language and culture of the Gaidhealtachd (the Gaelic speaking area, and the other half of my family) all on their own, without any help from the English.
I note that you didn't mention any of the three Sami languages spoken in Northern Finland in your post.
Cultural Imperialism happens within countries as well as being imposed from outside.
It's also the case that populations voluntarily change (or add to) language use due to economic benefit, or because it's seen as culturally "better".
There's no evidence to suggest that the old Pictish languages which predated Scots Gaelic were deliberately wiped out, but they disappeared over time.
People make choices - even if we sometimes regret the choices we make.
I post in English because none of you would understand the Scots, that I was brought up to speak. That doesn't devalue my own tongue.
Language is a complex issue, but the last thing we need is politicians trying to impose one as "better" than another.
Complain about this comment
#60 - oldnat
To be honest, I wish I had not become involved in this one. It is not a major issue in my mind. The only point I would make - and this is totally selfish - nowithstanding that I do have reasonable language skills, I still find Hungarian very difficult and I am so grateful that most official things are available in English or German.
#61 - Jukka_Rohila
You are still not reading what I am saying. I said all enabling legislation in the language of the country concerned - in your case Finnish and Swedish - with translations available.
As to "Learn the language, how hard can it be?!" A whole lot more difficult when you are 60 ish and the language is remote from your own. How many languages can an ordinary bloke learn in a lifetime?
Complain about this comment
To oldnat (63):
Thank you for the info. Just looked quickly at Wikipedia to get some more info. Based on these quotes, what happened in Scotland was indeed what I more or less described. Of course I'm not an expert in this area so I welcome your view and information about it.
Some quotes:
"After the Union and the shift of political power to England, the use of Scots was discouraged by many in authority and education, as was the notion of Scottishness itself.[5] Many leading Scots of the period, such as David Hume, considered themselves Northern British rather than Scottish.[6] They attempted to rid themselves of their Scots in a bid to establish standard English as the official language of the newly formed Union."
"By the 1840s the Scottish Education Department's language policy was that Scots had no value "...it is not the language of 'educated' people anywhere, and could not be described as a suitable medium of education or culture". Students, of course, reverted to Scots outside the classroom, but the reversion was not complete. What occurred, and has been occurring ever since, is a process of language attrition, whereby successive generations have adopted more and more features from English. This process has accelerated rapidly since wide-spread access to mass media in English, and increased population mobility, became available after the Second World War. It has recently taken on the nature of wholesale language shift. These processes are often erroneously referred to as language change, convergence or merger.[weasel word sentence][citation needed] Residual features of Scots are often regarded as slang."
Just from a quick look there are two things, destruction of the Scottish language and the destruction of the Gaelic language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language
---
The reason why I didn't note any of the three Sami languages in my post is that they aren't official state languages. The Sami were the first to settle into Finland, but as more Finnic people from the east moved into Finland, native Sami's either fused with new comers or moved up to north to continue their lifestyle. The Finnish that speak now is the fusion of all different Finnic dialects and languages that came into this area with influences from Swedish, German and Russia. However that happened thousands of years ago.
Currently in Finland Sami is an official language in four municipalities were state services are provided with it.
On the issue about languages, the point of a nation state is to protect particular language and culture, that is the main function of a nation state. As long as we have our nation state, we will use that state to make sure that our native language and culture stay as they are, as the language and culture of the people, but also as used by the state.
Complain about this comment
By the way, Catalan is not one of the 23 languages. I have no idea whether Catalan is used for local legal documents or Spanish. Does anyone know?
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (64):
I read what you were saying and as I said earlier, that is totally unacceptable.
Our state has two languages and that is it. If we would start translating them then we would have to translate them into 21 other languages to provide equality, that would be costly and unnecessary. If we would translate all our laws into the EU lingua-franca then we would be aiding the colonization of country and destruction of our language and culture which would be totally unacceptable.
As to learning languages, there is the native way or there is the high way. Its your own problem if you are 60 or have any other excuse on not learning the language, you just learn it if you want to act and live in the host society as its full fledged member, there is no other way.
And hey, like the Americans say, "No pain! No gain!".
PS. This discussion too isn't my favorite, but I do feel that there is a point to be made and that is how important people feel their native languages are. It maybe hard for English speaker to understand, but for example Finnish language, the only place were its spoken is Finland and the only state that protects and guards it is the Finnish state, thus our whole language and culture reside in a one basket and thus guarding that basket and giving it to future generations as it was given to us is utterly important. This is in stark contrast with the English language and culture as even if there would be no England anymore, the language and culture would still carry their life in USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila,
Fully agree with you, can't find better words than yours to reflect my thoughts !
Having a lingua franca means one language (hence a country or a culture) would be superior, and this does not fit at all with the principle of the EU that all languages and cultures are equal.
The EU is a federation. If one travels to work into the UK, it is his duty to learn English. The same applies with Germany and German, Italy and Italian and so on.
To reply to threnodio, with the new technologies, you can easily translate documents. Just think of google translator for example, it is not perfect but could help a lot. So I still don't see the real benefit in having official documents with translation available.
Reading the Spanish constitution in Spanish just reminds that this is about Spain !
I think language is far much more than the way you communicate with others. This is also the reflection of the history and culture of whole country and you can't and should not erase this.
Because when you understand the history, the culture of a country that is not yours, then you are more opened to it and you tend to accept differencies. Just making the effort of translating or learning a foreign language is a proof of respect, in the end.
Complain about this comment
#65 - Jukka_Rohila
"Just from a quick look there are two things, destruction of the Scottish language and the destruction of the Gaelic language".
I would dispute the idea that a language can be destroyed, especially when written examples survive. It is certainly the case that living languages can evolve to the extent that they would be unrecognisable to an ancient speaker. It is also the case that languages can lie dormant in the sense that so few people speak them for a period that they appear to be obsolete but so long as someone continues to use them, they have the potential to come back into use. Simply look at the proliferation of Celtic language speakers in the last half century.
We are also too fond of referring to languages which are not in wide general use as 'dead'. All the time they are used or understood, they are not dead.
Complain about this comment
threnodio (66),
I am not 100% sure, but 98% sure that Catalan is used as a legal language in Cataluna alongside Castillan.
I think both languages have similar status in Cataluna, but as this region is autonomous, I believe Catalan is preferred.
Complain about this comment
#67 - Jukka_Rohila
Nobody wants to attack your Finnish culture. All I am saying is a broom manufacturer in Cleethorpes should be able to business anywhere in the EU without having to learn 23 languages. Not exactly The Kalevala in Swahili is it?
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (71):
If the broom manufacturer in Cleethorpes wants to export into Finland or any other EU country and doesn't have the knowledge or ability to communicate with the local authorities then the company will hire an agent from the destination country that will handle interaction with local authorities and make needed localizations, for example mandatory user manuals in local language.
Please, this has been the case for us all others from ancient times. Learn foreign languages, learn to make international trade and learn to be international. I have had to in my studies get to know on how for example to make software that its internationalized from the day one or how to set up and build internationalized organizations from the beginning. Is it so much to be asked that others bother to make the same as we have to do?
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (71):
Another thing is that when you are salesman you make that deal no matter what, you just do it.
If you don't have a common language, then you make one. For example few global companies in the town of my alma mater used to take their Chinese and other foreign customers, if needed, to a striptease joint, put some girls on their laps, get drunk and have happy time. That is how you make deals.
Complain about this comment
#73 - Jukka_Rohila
We are getting nowhere with this. If you invite me to go to a performance of 'Figaro' in German or 'Zauberflotte' in Italian and I will not accept. 'Figaro' was intended to be sung in Italian and 'Zauberflotte' in German. I will not accept anything else. That is a culture.
If you tell me I cannot sell my Cleethorpes brooms Tatabanya without first mastering Hungarian, I will tell you exactly where to put the brooms. That is business.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (74):
Agreed, we are not getting anywhere with this.
You can tell me where to put the brooms, but then again you are the one who loses as you can't sell your brooms. So if you want to sell those brooms, then you just have to pay the price, no matter what that is.
I'm sorry but if you are firm that wants to make export trade, then its very normal either sell via agency or sell directly to a customer who will handle by itself all necessary dealings with the local authorities. If you need more presence in the market you open up an sales office at the local country and hire local people to sell and deal with the authorities and if necessary make the localization.
That is just business as normal.
Complain about this comment
# 64. threnodio:
As to "Learn the language, how hard can it be?!" A whole lot more difficult when you are 60 ish and the language is remote from your own. How many languages can an ordinary bloke learn in a lifetime?"
How many? It all depends on your motivation and determination. Full immersion (i.e. do everything in the target language and do nothing else) and hard work can get you there in about six to eight weeks. Three years will get you to a pretty high standard if you're taking it easy at a couple of hours of tuition per week. A month of spare time study will do for holiday and restaurant purposes.
But take care to do your languages one at a time. I once got over enthusiastic and tried 3 languages at once on different days of the week. Aaagh! It didn't take me long to drop back to just one.
As for language learning across the EU I would go for mother-tongue plus English. That's not because I'm a native English speaker but because it's just a fact of life that English, thanks to the British Empire and the USA, is, apart from Latin, the world's de facto lingua franca ;-).
The maintenance of the mother-tongue is essential if people are not to lose touch with their identity, history, literature and culture.
Complain about this comment
74. At 10:51pm on 13 Feb 2009, threnodio wrote:
" If you invite me to go to a performance of 'Figaro' in German or 'Zauberflotte' in Italian and I will not accept. 'Figaro' was intended to be sung in Italian and 'Zauberflotte' in German. I will not accept anything else. That is a culture."
Zauberflotte = magic fleet not magic flute.
Complain about this comment
#73 Jukka_Rohila
"put some girls on their laps, get drunk and have happy time." The universal language? ;-)
I said language is a complex issue! It also doesn't have the same resonance within every culture.
I can understand that this is more important in Finland, than in many other European countries, because Finnish is so unique.
I can only "speak" (or "spik", or "bruidhinn") about my own country.
The wiki references are both accurate, but simply accentuate the complexity. The determination of Edinburgh society to learn "English" to fit in with the new state was a set of personal decisions (rather spoiled by the fact that many of the "English teachers" were Irish - since the whole point was to learn the appropriate vowel sounds and Southern English, Scots and Irish all pronounce vowels differently, many of the lessons were a waste of money!).
The Scotch Education Department (a branch of the UK Government) were promoting "Britishness" - hence their denigration of Scots. That was one of the many factors which led to a demand for Scottish Home Rule in the late 19th century.
btw I wouldn't agree with your definition of the prime purpose of a nation state (at least in Scotland). Members of the Scottish Parliament can take the oath of office in any language. So far it's been taken in English, Scots, Gaelic, and Urdu. The text of the oath is also provided in Cantonese, Punjabi, Gujurati and Hindi. These languages were selected on the basis of the extent of usage in Scotland. If the MSP proposes another language he or she will be able to recite this but no text will be provided.
If a Finnish speaker is elected to the Scottish Parliament, we'd be delighted to hear that oath!
Complain about this comment
#77 SuffolkBoy2
Beware! On any occasion that I've corrected someone's spelling, punctuation etc, I've promptly made a similar error on my next post!
Complain about this comment
A bank in the "EU" parliament was robbed yesterday.*
Some people seem to think the Brits are the only ones to hate the "EU". The Austrians hate the "EU" just as much as we do. The comments on the online pages of the newespaper, Kronenzeitung make this very clear e.g.:
"The man should get a medal. ... I congratulate him."
"Is that a crime? Whilst he was doing that even more money must ave disappeared into dark channels."
It goes on and on like that.
One thing about these posts: Each one gets points for the number of people who agree with it. I would like to see Mark try that.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
* We was all robbed yesterday - by the "EU". And the day before that and ...
Complain about this comment
To oldnat (78):
You are of course right about the purpose of nation state. In my zeal I forgot that nationality, national identity, can be made out of something else than a language and can combine many other elements than it. However usually nationality or national identity is strongly related to a particular language, I would imagine that if asked would there be France with out the French language, the answer would be something between "No! No! No!" and scream of death of even thinking such an idea.
From my point of view the language just plays the leading role of defining a nation. I also took notice on http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Scottish Wikipedia. From my eyes Scottish and English are more or less as similar as Finnish and Estonia or Swedish and Norwegian, granted that all these languages due self-rule, autonomy and having a nation state have differentiated from the very same roots that they had. Finnish and Estonian just 100 AD, and Norwegian made a split between other dialects in 1000 AD.
However more power to you for your permissive attitude for different languages.
However I would like to make a question concerning this: if Scotland would become independent then what would be its language policy? Would it be mono-lingual, bi-lingual or multi-lingual state? Or would it have any official language at all, for example USA doesn't have an official state language. For example Ireland has favored and revived Irish Gaelic quite strongly and suggesting from the actions of the Irish state it is not hard to imagine that the aim is to make Ireland an Irish language only state. How could it be if Scotland became an independent state?
Complain about this comment
#77 - SuffolkBoy2
Have your ever tried getting this thing to print an umlaut? (I have always hated the alternative of placing an 'e' after the accented vowel - sorry and all . . . :-)
Complain about this comment
79. At 11:55pm on 13 Feb 2009, oldnat wrote:
"#77 SuffolkBoy2
Beware! On any occasion that I've corrected someone's spelling, punctuation etc, I've promptly made a similar error on my next post!"
I( don't deny being childish.
Complain about this comment
#76 - greypolyglot
Oh please! I get enough stick here about the quality of my Hungarian without getting on line as well. I am good at languages. I have managed to get my head round a number of languages very quickly . . but Hungarian? I admit it - it's a real mental block with me.
Complain about this comment
To Oldnat!
1) If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, do you accept the right of the Shetland Islands to become independent of Scotland?
2) I think the House of Commons is the worst load of rubbish in the UK. If I was living in Scotland, I could imagine voting for independence to be rid of that lot. Could you imagine hat there are Scots who want independence now but would not want it if the UK was reformed?
Complain about this comment
Threnodio!
How is your Hungarian and what does she like for breakfast?
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (84):
Maybe its not about the brain but reaching the Magyar soul. You have to find out your inner Uralic nomad who pillages and ravages, who rides his horse and uses his sword not as a man, but as perfect warrior, as an killing machine from hell.
Unfortunately I can't help you on your path. Our own path with the Maygars split a long ago time when we decided to leave them and the others and just be alone with our depression.
However I can help you to kill that Vodka bottle, that is good start in your killing carrier.
Complain about this comment
#86 - SuffolkBoy2
If I ever wake up early enough to find out, you will be the first to know.
Complain about this comment
#87 - Jukka_Rohila
Then you will be pleased to learn that Finnish vodka is preferred hereabouts to any others.
Complain about this comment
#81 Jukka_Rohila
Ireland is actually a good example. Their language and culture were a very important part of their drive for independence after centuries of repression. Hence Irish Gaelic is the official language and has huge symbolic importance (though most Irish speak their own variant of English).
When (not if !) Scotland becomes independent, I would doubt that we would have an "official" language. The Scots variant of English will undoubtedly dominate, but Gaelic and Scots will (I'm sure) be available for official use. It's an interesting question as to which other languages might be given some form of "recognised" status.
The Cross-Party Group of the Scottish Parliament on the Scots Language says -
"Respecting and planning for the language needs and rights of our new communities and migrant workers should be no less important than ensuring the survival of our heritage languages Gaelic and Scots."
Urdu is the next most spoken language in Scotland, and would be the obvious next candidate.
Complain about this comment
#85 SuffolkBoy2
Shetland.
This question is frequently asked by those who have never thought about Scottish Independence. Sometimes it's a genuine request for information. At other times, they think they're being terribly clever - imagining that Scots have never addressed the issue.
I'll do you the credit of assuming you fall into the former category.
SNP policy has always been quite clear. The Shetlander's will decide their own future. If were a Shetlander, I certainly wouldn't want to be part of any political body that was as centralist as the UK, and Faroese status might be desirable. You'll find a fairly representative Shetlander's view (including the oil issue) here.
As to reform of the UK, of course there are many (I would guess) who would be prepared to see Scotland remaining in a significantly changed UK (threnodio and I have discussed this on a number of occasions). Let's start with fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and a constitutional imperative that England couldn't take Scotland out of the EU without Scottish approval, and there may be something to talk about.
Complain about this comment
Now I hope everyone sees why Russia joined up in the whole USSR but left Finland out. Hopeless, a really hopeless case. ;o)Not "assimilation", God save, but, how to say. In 300 years no one of them once said hello in Russian.
We lost any hope. Jukka will confirm. LOL.
Complain about this comment
"I certainly don't think that English culture is superior to all others. But the English language is the world's de facto lingua franca [Latin again!] and as such is self-evidently 'superior'."
Makes no sense what you've just said, yes, English is de facto lingua franca, but not because it is superior, but because of the french, yes the French, we ended up losing the french Indian war witch left almost all of North America to England, and since the USA became the most powerful and the most influential contemporary nation, it was only a matter of time before the official diplomatic language, which was the french language, got replaced by English. Louis XIV didn't send reinforcements to French Canada because is obsession was Europe (the 7 years war), huge mistake.
Complain about this comment
#93 Cracklite
Quite true - but isn't it rather sad that the dominant world language was decided by wars between two imperialist countries in the 18th century?
Complain about this comment
Sure, I'm only pointing out the fact that the reason why English is so dominant nowadays has more to do with something as prosaic and banal has greed for land and power, than any kind of romantic notions of superiority of the language in itself. Now it's obvious to me and probably for you, but I still feel it needed to be said for some of us, I mean for instance, I distinctly recall Dame Judy Dench, yes the new Q, talking about the dominance of the English language in a BBC documentary about the weight of English culture in the world, and saying basically that English dominate because it was the greatest language in the world, the creme de la creme of languages, and it's then that I came to realisation that you can be a great actress AND a complete smeghead !
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2
"Zauberflotte = magic fleet not magic flute." = Haarspalterei
Complain about this comment
Let Britannia rule the waves!
Let they be the air waves!
With the one language that has world appeal.
Let it be airy, lofty, breezy, sprightly, graceful, delicate, unsubstantial, superficial and flippant.
Let's all enjoy it together!
Complain about this comment
@oldnat
Theirs will always be a Scottland
And Scots shall be brave
In winter
And their everlasting
Winter of discontent.
Complain about this comment
The fact that official EU documentation must be translated into the 22 or 23 official languages requires scores of translators (how many Finnish to Maltese; or Latvian to Portuguese translators are there anyway?).
The obvious solution - which has been generally adopted - is to use a bridge language (which, for the most part, means English).
As only the cash-rich EU can afford the luxury of translating everything into 23 languages, it has long been the case [in Brussels and elsewhere] that many non-governmental organisations have taken the practical and cost-effective decision to produce and publish their output only in English - even if the text originated in other EU languages.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#91 - oldnat
"Let's start with fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and a constitutional imperative that England couldn't take Scotland out of the EU without Scottish approval, and there may be something to talk about".
I like that a lot. There is the question of what happens if the situation occurred in reality. England outside the EU and the rest within does not really work for me. I think it would be the end of the union. Since I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing, I am not as stressed about it as an avid unionist would be.
I hoping to address the whole issue of the UK and Europe in the next phase of my discussion when time allows. As regards Shetland, I really don't know enough about it to advance an informed opinion but it seems to me that, if the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man can have special status withing the UK or the Canaries within Spain, it must be feasible to make similar arrangements for Shetland within Scotland if that is what they wanted. I will study the link you posted.
Complain about this comment
threnodio@66: The use of (Castilian) Spanish and of regional languages (such as Catalan) in Spain is regulated by Art. 3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978:
"1. Castilian is the official language of the State. All Spaniards have the obligation of knowing it and the right to use it.
2. The other Spanish languages shall also be official in the respective Autonomous Communities (BTW: all regions in Spain are "Autonomous Communities", not just Catalonia and the Basque Country) according to their Statutes.
3. The riches of the various linguistic modalities of Spain is a cultural heritage which will be the object of special respect and protection."
Under the provision of Art. 3.2, Catalan is official in Catalonia, and also in the Balearic Islands and Valencia, alongside Spanish. Basque is official in the Basque Country, but also in neighbouring Navarre. Galician is official only in Galicia.
Language fights are nevertheless a regular staple of Spanish politics. Art. 3.1 is a big bone of contention: Catalan, Basque and Galician nationalists obviously do not like the obligation to know Spanish, whereas Spanish native speakers in those regions do not like what they perceive as frequent attempts to do away with their right to use it. (And you must consider that Basque is just a small minority language even inside the Basque country, and even Catalan is the native language of only about half of the Catalan population).
Moreover, Valencian politicians do not like their language being called "Catalan", and stubbornly insist on it being considered a distinct language.
I find all those language politics (and as a Spaniard living in Belgium, I have had several helpings of them) profoundly tedious. Languages are supposed to be tools for communication, not barriers to it. In my view, governments should simply aim to serve their citizens, and thus communicate with them in a language they'll understand, regardless of whether it is "official" or not. And citizens should, in their turn, avoid placing costly demands on their communities, and try to find a common language. I find it galling that those who most indignantly request the right to "preserve" their language are often those least tolerants with other people's languages.
The EU does its best to respect the right of its citizens to communicate in their language. I do also find that it sometimes goes too far in that direction, at excessive cost. But I frankly also find it very hypocritical from some English-speaking Eurosceptics and -phobes to, on one hand, complain about obscure EU-speak, and on the other hand, suggest that the EU should use only English to cut costs. (I find it also amusing to see how unwittingly they thereby stir angry wasp nests in other countries.) Try to place yourselves in the boots of a non-English-speaker and consider how much more obscure for him the EU would be if it was only to use English.
Complain about this comment
An engineer wrote:
"I am not a lawyer, I am an engineer. We have formal methods of checking programs such that all their possible outcomes are defined. "
I am overcome by the simplicity of the world, and wonder if God was an architect as well as an engineer.
Regrettably, mortal engineers have lawyers. The very rich and successful engineers have numerous lawyers.
If the engineer is from the right family, and marries well, then the engineer may end up as the MEP for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, like Baroness Ludford. Oh, wait, she is a lawyer. And a life peer. And a democrat!
My point: Engineers need lawyers, and the more democratically minded the engineer, the more they will need their lawyer.
Democracy is hard work. It is a grind. Making sure the democratic system is fair for all the aristocrats of your generation is a sacrifice not everyone is able to sustain.
So sometimes you need to be able to say things in a special way, because the people do not understand real democracy, and if they had their way there would be no democracy left for the lords, the barons and the princes of europe to manage. For the people.
The language of the EU is the ever evolving art of explaining to Europeans how their democracy is being perfected by removing them from it.
Complain about this comment
On language:
Languages exhibit definite characteristics that have nothing to do with human culture. For example, if a population speaking one language is divided and the two halves lose contact with each other, the single language will diverge over time, and evolve into two separate languages.
A second characteristic of languages is that when two previously separate cultures are brought into sustained contact, the weaker of the two languages will fall into disuse, and the people will end up speaking only one language.
Now these laws of language are scarcely debatable, because they are measurable. The only room for debate is WHY one language proves stronger than another.
The evidence suggests power is the key. Not political power, but actual physical power. Every time humans invent a new source of power, (an "Engine"), the use of this technology spreads far and wide. So too does the language that allows the engine to operate.
And so the language of the horse people (PIE) spread everywhere that horses were desired as a form of physical power.
So did the language of the steam engine. So too did the language of the internal combustion engine, and the language of Nuclear fission.
But now that the whole world is interconnected, it doesn't really matter who invents fusion power. They will publish in English. French is as dust on yesterdays wind.
Complain about this comment
How did we get the term "democracy deficit", anyway?
Why isn't it called an aristocratic surplus?
Complain about this comment
To oldnat (91) and threnodio (101):
The Shetland islands, if really needed, could make a similar arrangement either with the independent Scotland or what is the left with the UK as we have done with Aland Islands.
Aland Islands have a very broad autonomy. They are totally Swedish speaking and don't have any obligation to teach Finnish or offer services at Finnish. They also protect their national identity with home region rights, i.e. there are quite strict rules on acquiring or holding property in Aland Island if you are not Aland Islander. Even thought I do think that Aland Islanders have been nurtured too much by the Finnish state with their broad autonomy, on the other hand without strict rules in for example on buying property from there, without them Aland Islands wouldn't perhaps be Swedish speaking as it now is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aland_islands
Complain about this comment
#102 - RCalvo
Thank you for the clarification.
I would be the very last person to want to strip away local languages and customs but I also think that clarity and accessibility are essential in an age when borders are becoming less important (see my little spat with Jukka above).
I would say that the Spanish have it pretty much right. The regional language plus Spanish for all official documents. Ireland, I think have a similar policy with Gaelic. But promoting a language is wholly different from prioitising it as seems to be the case in Wales.
The EU seems to have conceded the point by publishing everything on the web in all 23 languages. I also note that the German Constitution and much of its law is available in English on their official websites. There has to be a balance struck here. Given that we all travel, that ignorance of the law is no defence and that it is completely unreasonable to expect joe public to learn 23 languages we have to find a middle way.
Complain about this comment
91. At 01:37am on 14 Feb 2009, oldnat wrote:
"#85 SuffolkBoy2
Shetland.
This question is frequently asked by those who have never thought about Scottish Independence. Sometimes it's a genuine request for information. At other times, they think they're being terribly clever - imagining that Scots have never addressed the issue.
I'll do you the credit of assuming you fall into the former category."
On this occasion I was not trying to be a smarty pants. I have thought about Scottish independence. I did not imagine that the Scots had never addressed the issue.
If there were areas of Scotland adjacent to England that wanted to remain with England, would you personally or the SNP accept that?
Complain about this comment
96. At 05:16am on 14 Feb 2009, Gheryando wrote:
"SuffolkBoy2
"Zauberflotte = magic fleet not magic flute." = Haarspalterei"
You are quite right. I was being very childish.
I hope you are taking an interest in the goings on on the Aeolian Islands. I am. I believe you are Italian. Am I right?
Complain about this comment
Thankyou Fionavroom 41, for pointing out an improper placement of ' in the word its'.
A small but invaluable piece of information.
Such talent should be spread wide, I bow to your superior knowledge.
Leaving school at 15 and working hard from then did not improve my writing, but I am sure you understood the gist of my comment.
In spite of the missplaced '.
I do however still believe membership of the EU is too expensive and made complicated by the members in a deliberate attempt to confuse.
Complain about this comment
A comment of mine has been referred to the moderator. I might know why.
Anyway here is the detox version of it. (Assuming I know which comment it was/is)
There was a robbery at a bank in the "EU"-parliament building in Brussels. I quoted some of the comments made by some Austrians. They may be illegal in England. I don't know. However they did demonstrate the hatred and contempt that many Austrian feel for the "EU".
My point was and is that it is not just the Brits that hate the "EU".
Complain about this comment
@democracythread
I am sorry to say that I cannot share your views. Languages do not die as easily as you seem to think. May I recommend you to find out about Sorb, a language spoken by barely 50 000 people. They do not live on an island, in fact they have lived for centuries in the middle of an other country with quite a different language, namely German.
Most of us enjoy the spoken word in our regional accent, we also do like to listen to other accents, in fact to some of us it is like music. Some of us are even luckier and enjoy more than one language. Learning a language nowadays is so easy (well it was always easy if you did'nt let the teacher mess you about and learned the natural way, using your ears), even teachers know this nowadays. "Studying" a language is not really an intellectual persuit, kids manage to do it all the time. But there is a byproduct apart from enjoying different sounds and sharing them with different people, it actually extends your brainpower and activity and intellectual ability seemingly as well.
Then there is dementia prevention as a further "benefit in the best kind" you could wish for.
Being tone deaf is of course a major handicap.
Music may be the food of love, but language is surely not far behind.
Don't deprive yourself of it.
Happy Valentine
Complain about this comment
HILARIOUS!
(I hope I spelt that right!)
Austrian Radio Website has the following story about Sarkozy:
Under Sarkozy the relationship between France and NATO seems to have improved.
BUT:
At the celebrations for 60 years of NATO he wanted to sit next to the General Secretay of NATO, Jaap de Hoop. He reportedly ("latest edition of Spiegel") threatened to boycott the session if he was not allowed to do this.
Up to now the arrangement has been that Heads of Government were placed alphabetically. A compromise has now been reached under which Sarkozy is allowed to sit next to Jaap de Hoop as long as television cameras are in the room. As soon as the cameras leave the room, Sarkozy and others get up and move around and sit in the normal order. End of my summary of the report.
That man could be president of the "EU" one day!
Complain about this comment
Oldnat!
Sarkozy could be president of Scotland one day via the "EU"!
Any grievances you have with the English will be as nothing compared with the aggro you would get from the "EU"!
Complain about this comment
The principle of EUspeak is easy enough to understand. It is to use words in a way that only lawyers can know what they actually mean. This hides their true intent from almost everyone else. That way, politicians can persuade people to agree to something they'd never consider for a moment if they actually knew what they were agreeing to. And they can put a name on it which doesn't really reflect what the document actually says.
Take the so called red line opt outs for Britain that were finally made available. I plodded through the 40 odd pages of it trying to parse it out and when I did, they weren't opt outs at all. What they were was a series of 5 year delays in implimentation of certain provisions in the EU constitution for Britain after which Britain would either have to adopt them or face unspecified penalties without limit. These penalties would be decided upon by an EU panel on which Brits would not be allowed to participate. Now when did the British government ever admit to any of that?
Complain about this comment
@ comment 2...
Right, has nothing to do with esoteric anything. The American dollar is a piece of 8 (was, until the late 90's).
Look at the Spanish flag. See two columns with a ribbon around them? Not a coincidence.
That is all it means.
Complain about this comment
#98 joehoch
It's been a long hard winter - but Spring is around the corner!
Complain about this comment
#41 - Fionavroom
You wrote"
secretpcjunkie: you wrote:
"Time for a change now, get rid of the very expensive EU and all it's problems."
"
EU, as an abreviation of the European Union refers - a single entity and therefore grammatically singular. The correct procedure therefore is to place the apostrophe before the 's' indicating the possessive. Secretpcjunkie's placement of the apostrophe was therefore entirely correct.
At the rick of appearing contentious, I find posting comments correcting other posters' (plural possessive - apostrophe after the 's') condescending and irrelevant. To do so and be wrong into the bargain is tedious beyond words.
Complain about this comment
#41 - Fionavroom
- and 'rick' was a typo, not a spelling mistake :-(
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (119):
What is the point of life if you can't be a language Nazi?
I would also like to point out that with out language Nazis in amongst us, our comments would be more in the line of...
"Duh! EU! bad! Me think me want out EU! Duh! EU cost many money! EU democracy not!"
On the other hand, when looking at the some comments and commentators, I have to conclude that their inner thinking process may be at this level even if their expressive language would make them seem to have thinking process nearing something called rational thinking.
Complain about this comment
#108 SuffolkBoy2
The UN Charter recognises the right of "peoples" to self determination. Now that term is not defined, but is generally taken to mean an human group with recognisable identity. I don't know of any case where a small group of individuals in a community like Duns could opt for inclusion in England.
I don't think the situation is likely, however. There has been significant polling on Scots identity, and when those who describe themselves as "Scottish and British" are made to choose, they overwhelmingly choose "Scots".
What may be more likely is that the people of Berwick-on-Tweed may decide that they have better prospects in Scotland rather than in England. The city did, after all, change hands between England and Scotland 14 times!
Complain about this comment
#120 - Jukka_Rohila
On that subject, one of my local bars was very busy at Christmas and the barman, a friend of mine, always seemed to manage to chose the right language for each customer. I asked him how he knew. "Some people", he said "are easier to place than others but the British you spot every time. They are the only ones who cannot speak English".
Complain about this comment
#114 SuffolkBoy2
Obama is not "President of Rhode Island". As citizens of the United States they had a say in electing him, but it was a Federal election.
The citizens of the proud state of Rhode Island also elect their own representatives to run their own affairs.
Now, I don't advocate a US Federal style system for Europe. Clear delineation of the powers exercised by the EU and the individual states, with powers only being ceded to the EU under pooled sovereignty is my goal.
However, even if Europe did become a Federal system, Scotland would still be better off being individually part of that, rather than being a small part of another state.
Try visiting Rhode Island sometime (if you haven't already) and suggest to its people that they would really be much better off as part of Connecticut, and that they should forget this silly nonsense of being a state of their own (Have a fast car ready for your get-away!)
Complain about this comment
#114 - SuffolkBoy2
#123 - oldnat
From an English perspective, I entirely agree with oldnat. It the EU does go down the federal route eventually - and I am not suggesting I favour that but if it does - then the United Kingdom becoming part of it as a single unified entity makes no sense at all.
It is not simply that the Scots would have an even smaller voice in that vast enterprise than now but the uniquely English voice which has no way of articulating itself democratically, unlike Scotland, would be lost completely.
(SB2 may I suggest that you Google my user name and you will find your way to the blog on which we are developing ideas about these things).
Like oldnat, I favour a confederal solution to address the imbalances within the UK which would make it possible for the UK to speak jointly on matters of joint concerns while not neglecting the special interests of the component nations.
Complain about this comment
Mention of EU-speak causes me to hope I am not the first to be able to congratulate the new German Economic Minister,
Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg.
I trust that his name will live long in the hearts of all European Citizens as he guides the EU's largest economy through the present crisis.
Complain about this comment
118. threnodio:
Secretpcjunkie's placement of the apostrophe was therefore entirely correct. "
No, at risk of being obsessively pedantic, I insist that #41 - Fionavroom is right.
English possessive pronouns do not have apostrophes, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessive_pronoun
It's (it is) "its". We also do not have possessives "hi's", "her's", "our's", "your's" or "their's".
Complain about this comment
Re Comments 120 and 122.
Steady chaps!
In this egalitarian democratic society one could presume one is being a trifle elitist and forgetting that from whence we came is not a guide to where we may end up.
Socio-Political Cases in point:
William Jefferson Clinton and Barack Obama in the USA and Harold Wilson and Margaret Roberts in the UK.
All 4 hardly top-drawer from birth.
And Jukka, let us not forget Urho Kekkonen and Tarja Halonen; one a farmer's son and the other from working class Kallio district!
Complain about this comment
threnodio
I hadn't realised that Mike Russell (recently promoted to the Scottish Cabinet, with responsibility for constitutional affairs) had advocated a similar reform to the UK Union that we have been discussing.
This article (while over emphasising the differences between Salmond and Russell) gives an outline of Russell's views.
The perception that the Scottish Independence Movement is inflexible is undercut by Mike Russell's promotion.
Complain about this comment
#127 ikamaskeip
While attending a function in the South of England in the 1980's, an acquaintance of the family commented that we came from "humble origins". ( I prevented myself from throwing my drink in her face, as it was a rather good single malt Scotch whisky.)
Since our family were shopkeepers and clearly "middle-class" in Scotland, I got my first understanding of what the English meant by talking about the "grocer's daughter" as meaning she was closer to the people.
In Scotland, that phrase had entirely different connotations.
While Scotland and England may both speak the same language, we don't necessarily understand the same concepts in the words that are used.
Similar differences frequently confuse understanding, even where the same language is being used.
Complain about this comment
Personally I wouldn't mind English being the lingua franca of the EU, I do however think the language needs a desperate spelling reform to closer reflect the modern phonetics.
Complain about this comment
#126 - greypolyglot
You certainly appear to be correct from the Wikipedia entry you cite. It is nearly fifty years since I studied grammar in the technical sense and there was a something of a debate about it then but I was most definitely taught that 'its/it's' was the exception to the rule, the counter argument of course being how (apart from context) could one distinguish that from 'it's' as an abbreviation of 'it is'. The reply in those days was "if you say 'it's' when you should say 'it is', you cannot speak English boy (thwack).
Both you and Wikipedia are far more likely to be right than my old English master so I, with good grace, apologise unreservedly to Fianovroom for the correction and the stridency of it but not for my view that blogs are places for exchanging ideas, not places to play schoolma'am.
Complain about this comment
#131 threnodio
Pshaw!! (I think is the correct spelling of the utterance).
"English master" : "play schoolma'am"
I had heard these stories of "dominance" being a major factor in English education, but never really believed them till now!
:-)
Complain about this comment
131. threnodio:
#126 - greypolyglot
Both you and Wikipedia are far more likely to be right than my old English master so I, with good grace, apologise unreservedly to Fianovroom for the correction and the stridency of it but not for my view that blogs are places for exchanging ideas, not places to play schoolma'am."
I agree wholeheartedly but a) I didn't bring it up (I have been suffering in silence), b) I don't like to see mistakes perpetuated (trying to keep my corrections to matters of fact rather than opinion) and c) fiona didn't deserve it.
Still on amicable terms I hope ? :-)
Complain about this comment
#133 - greypolyglot
Oh for 'eaven's sake yes. What's an apostrophe between friends? Anyway, I wasn't 'avin' a go at you, I was 'avin' a go at 'er!
Complain about this comment
#132 - oldnat
Funny old thing, English education. I was caught in a delicate situation with the au pair and that was hushed up but the same week I was beaten for not eating cabbage. It's a miracle we learned anything.
Complain about this comment
#135 threnodio
Well if you learned not to eat cabbage with the au pair, that seems to have been a significant achievement of the system.
Complain about this comment
Happy Valentine day/night to all, with apostrophes and without!
Aren't EU countries sending "valentinka"-s
to each other tonight? :o) No? Not yet in the habit? Chose the one you love and send ASAP!
Recommended text:
I'm sending Valentinka, in the shape of heart of mine
Quickly stare at "kartinka" (a picture),
Tra la la. la la. la. la.
Shed, as minimum, a "slezinka"! (a tear)
Onto my simple Valentinka!
Yours Sincerely (country name)
Complain about this comment
threnodio I deeply sympathize with your cabbage part of the hardships.
on this side the God's punishment has always been the cooked semolina.
"mannaya kasha" orgh. As is clear from the name, all parents thought and think it to be simply manna, LOL.
I was once told I won't go sea-bathing (Crimea it was) if I won't eat it. In 4 days parents became plain silky, and later on I always recommended this method to my kindergarten and school acquaintance.
"stop eating at all - and in 4 days they will bring the Black Sea to you."
Complain about this comment
#137 WebAliceinwonderland
Who better than Robert Burns for a Valentine Greeting?
Clarinda, mistress of my soul,
The measured time is run!
The wretch beneath the dreary pole
So marks his latest sun.
To what dark cave of frozen night
Shall poor Sylvander hie;
Deprived of thee, his life and light,
The sun of all his joy?
We part-but by these precious drops,
That fill thy lovely eyes,
No other light shall guide my steps,
Till thy bright beams arise!
She, the fair sun of all her sex,
Has blest my glorious day;
And shall a glimmering planet fix
My worship to its ray?
Complain about this comment
Now here's a Saint Valentine's day card any Russian Tsar or Commie-tsar could appreciate;
http://www.mysterynet.com/vdaymassacre/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine's_Day_massacre
http://www.prairieghosts.com/valentine.html
I get all sentimental and it gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. Ah those were the days. Chicago in the Roaring Twenties.
Complain about this comment
Suffolkboy2
I'm not quite sure what you mean..anything particular going on on these islands these days? They are about as far from where I'm from as Cornwall and Orkney
Complain about this comment
oldnat @ 139
Thank you for the language of Robert Burns. How appropriate in this thread. I can hear it in my "minds ear".
Pure enjoyment!
old joe
Complain about this comment
oldnat@129
Now how close was that grocer's daughter Maggie T. to the people? I suppose exceptions confirm the rule.
But who better to talk about social status, than....The man himself!
Just listen to this!
Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an' a' that,
The coward slave-we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a' that!
For a' that, an' a' that.
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The Man's the gowd for a' that.
More?
A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that,
But an honest man's abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that,
The pith o' sense, an' pride o'worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.
Have a wee drum and come back for the finale.
Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that.
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
-
old Joe
Complain about this comment
The decent of a thread into utter silliness is a good indication that it has outlived its useful life. At least it makes a change from phobes and philes hurling abuse at it each other.
I assume you are repeating the broadcast for the benefit of those who did not understand it the first time round - just like 'Neighbours'.
Complain about this comment
#144 threnodio
Also true to describe it as the "ascent" into utter silliness.
#143 joehoch
Very moving when "A man's a man" was sung at the re-opening of the Scottish Parliament - in front of the Queen.
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (127):
Actually now I understand. I just walked into a mine created by the British class society.
You see the thing is that in Finland there is no way to make note about persons social background or level of education or more or less nothing else than at most the region from where comes from.
From my point of view there is no reason for one not to speak clearly or use the language correctly thus there is also no reason for not to correct somebody's language.
Now of course this is not the same case in the UK and I just understood that. Of course my intention was not to make offense by making remarks of people's usage of the language.
Complain about this comment
oldnat and joehoch absolutely lovely.
(threnodio, aren't we exactly on the subject :o), learn proper EU speak - and all that!
Alas in Russia nothing like that to quote for the Valentine day, no specials, as it is a recent holiday day here, a new thing.
I don't think 5 yrs ago anyone would know here what is a Valentine day.
But since a body told a body returning from the West
don't know when. ? somehow it caught on, Russian youngsters very appreciating of the new notion, for celebrations. and now it's a known thing.
Though you still won't find an icon of St.Valentine in a Russian church. ?
St. George with his patented dragon, granted; St. Nicolas icon topmost popular(Santa Claus in your case), St. Paul with the book, St. Peter with the large keys from paradise, gates. St. Valentine - don't remember seeing such an icon. Well, may be, in a 100 years...
Complain about this comment
goosebumpy Mavrelius @140 that's exactly the kind of a card one would expect from you. Anyway very educative read all, thanks.
(selling bricks! at a 1,000 dollar each! from murder scene! OK, selling. but - "buying"!)
oldnat @139 "no other light shed guide my steps, till thy bright beams arise". Found an echo on this side, St. Petersburg April 1909.
_______________________
Dear moderators,
the poet is Innokenty Annensky (1855-10 November 1909). authorship rights expired by all standards. into English nobody translated. so nothng contradicts BBC House Rules here I hope.
Complain about this comment
goosebumpy Mavrelius @140 that's exactly the kind of a card one would expect from you. Anyway very educative read all, thanks.
(selling bricks! at a 1,000 dollar each! from murder scene! OK, selling. but - "buying"!)
oldnat @139 "no other light shed guide my steps, till thy bright beams arise". Found an echo on this side, St. Petersburg April 1909.
_______________________
Dear moderators,
the poet is Innokenty Annensky (1855-30 November 1909). authorship rights expired by all standards. into English nobody translated. so nothing here contradicts BBC House Rules I hope.
Among the worlds, in constellation's shine
One only star name I'm repeating.
No, not because I love her or anything
But because I feel wearisome, with others.
And if my hesitation is too heavy on the heart
With her alone - I'm searching for an answer
No, not because it is shiny and illuminating with,
But it's because with her, I don't need light.
Complain about this comment
#149 WebAliceinwonderland
Thanks for that. I wonder if Russians have a talent for understatement "not because I love her or anything" is reminiscent of a Scots phrase which is often misunderstood - "nae bad" (not bad) does not mean adequate. Indeed it is a term of great praise!
Mrs Nat is "nae bad".
Complain about this comment
#150 - oldnat
I think the Russian talent for understatement has more to do the correlation between overstatement and Siberian salt production than anything else.
Complain about this comment
#151 threnodio
Maybe (but Mrs Nat is still "nae bad"!)
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (147):
Alice, Valentines day is quite a recent thing in most of the western countries. In the USA it has only been celebrated for longer.
In here it was introduced in the 80s among other efforts to internationalize the country more. However the day didn't caught up before its meaning was localized. Our valentines day is called Friend's day and you are supposed to remember your friends then with cards and text messages. The festive flowers to give to your friends are Tulips.
The point here being that if some western thing just doesn't feel as your kind of thing, don't be afraid on just changing it to suite your needs.
PS. Lovely poems, especially liked the ending "But it's because with her, I don't need light.". The only thing I wonder what girl would like to listen that kind of poetry more than a moment, although it would probably work best via sending a text message.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila and ".. no way to tell in Finland.."
A little disingenuous mate: If I am not mistaken the Finnish Romany (Mustalaiset), the Lapps (Saamelaiset), the east Savo-Karjalaiset all have their languages, costumes, customs and in some ways are very distinct from the westernised Finno-Ugrarians.
That said: It is very true that England has an elitist-class-system embedded so far and so deep in its cultural heritage that nothing seems able to shift it. Having travelled extensively in Europe I am not aware of another nation where 'class' (a person's social-family background, upbringing and education) is still so influential as in the UK.
Complain about this comment
threnodio "Siberian salt production"!
Yes, it was always easy to get here, how to say, bang! and you are carried off away -"from Siberia - into Siberia!"
and all poets without exception here are guilty by definition, even if you keep to love lyrics your whole poetical career throughout.
You wouldn't guess why.
- Oh, why!? (many of them had asked)
- Because you're gifted; criminally waste your capabilities; predating your country interests - where is your single poem about Kremlin, Tsar, Communist Party, glorious revolution, achievements of industrialisation or the great and wonderful 5-year plan? Where? Where is that Ode to the XX city party commitee conference?!
_________________
oldnat, understatement, yes, a quite liked technique here. one would say, if someone, I mean, "or anything" and then it ends up "because with her - I don't need (the very light) at all", it is, exactly, quite something. of a nae bad!
Complain about this comment
Jukksi, a friends' day, nice. I didn't know it's a recent invention worldwide.
Rus.church BTW gets a bit cataleptical about St.Valentine's day, kind of jealous youngsters like it so much, whereas they have an assortment of traditional saints recognised by the Rus. church - and nobody rans out to streets after some festive shopping or outings, or arranges parties about them!
The church immediately pointed out in media there is a traditional 8th of July (two kind of Russian Romeo & Juliet saints' day, who "lived happily ever after and died in one day") - so, like, dear youngsters, why St. Valentine?! Celebrate 8th of July!
But dear youngsters said thank you very much we like the wintery one idea, in snow. In summer we are busy with other things.
I think if the church will surrender a bit and start making St. Valentine icons they'll become a popular gift.
As many times I took the English to a Russian church, for general touristic purposes, all eagerly bought small St. George plus dragon icons, on wood, in the church shop, copies of the 15th century one.
In the beg. I didn't understnd this strange affection to dragons, only later figured out it's because St. George is the symbol of England.
Only all commented said our horse and dragon and St.George are turned "to the wrong side". LOL
Complain about this comment
@threnodio from Hungaria!
To come second best in a matter of language for someone from Hungaria is not exactly unknown. Eliza has seen to that.
And you are old enough "for a' that", you may even have seen her on stage, mastering virtually a new language and promptly fooling that specialist from Hungaria!
Eat your heart out threnodio.
Hats off to Bernard Shaw!
All together now!
The raain in Spaain falls maainly on the plaain....
The rain in Spain...
She has got it! She has got it!
Have you got it?
Threnodio? Out there in Hungaria.
Sorry, old boy, but you asked for it.
Complain about this comment
@oldnat
I wish I had been there at the re-opening of Scottish Parliament and a few others in this thread, no doubt. Yet with threnodio I am not so sure, "he might not have been amused"!
Regards
old joe
Complain about this comment
#158 joehoch
I think threnodio would have loved it!
Not only was this a loosening of the archaic "constitution" of the UK, but the whisky was appropriately flowing like water (for non-Scots, whisky is the anglicisation of "uisge beatha" - Gaelic for "water of life").
Complain about this comment
#157 - joehoch
Oh dear! How often I see or hear that - and I am not one for pedantry, but -
"The rain in Spain STAYS mainly IN the plain".
I am not a big one for musicals but, as it happens, I did see it. Harrison was in it but Andrews had left. I can't for the life of me remember who played Eliza.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Now. OK. This is still a British site, so, a curtsy to the English love poetry.
_____
Dear moderators, the authorship rights have expired 4 centuries ago. And the author is still unknown anyway. in Britain.
_____
Not all the world could profer me disgrace
Being maintained fairest faire by thee.
Hard fortune shall thy fervant nere outface
No storms of discord should discomfort me.
Plague all the world with frowns my Turtle-Dove,
So that thou smile on me :o), and be my love!
Great mistress, matchlesse in thy souveraigntie,
In leu and recompense of my affection -
Love me again! This do I beg of thee
Being bound by Cupid's kind direction.
Long have I su'd for grace, yet still I find
Deserved I am by her that's most unkind.
And if my love shall be received by thee,
My heart is thine, and so account of me.
....
By all the holy rites that love adoreth
Thee have I loved above the love of any
My heart in truth thee always favoureth,
Heart freed from any one, then freed from many.
Is it not base to change? yea so they say
Thine own confession love denies delay.
And by the high imperial seat of love
So am I forced by Cupid for to swear,
Account I must of thee my Turtle-Dove,
Of thee, that Times long memorie shall outwear:
Me by thy steadfast truth and faith denying,
To promise any hope of thee relying.
My passions are a hell and death to me.
Unless you feel remorse. And pitie me!
_________________
That is why Russians think Shakespeare was a poet. not "a play-wright". :o)
Complain about this comment
#161 threnodio
No apology required. I use the term "Westminster" because it carries even more of the stench of ordure! (For others "midden" is the Scots word for a rubbish heap - hence "Westmidden").
Complain about this comment
Mark,
The topic does exist ever since the inauguration of the Babylon tower called EU. If we take into account the relatively low numbers of highly educated people across the Union, we certainly cannot expect that the euphemisms of the draft constitution or the texts of the Lisbon treaty can be easily digest by the majority of us, citizens of the member states.
However, the problem seems to be more complex. If the English is likely to win definitely the language battle in Europe, this evident fact does not explain the still existing controversial points in the different national law systems if compared to the said documents.
The French grammar is very complicated but one can gradually overcome all difficulties and be in good command of the French provided he loves France and everything that comes from France. It goes without saying that there won’t be big misunderstandings between the future citizens of united Europe provided they all accept the simple truth that they are condemned to coexist in relatively excellent cultural, social, climatic, geographic, historic (etc.) conditions, and that everything that would come from the Old continent is sacred like the family Bible book…
Sofia, Bulgaria, Jan. 16th 2009
Complain about this comment
I still think my original post has been misunderstood. I suggested that English should become an ADDITIONAL official language throughout the EU, including at the level of the EU, the states and their subdivisions. The purpose of this would be to facilitate the implementation of the "four freedoms". Individuals and businesses would have the option to communicate in English, but would NOT be obliged to do so, and might instead choose to continue to communicate in any language in which they currently communicate. [Presumably this might imply the need for official translators in disputed proceedings where a party opts for English.] This is not just about publication of information by authorities, but also about forms, public registers and other communications. Just to be totally clear, private individuals and businesses would NOT lose any rights but would only acquire an ADDITIONAL right to OPT for English in any member state. On the other hand, I admit that authorities would have to cope with an additional burden of having to provide English language capability, but I do not think this is an unreasonable burden. After all, I am not suggesting that the level of English would have to be perfect. In reality, my suggestion would only serve to bring the public sector on par with what is already the de facto prevailing standard in the private sector.
The idea IS DEFINITELY NOT to force Catalan farmers to opt for English, they should have the option to communicate in any language they are already able to use in official situations, be it Spanish or even Catalan, if applicable.
On the other hand, the approach that "either you can communicate in Finnish or Swedish, or get lost and never come back" is the precise reason why my suggestion is so sorely needed. I find this approach to be ABSOLUTELY unacceptable and in direct contradiction with the main objectives of the EU. If the majority of voters in a certain member state feel this way, their member state should leave the EU.
I would also like to add that I can imagine that in order to get this measure passed certain compromises might be acceptable, including an exemption for local authorities in smaller municipalities and possibly offerring French and German as an alternative to English. However, especially the latter compromise would be a big one and it would risk defeating the purpose of this whole measure, which is precisely to agree on one lingua franca for the whole EU.
In general, I am annoyed by how ideological many people in the EU seem to be about communication in English in the public sector. This is quite hypocritical since, as mentioned above, the possibility to communicate in English is already the de facto norm in the private sector. However, in the public sector, it remains a taboo. Destroying this taboo would prove to be a major boon for the idea of European integration, which could be taken to a qualitatively much more advanced level. It would be a major positive step, with much more impact than attempting to tweak 1000s-page long EU treaties into ever more complex legal documents.
Complain about this comment
To oulematu (165):
I have given in many previous comments sound rations on why its not acceptable on having an official language for the whole EU. I have made comment about it leading into colonization, about it leading to increased hardship on assimilating people into societies and getting them to learn the host country's native language, etc..
However there is one comment that I haven't done.
By having English as an additional official language, as you put it, you are putting all non-English citizens and all non-English states to pay up the communication costs. Essentially as an English native speaker you have two choices, to learn to communicate with other languages or to make others communicate with you in your own language, by choosing the later you are choosing that the others should pay while you refuse to pay anything.
Your suggestion is not needed, what is needed is for you to change your valuations and take the costs associated on you being able to communicate with others. Take the cost and learn other languages and be a good European like we others who have taken up the challenge and learned foreign languages: i.e. every child in Finland is taught one foreign language and second native language, and many take French, German or Russian as their second foreign language. So in my mind you have to first put up or shut up.
And again, what is it to say that the official language should be English? Esperanto and Latin would be more better suited.
PS. Ask yourself? Would you be willing to take the costs of French becoming the official EU language and that all civil servants would have to be able to speak French and government publications in the UK would have to be translated into French?
Complain about this comment
threnodio@160
"I knew it, I knew it, I knew you could do it,
and indeed you did"!
Captain Pickering, of course.
I am glad you got into the spirit of things and how comforting that my spirit translated the sound incorrectly onto the screen. Perfection, "how ghastly", to borrow Professor Higgins' words as well, be it in contradiction with his perfection.
Since you mentioned Rex Harrison (he was a bit of a lion in those days, but that's not for posterity). Now he did do Dr Doolittle as well, "talking to the animals...".
It is good to talk, be it "gibberish" or jiddisch(now there is a minority language if ever there was one, luckely records exist)
In all modesty my purpose was merely to demonstrate the love of language(s), it unites us all. To quote oldnat: "nae bad", he means his wife of course, he might have referred to his native tongue and feel just as good about it. Nothing unusual, but why not have a mistress or two, or more, to enjoy, plus a little flirt with regional brogues.
Not to upset Mark Mardell too much, Europe is his thing, or is it(?), here in his blog, let's give English English the vote for Europe!
In her honour, England, that gave birth to this prodigy let's salute her with the immortal lines from Ross Parker.
All together now:
There will allways be an England
and England shall be true...
-
Let it be known, Ross also gave the "Ode of Joy" it's English lyrics.
Over to you threnodio. (No odium intended I hope?)
Regards
old joe (from Prague)
Complain about this comment
#165 - oulematu
#166 - Jukka_Rohila
Well at least we are back on topic! You both have good points and on balance, I am inclined to think the EU has got it right - publish everything in all 23 languages.
As far as local administration goes, there is one point which I think ought to be considered. If Nissan were to suddenly turn up and announce that they wanted to build a factory in Barcelona and create 5000 jobs, would the authorities tell them to go away and come back when they could speak Catalan? Of course they would not. You would not be able to move for Japanese translators.
So why should a small business person be made to jump through hoops? We are perfectly happy to pay for accountants and lawyers - that is normal practice. To pay more money simply to fill out forms is too much. I do not ask individual authorities to publish everything in English, Latin or Esperanto. I do think that guides in a lingua franca on how to negotiate your way round a bureaucracy should be available on the web.
Complain about this comment
#167 - joehoch
Oh Joe!
I did not know Ross had translated the blessed Schiller into English. No wonder the English are so eurosceptic now they understand it!
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (168):
If Nissan would turn up in Barcelona and announce that they are going to build a factory there, you can be 100% certain that they would have hired people with local expertise to handle everything in Catalan or with any other language if necessary to make sure their project goes on track. If Catalan authorities would deem the project beneficial to them, they would too make sure that there is no hitch in communication.
Now in case of small business, I would make a note that you maybe used on not paying up for communicating with other languages, but rest assured to rest of us that is the norm. We pay up by having to learn more languages at elementary school, at high school and at university. We pay up by translating our services and products to other languages and making sure we can communicate with our customers. Everybody else already pays for the communication, its only you who have not been accustomed on the fact that there are other languages in the world than English.
Also where do draw the line on how much of the documents and guides have to be translated into lingua franca? You really can't as every added translation just adds pressure on having more translations. No! Just no! We have our own languages and we like them very much, our state works with them and if we see it beneficial to ourself to translate something to some other language then we make that, but making it obligatory would make it form of an oppression. Our country, our rules, if you don't like it, then you can't get out.
Complain about this comment
2 languages are allright for a person.
One Mum's, one Dad's.
Or - one mummy's and daddy's and one more - your grandma's.
Or - one family's, plus one foreign (abstract, from the books) taught at school.
Most seem to cope allright with 2.
Three languages is more tricky but by fact happens with lots of people in Europe as well.
One - local, one - of your regional neighbour, into who you bump in most often, one - abstract "foreign".
I mean, before thinking ab it, one should consider technical capability of an individual to learn languages. What looks easy to Jukka_Rohila and greypolyglot - is not to 90% of people.
They are not computers to be loaded with memory chips unlimited.
If one spends life learning foreign languages - when will one do all other things he/she planned to do may be in life?
I'd hate to see some people talanted and focused in their professions to allocate their time to mastering additional languages. It is really better for all if these won't deviate from their main field, honestly, scientists, clever doctors.
_________________
2.
You shouldn't forget about science. Private int'l sector, yes, speaks English, but not limited to, at all. In fact - quite lax.
But science is by 70% I'd say roughly in this world is limited to English, German and French publications. If anybody knows anybody or wishes to know works of others - he goes one of these three.
__________________
3. The "common tongue" in Europe if any
ought to have words
Spread of English is due to 3 key factors I think.
- Spread of the English :o) and their side-product - Americans, in simple geographical terms. Military bases, wars, expeditions, new lands - all this "tourism" :o)
- Clarity of words, stripped often to bare roots, absence of grammar (compared to mastodont others), ability to change and sponge in new words/accommodate and to quickly adapt and develop further.
What I'd call "ability to label". A good chunk of modern English words are labels. "labelling" the things in precise manner. Going straight to the point, by the shortest route. By themselves, unfortunately, these words mean nil, carry no historical info. Connections are lost. But they label - precise.
- The very amount of words in English language reflects the in-put the English-speakers gave to the world. 2 mln words? nearing that, by now.
When you invent smth yourself you call it your tongue name. Well- then that's the amount the English-speakers have invented.
To sum it up, the language ought to have words to be able to name "all things European". With all respect, small tongues simply have limited dictionaries. When they accommodate alien new notions - they name them own ways, but these ways aren't precise anymore.
Complain about this comment
oh sorry forgot science has nothing to do with the EU speak.
so, it appears, with private business - it is for them to decide
with science - it is for scientists to decide what they use
with public sector, on the pan-EU level... ?
what is "public". this is - politics. EU politics. so we are talking about the language for politics. language to influence, that will define the EU politics?
there was something before, "French - for love, German - for war, English - for trade, Italian - for music...
don't seem to remember anything for politics?
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (171):
First of all, many things in life are not easy, actually all valuable things in life are hard. Its up to a individual to set up what he or she wants or needs and then work his or her way to achieve that goal. If one needs a certain language to achieve something, then one just goes and learns it with or without tears.
Secondly if somebody has something valuable then rest assured that somebody will get help and resources to work with and publish in languages that he or she can't understand.
Thirdly, English has only been a lingua franca in the western world only after the second world war and in many other parts of the world it has enjoyed popularity only in the last few decades. There are no guarantees that the English will stay as lingua franca, actually there is very real possibility that Chinese, if they take up Alphabets, will become the new global lingua franca and replace English. Thus its in the interest of people that there is no common European language as future needs could very well dictate that all those resources now spend on teaching English or translating to English will go to teaching Chinese and translating to Chinese.
In a sense its very troubling that there is even a suggestion that the English language should have an elevated position in the EU, that it should be used by obligation. Usually posters in here, especially English, tend to defend freedom and tend to defend people's right to decide, but in matter of language I'm just sorry, but all I see are old imperialist arguments used to force and obligate other people to use language that they have not chosen to use by themselves. This whole discussion about the lingua franca of the EU stinks as an form of cultural imperialism.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Jukks, an old joke. About ourselves, Russian need for foreign languages:
"an optimist (Russian)studies English. a pessimist studies Chinese. and a realist studies Kalashnikov gun!"
Complain about this comment
"somebody goes and learns it with or without tears."
Jukka, not all nations are same focused on achieving something by all costs even by studying a foreign language "with tears".
Not all nations, not all individuals either.
Majority are more relaxed. Why such draconian measures? We live only once.
Complain about this comment
To Jukka Rohila:
The additional cost of supporting English language capacity (to the extent needed, which surely does not mean that every single official would need to master English) would not benefit only native English speakers but all persons who are not speakers of the local official language, which includes some native English speakers but even more non-native English speakers (in terms of their sheer numbers within the EU). This cost is justified by the fact that all member states have agreed to become part of one space of free movement and it is reasonable to recognize that this freedom of movement needs to be backed up by a common working language, otherwise that freedom remains largely theoretical. You may argue that the cost would not be evenly shared by the UK and Ireland and perhaps it would be sensible for them to pay a pro rata cross-subsidy to the other member states to cover these expenses. If a member state does not like to share a common lingua franca, it puts in question the sincerity of its commitment towards the space of free movement and the main purpose of its EU membership.
To be entirely fair we should also note that this measure would be not so much of a cost, but more of an investment, which would come back to the member states through their improved competitiveness.
The above is no rocket science, but would only replicate for the public sector what is largely the de facto situation in the private sector.
Given your incorrect assumption I should also note that I am not a native English speaker. I also speak a few other languages to varying degrees, but I have found that English is the most useful one in most situations. This is perhaps because English is the most widely used means of communication and also because English speakers are used to non-native English speakers and their quirky styles and accents, whereas non-native speakers of other languages often encounter a great deal of mistrust unless their language capabilities (including accent) are almost 100% native. Unfortunately, I speak neither Finnish nor Swedish although you should not take that as a symptom of any special dislike that I would have for these languages. I fully agree with someone's comment that one can only master and maintain a limited number of languages. If Europeans want a functioning EU, they better agree amongst themselves on some practical and workable solutions.
This is a long debate and if I need to respond further I will do so in the 2nd half of this week.
Complain about this comment
To Alice #172: You wrote: "French for love, German for war, English for trade and Italian for music..."
And how obour the language of Alexandr Sergueevitch?
Alice you dare put your foot on a mine field... be careful!
Complain about this comment
Now look here, you fuss pots!
How soulless can you get. Even civil servants in Brussels are human beings. Let them enjoy their work with a language that is alive. English has long replaced French as the language of the Diplomats across the continents. In Europe, the first foreign language is English. Evolution will take care of the rest. So why resist it?
Why resent the English? You can't take it out on them simply others prefer to learn their language!
Let the xenophobians be xenophobians, get with the mainstream. And one other thing, don't upset the English too much, we shall need them as the guardians of the language.
Regards,
old joe
(with a heart for Europe at the heart of Europe)
Complain about this comment
" - its only you who have not been accustomed on the fact that there are other languages in the world than English".
Not accustomed? I speak several of them. I am not making the case for my benefit it is for the sake of the many thousands who want to internationalise but are frustrated at every turn. And you are exactly right about Nissan and Catalonia and you make my point perfectly. It would go like clockwork because there is big money involved. The little guy just gets left behind.
Complain about this comment
Jukka
China won't use alphabets, trust me.
You'll just have to study characters, like 1.3 billion other people in this world...
Complain about this comment
To oulematu (176):
The only limited resource in the world is time. You have limited number of school and working hours in a day. If non English speakers have to use one hour per day to learn English language, then the cost of learning the language is not only one hour, but its a one hour away from other studies for example mathematics so we incur also potential costs from missed opportunities. Now compare this to English speakers who don't have to learn foreign language, but can use time to learn other things.
The cost that non-native English speakers incur is very real and very costly. The cost of learning English language in whole Europe is not a small sum, we are not talking about hundreds of millions but tens of billions of Euros. That is a huge competitive advantage to all native English speakers.
I also contest your view on the scope of the project itself on using any language as lingua franca of the EU. Essentially if we would want the system to work then all public documents, all communications and all persons working in the public sector would have to be able to use the language, otherwise there is no point. In fact I should add that in Finland all civil servants are required to be able use and give service with both of our national languages. The thing is that if you are going to do something then you do it fully not half baked.
I should also make a note that the EU is already functioning very well. The four freedoms are very real. The problem you and other activists of the lingua franca for the EU seem to have that you are not willing to put anything on the table, you only want to take advantage. The old wisdom of life is that if you want to get some then you have put some.
The thing is that we already have a working system which respects the rights of the all cultures and their native languages. There is no need to change that.
To joehoch (178):
The only xenophobic in here are those who want to make one language to supersede other languages by force.
To WebAliceinwonderland (174) and (175):
The joke I very much enjoyed :-) Good jokes are funny because they are true...
Oh, how I belong to day at the army. Waking every morning besides my beloved assault rifle.
But anyway, Alice... Don't you know that life is supposed to be endless suffering that prepares you for the final judgment of the god and excruciating suffering at depths of hell to purify you from sins?
Complain about this comment
To Gheryando (180):
At the moment yes, but there is some possibility that China would change to alphabets. You see the biggest obstacle for Chinese language to come the global lingua franca is the writing system which takes considerable time to learn for everybody. Now the question of course is do the Chinese want to sacrifice part of their culture in order for them to gain more wide spread usage of Chinese and thus benefiting distribution of Chinese culture and give them advantage in economics, politics and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Chinese
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (179):
And let me tell you that I'm frustrated that people in foreign countries don't know how to speak Finnish. I just want to internationalize, but at every turn I get frustrated because I have to deal with these local languages. Why can't the whole world speak Finnish!? Don't they understand that by that way we could all more easily communicate and work with each others.
Complain about this comment
Jukksi, if you weren't so openly hedgehoggy - Russians would have learned your Finnish.
On the same old princip - "the language of the nearby region ones, into who you bump in most often."
Your abstination? ab? self-alienation, through centuries, may be have saved you as people.
But on the language- spread parameter it worked against you.
You were simply discouraging to Russians, as I said - virtually no body in 300 years ever said to a Russian in Russian as much as "hello".
An examplarous, no doubt, persistence, :o) - which we respect, make no mistake about it.
But with carrying the Finnish around - it worked against you.
The "bump-in" base worked not only for the Russian spread, but vice versa for others nearby.
We bumped into Ukrainians (which enables me now to savour Ukr. gossip and political jokes on the Ukrainian sites).
We bumped into Polish - and every Russian is able to say a bit in Polish (if absolutely cornered :o)
Historical neighbours, bordering.
Complain about this comment
On the cost and means, of a single language spread, you are right, Jukka.
Sorry all, Russia is the most experienced in the continent in this parameter. :o)
In empire times there was no systematic effort. Simply Georgia. and the Baltics. and Poland. and Ukraine. (though Ukraine didn't know it is "Ukraine") and Belarus (Belarus wouldn't even believe back then if someone told them they are "Belarus"). and ex-Persia. and ex-Turkey. and I mean who not -had Russian as a second language. without any hysterics, and on a very minimum level.
In USSR of course a focused effort was made. Times have changed, not enough any more to say "how much is this carpet".
When a team of Russian-Ukrainian surgeons operated in Afghanistan - they won't say each other "give me that lancet" in English.
And today - the same.
An operation on heart - a Kazakh-Russian docs' team - I am sorry, won't speak to each other in English.
When we built a nuclear plant in Lithuania -rest assured a Lithanian-Russian team spoke Russian. Sorry, there were no words in Lithuanian dictionary, to compile the "manual to reactor 3". LOL. They were a transit country before, btw Russia and Europe. An agriculture country. Different dictionary.
When you do something together - the language that has words for what you do, and science on it - has an upper hand.
In the industrialisation era, XX century, in the USSR - when dams were built, and irrigation complexes, hydro-electric power stations, steel factories, chemical complexes, airplanes - all infrustructure - the language for it was Russian. Not only because of our "colonialisation" habits. But from necessity.
But yes if you want to be understood and be able to work with others you have to invest heavily. As a tiny per cent - train teachers of other nations on own expense, to teach your language, print text-books, millions of things.
Because the common tasks are calling for far higher than "how much is this carpet?" levels.
And then the Eastern/Central Europe, of course. Overall I think we taught Russian in ? 30? countries.
And this is investment. We can talk to them all now.
But as always, like with Afgan, like with "USSR" - nobody wants to learn on Russian mistakes. and experience, you simply wrote it all off.
LOL. Then again, this if for us to know, and for you - to not. :o)
Complain about this comment
When Medvedev and the Kyrgyzstan president spoke recently. do you think they had an interpretor? who translated to both, what is American "Manas" base. LOL.
When Medvedev and Uzbekistan president agreed about Uzbek gas. Can you imagine an interpretor in between?
When Azerbajan president and Armenian president and Medvedev sit together discuss the questinable territory of Nagorny Karabach. No "interpretors". It's a joke.
When Moldova, Transniestria and Russia speak of Transdiniestria future. No English. Rest assured.
When Putin and Julia Timoshenko spoke on the gas deal for 5 hours. An interpretor? LOL.
When I am in Riga - would I need "an interpretor"? Thank you very much.
When I am in Israel - would I need an interpretor? It's a joke.
When Ironfranco, from Bulgaria - is in Riga, Tallinn, Kiev, Yerevan, Tashkent and Tel-Aviv!
Does he need "an interpretor"?
"Niet." o:)
Complain about this comment
threnodio: Regarding your "Nissan in Catalonia" scenario (BTW, Nissan already has a Catalan plant, building vans and 4x4s, but they got it by acquiring an existing plant, so that the language dilemma was avoided), I am afraid that you subestimate some politicians' stubbornness: there was just a similar brouhaha about Air Berlin (which uses Palma de Mallorca as a hub airport) not using Catalan in its brochures or on-board communication in flights between Mallorca and Barcelona. In that context, some Catalan nationalists even called Air Berlin's German management "Nazis" (some people clearly didn't get the "don't mention the war" memo...but then, "they're from Barcelona"!).
As I said, do not underestimate just how delicate an issue language can be in some parts of the Continent.
Complain about this comment
Dear Jukka,
Chinese has many tones that are very similar, thus characters are essential. However, Chinese characters are not that difficult. Once your brain gets used to learning them, it works pretty fast. The pinyin method is solely used to learn pronounciation of newly learned characters. Its also a bit arrogant to ask to change into a Latin alphabet..
Complain about this comment
I meant to say, "Chinese has many words"
Complain about this comment
#183 - Jukka_Rohila
I have obviously touched a nerve and I have no wish to argue with you so this is my final post on the subject.
There are something over 500 million people in the EU of which fewer that 5.5 million are native Finnish speakers or just over 1%. If you want us to master Finnish before doing business in your country, that's absolutely fine with me but don't be surprised if some businesses look for a little more flexibility given the size of the market.
Here in central Europe, they grasped a long time ago that, if they want to attract inward investment, they have to be willing to communicate in English or German. Mostly they do and it has done the culture no harm.
Complain about this comment
#187 - RCalvo
The Air Berlin thing is astonishing. I can understand people not being able to hold a conversation in Catalan but pre-recorded announcements and leaflets? There is no excuse for that.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (190):
You didn't get the main point:
We decide by ourself on which languages are state languages and we decide on how much services we provide in foreign languages.
For example the state does provide most forms and guides in English, parliamentary acts and degrees are translated to English, and most people working for the state know how to speak English and will use it to assist you to interact with the state.
We do this because its beneficial for us in general. However getting service in English or other than state languages is not a right and as non-native language speaker you have no right to expect that you will be served with your own language.
English is a de facto lingua franca in Europe and I have nothing against that. However if you are expecting that English will become de jure lingua franca in Europe then that will only bring Jihad against you or anybody other suggesting it.
Complain about this comment
To Alice #186: You clean forgot of Athens, of Cyprus, of Monte Carlo and of Hollywood where the Russian speaking people are more and more present... Even in my job I do not hesitate to speak in russian to a pole, to a czeck, or to a slovak. (with the serbians we speak in serbian-croate which is very similar to the bulgarian)...
I think it is useless to define some general and cumpulsory rule for the EU citizens. The integration is irreversible. God knows His job...
Complain about this comment
#192 - Jukka_Rohila
In which case we do not actually disagree. It must have been a language problem:-)
Complain about this comment
"#168. threnodio:
#165 - oulematu
#166 - Jukka_Rohila
Well at least we are back on topic! You both have good points and on balance, I am inclined to think the EU has got it right - publish everything in all 23 languages."
Absolutely! Imagine the outcry if most Europeans had to learn a foreign language in order to read check the detail of some EU text that applied to their situation. That would simply throw oil on the anti-EU bonfire. And rightly so. Let's enjoy the difference rather than head for a monolingual wasteland. Vive la différence!
"#171. WebAliceinwonderland:
one should consider technical capability of an individual to learn languages. What looks easy to Jukka_Rohila and greypolyglot - is not to 90% of people."
Cheeky lady! ;-) Who said learning languages is easy?
What I do say is that, having learned one language we ALL have the mental equipment to learn another - if we wish to do so. You and, it seems, quite a number of our contributors here, know this as well as I do. It has become pretty obvious that I'm not the only "polyglot" here. I just took the name first.
Complain about this comment
In language learning I'm very opposed to violence. I am opposed to violence in every thing.
(Have you seen the news front page article now, horrible. of the girl, who starved herself to death, decided to die but not to meet with dentists again. they took her to the hospital previously, and extracted 8 milk teeth !!! under general anaesthesia. so when her next milk tooth began to shake - she simply decided to better die. and died
I know this has no relation to language study.
but it is violence, applied to a child, who can't protect herself.
I hate violence, someone's will bending. breaking people.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (196):
Here are the articles in question...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/7893485.stm and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/7879301.stm
Very tragic and sad I have to admit, but I'm not buying this story.
To quote:
"She lost 11kg (23lbs) in the month before she died."
Hello? Parents? Hello? Child doesn't eat and looses 11kg in a month probably in the end looking more like an skeleton and nobody does anything. Hello, Earth to parents, is there anybody?
Could it be perhaps that she had anorexia? Could it be perhaps that she had mental problems that caused the condition? Could it be that dentist visit just set off the condition that was already in her?
For example just look at the photos from both of these articles. In the first we have a photo of self-conscious pre-teen and in other article we a photo of child.
Do remember that anorexia can be caused by many things, it can be caused by a poor self image, but it can also be caused by feeling of powerless and inability to decide on one's own destiny. Usually these things are all involved with many other things, and things are off-set by some random act.
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't blame dentist or the hospital in this. To me there was something deeply wrong before the dentist took off her milk tooths. Its cold hearted to say, but in this case her parents and loved one's should take deep look at the mirror and think hard if they and not the dentist had more to do with her death.
For crying out loud billions of children loose their milk tooths happily and without loosing their life's.
Complain about this comment
when I see wings - that are broken
- there is no mercy in me! and, it's not for nothing that
I hate! violence. And - weakness. alike. the both!
it's only.. I pity sometimes.. the crucified Christ. "
ah? ironfranco.
_______________
Jukka, I had a new idea. Cheer up. Great prospects for Finnish language ahead.
G. l. o. b.a.l. ah?
OK.
w.a.r. (we don't stop here) -m.i.....
In short, all will come to us. To you in Finland, and to me, in St. Petersburg.
When the Mohammed doesn't come to the mountain, the mountain - you know.
So stop excavating underground tunnels under Russia to Europe (like some prizon escapist)(LOL) - Europe will come to you.
Provided we don't drown first. You and I, on the low shore of the Baltic.
Focus on taking care not to drown. and then you will teach Finnish to anybody you please.
As said Marina Tsvetaeva (take care to learn. we are likely to run language classes together. and you might have to pick up my class when I am late) -
"to my verse, as to the finest wines - will come its time."
As to me I'm ready. "Again cast Vainamoinen his net into the sea...)
_____________
And, seriously, where is everyone to go? Look at Europe. All sides - water. One exit only. At some point, when very developed, Europe would want more land to do something. Might wish more air. More fresh water. All of this is stored in our sheep-fold, LOL.
Not much happens here, true. But then not much gets spoiled either. We still cannot reach 1980 output and GNP levels, LOL. But then - production and industrial output - many can these days.
Who has basics, for life, I wonder?
Un-touched and un-develop - land doesn't get spoiled.
It is something "that is not produced anymore". God produced 6? days. Then full stop. I think for long-term, with "investment" - Russians got equipped best.
Look at Europe, from a plane. Patches and patches, one thing simply goes into another, one road into another road, one village ends - immediately the next one begins! Horrible. ;o) Not a live place left!
Another thing here. Relaxed. 1 city. 2 hours flight (nothing under the plane wing, mind it. forest. or - some rivers and ? plains. Another city. Another 2 hrs flight. LOL.
I bet you can't even walk Europe without bumping into some fence! strictly along the roads! funny.
Complain about this comment
" # 198. WebAliceinwonderland:
Look at Europe, from a plane. Patches and patches, one thing simply goes into another, one road into another road, one village ends - immediately the next one begins! Horrible. ;o) Not a live place left!
Another thing here. Relaxed. 1 city. 2 hours flight (nothing under the plane wing, mind it. forest. or - some rivers and ? plains. Another city. Another 2 hrs flight. LOL.
I bet you can't even walk Europe without bumping into some fence! strictly along the roads! funny."
Shush. Don't tell everyone your secret. You'll have all the overcrowded people of western Europe headed east into the wide-open spaces. Just like the US Wild West but with cars.
Regarding the poor little girl who starved herself to death because she was afraid to open her mouth after loose teeth were removed: first ask her parents why they did nothing. If a parent fails to care for a child too young to care for itself is that not child-abuse?
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (198):
Well you do have great plan I have to admit that, but then again, that doesn't sound like something that hedgehogs would do, actually it sounds like very unhedgehoggy thing to do. No I think we prefer to our old and tested strategy on just sitting here and pointing our spikes to anyone who comes too close.
You see our strategy relies on time. In time everything can happen, and maybe if we just wait long enough then one day when we wake up we will find out that everybody else have gone. The other final option of course is that everybody finally comes to their senses, abandon their wicked and false ways and decide to learn the language and become Finnish.
I really think this is a better strategy. The risks are lower than in your grandiose scheme. We will just wait here.. ... ..you are still here? No, problem, we will just wait more...
---
To WebAliceinwonderland (185):
But Alice, did you even try to translate the manual for the nuclear power into Lithuanian? You see we too were not in the forefront of technology and industrialization, but still have managed to expand the language according to needs.
For example when Agricola started to translate bible into Finnish, he not only had to make up the grammar and phonetic rules, but also invent words that were not in the Finnish language. Before Agricola we didn't even have word for mercy.
In later times more words have been invented. Sometimes the invention process is quite straight forward, you just either join two words or Finnishize the word. For example...
Word meaning computer is created by joining two words, tieto as information and kone as machine together forming tietokone.
Word meaning nuclear power is just translated as it is, ydin as nuclear and voima as power, together forming ydinvoima.
Some words are just graped almost as they are.
Brand becomes Brandi, Technology becomes Teknologia and so on...
Sometimes when a new word is brought to the language it may not suite it very well, in these cases states research institute just visits the case and thinks hard on how to create a new word or how to transform an foreign word into a Finnish one.
Throe our history we have loaned words from all languages that we have had dealings with. For example Finnish casual greeting Moi comes from the Plattdeutsch, Low German, word Moin. They are written differently, but sound exactly similar. I noted this when I was visiting Rostock and when the cashier happily greeted me with the word, I was terrifically puzzled of it... "oh my god, does she speak Finnish, what should I do" ..of course I didn't do nothing and later on noted that the natives just had the same customary greeting as us.
Also we have loaned some words from Russian. If I'm not terribly wrong our word for godparents, Kummi, comes from the Russian Kyma.
Either way, our language has stayed and stays as it is as while we are actively loaning words from other languages as we transform them to Finnish versions and embedded them in the framework of our language.
To WebAliceinwonderland (186):
When we are visiting Riga, Tallinn, Kiev, Yerevan, Tashkent or Tel-Aviv, we neither need interpreters. You know why? Because hedgehogs don't talk.
To WebAliceinwonderland (198):
I don't think that the western European really really need more space to live.
You see in the 80s many Finnish entrepreneurs thought that Germans and other central European would just flood to come here to spend their holiday in simple cottage villages near a small lake. The business plan of the day was, get some god forsaken place near small unnoticeable lake, put cottages and mini-golf tour there and in no time you will be flooded with German money... needless to say that those entrepreneurs went bankrupt in droves.
In the 90s when Finland joined first the EEA and then EU, one of the biggest fears was that Germans would flood in here and buy all the lake properties. Needless to say that nobody did come.
It seems that the western and central Europeans are not that keen to have Lebensraum.
But then again who knows... You only know after you have build cottage villages and mini golf tours in god forsaken steppes and forests... If you just end up loosing loads of money and getting many entrepreneurs bankrupt then in quite high certainty it can be confirmed that the European don't want to come to grab all that land.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, very informative. To be honest I think your long-term strategy is correct as it has worked before. I also have respect for tried by experience, things. (Only don't forget to marry outsiders from time to time, or you'll become like those royal dynasties, with exceptionally light-blue blood.) (Is it the same in Finnish? like "white bone"-"black bone" and "red blood"- "light-blue blood"? Nobility versus normal people, I mean.)
With Europe re-location closer to polar bears, I don't mean they'll do it by good will. Nobody will go to Siberia by good-will.
But as the climate becomes madder, those crazy winds or hurricanes or heat, I am afraid there won't be much choice. Knock-knock-knock don't remember any tornadoes here or floods except when on schedule spring river is blocked by ice or earthquakes; frozen places and large plateaus seem to be more stable in terms of nature tricks.
Looking at summers in Spain I'd tell it's time already for Spain to have summer dacha-s in St. Petersburg or Finland. We like Spaniards and Italians both so no problem. Spanish collection in the Hermitage is second only to Prado among world museums (they always tried to avoid letting a piece of Spanish art out of the borders. extremely difficult to buy Spanish art. For all world museums), Italian galleries are quite allright, so they'll feel at home.
Except, may be, I suspect they'll miss their sky. Italians have a very particular sky colour, if to judge by Hermitage paintings. Something about it, un-repeatable.
To the opposite, we were never able to boast by our low grey. This must feel choking to them. They'd like distance in that direction.
Anyway not to worry, you've got quite communicative neighbours :o) who will speak on your behalf Jukks "and here we have our hedgehoggy Finns - take good advice - raise up hands before crossing / we equip you with the mini dictionary in Finnish with pictures opposite on every page - but on this Russian responsibility ends, we have warned you. And look where you go, don't fall into the lake."
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @195 and 199
"I just took the name first". May be. But I distinctly remember you alluding to several languages knowledge. So don't play "beggar-born"! :o)
With the golden rush into Wild Russian East no scares at the moment; land market is not in the operation yet. Many don't realise that. It's the boost we still keep in the sleeve.
Only a year ago they let the bridles go - allowed - limited - and highly conditional - to buy and sell land.
20 yrs ago no land property existed as such, as you understand. These past 20 yrs you could buy only together with the house/factory/something on the plot.
Say, a factory - plus 20 metres LOL around. As far as the shade falls! I'd say o:)
A year ago they allowed peasants sell their land plots.
These plots peasants got FOC 20 yrs ago, when every collective farm land was divided in equal shares btw people registered in that collective farm operations.
There became a boom. Moscow traders went into far-away places and bribed, fed with vodka, lured, threatened by mafia, purchased land plots for copecks from peasants. Who have no internet, no internet market, know no rules (nobody does, to be exact), nobody to sell to, who sat in their idiotic small land plots happy "owners" un-able any more to work the ground, as the state stopped providing tractors, machinery, purchasing the product, there are no roads, buyers of agriculture products in small quantities, no help at all. On tops Russian banks didn't give loans at the guarantee of land ownership. Loans for family business are at 36% roubles a year.
Cornered by such harsh conditions peasants began to die out, nothing to do, zero employment, zero state support, they ran into the cities, or died out at home, living on kitchen gardens. Land un-worked.
Moscow traders arrived in bulk, paid copecks - better than nothing, bought in bulk. A robbery going on; only the crisis has stopped this development so far. 200 dollars per land spot enough for several houses.
An interesting thing is, having bought, muscovites did nil with the land. Keep up in the sleeve, waiting for nobody knows what.
Now state regrets it allowed to buy/sell land.
Future - unclear.
Also, military units/garrisons - were allowed to sell their land in the open market.
But the process just began. And you still can walk Russia through without a fence.
Complain about this comment
As someone who studied Latin for about 13 years (up to Mods at Oxford), I look forward to the revival of Latin! Nuntii Latini on the Radio Finland website is the finest news service in Latin on the planet. Take a look: http://www.yleradio1.fi/nuntii/ It's certainly livelier than the Vatican's output (http://www.vatican.va/latin/latin_index.html).
Whilst on the subject of Latin as a 'lingua franca', I remember reading somewhere about a British and a German officer, both classicists, who for the sake of precision and the avoidance of misunderstanding, in 1945 conducted the surrender negotiations for a major town in Northern Italy entirely in Latin. Does anyone have any details, or is this story apocryphal?
Complain about this comment
To well_spoken #203: The idea seems to be a little bit obsolete. Portuguese, Spaniards, French, Italians and Romanians and of course the Roman Pope will support it maybe. But how about the remaining part of us, citizens of the EU? I suppose nobody has the legal nor the moral right to lecture us how we should contact each other (I mean in which language we have to introduce ourselves to the rest of the people within the Union).
And this is the starting point of the discussion. We have the bad experience of two world wars and some of us have suffered some 45 years under totalitarian regimes. Every attempt to impose only one language as a universal tool of communication is doomed to a failure. I know that the English is likely to win the language battle almost everywhere in the EU but this evident fact is rather a result of the integration process than a result of some formal government (or conventional) act. We need peace and more time. The rest will be done automatically (with the help of Lord).
Complain about this comment
Re 6. At 6:32pm on 12 Feb 2009, Freeborn-John wrote:
"I read of a recent academic survey that claims [...]"
How interesting! Since you seem to support clarity and honesty, perhaps you should point us all to this groundbreaking source?
Complain about this comment
To be honest I think the real reason is slightly more mundane than covert world conquest:
The language reads the way it does because that's what you get when you have thirty odd lawmakers in a room trying to thrash out a compromise. In thirty different languages.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ 197 "Hello Earth to parents, is there anybody?"
greypolyglot @199 "first ask her parents why they did nothing"
I think, what can poor parents do? this is a choice - to surrender a child to doctors or leave her alone with whatever teeth happen. they went for the medical system, trusted them first, and this is the result.
And after they got her from the hospital in far worse scares' a condition - at higher levels, worse than before, as she had to be artificially fed. They may be stopped trusting the medics, may be became desperate.
I think it is awful hard to tell in a child's case - how far will the child go. the difference btw being "capricious" and a serious case.
I took it close to the heart as myself had a saga with dentists, btw ages ? say, 10-20, that nearly cost me life twice. All this time I walked I am afraid looking more like a shark, milk teeth showed no inclination to fall out, while new ones grew up anyway. Double rows! And nothing on Earth could put me into a dentists' patient chair alive.
The matter was sorted I am NOT ashamed to say, only when I was 20. Via bribes, and acquaintance, as all was/is done here, a good doc was found. As far as I remember a very good humoured flaming red-hair lady, who agreed to take a difficult psychological task to make me a tooth filling. It was a lengthy process; first couple of days I spent in her office, simply morally getting accustomed to the alien smells and blue robes. On about the 3rd day, LOL, I agreed to sit 10 seconds in the chair, provided she and all others promised to keep away and not come closer than 3 metres. Then the same - with the lamp switched on. And so, by and by, you know, in drinking tea with chocolates and discussing fashions with the nurses staff, helping to keep the patients' register, learning the names of the equipment, helping with this and that, in a about a week I became nearly a local in the dentistry! All the time she laughed mad, and I must say such a humorous attitude helped the progress a lot. The key parameter was also she promised to stop the same milli-second when I say it hurts, and she kept to her word, so I gradually developed some trust in her direction.
And after the first break-through tooth fill was done, you know, a strange feeling of omni-potence and ruling the world! comes to you. that all is possible! hey-hop! there is a life ahead! free of ghosts and shadows! and that was all.
But if not for her I would still live I don't know how. She was an excellent doc, no wonder, it was sports' centre, clinic of the Soviet Olympic team. I was registered as a young hope on running "middle-distance" (LOL). I think it cost my mum a ring with a stone from her hand.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (207):
The point you missed...
The child had problems even before a visit to the dentist. These underlying problems that the child had caused the child to not to eat, not the fear of the doctor or that her milk tooths were pulled.
My own quick view is that she had anorexia that was caused by low self esteem or inability to control any part of her life.
The first fault of the parents was not recognizing that she had problems. The second fault was that they didn't take action to deal with the problems she had.
I'm sorry, but if a child refuses to eat, you take action and make the child eat. If the child doesn't want to speak with you, then you speak and encourage the child to speak until she speaks back.
The unfortunate and miserable task of a parent is to use force if necessary to make sure child fares well. If the parent doesn't do that then the only consequence is that the child just learns to make stupider and stupider decisions.
To quote Bible:
"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."
Of course rod shouldn't be used to any person, but instead of rod other disciplinary actions parents must use from serious talk to putting them to sit in the corner and think of their actions. Essentially tears in childhood save from tears in adulthood.
Complain about this comment
There is something strange going on.
All the bloggers on BBc seem to have paused.
I wonder what they are waiting for.
Is there a big story about to break?
Complain about this comment
Thank you graypolyglot for supporting my (correct) point! There is a great deal of difference between 'its' (possessive) and it's (abbreviation of 'it is') and I expect people whose native language is English to know and understand such difference, even at the tender age of 15! Furthermore we all have spellcheck tools that can alert us on grammar and syntax mistakes. Enough with this!
I am also very tired of all this talk about 'Europe out there'. UK and Ireland are geographically part of Europe, they did not develop in isolation but since prehistory there was much exchange in cultural and commercial terms with continental Europe and beyond. The English language is full of terms deriving from other languages so why having such an insular and provincial view of 'Europe down there'? We ARE Europe!
Complain about this comment
Jukka, well, they applied force to her. "For her own good", as you advocate. I don't think she went to the hospital herself, or "agreed" to have a general anaesthesia. and how do you imagine a child "agreeing" to be fed by that tube? it was all force.
There are children and children. The systems work for the bulk. When it's not "the bulk" - a systematic, standard approach - fails.
You can never cut all "by the same comb".
anorexia? give me a break. you'll invent whatever now. you were simply never scared to death by dentists, to the degree it's better to die than to fix a tooth. so your imagination fails you.
Complain about this comment
secretpcjunkie @209,
Maybe Mandy has a cold and can't issue his Communication Directives.....
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (211):
No. Your own experiences with the dentist affect your view of this case. You project your self in the position of the child.
The thing is...
Anorexia is a very serious and real condition that even a child or a pre-teen can have. It is caused by real reasons that a child can also be exposed to. Remember that she already was 8 years old, had been in school for years and been, had been exposed to pear pressure not to mention that she might have had family conditions that didn't do any good to her self-esteem nor to self-will.
To me it tells very much that she was force feed for two weeks in the hospital. Force feeding is something that is not started lightly. Just look at the dates...
To quote BBC article...
7 November: Sophie admitted to hospital for dental operation
9 November: Sophie given feeding tube after refusing to eat
17 November: Sophie discharged from hospital
2 December: Sophie found dead at home
Feeding tube put on her just after few days. That only happens when the child is in danger as all persons, children, including can manage few days without food if they are otherwise in normal health.
The other thing to remember that her milk tooths were already pulled. She had no milk teeth to loose anymore, so no more reason to fear another visit to dentist.
No no no. This child had a serious condition even before being admitted to the hospital. The blame lays in her parents that didn't either note the problem or do anything to it before admission to the hospital and parents are in blame after she was admitted from the hospital as she didn't eat for whole 2 weeks in her parents care.
Complain about this comment
Mark, next big thing is 'WHO will SAVE the UNION??'
Ukraine, Ireland, Baltics, Spain, Greece and others will collapse under their weight... and then who will save the union??
A house build on cards, will not hold.. and then again who did not save the countries will not save the union.. if it does.. god help the people
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic
Its half term they probably all got a week off
Complain about this comment
#210 - Fionavroom
I did have the grace to apologise. You, on the other hand, seem determined to persist with the Jean Brody impression. The problem with spell checkers is that they tend to slip up on proper names. Which is doubtless why you mistyped 'greypolyglot'. Of course a child of 15 would have realised that copy+paste is a lot quicker than (mis)typing it in full.
Complain about this comment
It is not just the EU who speak in tongues, I work for a large (lets hope it stays that way) German Automotive company, and at lunch today my colleagues and I (we were bored) decided to count how many abbreviations our company uses, we ran out of time!!.
I presume that the EU has its own jargon to aid its multicultural staff, that is the reason that my companies uses so many abbreviations, many of my colleagues cannot understand German, however, they all understand that VIN is a chassis number (which is easier to remember than Vehicle Identification Number), that PC means passenger car (not political correctness as some might think), and that when phrases such as: economic strategic savings programs will be implemented, instantly translate in
all languages the same two words......Job Cuts.
Seriously, the EU whilst not particularly good at anything, being forced by their own rules to ensure that everything is translated into the language of all its member states, would I imagine dictate the need to use some form of communication device to get messages across quickly, and without the need to go through this bureaucratic red tape.
Complain about this comment
secretpcjunkie, all the bloggers at BBC seem to have taken a break
Well. No news is good news? let's hope.
___________
Jukks. while nothing happens, I of course still disagree. if you read the article carefully you'll see one more tooth became shaky after the hospital, so she had her reasons. and what does it matter.
what I agree with you is the whole thing looks improbable and things don't meet up. like, the hospital said "we are sorry we haven't noticed her fobia for dentists." presumably that's why they treated her under general anaesthesia.
and the parent's rep said "we hope the hospital will improve procedures so that nothing like that happens to other kids in future." And that's all they said?
Yes I refer to own experience, in about that girl's age. Since you, Jukks, are not an 8 year old girl and never were - I know better.
By ab that age I already met with dentists once and had an idea of the torture. Soviet dentist machines rest assured looked I think exactly as you foreign - times before the 2nd WW. No anaesthesia by law for fillings - only for teeth extraction (same till these days!!!! in state Russian medical service!!!!!) (but now at least we have private doctors, and before you wouldn't find one in the whole USSR, and had to be subject to the system)
So once upon a time we had a compulsory teeth check-up at school. I saw how two nurses hold my kicking and screaming classmates, pressing them into the chair; the alphabetical list was slowly but surely moving towards my surname.
I can tell you I had one glance into the room and decided they are not going to do this to me.
Fear and ? how to explain you Children also have a sense of self-esteem.
So I evaporated out of the corridor and out of the school. without taking the coat and boots in the cloak-room - as I knew the staff there would wonder where am I going to, in the middle of the school day. And I didn't want to leave any trace. LOL.
Then the layout was tricky. If it were summer, I'd walk to the subway, beg passer-by passengers for money for the token, play some beggar girl who lost her cash and can't return home. Nothing unusual. In summer. But I knew that at minus 30 the very view of a girl in school apron with frills and lacker slippers might attract un-healthy attention. Anyone who met me in such an outfit would immediately grab me and bring to the nearest police station.
So escape to grandfather to the dacha was a no-go, neither reaching grandma.
I badly wanted some grown-ups to stand up for me. And parents were at work!
So I simply went home, in the anti-submarine zig-zag, hiding at house corners until the dash to the next house would be clear. I knew I am a wrong sight in uniform on white snow background. Part of the route had to take along the railway!
Once at home, I didn't go to the apartment. Oh no. From what I saw of these people - they were capable of all. Surely the school was missing me already, they'd go home, know where I live, and grabatise me.
Such people, Jukks, who torture small children - won't hesitate in breaking the apartment door.
So I took a strategic position in the balcony in the black staircase. Which allowed me the view through the glass door to the lifts arriving. Should it be my mum - I'd go out of the hiding. (I croached on the cement floor in the very corner of the balcony.) Should it be them - I'd jump out of the balcony in one fling. It was not a glassed balcony, and the 13th floor we lived in - I was sure - would make the pursues think twice before making another step towards me.
I don't know would I have jumped down or not, but that I would step over to the other side of the rail - no doubt. Then all it would take will be only to un-clasp one hand.
In such an interesting position I spent 4 hours, and if I haven't died and frozen into a piece of ice - it's exclusively because I was very angry. Flaming with indignation and making plans for horrible revenge. How they dare!
Besides, I couldn't get asleep, as happens with people in the frost - as I had to listen to every noise of the lifts arriving.
My mum as it happened returned first. Very good of her. School came second. But by that time I was safe. I only had a two-side pneumonia for the next 2 months.
Rest assured the scandal my mum made in the school when I was better - kept various docs away off me for a while. Not for long, but that is another story.
"Punitive medical system" my mum calls it.
Complain about this comment
#217 - flawedlogic
Considering how vast the bureaucracy is, I have found the EU surprisingly quick off the mark. They seem to be quite good at delegating. Many decisions are made without reference to Brussels. It's quite refreshing compared with the high degree of centralisation you see at national level.
Complain about this comment
#209, secretpcjunkie,
Yup, you could be right, the politically correct bubble is collapsing almost as fast as slime bankers dive into their bolt holes and their Socialist politician friends develop reluctance to face any TV presenter that has not been paid to be friendly in the traditional BBC mould.
Myself I sit back and enjoy the spectacle whilst wishing stocks were re-introduced so that the rest of us mere mortals can wreak our vengeance on the corrupt that have destroyed our pensions, although I'm not convinced rotten vegetables are enough. Either that or I amuse myself by popping over the nearby border with France to see how they're once again pulling disaster from the jaws of victory, a feat they've been expert in for centuries.
Complain about this comment
We are one big happy family, nobody can say a thing.
Well. we can play into "cities". Moscow. (your turn).
- Warsaw.
?
OK. then - crisis anecdotes.
"Everybody knows that during the middle ages in England there lived Robin Good."
(everybody knows who knows Hamlet and Harry Potter and are in Rus. translation Gamlet and Garry Potter. and Garry Kasparov. tradition. since first translation of "Hamlet")
Anyway, everybody knows that in the Middle Ages in England there lived Robin Good. He expropriated money from the rich and handed them out to the poor.
But not all know that he also had a brother, Robin Bad. Who expropriated money from the poor and handed them out to the rich.
Thus the brothers were kicking the buck round the circle, that's how Britain became a developed country!
(and had no crisis, I'd add)
Complain about this comment
# 210. Fionavroom:
# 216. threnodio:
Fiona - now, now, play nicely, threnodio did say sorry.
I have tried making the point time and again that "we are Europe". Our ancestors came from all over the continent and we have a multi-nation Union with a single currency, etc. By the way, I'm not American so I spell it "grEypolyglot". In case no one else has noticed, the BBC's comment posting window has the default language set to US English. Try typing harbour and you'll see it underlined in red as a spelling mistake. On the BBC for heaven's sake!
threnodio - c'mon, you too can play nicely, please, life's too short.
While you're quite right about "copy+paste" being a lot quicker than (mis)typing in full have you noticed that the BBC's comment posting window will not accept even something as banal as an accented e and puts up instead a little diamond with a question mark in it. Comments cut and pasted have quote marks replaced by question marks. It's about time the Beeb sorted out all these minor annoyances. It's only a matter of correctly applying the available technology!
Complain about this comment
By writing treaties and constitutions in arcane legalese jargon which has to be translated in many languages where even the denotations let alone the connotations are not exactly parallel, it means you sign now, and the meaning will not become clear until later when the commissars decide what they want to do and get their kangaroo court to interpret these agreed to documents to mean exactly that.
I wonder what they word hypocricy connotes to in all those different languages.
Complain about this comment
to greypolyglot #222: I have noticed the same incorrect reproducing of my posts. What a pity that the BBC staff has not yet reported it to the big boss. Moreover that the Brits are likely to feel privileged to address everyone within the EU in English... What a pity indeed that some of them are so careless when downloading the latest US gadgets (software) in the BBC hardware systems… Who cares?
Complain about this comment
Does the EU shroud itself in obscure language on purpose or does any work of detail produce its own arcane language?
Almost all of the documents that emerge from the various EU institutions are highly technical. The first three documents in the current Official Journal, for example, establish standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables, discuss the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, and set out the conditions of an agreement to combat illegal activity detrimental to the financial interests of the EU and Switzerland.
No normally constituted European citizen is likely to read, far less expect anyone to clarify the language, in the opening statements of the chemicals document, for example. It says: "The Commission of the European Communities, having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 131 thereof…" This is simply not aimed at the average voter.
Each document emerging from the EU insitutions has been through an arduous process of agreement involving various committees of specialists in the subject, each committee having a long history of earlier debates over the substance and wording of various related documents. Many, if not most, of these committees have worked through interpreters. Under these circumstances words take on meanings strongly flavoured by their use in previous contexts, sometimes taking on sense in this technical domain that is quite different from their common dictionary definition.
Furthermore, national positions may make that state's representatives allergic to particular words, or on the contrary, insist that a given word must be used in this context. Long hours of struggle over particular sentences or paragraphs may end in an agreement that leaves nobody particularly happy, and whose wording may be a patchwork of compromise that to anyone not present in the debate may seem wilfully impenetrable and obscurantist. Once agreement is reached, however, nobody who had sat through the debate would willingly offer an alternative formulation, however elegant and clear, for fear of re-opening the discussion.
So no, the EU does not deliberately shroud itself in arcane language, any more than the UN does. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity are both clear examples of committees in action. The CBD, for example, defines biological diversity as "the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part…" The word "variability" is almost certainly wrong – the intended concept was probably "variety". And once one has stipulated "from all sources" is it necessary to add "including" and then "inter alia", and then to open a list?
No, the output of a committee is rarely a thing of beauty, but it's not necessarily the result of an anti-democratic plot to hide some sinister meaning, either.
Complain about this comment
To greypolyglot (222) and ironfranco (224):
Are you sure you are not barking at the wrong tree?
The comment posting window in here is just a typical text field and doesn't include any fancy add-ons.
The spell-checker that you are referring to is probably the spell-checker of the browser itself. At least with my browser, Firefox 3, when in text field you make right mouse click, you get a menu where bottom two options are Check Spelling and Languages menu. From the languages menu you can set on which language it will use in spell checking. In addition if you don't find your favourite language there, you can add it by clicking the Add Dictionaries option.
For instance I just changed the spell checker to use English - United Kingdom setting which I hope will make my comments more accessible in the future to British commentators.
Complain about this comment
MAII connotations with others don't know. In Russian every word means smth by itself, when you look at it carefully. We drag the whole 1000 history clipped attached to every word. That's why words tend to be lengthy. Normally you don't think of it, just take the word at ready value. But when you look - ex. hypocricy - "litsemerie" - "face-measurement" - you measure by face.
Enough to change your face expression :o), to re-value something.
Complain about this comment
threnodio: Yes, I made a mistake but how do you know that I am not 14? I wish I was! Thanks for the apologies, I also apologise for going on and on... we all have our bad days :-)
greypolyglot: sorry for misspelling your name! This time I did use cut-and-paste... ;-)
It is quite interesting how this forum has developed and we managed to divert the conversation and ended up discussing a number of different and unrelated topics. Will it ever end?
Complain about this comment
will there ever be a new blog topic?
Complain about this comment
#229,
It looks like Nick Robinson's blog is also suffering from the same malaise, maybe the bursting of the bubble has meant there is now so little they can spin to support Gordie and the EU that they just keep on running with the same topics.
Complain about this comment
To Buzet23 (231):
Or could it be that Mark doesn't like us any more?
Maybe we have upset Mark with our continuous bickering and he has decided to leave us?
I propose that we now form bi-partisan effort to appease Mark. For this I suggest on sacrificing a virgin in a ceremony of blood.
Would there be perhaps any virgins in here? Your sacrifice would be greatly appreciated.
Complain about this comment
#94 oldnat
#93 Cracklite
'Quite true - but isn't it rather sad that the dominant world language was decided by wars between two imperialist countries in the 18th century?'
+++++
The English language would not have survived in the present position if it had not absorbed words and phrases from other languages thereby becoming very flexible and capable of subtlety.
The German for a certain type of bolt is Innensechskantshrauben. We call it a cap screw, trade name Allen screw.
I believe the German standard for computer language is English.
We have recently picked up (adopted) another German word which we do not have an English equivalent for:
Schadenfreude .
I have not attempted the umlaut as this blog cannot handle apostrophes.
Complain about this comment
#26 theoch
"England raus aus der EU! - There's a nice foreign soundbite for the BBC to translate. ;-)"
+++++
Sometimes foreign language posts are moderated out.
Yes theoch, a lot of Brits would like to get out of the EU. We are net contributors and we are not appreciated for it as your remark demonstrates.
Germany has a cosy relationship with the French politicians. When France went over 3 per cent budget deficit, the ECB in Germany said, ' Oh, that is OK '
When the Dutch did the same later, they had a rap on the knuckles.
Not cricket, old chap.
Complain about this comment
Learn EU-Speak
While we have lawyers as our political representatives we will have all this gobbledy-gook.
Lawyers used to be paid by the word which is why we have sentences in our legal documents like 'Fred, hereinafter known as the part of the first part' instead of just 'Fred'.
Lawyers= Professionals.
Professionals= A conspiracy against the Laity
Complain about this comment
When politicians vote on laws, should lawyers excuse themselves as they have a vested interest?
Complain about this comment
#226 Jukka_Rohila:
"To greypolyglot (222) and ironfranco (224):
Are you sure you are not barking at the wrong tree?"
Should be 'barking up the wrong tree'.
Complain about this comment
#222 - greypolyglot
#224 - ironfranco
They seem to be working on it bit by bit. I notice if I make a syntax error when using html mark up, it now warns me instead of rejecting the post outright.
You can actually force the bot to recognise a few accented and special characters using html but it is by no means universal. Currency signs in particular, it does not like. There is one little tip for you. If you like to compose posts in a text editor first, try using Notepad. Because NP does not format the text, you will not get the question mark instead of quotes error.
Our old friend Ed Inglehart has psoted a usefulweb page on html mark up if you are interested. You can find it HERE
#228 - Fionavroom
Don't worry about it but cut me a little slack. Keyboards and arthritis sometimes don't get along - but it's no excuse for its:-)
Complain about this comment
#232 - Toldyouitwould
"Schadenfreude .
I have not attempted the umlaut as this blog cannot handle apostrophes".
Just as well really as there is no umlaut in Schadenfreude.
Complain about this comment
223. MarcusAureliusII:
I wonder what they word hypocricy connotes to in all those different languages."
Oh do stay at home you aggravating sµi#!
After her husband died I had the "pleasure" of helping my sister in the US make sense of her IRS declaration. Ha! For those who've never seen one it's the size of a mail order catalogue and come with a handy god-knows-how-many-pages "explanatory" book (it's too big to be called "booklet").
When you've sorted out your own bureaucracy then you have the right to criticise that of others. How'd d'ya like them apples, Yank?
Complain about this comment
" #229. WhiteEnglishProud:
will there ever be a new blog topic?"
I think that everything's on hold until you come clean about who's responsible for your annoyance about your number plate. ;-)
Complain about this comment
226. Jukka_Rohila:
Thanks for the tip about make right mouse click. I also use FF3 but the fault doesn't lie there. It really some seem to be in the comment window itself.
Is there any possibility that one of the mod's will pick up this point and set the BBC to UK English?
Complain about this comment
Kalense and Comment225 that "...EU documents... not... anit-democratic plot.."
The example you gave of the EU's Technical introduction to some import regulations was superb.
That you actually used the contents of the Official Journal as a way of defending and explaining the EU's linguistic etc. intentions is priceless and as they say, a thing of rare beauty!
How right you are, "..no normally consituted European citizen is likely to read.." such technical jargon foir what is a highly technical, specialist area and certainly aimed at preventing financial activity "detrimental" to EU members.
Now, as for the much less technical and entirely non-specialist requirements of those UK Citizens who like myself oppose membership of the EU please allow me to set things down clearly:
1) The UK Electorate require a Referendum on whether or not the UK should remain in the EU.
2) The Referendum on EU Membership to be held at the earliest possible moment.
3)... errr. well, there isn't..
Hope that is not too technical a use of language for the EU Commission, EUrotocracy, EU MEPs and UK Politicians to understand and implement.
Afterall, we would not want anything 'detrimental' to occur to the Democratic will of the Citizens of the UK as that would be construed as 'anti-democratic.'
Complain about this comment
#242 - ikamaskeip
I completely agree with you. Have the referendum as soon as you can sort out the question of parliamentary sovereignty and make the out come binding.
Just one question. What on earth does it have to to with "the EU Commission, EUrotocracy, EU MEPs"? It is a matter for the UK government and parliament only. If NuLab won't give you your referndum, what you need is a General Election.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio and Comment 243
Glad you agree on the Referendum.
My comment was in the context of a reply and comment on Kalense 225 comment.
Obviously, I failed to make my language plain enough!
Point I was aiming at was supposed to be slightly jocular in tone about use of 'EU speak' and basic English-speak so that no one could be in any doubt about need for referendum by comparison with Kalense's EU Technical quote.
Think I'm losing thread of my life here, so, will stop.
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
" # 242. ikamaskeip:
as for the ... non-specialist requirements of those UK Citizens who like myself oppose membership of the EU please allow me to set things down clearly:
1) The UK Electorate require a Referendum on whether or not the UK should remain in the EU.
2) The Referendum on EU Membership to be held at the earliest possible moment."
You're making a claim that only a referendum could validate or invalidate. Newspaper polls of a thousand or so people don't count. You would be more honest to preface your statement with "I believe" or "Some of". Or are you in telepathic communication with "the UK electorate"?
A referendum is indeed needed but could we perhaps first have 20 or 30 years of relentlessly pro-EU propaganda spewed out by the redtop press just to balance their relentlessly anti-EU propaganda of the last few decades?
You know, fair play and all that.
Complain about this comment
To Toldyouitwould (236):
No no!
Only in the British class society dogs are barking up the wrong tree while in Nordic social democracy dogs are barking at the wrong tree.
Complain about this comment
#233 Toldyouitwould
"Not cricket, old chap."
I gather, from the English media, that today was perhaps not the best to make reference to that particular sport!
Complain about this comment
#241 greypolyglot
"Is there any possibility that one of the mod's will pick up this point and set the BBC to UK English?"
But since most Europeans (as I understand) learn US rather than UK English, wouldn't that be rather parochial?
Complain about this comment
#242 ikamaskeip
"Citizens of the UK"? What do you mean? Are you referring to those benighted subjects of the "Queen in Parliament" in some of those little offshore islands, who don't even have sovereignty, but allow it to be exercised on their behalf by a bunch of politicians.
What have these subjects got to do with anything, if they don't have the guts to challenge an archaic constitution?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
inflation will sky rocket in eastern europe, the
ukraine has to be sacrifice, in order to make people and investors believe that we touched the bottom.. so this situation doesnt get out of controll...
Complain about this comment
#248 - oldnat
I give an English class for university - mainly law - students and they use me partly for my legal background but also because they say they want 'proper' as opposed to American English. Who am I to argue?
At 247.
I don't know so much. I bet the knighthood cost a few bob. I wonder if they have considered Ebaying honours?
Complain about this comment
oldnat @248
Had to help a bit a small daughter of friends with school English - true, all text-books in US English. And about US, political system, sights, pictures, etc. At that schools can choose text-books to buy and chose somehow I wonder how the US-focused editions. I wondered as clearly in my time there wasn't a single map of the USA to say nothing as a front cover :o), US English was "low vulgarity" no-no, and Soviet school text-books certainly pictures of some ?wool bags? with someone ? in the Parliament forgot who sitting on them. If my memory doesn't fail me. Big Ben pictures and all that. Oliver Twist extracts and some poems about "poor picts driven to the cliffy shores" Or something else happened to them.
University taught both Englishe-s to teachers, with the recommendation to be able to recognise that other wrong one :o) and avoid it like plague in teaching.
If you'd write a word "program", uni teachers would voraciously underline it by two thick red lines.
The general approach was - if you want to use American English - why won't you go write an application to the Dean ask for a transfer to the Moscow university? They'd be happy to have you as a student. Them shameless Moscow don't know what's literary Russian, to say nothing of the proper English.
There is on-going rivalry btw the two Russian capitals; even the linguistics' schools are split up.
Looks like Moscow has won by now!
Complain about this comment
Please threnodio, don't give nice old Gordie any ideas, after all he's almost exhausted the possibilities for selling such merited honours in his crazy rush to find more funds to bail out his sinking ship, Titanic, at least in those days the captain went down with the ship. However it was nice to see one person justifiably getting the MBE for her courage in winning two gold medals at the paralympics, well done Ellie.
Complain about this comment
#251 threnodio
"they say they want 'proper' as opposed to American English"
Take the money, when it's offered - but where did you learn to speak English as it's spoken in Inverness?
Complain about this comment
Funny had the same question asked today by a young Uzbek chap. He gave me a lift to work, like a private taxi. I explained I am late, students waiting, and that students got mad these days - come on time.
On finding out I'm a teacher he began to ask questions:
Can Americans and English understand each other? Are their languages similar? Is it true that if I learn one, I'll be understood by both?
Which one is the literary version? (rest assured I replied in the true spirit of my alma mater.
With a view he might later on spread the news across the whole Uzbekistan. :o)
Then it became even funnier. My conclusion is the schools in Uzbekistan are back to the Middle Ages.
- What was that holiday Russians had here in the beg. of January?
(Christmas)
- What is Christmas? I didn't want to ask at work, pretended I know.
(Birthday of Jesus Christ) :o)
- And that's all?
- What is that holiday you have in spring, when all paint eggs?
(Easter)
- What's that?
(??? Another birthday, of Jesus Christ!)
- He had two?
(I explained approximately)
- What's the egg for?
(symbol of eternal life) (this he liked very much)
Then I paid compliments to the beauty of their ancient "churches".
Laughed like mad. - Not churches! Don't say so! They are mosques!
(We agreed they are mosques.)
- Is it true Obama is muslim?
(I expressed serious doubts)
- He is muslim, all Uzbekistan knows, he is for the musilm world!
(I said comes Easter, we'll see to which church he goes, to figure out the religion. We agreed on that.)
Listened to "Uzbekistan is rich country! Powerful country! Our mosques are 800 years old, and the Mosque here in St. Petersburg - only 200 years!"
(absolutely agreed)
Then came "Do you know the words of the 2nd hymn of the USSR?"
(confessed I don't)
- How can you not? You are a teacher. Teacher is good. People respect teachers. A teacher is respected in any village!.
"Wide is my country, many rivers and fields. From Southern mountains to Nordic seas" tra la la."
We were powerful back then! Much stronger! Was a great country! Strong! All were scared of us! and now you live bad, and we live bad. How much do they pay you, as a teacher? is it allright?
etc.
Complain about this comment
graypolyglot #239
Hahahahaha, you made me laugh. The first time I had to make out my tax return, I couldn't understand it either and felt the same as you do. A lot of people think the US tax code should be made easy so anyone can fill out a tax form. Here's the simplest, the one used in the EU I think;
Line one; enter your income for last year.
Line two; enter the number from line one. That's your tax, send it in.
webalice
Someone clever, maybe Mark Twain said; "America and Britain are two nations divided by the same language."
Actually Americans do not speak the same language Brits do at all although they are adopting many Americanisms. Americans speak what is technically called "The American Language." It is far richer and borrows expressions and words from many other languages. It also is constantly inventing new words and phrases. I take credit for one myself having become exasperated with voice mail messages going back and forth between me and others running around at work, never in our offices at the same time I coined the phrase "telephone tag." (Tag is a child's game, look it up.)
Not only are there many diifferent words, the two languages do not have in common, the sound is very different too. We have regional accents but it much more uniform than it used to be. British have both regional and class accents, many of them and they are all becoming increasingly grating on my nerves the more I hear them. They do not sound pleasant to me at all. Strangely, I'm finding America's southern accent increasingly likeable to listen to.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII #256 : You taught me many things about the language differences in GB and in the US. Here in Eastern Europe, almost the same process is going on as in the US. The English seems to become the common tool of communication as the Russian was in the old days. Hence all those funny expressions the ordinary people are inventing in the day to day contacts they are doomed to establish in order to survive. I do not mean at all the highly educated people whose English is flawless. However, when I listen to the BBC (I mean the TV) I understand almost everything (say at 95-96 %) whilst when I switch to CNN lots of the words become illegible. The pronunciation of the Americans seems to build some additional wall between us. (Of course, I realize that my English is not at all perfect. I am just one of “all those ordinary people”).
Complain about this comment
"248. oldnat:
#241 greypolyglot
"Is there any possibility that one of the mod's will pick up this point and set the BBC to UK English?"
But since most Europeans (as I understand) learn US rather than UK English, wouldn't that be rather parochial?"
So? I am willing to be parochial on this point. This is, after all, the British Broadcasting Corporation not the American or the European.
Complain about this comment
To oldnat (248):
At least here in Finland we are thought proper English.
In the very first language book, the very first story was about ordering fish and chips from an street shop. Followed by stories involving conversations such as...
How do you do?
Very fine thank you.
Could you pass me the tea please?
Of course, here you are.
Thank you very much.
You are welcome.
The whole time from the third grade when the language training began and into the high school the focus was on Britain not to any other country.
The reason... to get at least somebody to speak proper English and not rally English. If we would have been thought American English then nobody would have learned to talk proper English and that would have been a failure.
Complain about this comment
good point, I just updated Google Chrome so that it should no longer tell me I'm spelling words like grey and colour wrongly!
MAII #56, I imagine every language goes through this process, British English certainly does, adding tonnes of new words each year. I wouldn't be so proud of all of them, just like some of the US ones, like "Shock and Awe" or "Friendly Fire".
Complain about this comment
OK folks, you heard it here first. I am dubbing the EU language with a name;
EUish; the official language used by the European Union in official dealings including all legal documents, treaties, and public statements. This language is characterized by arcane and poorly defined words and expressions often used elsewhere by the legal profession to deliberately obfuscate and deceive. The words and expressions are constructed in such manner as to be as flexible as possible for later interpretation after those who authored communications decide what they want them to mean.
Complain about this comment
If we start discussing the American/British English it will go on for ever. The smaller the differences the bigger the debate.
23 different European languages is nothing compared to that debate.
"British English" seems to be a Microsoft definition and not a very accurate one.
In Australia, like most of the English speaking countries, our spelling and grammar is very close to British English. Basically there are only two types of English - United States and Everybody else. Can't think of a suitable word for "Everybody else" English.
However the differences are in fact fairly minor.
Just blame Mr Webster's patriotic urges in the nineteenth century. He thought American would evolve into a separate language and chose distinctive, but genuinely current spellings, for his dictionary. But modern communications are now pushing us back together.
Sorry that wasn't wasn't what I intended to comment on any way.
Technology will solve the problem of a European language.
Everybody will just use their own.
My browser Firefox with an add on called BabelFish translates this debate and any web page into any of 30 languages. Ditto emails. It takes about 2 to 3 seconds.
This will only improve over time, particularly lightweight verbal translators.
It could well be the saviour of minority languages as there would be reduced pressure to regularly use (as opposed to understand) one of the major languages.
So a common European language could be both none and all.
Complain about this comment
261. MarcusAureliusII:
I hate to break this to you but you're too late. That description already applies to some strange argot called "American English".
Complain about this comment
I don't know MA. What is usually spoken in int'l companies here is neither English nor American. I'd call it "baby talk". Simplified at max, from whatever the study base / learning behind an individual had.
As they say"education is what is left out after all you have studied previously is forgotten." :o)
I know there is "Rouglish" or "Ruglish", spoken at the Int'l Space Station. Both hosts (Russians manning the station) and guests are taught for months each other language, so absolutely all know both English and Russian, but somehow when there they start skipping over btw the tongues.
American austronauts are taught very good Russian in Houston austronauts' training base. By the looks of it - that's where best experts in Russian graduate in the US! :o)
Because things are labelled in Russian at the station, etc., and when they jointly fix things.
Two months of intense Russian round o'clock. Russian teachers also work in the European Space Agency cosmonauts/astronauts training centre. And we get yours, American teachers.
So basically all fit but when up over there they get into the playful mood and use the combi. Tradition.
May be helps them to relax, stress and all.
Not many other options for entertainment!
But this is the only place that I am aware of, where Rouglish is applied. Not a very nearby place. :o)
In other places it is of course simply defective either English or Russian or American.
_________
Ivanov! Stand up. Do you speak English?
- Shoh?! (funny muscovite "What?"/ "Chto")
- Sit down, two.
oi need to explain. Here school marks are straight forward, 1-2-3-4-5. Not on a scale 0-100. Three is "Pass", four is "Good", five is "Excellent". Two is "Fail".
And "1" - is reserved for teachers when they get really mad at you. :o)
Like you're are a total goner.
There is also "minus" and "plus" adding tints.
I often mark works "3+". Means - "very very average, but I see you have been trying, you're giving some hopes."
Or "4 -". Means, "Yeah... more or less well. But look at the awful scribble! And you have skipped classes last month! Lazy bone could have done better.
So.
Ivanov, stand up! Do you speak English?
- Shoh?!
- Sit down. Two.
Petrov, stand up! Do you speak English?
- Shoh?!!
- Sit down, two.
Sidorov, stand up! Do you speak English?
- Yes, I do!
- Shoh?!!
Complain about this comment
#259 - Jukka_Rohila
"At least here in Finland we are thought proper English".
Well they thought they taught you proper English. Very well, thank you.
#254 - oldnat
I have heard this thing about Inverness. I was never sure tbh whether it was true or a myth. Certainly English is generally much better spoken in Scotland (and much better written in Ireland) but some of us still have the knack.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (265):
They taught me proper English, but all they got was a another rally driver.
Complain about this comment
#266 - Jukka_Rohila
ROFL
You could have tried your hand at seven symphonies and a fiddle concerto, taken a huge pension and never written another note:-)
Complain about this comment
EEC/EU or whatever you may wish to use to describe so many languages/countries/cultures/religions etc is run as we know by autocrats. Now what is an Autocrat? He/She is a failed student from the universities within the group (and alsewhere) who were studying law. Having failed, stepped dow, cried off. or run away from that institution, they have assembled full of false pride to head the EEC/EU. Now we all know that lawyers (qualified) are the publics gift of gobbledygook and their favourite (well mine anyway) the word "reasonable". See how many times that crops up - and please tell me what is "reasonable"
Complain about this comment
I think Czech leader Vaclav Klaus cuts through the 'speak' barrier and says it all.
Complain about this comment
Still no new blog doh
Mark please come back
greypolyglot
If I thought it would work I would lie and say I agreed with you.
Complain about this comment
robinstp: you show a very poor knowledge of current affairs, perhaps you should try to learn about what goes on in the world, even if you don't like it. The various parts of what you call 'EEC/EU or whatever you may wish to use to describe so many languages/countries/cultures/religions' did not develop in isolation but have a lot in common. I like to concentrate on what we have in common, instead than proclaiming the supremacy of my country/language/culture/religion.
Why don't you apply for a job in a EU institution? It may be a useful experience and help you to either confirm your views or change your point of view.
I don't understand who is the 'autocrat' you are referring to, would it be Barroso, the EU Commissioners, the MEPs? All these people are either elected directly by EU citizens or appointed by the 27 EU governments.
Complain about this comment
270. WhiteEnglishProud:
"If I thought it would work I would lie and say I agreed with you."
You seem to have the measure of me. Yes, I would sooner have honest disagreement, however mistaken, than dishonest agreement, however satisfying. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Does the realisation of National Governments over their loss of power to the E.U, which has been exposed by the economic downturn mean that further intergration will be put on the back burner?
Previous ecconomically difficult times have lead to greater Nationalism in Europe have we learnt from the past?
Or will the Nationalistic furver which usually accompanies a Depression be a huge success for europe and help create a real European Demos?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#126,134,157,160
May I recommend "Eats, Shoots ans Leaves" by Lynne Truss.
Threnodio, thanks for the umlaut correction.
Complain about this comment
#270 WhiteEnglishProud
"Still no new blog doh
Mark please come back"
+
It is half term. He could be in Wales like RP.
Complain about this comment
I meant
Or will the Nationalistic furver which usually accompanies a Depression be a huge success for the E.U (not nessacerally Europe) and help create a real European Demos?
Complain about this comment
#246 Jukka_Rohila
To Toldyouitwould (236):
No no!
Only in the British class society dogs are barking up the wrong tree while in Nordic social democracy dogs are barking at the wrong tree.
++++
What are you thinking 'up' means?
Complain about this comment
A monster is on the way..
Ukraine will default in few days.., followed suite by many other countries.... inflation will rise....people cannot afford to buy.. production will stall.. and inflation will rise even further.. famine will rise.. and unrest will spread..
france is on line to social break down..
germany will have to stabilize its neighbor.. by entering troops in france so it doesnt spread..
Complain about this comment
immigration to us and canada will start.. italy the most affected..
Complain about this comment
#276 - Toldyouitwould
They are a talented lot, these Beeb people. Did you notice RP managed to be in the north getting his head chewed off by dissatisfied Northern Rockers while at the same time taking the West Wales air?
So heaven knows where the Mardell twins are.
Complain about this comment
#278 - Toldyouitwould
#246 - Jukka_Rohila
The only relationship my English dogs ever had with English trees was far more basic in nature.
(Disclaimer: Any relationship between what my dogs did to trees and Gordon is doing to Britain is purely coincidental).
Complain about this comment
Good evening, everybody.
Mr Mardell must be chasing someone for us; somebody interesting, full of enlighting news. and un-catchable. un? barely audible. ?
somebody hard to catch.
(Jukks, must be it's you.)
Anyway display some initiative. So many bloggers are acquainted here and have nothing to say to each other to keep up a company? Easy. 27 states. Red or black. Put stakes on a number. I think the next one will be about ? Finland. Or the NATO meeting today. Which number is NATO?
Certainly, black!
:o)
Complain about this comment
Lots of interesting remarks on US English ( should that be U/S? ).
The Americans have started to drop the H on herbs whereas we Brits would only do it when using 'fine herbs' probably from a menu.
They do have a problem with 'entrepreneur' and I really do not know where they are going with 'laboratory'.
They have not conceded anything French like centre or manoeuvre.
I have noticed they drop the second 'l' sometimes as in 'canceled'.
We used to use 'gotten' but dropped it over time but our USA friends did not.
Complain about this comment
#281 threnodio
#276 - Toldyouitwould
"They are a talented lot, these Beeb people. Did you notice RP managed to be in the north getting his head chewed off by dissatisfied Northern Rockers while at the same time taking the West Wales air?"
+
One must assume that one of them is a cheap plastic impersonation.
But which one?
Going up North was akin to p**ing through someones letter box then knocking on the door to see how far it went.
Complain about this comment
#282 threnodio
#278 - Toldyouitwould
#246 - Jukka_Rohila
The only relationship my English dogs ever had with English trees was far more basic in nature.
+
When they do that to a tree, the dog uses his leg to stop the tree falling over, right?
Complain about this comment
threnodio, @282
On the other hand haven't seen Roger once wrong, in barking that "up" process. It is always the tree with the cat. I told him many times "there is nothing there" but he replied "oh there is", and, on close inspection... Curious, how the expression appeared at all.
_______
Saw a new serie oof "economy" jokes today
"What is it - international division of work?"
Germany produces car engines, Sweden - wheels for it, Italy - the body, Switzerland - electronics, Russia - fuel, France - puts it all together, China produces buyers for this car and America - money for the purchase.
Students - they aren't scared by crisis.
They have exam session, twice a year.
What's for them is some "crisis".
A telephone call to the bank:
- Do you give bank loans to the patients of the psycho-neuro-hypohondria hospital?
- Yes, but at a crazy percentage.
Complain about this comment
To WhiteEnglishProud (273) and (277):
Since you asked...
...on power and economic downturn...
The effect will be further integration. What has happened in the EU, especially in finance and banking, is that individual member states have had two kind of cases forming, cases where they have formal power but no real power to back it up, or cases where they don't have formal authorization to use power but have to use real power.
Examples of these are multinational banks whose poor investments especially to Eastern European countries have forced not only the parent country of the bank to act, but forced other countries to act where the bank has had sizable operations. For example Finland has had to take loans to give loans to both Latvia and Iceland in order to make sure that these economies don't collapse and take with them Swedish banks whose fall would risk the continued operation of the Finnish banking sector.
So in essence my country's government is forced to loan money to other countries in order that banks from another country wouldn't collapse. Now I do understand our reasons to help, but that is my money out there and I want something in return. Either we should have right to control and regulate these parent banks or control and regulation of these banks are transferred to an EU organization.
Erkki Liikanen, ex-Commissar, already made a public suggestion that at least in the Eurozone the control and regulation of multinational banks would be given to a common EU wide body.
Also what I don't like is that the ECB is giving out or organizing loans to non-Eurozone countries and loans to non-EU countries. I know that they are doing the right thing, but again that is my money, that is the money of all Eurozone citizens and I want some formalization of these arrangements and I want some oversight to these operations.
What I believe happens due to this downturn is that more and more power especially in financial and banking sectors is given to an European wide body. However when that is done, we also need formal arrangements and oversight. So we will have further integration, there is no question about it, there just ain't no other option around that fact.
Complain about this comment
#265 threnodio
Yes it's a myth. But like most myths, it has some factual basis.
It's simply that the Gaels learned English as a second language, and they learned "English English", not "Scots English" - then confused the whole thing by using much of an underlying Gaelic grammatical structure! As in
"Is it yourself that will be coming?" meaning "Are you coming?"
Complain about this comment
" # 284. Toldyouitwould:
The Americans have started to drop the H on herbs whereas we Brits would only do it when using 'fine herbs' probably from a menu."
I find it quite amusing that they're doing their best to pronounce "herbs" the way that the French do.
And I'm quite looking forward to the country going officially bilingual - at least in the southern states.
Complain about this comment
#288 - Jukka_Rohila
On a nice day without a cloud in the sky and everyone full of sunshine, I could almost believe you - but I am afraid WEP is right. In times of crisis, everyone is looking out for themselves. Look at the political furore that was caused by a small number of Italians working perfectly legally in the UK.
The sad truth is that the political extremes will always benefit from situations like these. Rampant nationalism will not get the upper hand in the democracies because fortunately there are enough voices of reason to temper that but it will not be for the want of trying. This crisis will not derail the complete project but it will slow it down and maybe change it's direction slightly.
It is becoming clear to me that we are never going to convince sceptical opponents with lofty ideals and noble rhetoric. It is time the EU to rolled up its sleeves and get its hands dirty. Only results will prove the point.
Complain about this comment
#289 - oldnat
Interesting. I am sure it sounds different but it reads almost like an Irish person - 'would you be after . . . ?" - doubtless for the same reason.
Brownedov has joined in on the other blog if and has interesting thoughts about the Scots model.
Complain about this comment
one of the things i have noted is that the english tend to poo poo someone who speaks in a funny way and uses wrong language ... it is a royalist thing and it is a sense of arrogance.... i hope one day the english tend towards a sensitive approach to the flaws of mankind.... it is time to speak in toungues as i say ... if your heart is true you will never misunderstand the other person ... england has a history of diplomatic cunningness from centuries of war .... this diplomatic cunningness will be their downfall in the next century.... i predict this now in this very blog...and i know why
i also wish to add this comment ... for anyone to be part of the eu governent the rule is you must speak and write 3 languages. english french and german....
i was discriminated against by an eu company becuase i fell short and i agree that i should not have had the posting
life is simple when you are strong and honest !
Complain about this comment
Oldnat and Comment249.. "What have these subjects (UK Citizens with a Monarch as head of state) got to do with anything if they don't have the guts to challenge an archaic constitution?"
Written with all the conceited superiority of the EU promoter: i.e. 'We know better than you little people.'
Bet you even claim to believe in Democracy!?
Of course the UK 'archaic constitution' as you describe it has stood the test of evolution over many centuries. Whereas the European Union could not even win approval from its own Citizens in Referenda on a constitution!
As early as November 2007 the future President of France Nicholas Sarkozy was stating, "..we (EU) cannot hold Referendum on the Constitution (simplified version)... it will be lost again in France.. "
No doubt from your eminent pro-EU stance you approve of denying the European Citizens a Referenda voice on their future because of course, why should, "..these subjects..," be considered when you know so much more than them!
greypolyglot and Comment 245 that "...newspapers polls of a thousand people don't count (in UK demand for referendum on membership)... and, "..need for 30 years pro-EU propaganda to counteract redtop anti-EU.."
No I make no claim to a telepathic understanding of the UK Citizens' wishes on the UK's continued membership of the EU.
No, I prefer factual displays:
Mori Poll of 6,000 UK Citizens in July 2005.
Question: Should the UK Govnt approve the treaty establishing the EU Constitution?
Yes 22% - - - - No 56% - - - - D/K 22%
Question: Should the UK Govnt hold a referendum on the EU Constitution even though Netherlands and France have rejected it?
No 21% - - - - Yes 67% - - - - D/K 12%
Then there's the Gallup Flash Barometer Survey of UK Attitudes to the EU Nov 2007.
Question: Who is entitled to be an EU Citizen?
42% of UK respondents knew EU Citizenship was compulsory (since PM Thatcher signed the Maastricht Treaty 1992 without offering the UK Citizens a Referendum).
Question: Are you, as a UK Citizen, well informed about the EU?
70% of UK Citizens said No. (Unsurprising)
Interestingly, the same Question, asked across the EU produced these results:
78% Latvians said No.
76% of French said No. (I'm amazed, too)
72% Portuguese said No.
70% Italians and Greeks also said No.
Now, they cannot all have been reading the same English redtops that you blame for all that anti-EU propaganda!
The lack of EU credibility goes on: A YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph in November-December 2008 and published january 2008 had the following results.
Question: Should the UK leave the EU immediately without negotiation - 16% Yes, (I too, am glad so few actually think that's a sensible approach to our friends and neighbours across the Channel and Irish Sea).
Question: Should the UK insist on renegotiation with the EU to effect a much reduced (particularly Political and Judicial) compulsory membership - - 48% Yes (not as high as I would have anticipated).
Question: Should a Referendum be held by the UK on approval of the Lisbon Treaty - -
64% Yes - - - - 22% No.
Finally, I will take the performance of the European Union Parliament.
In 1979 63% of EU Citizens entitled to vote, did so. In the UK it was almost 58%.
In 2004 48% of EU Citizens entitled to vote, did so. In the UK it was almost 44%.
The above negativity certainly justifies the need for a UK Referendum on EU membership.
I voted 'YES' in PM Wilson's Common Market Referendum in April 1975.
So far as I recall the Mirror was staunchly pro-CM and has always remained so. At the time of the vote the Telegraph, Mail, Times all advised their readership to vote Yes to membership.
Interestingly, I think you will find 2 of those 3 have now 'changed sides' and are anti-EU, so, not your redtops (Sun and Express are also anti, but, were not always so).
I really think the proponents of the EU have to get away from this preconception that it is 'little englanders', latent 'imperialists' and shere 'ignorance' among the British Public that gives rise to the pronounced anti-EU sentiment of the majority of Citizens. The average UK Public are really much more sophisticated than the 'redtops' give them credit for. They may still wrap their fish and chips in them, but, they also frequently go abroad, watch a multiplicity of television, access the internet etc. (UK, according to the EU's statistics (!) is in the top5 of High Tech equipment users) and interact with foreigners (for want of a more useful description) at all levels far more than was true in the 1950s to 1970s.
The UK Public have long expressed a desire for these islands to be granted the right of self-determination. Whether, in the full glare of the reality of 'going it alone' sufficient numbers could be persuaded to stick with the EU in the spirit of unity that 70%+ of us felt in 1975 is in the realms of conjecture? No G.B. Westminster Government of any major Party seems willing to risk what they foresee, as I do, a negative response. NuLab, Conservative, Lib-Dem all recognise the UK Citizen (and here, I actually mean the English, as Scots, Welsh, N.Irish can all go their own way), have taken a severe and longterm dislike to the ever encroaching, manipulative and thoroughly undemocratic European Union.
The decision today by the European Court of Justice ordering the UK Government to pay compensation to the terrorist Qatada is just the symptomatic of the overall impression that the EU is not to be trusted and is out of step with English interests.
In the end, I am afraid, it is the EU that spews out the propaganda which is anathema to the UK Citizens. This will ultimately result in either a 'No' vote, or, in that tragic rarity in these Isles, civil disorder, on a scale that no Government will be able to resist.
Complain about this comment
Webalice
"Simplified at max, from whatever the study base / learning behind an individual had.
As they say"education is what is left out after all you have studied previously is forgotten"
It is too bad your computer doesn't have sound. Here is a very funny link to Father Guido Sarducci's five minute university where you can take a full university course and get a college degree in five minutes for twenty dollars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4
Complain about this comment
We had 4 people accused of (not actual murder)(not order of murder) but being related to the murder organisation acquitted by ? what's the English name? the jury? those 12 ordinary people today.
Murder of Anna Politkovskaya.
It is a plaque with the jury practice in Russia - they acquit everybody. Must be because the proofs that police investigation and the prosecution side present - never convince ordinary people.
Basically what they seem to say every time "may be these are guilty. But you have not worked well to collect the evidence, so get lost, prosecution."
In this case I have no idea. Anna's newspaper co-journalist, another lady, said 2 weeks ago she's sure the two Chechen brothers arrested were part-taking, and she hopes very much they won't be acquitted. Same said today the Editor in Chief of Anna's newspaper, like, damn! the only threads to the murderer - are let free." These 2 were tracing her the days before the murder, keeping under control, her movements around the city. One would wonder why!!!! The third brother was believed to be the killer, but he was able to vanish.
The case is nightmare I think police are scared to dive into Chechnya to search well. Besides, we seem to have a "non-agression pact" btw Russia and Chechnya. That we don't poke there, whatever happens.
"Our own" country. For a sec.
This seems to me to be one of the results of this "arrangement". On the surface Russian-Chechen relations sorted out. But try to put your nose in there.
Read the interview of the lawyer of the men who were accused, now not guilty. He of course said they have nothing to do with the murder, his strong belief. Echo of Moscow took the interview. "I am glad Russian jury showed today that Russia is objective" etc. The lawyer is also Chechen.
I don't know who is guilty.
But I watched the looks of the two happy brothers, before they were acquitted. Such brazen grinning and happy laughter thrughout the process, and it doesn't seem to be a nervous break, oh no. Intentional, and very assaulting seemed to me.
Now the proesecution is at the dead end, will have to start all over again. 1,5 years later, great. And where will they look, I wonder. Where? In Moscow again? It's, like,"why do you look for your purse under the lamp-post, if you lost it in the other street? - Because it's light here.
Complain about this comment
MA, every time I get myself together to buy a note-book something happens last time dog got ill all money in a week for vets. I am plain scared even to think in that direction.
I will have to do it somehow off-handedly and without any pupose just by chance, sneakedly buy when nobody sees.
Complain about this comment
#294 - ikamaskeip
The statistics you quote are consistent in one other respect which ought to worry you as a sceptic as much as they worry me. 22% Don't know in one poll, 12% don't know in the next, 58% turnout in '79, only 44% in '04.
I don't see this as negativity as you put it. I see it as downright indifference and that suggests to me that the anti-EU lobby is not as strong as you infer. If people are antagonistic towards something, they tend to come right out and say so. The level of indifference tends to suggest the opposite - that people on balance may be inclined to opt for the status quo because they don't actually see the issue as relevant to them.
Now please don't misunderstand. I would far rather win the argument outright than by default but the ends justify the means either way. Oldnat will doubtless respond in his own way but I would like to point out that he was referring to British constitutional issues which will not go away whatever the UK decides about Europe.
One other question is that of dismissing Europhobes as some kind of elitist counter democratic force as though we are aliens. We have arrived at our positions, no doubt as you have, through thought and deliberation and are happy to state our cases in the democratic forum. I for one have said that I would support your call for a referendum. Comments like "the conceited superiority of the EU promoter" and "the EU that spews out the propaganda which is anathema to the UK Citizens" do not serve your cause well. In fact, I detect a faint hint of desperation.
Are you sure you have won the argument?
Complain about this comment
#294 ikamaskeip
Not sure why you bothered to post all that opinion poll stuff. That's only what the individual people think.
Under English Constitutional Law, all that is as meaningless as the views of those who vote on Big Brother.
Your constitution which "has stood the test of evolution over many centuries", is quite clear that sovereignty lies with "the Queen in Parliament", not the people. So accept the consequences of that - unless you are an MP, a Lord, or the Queen, your opinion (and that of every other voter) is of no concern - other than at an election - (and under FPTP, only if you are a floating voter in a marginal constituency).
If you don't have even a basic understanding of the flaws in your own constitution, you are not well placed to criticise other systems.
If you don't like the English doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, then do something about it - don't come whining on to the blogs like Kevin the Teenager.
Complain about this comment
Poor Europe no news. :o) Another thing here, never boring a day!
One Thursday:
1. Politkovskaya's murder last day of the trial. Failure with a bang.
2. Ukraine warned Russian ambassador he'll be shortly kicked out. We have a very spectacular chap there for years, former Gazprom tubes constructor, times 1970-s, when we just began pulling tubes together with Western Germany.
He said a couple of hearty words ab Ukrainian management style to an acquaintance journalist in Moscow. The journalist published. Ukraine read and got hysterical. They believe they managed the gas crisis pretty well. The ambassador is blamed he didn't keep dimplomatic neutrality, should have kept his opinion to himself.
Kind of true. But when our Ambassador heard Joushenko 2 days ago said it's time to review the gas deal signed a month ago....
3. Two Russians grabatised by Niger partisans or whatever, workers of a Rus. company there and kept in captivity awaiting a ransom - ran away! Wander in some river delt there 5 days already, give signals "Pick us up ASAP dear Mummy Russia!"
4. A new and exciting scandal is expected at Eurovision.
Thank you, Britain.
The British producer someone "Steven Bath" was helping Georgia to select their Eurovision song. Helped. The song he selected for participation is called "We don't want Put in", of group "Stefane and 3G" (4 ugly looking girls).
Russia petitioned today to the Eurovision "Don't allow political songs".
Russian Eurovision fans are now voting for to chose for us the well known locally popular pop tune of 1990s "My favourite orange tie."
Other heads that are more cool say it's all easy, we don't have diplomatic relations with Georgia since they kicked out our Embassy, so - who exactly will issue visa-s to Moscow for the Georgian girls?
Complain about this comment
karolina001 @279
Don't worry so much about Ukraine. :o)
They are not part of the EU and may never be. They are like Georgia, part of the American continent. So USA will print money for them now.
Especially that 2 weeks ago Ukraine has asked Russia for a 5 bln dollar loan, we were about to give.
But now, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said - "expulsion of an Ambassador is the last step before declaring a war; so a warning to evict an Ambassador is to be viewed as the previous before the last."
Apparently to the Ukrainian president the well-being of his country isn't so important, compared to his flaming desire to spoil success of his Prime Minister. She signed the gas deal, and now seemingly successfully - asked Moscow for the pull-out package.
When he heard Moscow views the request for money positively, Ukr. president urgently did two things:
1. Cut off heating in all Russian-populated cities of Ukraine (Eastern side). "No money for heating in crisis." Dnepropetrovsk is switched off, Donetsk, 6 large cities freezing.
2. Issued a warning to the Russian Anbassador - "one more word - you'll be kicked out."
We are all curious what's next?
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (291):
Well of course we are not going to convince sceptical opponents with 'lofty' ideals and 'noble' rhetoric as you said it, but that is why we are going to send them to ext.. I mean relocation camps to east of Volga to build them a nice EU free zone. Remember people, work makes you free!
On a serious note, I have to add that for quite some time, probably for the next decade or even for a longer time-frame there may not be direct need to make another EU treaty that will organize the EU itself. The Lisbon Treaty in many aspects introduces working framework that accommodate integration for a long time.
After the Lisbon Treaty the next big steps in the integration process will be the introduction of unified defence and extension of the joint army and making of the EU as an sovereign country.
The defence aspect is something that can quite quickly come up. For example Nordic countries have recently had discussions on joint air patrol of the Icelandic air space. That would mean that the fighters of the neutral countries of Sweden and Finland would be flying under the sky of a NATO -country. I do think that is the right decision and can understand why our Hornets would be flying there, but nobody in the public haven't told would our fighters have the authorization and duty to shut down hostile air-crafts? This discussion has also included that all Nordic countries should have a common defence duty to defend each others, this duty would be more directly worded that the current NATO article concerning common defence. I should also add that Sweden has already said that while being neutral it would intervene against any attack against an fellow EU country.
I should also add that like with the Nordic defence co-operation, the integration is dictated by the long term needs of the member states, in cases of defence and financial sector, it will only a matter of time before something happens that directly threatens member states in these arenas and thus further integration while not the most popular option will be advantaged by states and parliaments no matter what coalition is in power.
For example without common financial and banking regulator, in less than a decade we will have an even bigger banking crisis in the Eurozone, a massacre to say, as movement to SEPA will make whole Eurozone a domestic market and thus increased competition and formation of more multinational or virtual banks will lead them to take more risks while national controllers and regulators have decreasing ability to do their jobs. This is a direct need that all states and central banks know and thus further integration in this segment will follow.
No, we will have further integration, maybe not pompous new treaties, but integration due to practical needs and via current framework.
Complain about this comment
"..and please tell me what is "reasonable"?"
The sustained and deliberate use of this word by common law lawyers has a curious origin. It derives from the "reasonable man" test in law, whereby the judge estimates an action or statement according to whether a "reasonable man" would find it acceptable behavior. So you can have a "reasonable man" test for concepts such as danger, or honesty. In corporate law, the hypothetical "reasonable man" is often asked what directors knew about, and what they did not, and so on.
Now the use of this principle is widespread in law, and it is also steeped in fallacy. It does not take a lawyer to understand that when a judge applies the test of the reasonable man, he is merely putting his own opinion into a legalistic framework. He substitutes his own perceptions for the fictitious "reasonable man", and declares that he has applied the LEGAL TEST ACCORDING TO PRECEDENT.
Which, of course, he has. The legal test has indeed been set by precedent. The history of law is overflowing with judges who declare themselves reasonable men.
So that is why lawyers use the term so often. It is a mantra, a magical spell that is effective on the broad mass of sentient minds. If you say it often enough, folks believe it.
In terms of what constitutes a reasonable man at law, I can tell you that it is about 60 years old, white, privileged by birth, and generally fairly reasonable. Oh, and male, of course. *cough*
Complain about this comment
All the lawyer bashing on this thread is undignified. It is also deeply hypocritical.
Folks who criticize lawyers always want to talk about the rules, and how the rules would be better if they were simpler, and so on.
And then when the rules go against them, they squeal for specialist lawyers like a pig demanding mud.
Lawyers have hard lives. They deal with the problems of privileged people. Always you are faced with problems, like a doctor in a mental hospital. People might be rich enough to afford lawyers and political careers and such, but they still have endless lists of problems.
And a lawyer, unlike a doctor in a mental hospital, can't reach for the tranquilizer gun when things get crazy.
Lawyers are not your problem, people of europe. It is the rich people who fail law and declare themselves democrats who are your big problem.
Complain about this comment
" # 293. miafrika:
for anyone to be part of the eu governent the rule is you must speak and write 3 languages. english french and german...."
There is no "EU government" as such but I take it that you mean the institutions of the EU such as Commission, Council, etc. The rule there is indeed 3 languages but that means ANY 3 of the languages e.g. Spanish, Italian and Greek. In reality though it would be almost impossible to work there without either French or English. UK language teaching is so poor I wonder how many young Britons will even be eligible for such a job in the years to come?
"i was discriminated against by an eu company becuase i fell short and i agree that i should not have had the posting"
That was a decision taken by the company and not something required by the EU.
Complain about this comment
#273 WhiteEnglishProud wrote: „Or will the Nationalistic fervor which usually accompanies a Depression be a huge success for Europe and help create a real European Demos”.
We know how it happens in depression times. As the French would put it: “Chacun pour soi, Dieu pour tous” (One should look after himself, Lord should look after all of us). The problem is whether the EU can meet successfully this challenge. Are we able to preserve the existing system or all of us shall cry out the same slogan: British jobs for the British, French jobs for the French, etc.? And the union shall fall apart very soon...
I agree with your arguments. But have you got the right answers?
Back to the topic: if we agree that the English is to be the unofficial tool of communication within the EU (no matter whether it is English English, British English or American English), shall we advance as a main principle of our existence the preservation (at any coast) of the union itself based on the Christian values and the common traditions?
Complain about this comment
To democracythreat (304):
Yes yes, all fine and good, but you know what...
Let me ask you all commentators a question... After a hard working day wouldn't it raise a smile into your face if you knew all lawyers with their precious law books were in Siberia taking course of survival without food or warmth in -40C? ...It would certainly make me feel warmth inside.
I should also add that lawyers are an over-head element in all societies, thus it's in the interest of the society to keep that over-head at minimum while still keeping the society functioning. Actually the less you have lawyers the better the society does, just compare United States of Lawyeristan or USA to Nordic countries where the lawyer population has been kept in check and not allowed to breed uncontrollably.
Complain about this comment
Where is Mark?
Complain about this comment
" #308. Gheryando:
Where is Mark?"
Stop nagging! I expect he's either working hard on his next report or he's been taken ill.
Complain about this comment
Does the BBC really not understand the difference between a translator and and an interpreter?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7900276.stm
Complain about this comment
294.The decision today by the European Court of Justice ordering the UK Government to pay compensation to the terrorist Qatada is just the symptomatic of the overall impression that the EU is not to be trusted and is out of step with English interests.
European Court of Human Rights is not the same as the European Court of Justice. The former has nothing to do with the EU but with the Council of Europe.
Complain about this comment
" #294. ikamaskeip:
I make no claim to a telepathic understanding of the UK Citizens' wishes on the UK's continued membership of the EU.
I prefer factual displays:
... there's the Gallup Flash Barometer Survey of UK Attitudes to the EU Nov 2007.
Question: Are you, as a UK Citizen, well informed about the EU?
70% of UK Citizens said No. (Unsurprising)
I really think the proponents of the EU have to get away from this preconception that it is 'little englanders', latent 'imperialists' and shere 'ignorance' among the British Public that gives rise to the pronounced anti-EU sentiment of the majority of Citizens."
So, if 70% of UK citizens are poorly informed about the EU and it is not their "ignorance ... that gives rise to the pronounced anti-EU sentiment of the majority of Citizens" please explain what does if it is not "red-top propaganda" (for our non-UK readers, the newspapers with the biggest readership have red titles on the front page)
Then you conflate lack of knowledge with anti-EU sentiment. Even if the citizens of Latvia, France, Portugal, Italy and Greece acknowledge that they are also relatively uninformed they are still more pro-EU than are the British (maybe it's just the English)
If, as some have alleged, there is already plenty of "pro-EU propaganda" out there how is it that so many people are poorly informed? Is it right that people take major decisions while "poorly informed"? Maybe the anti-EU lobby prefer it that way?
Personally, I prefer to see everyone well informed and THEN take their decisions - whatever the outcome.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, you must be a lawyer. Who else would defend them. Rich people don't have to go to law school. They buy lawyers to assert their interests over everyone elses. They get the best laws and justice money can buy. Nobody feels sorry for them except other lawyers. They win, they get paid. They lose, they get paid. They are incompetent and blow a case they should have won, if they get sued, they are defended by other lawyers who worry they will be in the same spot one day. And if they lose that, they have insurance to pay for their mistakes. Same with doctors. In the US lawyers love sueing doctors. That's why doctors need malpractice insurance. And you have to pay big for a medical expert, another doctor to testify against an incompetent doctor who injured or killed someone, they have their own code of protecting each other from their mistakes. I've got a slew of both of them. Lawyers hate going to court to fight for you and doctors always have an excuse why you aren't getting better. Usually if you do get better, it's inspite of them, not because of them. Unlike lawyers and doctors, luckily for us most other diseases are what is called "self limiting."
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot and Comment 298.
No hint of desparation at all!
It is absolutely clear the overmighty, all-embracing, one-size-fits-all EU pronouncements are the "propaganda" that has turned (I believe) most of the UK electorate against it.
I note your reply cagily took the line of least resistance used by the Duke of Wellington, there's lies and then there's damned statistics, which can be used to prove anything (as I alluded to in my final paras, I do agree the result of a Referendum is up for debate)
As for oldnat and Comment 299!
Your contemptuous remarks do you no credit at all.
If you had bothered to follow my Comments' use of statistical analysis you would have realised it was directly in response to greypolyglot suggesting redtop newspaper surveys were unreliable (something I readily agree with). However, You dismiss 'analysis' even when it is by the internationally recognised Polling company hired by the EU to carry out such work!
"Kevin maybe a whining teenager", he maybe unworldly and in the longterm who is to know what will become of him, however, Kevin has every bit as much right as you to voice his opinion in a Democracy long assured by by Sovereign authority. It is the very uniqueness of the UK's unwritten but Statute based Constitution that is its strength and something that UK Citizens recognise is severely threatened by a duplicitous Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis of ill-intent towards these British Isles.
That you would denounce and belittle Kevin is symptomatic of your inability to tolerate the right and responsibility of Citizens to decide things/make up their own minds: It is something called 'free-will'.
Over centuries in this Monarchial-Parliamentary hierarchical system of checks and balances the UK has found 'free-will' to be of inestimable value in ensuring the independence and strength of the Democracy you and Kevin enjoy.
A Democracy you would sooner the Kevins of this world were denied because you know so much more than us "little people", don't you!
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (314):
Axis of ill-intent :-)
I want to invent too!
Axis of incompetence, Westminster - Washington
That sounds quite right...
So we have...
Axis of evil, Tehran - Pyongyang
Axis of ill-intent, Paris - Brussels - Berlin
Axis of incompetence, Westminster - Washington
What other axis of there are in the world? Anyone invent some more?
Complain about this comment
I am sorry for interrupting the talk.
It seems there have formed three themes for discussion?
Importance of lawers; unity of the EU and whether the crisis time will affect/improve/
or spoil it; language requirements for someone willing to work at a EU institution.
_________
"Who about what, and a hanged man - about a rope!" :o) I read the BBC article on NATO meeting continued, that it's discussed in earnest Ukraine and Georgia, their route to the NATO membership.
I can imagine Georgia in NATO, allright. They are hostile to Russia after the war, focused on revenge. Naturally by themselves, plus their President effort, plus their kind of militaristic Patriarch effort, who declared war for lost territories a sacred war.
In other words Georgians won't object NATO on their ground as they want to use it to get the lost territories back.
One can imagine it as a first NATO aircarft flight over the Georgia in its full integrity; a strike at the aircraft from the ground in Abkhasia; a return strike back to the ground.
Russia gets a dozen thousand more run-aways from the war, Abkhasia becomes empty of civil population and functions solely as a Russian military base exchanging shots with NATO from time to time.
But what about Ukraine? There the layout with the NATO troops on the ground will resemble more the Vichy government rule in France. With Russians in Ukraine better partisans than the French I dare say. :o)
It is totally un-imaginable. The head of NATO can not not to know that each and every NATO officials' trip to Ukraine went under scandals of huge protesting crowds, they are not blind not to notice huge posters - not in hands only, I mean - along the roads, all Crime, size 6x3, like normal corporate advertising posters.
So NATO knows the population do not want them but still presses on to be in Ukraine.
Having the application of the Ukrainian President in hands as justification.
Since he is about the only man in Ukraine who wants NATO, NATO will have to hurry up before their next Presidential elections.
There might be a money swap now - loans to Ukraine to survive the crisis in exchange for NATO base.
Then the situation becomes utterly puzzling for Russians here and Russians in Ukraine.
NATO isn't all Americans and Dutch.
Imagine there are Bulgarians, and Finns, serving in those NATO bases in Ukraine.
?
Normal reaction in Crimea to NATO troops would be, how to put it nicely. Simply what you do to the occupants on your ground.
Occasional soldiers going out to the city in small groups, ships anchored at bay, staff canteens - all of interest, to put it shortly.
What would a NATO soldier do when in the city and shot at? He'll shoot back.
Whose duty would be to catch the criminal local? Ukraine's police.
If this seems to you an imaginative scenario, look at Kyrgyzstan. There a local took out a pen-knife. And the American from the NATO base shot him on the spot.
Locals say he wanted a trade, American said the local was a killer and he simply protected himself. USA didn't give the American to the court in Kyrgistan naturally, population raged and protested. Anyway this incident was used as one of the reasons why Manas base was voted out by Kyrgyz parliament. "we have no justice, NATO on the ground un-touchables."
And that's quiet Kyrgyz, not energetic Ukrainians. To these just give a reason.
And overall all becoms mad. Direct idiotic question - do you swim to bay and clip a mine under the NATO ship bottom if everyone on the shore knows it is, say, a Bulgarian vessel?
Would America care about civil war in Ukraine? No. They are far.
Would Europe care?
Looks like not either.
Poor Ukraine.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be a lot of reliance in this thread on statistical evidence most of which is drawn from woefully small samples and some it based on loaded questions. Taken together, it is possible to infer a number of things.
First of these is that the vast majority do not give a flying ferret about the EU. If you tell them that it represents by a very large margin the biggest market for goods and services, they will all cry hurrah. If you tell them it is why Italians and Portugese workers are doing the construction project for Total, they will say boo. The bottom line is that they are ill informed and - probably as a direct result - totally indifferent. They just want to get on with their lives.
As a result, a notion of Britishness emerges consisting more or less of flag waving, joining in at the Last Night of the Proms, warm beer at a cricket match and a general misconceived notion that somehow British democracy is superior to all other extant models. Even that is false. That is Englishness, not Britishness.
In such an environment, it is a simple matter to dress up the EU as an overarching anti-democratic monolith which sets out to take power from sovereign governments and pool it in a morass of bureaucratic gobbledygook the better to subvert the will of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But . . .
It is the case that the UK is a net contributor to the degree that roughly all proceeds from VAT go to EU funds. The very good reasons for this have not be properly rehearsed.
It is the case that the European movement on the mainland would like to see a more coordinated and collective responsibility for defence and foreign policy and it is possible to present that as an attack on British interests in respect of the nuclear deterrent, the 'special relationship' with the US, the role in the Commonwealth and the wider anglophone world. This does tend to mitigate in favour of scepticism.
It is also the case that Europe's leaders have failed spectacularly in presenting their case for Lisbon or engaging the people in the decision making process, giving the false impression that democratic accountability in serious deficit.
While I agree with many posters that the debate has to be had, my great fear is that it will be conducted in an atmosphere of half truths, sound bites and disinformation. The prejudice has to be removed and both cases - not to mention the huge grey area in between - presented in an transparent, detailed and rational way.
In order to achieve this, the UK has to be willing to have the debate, strip away the extraneous matter - the internal constitutional arrangements of the UK have nothing to do with the EU - and accept that, for once, this is a cross party issue and take party politics out of the equation.
Until that time, the yellow press (I will not be seduced by political correctness into using 'red top') and the pollsters will have their field day and nothing will be achieved.
Complain about this comment
karolina001 @ 280:
"immigration to us and canada will start.. italy the most affected.."
I am enjoying this babel of conversations but I don't understand what you are talking about here: I don't think the US is a good place to emigrate to at the moment, with unemployment rising and insecure jobs, as for Canada I am not really sure. Unemployment in Northern Italy is among the lowest in Europe but remains high in the South. Southern Italians tend to emigrate to the North of the country or to other EU countries, rather than to US or Canada. Here in Ireland people are fearful of another 1980 style mass emigration to other English speaking countries, in particular Australia.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (316):
Well first of all there won't be no civil war in Ukraine. That won't happen. Reason for this? Money. For Russia civil war in Ukraine would mean financial collapse as the transit of gas to Europe would be cut, for the Europe civil war would in Ukraine would mean small energy crisis, but possibly a huge humanitarian catastrophe. For the US civil war in Ukraine would mean, especially it the civil war is interpret to be controlled from Moscow, an open threat against American hegemony. Conflict in Ukraine is not in the interests of any of the participants and thus won't happen.
What will happen to Ukraine is that it will along with Georgia stay neutral countries until they both are integrated into European Union. However that won't happen before both of these countries will enhance their economic positions and resolve their relations with Russia at least to a satisfactorily level, i.e. Baltics.
I should also add that it is not the mission of NATO soldiers, especially when not in home soil, to patrol local grounds, they are mostly in garrisons and practise areas and when enjoying a vacation out of the garrison they are without their weapons. I should also point out that Ukraine or Georgia joining the NATO would not directly mean creation of new military bases. What NATO is all about is unifying the command structure and standardization of weaponry so that in case of war they can work as an unified force.
PS. Finns patrolling in Ukraine... Oh Alice, but we aren't even in the NATO yet.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot
Then you conflate lack of knowledge with anti-EU sentiment. Even if the citizens of Latvia, France, Portugal, Italy and Greece acknowledge that they are also relatively uninformed they are still more pro-EU than are the British (maybe it's just the English)
So thats ok then it fine for them to be relatively uninformed and Pro-E.U (ie. behave like sheep) No wonder the majority of the English don't want to be part of the E.U when they face this latent rascism at every turn.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio: I am quite certain EU-sceptics have won the argument in the UK and increasingly throughout Europe. I am pretty certain that many remaining EU supporters (including you) are not even capable of understanding the argument, but that does not really matter. Some of you play dumb, some (oldnat) deliberately bamboozle yourself with wordgames to disguise the contradictions in their positions, but that does not really matter. What is important now is having an EU-sceptic majority in the House of Commons. And that will be the case in June 2010.
In the meantime it will be helpful if the Lisbon treaty is not ratified because Nice represents a better starting point for the necessary negotiations on returning powers to nation-states than would Lisbon. I have confidence that the Irish people, and the Czech and Polish presidents will ensure this is the case.
The Treaty of Lisbon would have been better named the Treaty of Stalingrad, because in future it will be seen as the maximum extent of the push for 'ever closer union'; the turning point before the Federalist retreat to their Brussels bunker.
Complain about this comment
#320 - WhiteEnglishProud
Racism? Oh please give me a break. Euro enthusiasts are racist and English isolationists are not - right?
Complain about this comment
WEP (320): High levels of knowledge about the EU is closely associated with EU-sceptic position. When EU supporters (especially those who are or have been on its payroll) start to talk about the need for more information about the EU, they are actually asking for an increase in the EU Communications (i.e. propaganda) budget. The very last thing they want is that the general public does actually understand the EU better because that would mean more EU-sceptics.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
What would you call it then? Euro ethusiasts constantly denigrate the English/British because they dare to disagree with them. As i said its "latent Racsim"
They make no such attacks on the E.U sceptics from other countries!
Complain about this comment
US is loosing grip of ukraine, pro western forces are down on popularity, and it seems it is becoming ever expensive to keep a monster by feeding it with money more and more.. Ukraine is like Saab in Sweden, GM left it, US will leave it..
Complain about this comment
people take security for garanted in europe.. but who goes now, will be able to take with him the wealth, who goes later will just save himself.. and who goes last, will just save his skin.
italy is not stable with so many immigrants, who in absence of rule of law..
sovreign defaults are inevitable.. who goes first wins, last will just save his skin.
Complain about this comment
check the markets today, and you will notice that the situations is out of control,
deepes fall will occur, unless there is a return into capitalism.. real capitalism..
the strongest wins..
feelings, solidarity, or compation will not help..
gold is up, but is not the solution..
the solution is a new system, a new era..
change has not yet come but it will come soon..
what we need so much gold when there will be no production, and people relate the value of it with money.. but not to real production and necesity.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila and Comment 315.
Yes, there's a lot of axis about and in my case, as you've spotted, an axe to grind!
Still, on your inventive language theme, how about:
A 'Finno-Kalevalan axis of Sampo-EU self-interest', meaning, the EU is Finland's new delightful "Land of the Heroes"!
Just as a, 'Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis of ill-intent', means, the EU is the sordid bane of the UK's islands!
For should it not be well remembered my Suomalainen ystava how: Tiera cautioned, "never is it known unto us,
never known and never guessed at, what the pathway is that leads us") - - - and thus, Answered lively Lemminkainen:
"Let those whom the sorcerers harassed,
And bewitched with eyes of evil,
Let them make their journey homeward,
And regain their native country.
Be the sorcerers' selves enchanted,
And with songs bewitched their children;
Let their race for ever perish,
And their race be brought to ruin!"
Rune XXX
EU-speak has nothing on the ancient sagas!
Complain about this comment
How can 100 EU leaders can give help to 500.000.000 peope...???
who are this 100, that nobody knows them.. except what you read about them in some constructed CV..
they are shadows, and shadows cannot rule.. they lack respect.. and they are like Stanford, with lavish lifestyle
Complain about this comment
#321 - Freeborn-John
I perfectly capable of understanding your argument insofar as you have one. I simply happen to disagree with it.
However, I could live without the gratuitous condescension.
As I have said repeatedly, if that is what you want, it is in your own hands. The EU does not interfere in the UK's electoral process. This is an issue for the British people.
Complain about this comment
#324 - WhiteEnglishProud
Well firstly we do argue with them but why would we do so on an English blog they don't read?
Secondly, I thought more highly of your views than to imagine that you would resort to playing the racist card. I don't agree with you. That does not mean I am prejudiced against you.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
I don't agree with you. That does not mean I am prejudiced against you.
I never said you were, I admit that is a mistake of my own making. The term E.U enthusiasts was too broad. However I maintain albiet with a heavy heart that the constant English bashing that comes from a number of Pro-E.U commentator on this site and else where does constitute 'latent Racism'
Arguing and debate is fine but this is something different. ( i do not accuse you of this.)
Complain about this comment
threnodio
About E.U and my paticular objections.
I believe that European Co-operation is essential, on many issue however i stuggle to reconcile the need for an Pan National Government against my belief that a decision should always be made at the most local layer of Government possible.
I reconginse that in the UK this means political changes are needed to.
However as the E.U takes over more of the decision making process, the ability of the UK government to give more power to local government (if it was ever minded to do so) is reduced.
In my Opinion the top layer of Government should be small in power and then each layer below should have more.
The E.U is power hungry and already top heavy.
Complain about this comment
threnodio (331): the replies you have posted before indicate you do not understand the argument. If you say you understand, but post replies indicating you do not, then i can only assume you being disengenious.
Whether you are just playing dumb to obscure the debate, or are the real thing is not that important. But i see no reason to hide my condecessaion for posts that are either the junk they appear to be at first sight, or are deliberate flak to disrupt discussion between those who are capable of undertsanding the fundamental reasons that lie behind the lack of legitimacy for decsion-making in Brussels.
Complain about this comment
For one day only, the BBC ran the story: Czech leader scorns EU politics.
I guess the BBC didn't want us EUrosceptics to have a good laugh.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (321):
I think you are forgetting something and that something is the interest of business and economy in general.
For example you probably should count out any support for EU disintegration from Poland. The Polish currency zloty is now sinking, partly because of the economic crisis, but mostly because of currency speculators shorting the currency. The result of zloty devaluation in the market is resulting in increasing money needed to pay interests and pay backs as the debts are Euro nominated. Also the problem is not only about individual loaners who took out currency loans, but also about banks who loaned themselves the money from outside markets. Now if the speculation continues on and zloty sinks more, what can happen is not only the collapse of large parts of the Polish finance and banking sector, but it will also take down huge amounts of businesses.
My friend what is happening right now in many Eastern European are the same things that we took in the 90s. Our learning was that we can't manage all alone, that we need to align ourselves with others, this same argument is right now made all over Europe and after this crisis has ended what you will see is that Eastern European countries will flock to join Eurozone and also continue further integration.
The only thing that I will say about the Czech president is that he is out of his mind, he has brainwashed himself with false ideologies of the Austrian school of economics, all of his thinking are build up on these, all his views and opinions are build on quick sand. What Vaclav Klaus should do is what Alan Greenspan already did, is to admit that he is intellectually bankrupt and views he has represented are false and step down from the office and let more capable person to be the President.
Complain about this comment
#333 - WhiteEnglishProud
That is an interesting point and I can only respond by saying that, in my experience, this is not the case. What you are talking about tends to be national rather than European. France, for example, is a fairly centralised entity whereas in Germany, much of the power is vested in the Laender. In Hungary, local authorities have a considerable degree of autonomy. Britain, again, seems slightly confused about this. Devolution has, for the most part worked well. However, at local level, the fudges that occur between what is county and what is district are not always simple and both levels share the problem that unitary authorities have - that they are so dependent on central government funding that it is difficult to see how they can be independent in practice, whatever it says on paper.
Again, this is entirely a matter for national government and I do not identify the EU with interference in local politics.
Complain about this comment
#334 - Freeborn-John
I have repeatedly posted that I am not persuaded by the present model of European decision making and that I believe there is a democratic deficit which requires addressing. If you are unaware of this, you clearly derive more satisfaction from from insulting other posts than reading them.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
You miss the point.
I fundimentally believe that Power should be transfered from National government to local Government wherever possible in order to have a workable Democracy
The Present situation is Power is being transfered From the UK Government to the E.U.
Therefore no matter how democratric the E.U eventually becomes it will always be less democractic than a national government and Much more undemocratic than Local government.
This is the wrong direction.
So whilst change within the UK is down to national Government, the culture of seeding more power to the E.U takes power further from the people and dilutes Democracy.
Complain about this comment
EU may soon call an emergency situation over out of control markets
Complain about this comment
inflation or deflation occurs in money.. not in comodities.
Complain about this comment
#290 greypolyglot:
"I find it quite amusing that they're doing their best to pronounce "herbs" the way that the French do.
And I'm quite looking forward to the country going officially bilingual - at least in the southern states."
+
The second language would be Spanish and not French I presume.
Complain about this comment
#339 - WhiteEnglishProud
I do see your point which is well made.
My view would be that, since the EU shows no sign of undue interference in local affairs, it would be in everyone's interests for central government to delegate to the greatest extent possible. That would demonstrate a genuine commitment to democracy which seems to me somewhat lacking.
Complain about this comment
#293 miafrika
"one of the things i have noted is that the english tend to poo poo someone who speaks in a funny way and uses wrong language ."
++++
You have been watching Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers versions) then?
We do also lampoon our own use of english from estuary to over-posh english.
A Brit will make a judgement of another Brit within seconds from how they speak.
Complain about this comment
And make federalism a whole lot easier to implement!
Which is why you need a pyramid of power not an hour glass!
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7902107.stm?lss
looks like Italy is finally losing the plot.
Complain about this comment
#314 ikamaskeip
It's not me (or even those nasty Europeans) who say that your opinion is of no importance.
We all think that the people are sovereign, and that the decision of the people is what matters.
It's English Constitutional Law that says Parliament is Sovereign, and your only role in the process is to exercise your vote on those occasions when Parliament allows you to.
My point is simple. There's no point in complaining about Europe, when your impotence is caused by your own English system.
Once you have changed it, then your opinions will matter.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @319
"Alice, Finland is not even in NATO! yet."
That's exactly why we like you! so far. :o)
Jukks, I have bad news for you, well in fact good news, that you can morally justify to yourself your relaxed attitude to Karelia.
We've got legal papers to it. Was looking up Yaroslav Mudry (Wise) rule dates, for another blog, (1015-1054), well his marriage contract states whole Karelia and some mysterious to me so far city of Aldeigjuborg (I hope it is here somewhere) as dowry given after his wife-to-become.
Yaroslav married daughter of Swedish King Olav (or Olaf) (Shetkonung); daughter's name Ingegerda; Karelia was the dowry.
Yaroslav ruled from Kiev, naturally.
Ingegerda and Yaroslav's sons got:
Vladimir - Novgorod
Vsevolod - Pereyaslavl
Vyacheslav - Suzdal
Igor - Smolensk
Izyaslav - Kiev
Vsevolod at the end continued the tsar dynasty, Rurickovichee; married in 1053 Byzantium emperor's daughter Anastasia and their combined son became Vladimir Monomakh.
Complain about this comment
Eureka!
I've just realised why there are no new postings on BBC blogs:
The Rio Carnival starts tomorrow.
Instructions from His Lordship are obviously delayed.
Altogether now: "Mas que nada..... "
Complain about this comment
And once more for the "anti-democratic" brigade - this from History Today
"In truth, the freeborn Briton is a myth. British freedoms have always rested on custom and convention, not on any fundamental law: on the transient goodwill of a mostly generous political elite, not on the sovereignty of the people. They have always been at risk from the all-powerful, inalienably sovereign Crown-in-Parliament. The charge against the surveillance state of the 21st century is not that it is eroding ancient liberties, which the British never fully possessed. It is that an over-mighty and panicky state is using a constitution which has always been essentially monarchical rather than republican to extend its reach ever-more deeply into the marrow of civil society."
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (348):
Aldeigjuborg is actually Staraya Ladoga ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staraya_Ladoga ).
The only problem with your logic is that we are a republic, that means that we denounce the false rulers and their treaties, which doesn't represent the true voice of the people.
Now if this doesn't convince you, then there is this other thing...
Last night Ronald McDonald talked to me in my dream. He said that I'm the rightful overlord of the whole earth and... well there was something about eating French fries and ordering everything in super size, but any ways the point is that I have the highest authorization to decide on this or any other matter on how I wish.
Complain about this comment
" # 320. WhiteEnglishProud:
So thats ok then it fine for them to be relatively uninformed and Pro-E.U (ie. behave like sheep) No wonder the majority of the English don't want to be part of the E.U when they face this latent rascism at every turn."
No it's not and that's not what I said or implied. You persist in distorting what others write.
You may want to turn away from the idea at # 312 "Personally, I prefer to see everyone well informed and THEN take their decisions - whatever the outcome." but I'll stand by it.
Come on, be a man, stand up and be counted, shout it from the rooftops "I prefer to see everyone well informed and THEN take their decisions". Or is that just TOO democratic for your taste?
Complain about this comment
" #323. Freeborn-John:
The very last thing they want is that the general public does actually understand the EU better because that would mean more EU-sceptics. "
OK. Either preface that with "I believe" or prove it. And by "prove" I mean something a bit more substantial than quoting some stupid politician - and yes the EU does have those just like everyone else.
If you can't "prove" it retract it.
Complain about this comment
I see FBJ is back, sneering at everyone and thinking he's so smart.
Well Mr Oooh, la, la, I won a prize for drafting a constitution for Europe, why, when you really want your Anglosphere?
By the way which one is the plagiarism - the Anglosphere Constitution or your European Constitution? They're so similar one of them must surely be plagiarised.
You must be trying to compensate for a monstrous inferiority complex.
Complain about this comment
" # 339. WhiteEnglishProud:
Therefore no matter how democratic the E.U eventually becomes it will always be less democratic than a national government and Much more undemocratic than Local government."
Read up on the Committee of the Regions
http://europa.eu/institutions/consultative/cor/index_en.htm
Also, try reading up on what "subsidiarity" means.
Complain about this comment
" #342. Toldyouitwould:
The second language would be Spanish and not French I presume."
de acuerdo
Complain about this comment
"The two submarines clashed because of the usage of high technologies.
For each one was equipped not with the hydro-acoustic system only, but also - with the state-of-the-art modern anti-hydroacoustic system.
In order to avoid such accidents, all NATO submarines in future will be equipped with the new contra-anti-hydroacoustic systems."
:o)
Complain about this comment
Webalice
I am not surprised that the British and French submarines crashed head on. Pilot submarines? I've lived there. I know. I've watched them. These people shouldn't even be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car. They can't drive. They're dangerous on a bicycle.
Complain about this comment
On this site I read :
"News - Europe - Germany ratifies EU reform treaty . Last updated: 23 May 2008
Germany completes ratification of the European Union's reform treaty.."
I am not convinced that that is correct. I am not convinced that it is wrong either.
BUT
I am surprised that the following search: "Lisbon Treaty, Germany" shows up nothing later than 23 May 2008 and that I can find no reference on the BBC to the latest goings on surrounding the Lisbon Treaty in the German court of constitutional law. Open Europe has some stuff on this:
"On 10 and 11 February, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe held hearings on whether the Lisbon Treaty breaches the German Constitution. That two full days were taken to stage the hearings shows that the Court has some major concerns about the Treaty.
The 'reporting judge', Udo di Fabio, pointed out that the Treaty involved a clear extension of the EU's competencies. He said, "One has to ask soberly: What competences are left with the Bundestag (the German parliament) in the end?" He also bluntly asked "whether it would not be more honest to just proclaim a European federal state".
Furthermore, he questioned whether the transfer of powers to the EU really means more freedom for EU citizens, as ..."
etc. etc.
Open Europe Bulletin: 20 February 2009
Complain about this comment
To SuffolkBoy2 (359):
The job of the judiciary is not to question the rationale of the government and the voice of parliament, but just to simply answer has the government and the parliament when making decisions followed laws or not.
In case of the Lisbon Treaty, if the German Federal Constitutional Court would rule that the Lisbon Treaty breaches German constitution then the result of that verdict would not be abandonment of the Lisbon Treaty, but changing of the German constitution so that it is compatible with the Lisbon Treaty.
This is just business as normal, all countries do this. Our own constitution was changed not only when we joined the EU but when decision was made to join the Euro, in both of these cases constitution was changed to make our membership in both cases possible.
Complain about this comment
" #323. Freeborn-John:
High levels of knowledge about the EU is closely associated with EU-sceptic position."
In which case you, WEP, etc. should be actively advocating the highest possible level of knowledge about the EU by the greatest possible number of people.
Bring it on! Or are you afraid that once the masses know something more than a headline from the Daily Mail or the Sun, etc. they might actually reject your arguments?
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud
Why is Italy losing the plot? The news tells us that the Italian government is putting in more security measures for its citizens...You're not making much sense..
Complain about this comment
oldnat Comments 347 and 350:
"..not me (or even those nasty europeans) who say your opinion doesn't matter.. once you change it (UK constitution) then your opinions will matter.."
and, an unattributed Quote from History Magazine aimed at, "..once more the anti-democratic brigade.."
"..Nobody pretends that our Democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.."
(Right Hon. Winston Churchill, Nov. 1947)
"..It is not difficult to point to the defects and inadequacies in our 'free society'. It would be foolish to deny them. However, it would be an even greater folly to assume that because we have not solved all the inherited historic problems... that there is something fundamentally wrong with our society and that we might possibly do better under some other system. Even the Democratic system on which our free society is based is not without faults. There is no denying it is an inefficient form of Government... the free society, by according as much liberty to its enemies as to its defenders, places powerful weapons in the hands of the politically motivated --- the minority malcontents --- however tiny --- who seek to abuse our free socierty's freedoms in persuit of their totalitarian aims.."
(Winston Churchill MP, 1982)
"..Although the Referendum (April 1975) on British membership of the EC was conclusive, British motivation was essentially economic. There was little understanding and even less sympathy with, the concept of integration, and that situation has changed little in the last 30 years.. evidenced by the 2004 EU Parliament elections which in the UK and across Europe... disappointing voter turnout levels.. MEPs of all persuasions.. aware a considerable undermining of public acceptance and.. effectiveness.."
(Pears Cyclopaedia, Ed. Dr Chris Cook)
".. Ultimately the British electorate are sovereign.. though uniquely... it is a sovereign Parliament.. which has powers subsumed... by UK signature to.. European Convention on Human Rights, 2002..."
Lord Dicey 1885 and quoted 2002 Lord Chief Justices in Thoburn v Sunderland CC Judgement.
".. An 'organic process' from the early middle Ages --- UK Constitution is a set of Laws and Principles under which the UK is Governed... no single document... Statute, Court Judgements, Treaties and unwritten Parliamentary Conventions and Royal Prerogatives (now all exercised by Minsters of the Crown, save appointment of the Prime Minister).. provides flexibility or dangerous looseness --- according to views of... no written, confirmed limit to Parliamentary, therefore Government of the time, .. powers to enact legislation.."
"... Bedrock is Parliamentary sovereignty --- it (UK Government policy) actively changes the Constitution every time an Act of Parliament is introduced into law.."
Prof Eric Barendt (2004-05, Wikipaedia)
I fully realise that for Kevin the teenager thie above is all a bit trying, but, it is worth noting that us little people are not afraid:
You clever ones state we only get a vote when Parliament allows it; that would be the Democratic system in operation, something you clearly struggle with understanding and accepting for us little people. You persist in pretending that 1,000 years of this sovereign Parliament / Monarchial Constitution has apparently led the little people nowhere!
Why would the English choose a European Parliament ahead of their own National one?
True, England does not have a purely devolved Parliament for the English Citizen, but, as with those 1,000 years you claim as the 'transient goodwill of a...political elite' and therefore discount, I can foresee the 'organic process' of Winston Churchill's 'Democracy' and his son's 'free society' evolving an English Parliament within a realtively short timespan.
'In truth the freeborn Briton is a myth..' Yes, and your point is?
Show me the freeborn member of any civilised-structured society on earth?
No, People are not born free today anymore than in the Greek City States as such.
However, they do have the concept and rights and responsibilites of 'free-will' which by sacrifice, endeavour, sometimes with an individuals inspiration, e.g. Martin Luther King, or, the collective determination of the masses, e.g. France's Revolution of 1789 advances are made.
Perhaps, along with the author of the History Today article, you conceive of the European Union as that modern 'collective determination' and decry the Citizen of England who clings to what you believe are outmoded forms of expression?
To which I simply respond that in a Democracy your opinion is entirely valid, but, it must be placed before the electorate to test the Democratic will/judgement of its real worth. Thus, the EU can have no Democratic value anymore than yours or my opinion unless and until there is Referendum to answer the question. It may be that my opinion counts for nothing in your eyes as well as in that of the soviet EUrotocracy now encompassing most of Europe's Citizens. So be it! Any idea that the 'sovereignty of the people' of the British Isles rests only on 'custom and convention' alone is completely wide of the UK Public's concensus of what is the constitutional mark: No.10 may well understand it rules the land with a passing nod to Parliament and a finger in the European pie, but, that is not the same as the UK Public consent to be ruled (in modern times see Poll Tax, Fuel Duty escalator etc.) Whoever is in No.10 and whichever Party holds a majority they are all subject to the Electorate's sovereign power to make their jobs impossible if sufficient numbers are aroused. The EUrotocracy would do well to keep that Citizens' lesson in mind for its present 27 members nations.
I neither have to have a written constitution, nor do I need an EU, to know and believe Patrick McGoohan years ago was absolutely 100% correct in his assertion, "I am not a number, I am a free man!"
Complain about this comment
"What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it at we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety, and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing"
W.L.S. Churchill - Zurich - September 1946.
Complain about this comment
MAII, @358.
To be self-critical, we also bumped into each other oh so many times. But! that was on business. :o) Hide and seek, in chase, in trying to get close to each other. kind of, from over-zeal, and in the rush.
what was noted here with interest :o)
is there is no exchange of location to be btw these two.
Overall I think Russian newspapers are more fun to read in this respect. More open, and military matters on-going focus, discussed. Interviews, memoirs :o) expert analysis. Doubt as many details are ever shared with public. on your respective sides.
For example the recent Obama's initiative to cut nuclear stuff by 20% btw Russia and USA gets much attention. The way you count the total, what's long haul what's "middle range" (idiotic way of counting, BTW MA, imposed on us in 1990-s - won't pass now)(also charming all carried by US aviation is not counted towards the US total! old rules. forget about it), all aspects, discussed with the population. And why not? Concerns us direct.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio 364 and the "United States of Europe.."
Yes, it's an often used quote by pro-EU sorts: Not for nothing is Winston Churchill seen in some quarters as the 'father of European unity'.
As early as 1943 Churchill wrote a paper suggesting a '..federalisation of mainland Europe after the war..' Of course, his concern was the increasing fear of the '..barbarism..' (his terminology) of Stalin's Soviet Union, and at that time, doubts as to whether or not the U.S.A., with Fascism-Nazism defeated, would retreat in to isolationism yet again.
However, as with yourself, there is a convenient forgetfulness about the UK's 2 immediate post-WW2 Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill and Clement Atlee, agreeing that a U.S.E. was not in ".. the interests of Great Britain..".
In 1947-48, with the 'Iron Curtain' descending, Churchill again took up the cause of mainland 'west' Europe and was a founder member of the United Europe Movement: Nevertheless, whilst Churchill pressed PM Atlee not to "..stand aside.. entirely.." from the Council of Europe (1948), he did insist Great Britain's linkage with it should have in place ".. those historic recognitions of.. firm, committed ties with the.. Colonies/Commonwealth... that were to be... a priority..".
In addition, in the same post-war era, Churchill always advocated G.B. commitment to SHAEF/NATO in which G.B. would ".. ensure military bonds with the United States of America are.. at the forefront.. Her Majesty's foreign policy.."
In November 1951 Churchill set the seal on his version of the UK commitment/interest in a 'federalisede Europe' when as part of a speech, he made the unequivocal statement that ".. the United Kingdom.. can only participate at an intergovernmental level... G.B. should not become an integral part of European integration... not forfeit the British Isles' insular approach.. its historic strength.. not abandon its foreign interests.. characterised as the Commonwealth.."
Churchill wrote as early as 1951 to President Eisenhower (who was a firm advocate of a U.S.E.) that "... Any solution to the European issue (i.e. unification).. could not be at the expense of the UK's (I am paraphrasing as Winston did like linguistics even more than I!) political and military ties with the United States.. There is also the permanent seat on the U.N.O. Security Council.. No likelihood Her Majesty's Government would ever concede this.. a U.S.E. would have to take France's place.."
Anyway, that's history, for you: One man's opinion and actions set against others!
Complain about this comment
Threnodio 364 and the "United States of Europe.."
Yes, it's an often used quote by pro-EU sorts: Not for nothing is Winston Churchill seen in some quarters as the 'father of European unity'.
As early as 1943 Churchill wrote a paper suggesting a '..federalisation of mainland Europe after the war..' Of course, his concern was the increasing fear of the '..barbarism..' (his terminology) of Stalin's Soviet Union, and at that time, doubts as to whether or not the U.S.A., with Fascism-Nazism defeated, would retreat in to isolationism yet again.
However, as with yourself, there is a convenient forgetfulness about the UK's 2 immediate post-WW2 Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill and Clement Atlee, agreeing that a U.S.E. was not in ".. the interests of Great Britain..".
In 1947-48, with the 'Iron Curtain' descending, Churchill again took up the cause of mainland 'west' Europe and was a founder member of the United Europe Movement: Nevertheless, whilst Churchill pressed PM Atlee not to "..stand aside.." from the Council of Europe (1948), he did insist Great Britain's linkage with it should have in place ".. those historic recognitions.. firm, committed ties with the.. Empire and Commonwealth... that were... a priority..".
In addition, in the same post-war era, Churchill always advocated G.B. commitment to SHAEF/NATO in which G.B. would ".. ensure military bonds with the United States of America are.. at the forefront.. Her Majesty's foreign policy.."
In November 1951 Churchill set the seal on his version of the UK commitment/interest in a 'federalised Europe' when as part of a speech, he made the unequivocal statement that ".. the United Kingdom.. can only participate at an intergovernmental level... economic commitments entered into by trade alone.. G.B. should not become an integral part of European integration... not forfeit the British Isles' insular approach.. its historic strength.. not abandon its traditions of foreign interests.. those world ties.."
Churchill wrote as early as 1951 to President Eisenhower (who was a firm advocate of a U.S.E.) that "... Any solution to the European issue (i.e. unification).. could not be at the expense of the UK's (here, I am paraphrasing as Winston did like linguistics even more than I!).. political and military ties with the United States..
.. also the permanent seat on the U.N.O. Security Council.. no likelihood Her Majesty's Government would ever concede this.. a U.S.E. would have to take France's place.."
Anyway, that's history, for you: One man's opinion and actions set against others!
Complain about this comment
#366 - ikamaskeip
I absolutely agree that Churchill was ambivalent about European unity. Indeed, the question of the permanent seat at the UN and the independence of the nuclear deterrent continue to be obstacles. I think that the Commonwealth (which is after all no longer the British Commonwealth) has receded somewhat in the case. I placed the quote in the interest of balance to offset any false impression that Churchill was opposed to it.
I would like to correct a false impression. Recently some other posters seem to have concluded that I am a federalist. I have never posted in favour of the federal option although it does have attractions. I think a great many of us who favour further integration continue to believe that there is an role for the nation state not least as break on the runaway power which the EU could otherwise assume which so many EUsceptics fear.
What I do think, however, is that there is a growing sense of opposition to the whole project which is characterised in particular by the continuing postponement of addressing membership of the common currency and, worse still, the totally irrational rejection of Schengen. This begins to take on the appearance of willful obstruction rather than constructive opposition. My view is quite simply that Britain can have a decisive influence from within the Union and has a voice which will be heard. In isolation, it will be a voice crying in the wilderness.
Complain about this comment
To Moderator:
Apolgies, the Comment 367 is a repeat of the 365 and should be ignored.
Pushed the button twice!
My Age again!
Complain about this comment
Once upon a time we had a PM here, times Yeltsin. Americans may be collecting Bush's statements, and we collect expressions of that PM. Now safely tucked off away, as Ambassador to Ukraine.
Name is Victor Tchernomyrdin. Russian language skills - extraordinary. Awkward and illiterate - to incredible degrees. Up to the point - 99% out of 100%. Whatever he keeps saying immediately becomes a "winged expression".
I don't know, may be you'll be able to extract some wisdom, even for the EU discussion.
__________
Our problem is not to unite, but who is the main one.
We will stand by it - in order not to allow it to happen!
All must recognise: what our Government has done to the country during the reform years - you can't return it back.
And I know again, how we can do it. Sometimes - even how we ought to.
A historical time is our lot. Rejoice!
Whatever organisation we try to create - it works out to be Communist Party.
As somebody said: Appetite comes during the trouble.
Our dream may come true. Will come true! If the Government won't do anything about it.
We fulfilled all the promises in the list: from A to B.
We still try to milk the ones who lie anyway.
Always in Russia stands not what ought to be standing.
We're today at such a stage of economic reforms, that one can not exactly see them.
One can not, and should not think, that there ever will be time when it is easy to live.
So much dirt, so much fantasy, so much perversion with some politicians. These are not politicians. These are... Don't want to name it now, or all here will start to sob.
No, God forbid we get someone new. Enough. From the ones we have we feel like vomiting, from them all. Our people feel so. You are a journalist, interviewing me - you also feel so. I can see it in your eyes.
A pension reform we'll do. There is where to have fun.
You ought to help your Government. And instead we always slap them, on the hands, on the hands, on the greedy hands. And in other places we try to slap. As Chekhov described it.
Those principles that were principal to us before - they turned out to be un-principled.
To say words - we have learned to. Now would be not bad to learn how to count money.
We have to finish it, with the taxation surrealism.
Teachers and doctors in the country want to eat practically every day.
The results? It will be the worst result. I know, it was my work.
What is our sin in front of God, Allah, and others?
I am ready and will unite. With all! You can't, excuse me for this expression, always perpendicular.
I am ready to invite to my Cabinet all - white ones, red ones, striped ones. I only tell them - you ought to have ideas. And in reply they show me tongue and something else.
(About Russian Parliament members) And we are discussing here - to check them for mental diseases - or not to check! To check! To check them all!
All the world now goes inverted.
When a Minister declares we have to cut 200 thousand teachers and doctors in the country all of a sudden. Either something happened with his head? That's what can happen when a government member starts to think. Another word don't want to use, that I usually use.
Who?! Who lived in USSR better? Repeat this! Stand up! Who stood up there? You? Aaa, you - well... You lived.
Who says the Government is sitting on the bag with money? We are men we know what we sit on.
They tell me - come on, emission 300 trillion roubles, economy needs oxygen. Exactly the other way around. That won't be oxygen. That will be such oxygen - once you breathe it in - and then you will only kick once and full stop. With your legs.
Government - it is not that organ where, as they say, one can by tongue only.
We first saw a citizen here, in the budget.
In terms of the Government plans for the future - we will continue with all we have spoiled so far.
Nobody will stop us to over-fulfill our laws!
We have to do what is needed by our people and not what we do here normally..
We still have time to save face. Later on we'll be saving other parts of the body.
We will live well, no doubt. We will live so well that our children and grandchildren - they will be jealous with us!
Complain about this comment
#363 ikamaskeip
What a lot of quotes you make!
My quotation wasn't unattributed. It was an extract from the article in "History Today" to which I linked. I'm sorry if that was not clear.
Your quotations demonstrate my point that Parliament is sovereign.
I wholly endorse your call for England to have its own Parliament, and do all that I can to make sure you get one. If the English people wish that their current constitution continues, then that's a matter entirely for them.
However, you post as if there was a single system called "Democracy". Yet there are a wide range of constitutional structures which are embraced by that description.
If all of these are accurately described as "democratic", then it is difficult to see how any one of them is somehow "anti-democratic", just because it takes a form which does not match that of the legal system in your country.
Many of us see a contradiction between the English structure -
Sovereign Parliament instead of people
House of Lords consisting of placemen selected by other politicians, and the bishops of one English church
FPTP elections
The "elected dictatorship" position of a PM exercising the royal prerogative -
and our own definitions of "democracy".
However, you really can't expect to criticise the democratic credentials of another system, and not expect to have the democratic deficiencies in your own system exposed.
There are degrees of democracy - yours is simply one of the systems that has chosen to remain monarchical in the structures used by politicians.
You are only "little people" if you choose to live in a constitutional system that makes you "subjects" of the PM of the day. No one makes you do that. It's your own choice.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
"For example the recent Obama's initiative to cut nuclear stuff by 20% btw Russia and USA gets much attention. The way you count the total, what's long haul what's "middle range""
Who cares? Each side will always have enough to blow up the other, neither side will trust the other. Never even heard about it. Far more interesting things going on. Like the world going bankrupt and the polar ice caps melting.
"To be self-critical, we also bumped into each other oh so many times. But! that was on business"
You mean the way the Russian government made up the lie about a US submarine having blown up the Kursk? What a wonderful place Russia must be. Everything that goes wrong there is always someone else's fault. How can such perfection go unrecognized and uncopied?
Looks like the cold war is back on. Russia wasn't satisfied losing just once. It wants to lose again. So be it. Last time Russia had hundreds of millions of friends deluded by the lies of the promises of communism. Now it is naked nationalism. Most of its old friends don't care about Russia per se. They are only interested in themselves. Even Cuba understands if it is ever going to get better there, it will have to reconcile with the US. Hugo Chavez can't save them. Russia paid Kirghizstan 2 billion to throw the Americans out of the air base supplying Afghanistan. They agreed to allow the US to overfly Russia to supply their troops in Afghanistan though. What gives? The Russians want America to be dependent on them the way Europeans depend on them for energy. I don't think this is what Dale Carnegie had in mind when he wrote the book "How to win friends and influence people."
From what I can tell, the biggest insult you can tell a Russian is that he is a peasant. From America's point of view, all Russians are peasants. You have no idea how laughable Radio Moscow and Voice of Russia sound to American ears. What simpletons they are.
"Overall I think Russian newspapers are more fun to read in this respect. More open, and military matters on-going focus, discussed. Interviews, memoirs :o) expert analysis. Doubt as many details are ever shared with public. on your respective sides."
We know every weapon in the arsenal. It's a matter of public record.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html
Every missile, plane, bomb, warhead, submarine, megatons, equivalent megatons, every test, even how to build them and how they work. All the history, the tests, how many, everything known. All that's left out are the serial numbers. Want more? Visit a British site, Jane's which will give you an account of all of the military weapons and forces of every major army, navy, air force around the world. Who cares? over 60 years of it already. Why does your newspaper focus on this old garbage? Aren't you tired of it already? You can't eat atom bombs and except for a few people, there's no real money in it. How boring.
"Once upon a time we had a PM here, times Yeltsin. Americans may be collecting Bush's statements, and we collect expressions of that PM. Now safely tucked off away, as Ambassador to Ukraine."
"This stuff you call Bourbon isn't bad. I like vodka better but this Bourbon is OK with me. Pour me another....NOW!....please."
"We have some very fine tennis players in Russia."
"If the average Russian saw an American supermarket, we'd have another revolution."
I think that was around 1999. A year earlier Gorby visited. He was going to visit Disneyland but he had to leave before his visit to "The Mouse House" because of the earthquake in Armenia. Donald Duck told me personally how disappointed he was that Gorby had to cancel. Do you know I got Gorby mad? Yes. Gorby was interviewed by BBC around 1992 I think. I sent in a question they posed to Gorby. I asked him...."how did it feel knowing that the Americans half a world away knew more about what was going on in the Chernobyl reactor building from their satellite photos during the meltdown than you did only a thousand miles away in the Kremlin?" He did not like the insinuation one bit. But it was true. That's what got him so mad. His scientists must have told him...that day in May 1986 was the day Russia nearly died. It was the real beginning of the end of the cold war.
Complain about this comment
oldnat and Comment 371
Okay just 2 quotes, "... many of us see a contradiction between the English structure... and our own definitions of 'democracy'"
Glad that many of you can see the United Kingdom (not English) Constitution clearly.
Yes, it's a fine one, isn't it: Not perfect, but a world away from the inflexible 'Federalist' EUrocratic dogma. Long may it stay that way.
Unsure why any of you would feel the UK should consider altering it (UK 'Democracy') to accomodate your version of 'democracy', when it has done so well by the UK Citizens for over 1,000 years. 'If it isn't broke don't fix it', is a maxim of eminent commonsense!
Unless of course, you (pro-EU) want the UK to change, in order to fit with your lesser versions that comply with the one-size-fits-all venal and corrupt EU version of 'democracy'?
2nd quote: "... there are degrees of 'democracy'... you are only 'little people'... IF.. subjects of a Prime Minister.."
Well, I just refer you back to all my other quotes in 363 and my remarks on the UK Citizen also being sovereign in their own sovereign nation. Don't you go worrying yourself about us Brits/English: We do enough of that for ourselves, and have managed perfectly well for centuries, and
indeed, we shall continue to do so.
Europe on the other hand is apparently repeating the historic mismatch (dating from the Holy Roman Empire or Charlemagne) of political-cultural-economic-social idealism that supposed pan-European solidarity will bring to fruition. This time the fig-leaf of 'Democratic ideals' is being used to lull the European Citizen into a false sense of security: Granted, a better form than history's catalogue of rampant 'religiosity', 'militarism', 'nationalism'fascism, 'marxism' etc. Nevertheless, a fig-leaf is all it amounts to in real Citizenship terms, and, the general populace of Europe will find it out and abandon it. When and how remains in the realms of speculation.
One thing I am certain of is that the British Isles will have done itself no end of 'Democratic' good to maintain a considered distance from the soviet EU as the eventual fallout will be unpleasant. No doubt, at that point, yet again, Europeans willl seek the aid of the USA-UK-Canada and probably China and Japan (this time around) to get them out of the disaster of their own making!
Federal Europe: It dates from Charlemagne etc. It did not work then, it did not work later, and it will not stand in the future.
Complain about this comment
Re #361, greypolyglot wrote:
++++++++
" #323. Freeborn-John:
High levels of knowledge about the EU is closely associated with EU-sceptic position."
In which case you, WEP, etc. should be actively advocating the highest possible level of knowledge about the EU by the greatest possible number of people.
Bring it on! Or are you afraid that once the masses know something more than a headline from the Daily Mail or the Sun, etc. they might actually reject your arguments?
++++++++
Personally I'm all in favour of the population becoming far more aware of the fallibilities of the EU as it is now as the more you delve into the depths of EU publications and double speak the more the truth becomes apparent. We could make a start by introducing a plain speaking campaign for the EU so that all documents can be easily read and interpreted without the current confusion of cross references, unintelligent legal speak, and vagueness that means almost any document can be interpreted in any way a member state so wishes.
You ridicule headlines from the rags but then that is the fault of your beloved EU that has, and continues, to draw a veil across the whole EU project in order to hide the stark details. It does not matter what part of the EU I look at, the answer is always the same, there are lots of documents, publications released but they are deliberately unintelligible, confusing and contradictory. Take a look at cases before the ECJ for instance and try and analyse which members states are not abiding by the directives they've signed up to, and which directives are concerned, try finding out who is being fined for this and how much. Let me know where these simple facts are easily to be found in readable format, I'm very interested to have the proof that certain EU members like France are not truly European.
Complain about this comment
To # 372, MarcusAureliusII : I sincerely think that you should post your arguments to another blog. The “EU-Russia tensions” blog will fit you perfectly.
I know well Alice’s tactics to interfere in any discussion where the name of Russia is mentioned, but it seems somehow useless to mix up the main topic with the evident fact that the relations btw the USA and Russia are likely to return back to the cold war times... However, we seek a solution to our language communication problems, not to theirs’ new round of political competition based on values and rules which we do not share...
Complain about this comment
#366 - ikamaskeip - I sympathize with your subtext that there are invaluable qualitative factors that define what is and what is not democratic from the point of view of any people.
On this account there are not and should never be any 'small people' however odd and however quantitatively few.
Views that want to impose a general 'normality' to ever larger swaths of the planet are two edged swords at best. They may promote optimality in perhaps a narrow, circumstances bound reality, and apparently increase well being in an accelerated way. But they have always created imbalances that offset to a significant degree the advances reached during problem times.
This general lack of 'borders' helps to propagate apparently good principles (from a time and culture specific point of view), but also easily turns these into lethal and infectious principles that destroy natural defense mechanisms and annihilate diversity essential for long term survival and innovation. This is true in HIV prevalence as it is of acculturation, colonization and other predatory experiences where the adaptive capabilities of local cultures are severely damaged.
With the risk of eliciting defensive attitudes, I would offer that an acute example in present day conditions is related to globalization. To a significant degree this term euphemistically describes what amounts to the rapid spread of certain western ideas often in detriment of local value systems.
In a positive sense an 'organic development' approach could allow for time to adopt those western ideas into a local matrix. But this has shown to be a slow and not without difficulties process, often chaotic, at least from a westerner's perspective. Hence what has tended to predominate is some form of coaxing, cajoling, motivating, etc. all often with good intentions, to accelerate change. But in haste it is just too easy to overlook what is damaged in the process and there is very little if any loner term evidence that such accelerations are possible.
ikamaskeip, your notion that local government should be the basis of true democratic power resonates with me as an essential way to compensate for extraneous forces and adaptation needs in general. The way I understand this is to mean that an essential part of how society makes sense of reality and adapts, happens as a collective human process. It doesn't take place through abstract means - words, ideas, rationalizations- alone, but involves emotions and feelings that shape a common understanding that is capable of mobilizing constructive action.
#371 and earlier - oldnat - makes the point of 'democratic structures' and point for instance to the representation of local communities in the EU. This to me explains the orientation towards a decision making process, proper of administrative or business structures in general, to accelerate the adoption of the 'good'. The idea at bottom is that by putting in place a formal consultation process democracy is served and good principles can be presented, voted and implemented faster somehow without causing harm to anyone.
This is one aspect of the 'benefits' sought by a hierarchy built to make the common good to prosper faster. However, such structures do not provide space (in regular practice according to my experience) for the development of a common uniting meaning (here idealized to happen more easily in a closer knit community where either culture, proximity, common day-to-day problems are present - echoing the local government idea of ikamaskeip). These are normal decision forming and making processes governed by people and their intrinsic qualities.
In my view, people in general lack self-consciousness to appreciate perceptual differences with others. As cultures do exhibit patterns of predominant perceptual traits that differ, people from a varied background require a preparation and support to work effectively together that is not normally available.
Consideration of such differences is also not in-built in the processes. The hierarchy processes are dominated by decision making mechanisms (in contrast to meaning making mechanisms), where power relations play a larger role. If you are more eloquent, more articulate, have more power or influence backing you, are more cunning, then you have the required equipment to push through a view of things. If you are less able in the argumentation language, represent fewer people, etc. your views maybe more likely to be shrugged off; especially if you happen to come from a slow thinking, introverted culture. In such situations 'objectivity' (meaning better cost-benefit for someone) is hailed as the supreme value and for sure qualitative differences, with any innovative, disruptive or divergent meaning are usually lost (this is no different from what happens in large corporations btw).
From here, especially when crisis loom, such optimizing hierarchies easily turn into oppressive systems. They easily quiet dissent quite unaware of how they do so, and lose the possibility to benefit from immune system reactions that smaller groups can provide.
#368 - threnodio - the ambivalence of Churchill is indeed welcome. For there are arguments in favor of a platform or set of guiding principles and common sense of direction to benefit from such as the EU provides. But requiring too much centralized power can easily ignore the needs to protect against risks including a variety of adaptive mechanisms.
I would take the presence of irrational rejection and purposeful blocking of the EU project, if it were indeed so, as a datum. The fact that people are unable to articulate their fears or frustrations speaks to the biases and perceptual differences I mentioned above. Saying that the 'small people' or any other people are not sufficiently informed, that they have not taken the time to study what is available, or claiming that ordinary people cannot deal with the larger issues are symptoms of haste and bias. These symptoms also reveal a clear lack of leadership. And it is perhaps clear that a bureaucracy, administration, committee, group, etc. are not leaders by virtue of their pay grade or power position.
In conclusion, my views are that we have not understood what are all the processes of what different people consider necessary for a well balanced system. I suggest the following as essential:
a/ People and groups do make serious and grave mistakes, ideas get overextended and 'small people' get abused regularly in all historical and present times. Good intentions are no protection, and evidence of continued persistence of systemic abuses suggests we are not conscious of what the problems are.
b/ Democracy should be considered as an ongoing organic development, and should allow for the possibility that it means different things to different people, without being in conflict.
c/ Decision making and optimal government efficiency wise needs to be balanced with meaning formation and goal setting - Goals should be suspected of bias and open for questioning from anyone, while leadership is required to stand for decision taking and sticking to them.
d/ Leadership can only emerge in action, close to constituencies, close to risks. It cannot be a paycheck or career result alone.
e/ Dissent, divergence, etc. need to have special processes designed to give them proper interpretation and participation.
f/ Rejection and dissent need to be taken as datum and respected. Wining a vote cannot be the end of the formation of meaning.
g/ Pockets of dissent and places with different rules should be compatible within a system of prevalent rules.
Hopelessly incomplete and not fully thought out... for discussion
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (373):
The Federal Europe in creation since the birth of the European Coal and Steel Community of course is not the the first attempt to unify Europe, but it is the first attempt that bases the unification on economic and political interests while maintaining cultural diversity and democracy as core values of the engine that drives the integration.
You can look and you should look at the history and what has happened there, but what you have to understand is that history doesn't repeat itself. While parallels can be drawn out of the history, contexts and methods change and thus will the outcome of the events. If you are going to contest the current unification of Europe while drawing parallels into history then you have to reason on why democracy and cultural diversity will fail to unify the Europe or you have to contest on how unified Europe would be not a rational aim and giving a economic and political ration for why non-unified Europe would fare better.
I would also note that from my point of view many British and American Eurosceptics make the false belief that unification of Europe or Federal Europe are motivated either from a want to challenge current world order or from some ideology or idealism that warrants the creation of unified Europe. However the truth is that unification of Europe, creation of Federal Europe is the least worst option from list of bad options, in another words necessity is driving European countries and nations together.
I have before noted and note now that reasons for mismatch of views is that in the UK and in the USA there is the false belief of being untouchable by the rest of the world. In case of UK it is probably due to Imperial past that only stopped approx. 60 years ago and the imperial past still ghosting itself in form of the commonwealth and belief that UK can work to its benefit with the commonwealth countries and with its former colony, the current superpower, USA.
The fact of the matter however is that both UK, Europe and USA are in continues relative decline. While in absolute terms we can create more prosperity and development in our respective countries, the gap between us and the rest of the world is sinking continuously. For example China has already taken over UK in GDP nominal which isn't that big miracle as they have more than billion people, but in 2050 if China can maintain yearly average growth rate of 6% and USA can maintain growth rate of 2,5% and the EU can maintain rate of 2,0%, then the China will be the biggest economy in the world. Their currency will take place of the leading reserve currency and via their economical power they can take the leading role in global politics and with their economy they can build and maintain the strongest army in the world.
Now if Europe wants to take any part of global politics, impacting on global events then there is no other change than to be a unified power. If European countries are not unified, then they will be dictated terms on how global economics and politics are played without a change to influence the game and its rules. This was already the case with the relationship of the US and Europe post-WW2 and that was the alarm that started the European unification process.
Now you may shake up your head and say that UK will not ever be blackmailed or be suppressed by the Chinese or Americans or anybody else. Well that is all fine and dandy, but seriously that has already happened to other countries and nations. The Finlandization in my country didn't happen because we liked so much of the colour red and Soviet tractors, but because security and economic politics dictated the situation. The same Finlandization has already happened in UK, at least from my view, towards the USA. You should also note that while the Americans like to scream free trade everywhere where they go, they however will play with different rules, in yesteryears it was extremely difficult to enter US markets without a local partner, i.e. FDA, and a foreign company could very easily been given trade sanctions when its American competitors complained to the US government.
What the effect of the EU has been is that it has created an counter balance to the US and other countries and their officials and thanks to this European companies have had the chance to compete fairly and Europe in general has prospered and developed to new heights.
Now does UK have to be part of the EU or European unification process? No of course not, but if you are not part of the EU and the European unification process you are all alone in the world where your position and power are continuously shrinking. That is something that you should remember. While UK would be in the European sphere of influence, thus be protected the umbrella of the EU, that goes only into certain extent not all the way.
Complain about this comment
#373 - ikamaskeip
No, I don't want to fix it to make it fit in with the EU pattern. I want to fix it because it is busted - busted to pieces.
An over-enthusiastic executive plunged headlong into devolution without thinking it through leaving the English isolated, unrepresented and resentful. They have ruthlessly plundered the powers of the judiciary imposing mandatory sentencing, encoding great swathes of utterly pointless laws, mostly to accommodate the requirements of political correctness, they have, in the name of national security, pillaged basic fundamental rights of privacy and confidentiality, they have created a snooping society hold data which is both inappropriate and unnecessary, they have invented eco-crime a put sensors in your dustbins, they have put surveillance cameras on every corner but not bothered to maintain them, they have removed judicial scrutiny from the rules governing phone tapping and internet monitoring, they have whipped the whimps in the Commons into a bunch of 'yes people' who troop like so many sheep into the lobbies at the behest of the administration, they have usurped the royal prerogative, the better to circumnavigate parliament altogether, they have failed spectacularly to address the manifest injustice of the electoral system arising from demographic changes.
In short they have created a nation in which it is a joke to use the words 'democracy' and 'Britain' in the same sentence. The UK is an autocracy dressed up as a democracy. To make matters worse, the opposition parties show little sign of reversing the trend recognising as they do how useful it will be when and if they ever achieve office. The tragic truth is that the mother of parliaments has degenerated into a crumpled up little old lady with just her memories and the father of democracy a powerless cripple.
Take pride in Britain by all means but not in British democracy. It is a myth conjured up from history when needs must. It is Britain's problem - nothing to do with Europe. But please don't hold the British model up as one to be admired and emulated. It is close to death.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
threnodio and Comment 378 plus Jukka_Rohila 377 and Librehacer 376.
Threnodio, not sure why you are addressing your Comment to me?
Not me that suggested anything was "busted"! Though I do certainly believe there's a lot needs readjusting and some delicate restoration in the UK and Europe.
Certainly enjoyed reading your lucid piece, but, did not find the idea of 'Democracy' in the UK in any way a "joke".
That the prevailing set of circumstances do not suit you or I is no reason to label it an 'autocracy'. It is amazing to suddenly find you declaring all is lost because of sheep-like MPs and some CCTV!!?
Aren't you and I, Britons, made of sterner stuff!?
You see the EU as a possible antidote to all that's rotten in the borough and I see it as the virus that will consume any vestiges of free-will.
They say, 'Pride' comes before a fall: EUrocrats possess an inordinate amount of that illusive, unsustainable and ultimately useless commodity. The English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish have borne witness many a time to their supposed elders and betters falling by the wayside whilst the National lifeblood continued: It will be so again as this struggle for the hearts and minds of the British Islanders unfolds in the years ahead.
Let us both resume the fray! Cry God, Harry and let loose the dogs of... Who knows?
Jukka_Rohila and Comment 377:
As ever a cogent and interesting pro-EU perspective.
I will say, that these British Isles have stood "alone" in the World on many an occasion and have fared well as a result. Perhaps I can best describe this belief to you as a recollection of your Nation's isolation and determined free-will in the darkest days of your 'Winter War' against the Soviets: Had your Grandparents capitulated at the start instead of resisting Stalin's hordes would the Finland you love exist in its present form?
I am not going to debate this with you: I am stating the British Citizen still has that feeling and belief that these Isles are not to be overtaken by some unaccountable, unlimited and yes, foreign, power that is not interested nor suited to these Island Peoples' true needs.
Librehacer 376:
It is not a problem to be the 'little people' and I certainly count myself in that core of Humanity. I think several Commentators have mistaken my remarks about being insignificant, i.e. 'little' regarded as my resentment of it. On the contrary, it is the 'little people' to whom and for whom I am beholden. It is the self-styled big, important people such as the EUrocrats who pay glib lip-service to the ordinary Citizen whilst presuming a pre-eminence that is only transitory, of whom I despair.
As you rightly say, "..Leadership can only emerge in action, close to constituencies..."
The EU Federalists have never understood or perhaps do not take sufficient account of this phenomena: EUrocratic power may have some very good ideas, but as they are so far divorced from the rationaklity of their Citizens, the EUrocrat ideal of Federalism, has no basis amongst the Electorate.
There is no 'cost-benefit' exercise suitable for a Citizen's right and responsibility to have free-will: It is either there as a given of their National lifestyle, or, it must be won by the Citizens' blood, sweat and tears.
Well, enough!
I have written all I am going to write on the issues raised by all of us under this EU Speak heading whilst Mr Mardell takes a well earned break or whatever.
Complain about this comment
#373 ikamaskeip
ikamaskeip,
If I may say so, on reading your posts, you seem to sound as though raving (in contrast it has to be said to oldnat). It sounds like fear and denial to me - not known for being the most rational.
I shall break the rules and post a relatively brief post!
"Glad that many of you can see the United Kingdom (not English) Constitution clearly."
Somewhat difficult to use it and the word "clearly" together, as it is a guddle of written statutes, court judgments and Treaties, plus unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions...hmm, clear!
"Yes, it's a fine one, isn't it: Not perfect, but a world away from the inflexible 'Federalist' EUrocratic dogma. Long may it stay that way."
EU law has effect in the UK only to the extent that Parliament permits it to have effect and Parliament could, as a matter of its law, unilaterally bar the application of EU law in the UK simply by legislating to that effect. (We know the European Court of Justice in practice is beholden to states.)
As parliament is sovereign, not the people, you are reliant on it to do so.
In light of that I ask why some like you are so panicky about EU laws.
The answer is of course that parliament cannot be relied on to do so.
And what can you do about it? Under your current system, didley-squat.
"Unsure why any of you would feel the UK should consider altering it (UK 'Democracy') to accomodate your version of 'democracy', when it has done so well by the UK Citizens for over 1,000 years. 'If it isn't broke don't fix it', is a maxim of eminent commonsense!"
So this is the system that serves and has served the UK so well!
"Unless of course, you (pro-EU) want the UK to change, in order to fit with your lesser versions that comply with the one-size-fits-all venal and corrupt EU version of 'democracy'?"
No, it needs to change so that the people actually have a say!
Once every few years you get one day (!) when you can vote and it counts for nothing in the FPTP system. The result, pre-poisoned by that, giving a majority to the "other lot" to have their "shotty", allows them such a free reign that the rest of the time you are a mere grumpy spectator in your own destiny.
And you like this?
""2nd quote: "... there are degrees of 'democracy'... you are only 'little people'... IF.. subjects of a Prime Minister.."
Well, I just refer you back to all my other quotes in 363 and my remarks on the UK Citizen also being sovereign in their own sovereign nation. Don't you go worrying yourself about us Brits/English: We do enough of that for ourselves, and have managed perfectly well for centuries, and
indeed, we shall continue to do so."
That is funny. "The UK citizen is sovereign in their own sovereign nation." Either you believe that to be true, in which case I am worried! Or you would like it to be true, in which case I see you point.
Thinking such fantastic things, does not make up for the glaring shortcomings in your system of democracy, in fact it pretty much blinds you to them, as we can see, much to your own peril (re the EU is trying to get us - well, if it was, it might).
Complain about this comment
OK, I do not know why my comment is being referred, so am baffled.
Could you send an e-mail as to why?
My address is not the same one as I used when I registered on here. I don't know how to change it!
It's now [Personal details removed by Moderator]
Thanks.
If I know what's wrong with it, I will change it :-)
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip: You persist in pretending that 1,000 years of this sovereign Parliament / Monarchial Constitution has apparently led the little people nowhere!
Unsure why any of you would feel the UK should consider altering it (UK 'Democracy') to accommodate your version of 'democracy', when it has done so well by the UK Citizens for over 1,000 years.
I'm curious to know do you truly believe yourself when you write down 1,000 years of sovereign parliament and that the UK has been a democracy for 1,000 years or are you aware you're exaggerating?
Complain about this comment
Moderators,
My referred posts answer ikamaskeip's posts re democracy.
Could you e-mail an explanation as to why they have been referred please, as having changed them three times I don't seem to have fixed the problem.
My current e-mail address was included in my #383.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Ticape 384
I am curious: Did you read everything I wrote in order to find the one bit that you could find fault with?
For your information the First officially recognised Parliament called in England was by Simon De Montfort and his Baronial supporters in 1265.
I am sorry that in my "exaggeration" I was was wrong and England has only had some form of a Parliament for 744 years!
Now, enough is enough. You get on with your version of history and I will rest my pen/word processor for awhile.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 374. Buzet23:
commented
Personally I'm all in favour of the population becoming far more aware of the fallibilities of the EU as it is now as the more you delve into the depths of EU publications and double speak the more the truth becomes apparent. We could make a start by introducing a plain speaking campaign for the EU so that all documents can be easily read and interpreted without the current confusion of cross references, unintelligent legal speak, and vagueness that means almost any document can be interpreted in any way a member state so wishes. "
Re greypolyglot's #361,
... you, WEP, etc. should be actively advocating the highest possible level of knowledge about the EU by the greatest possible number of people.
Bring it on! Or are you afraid that once the masses know something more than a headline from the Daily Mail or the Sun, etc. they might actually reject your arguments?"
Sadly, I have to agree about impenetrability of many EU publications. But have you ever tried reading any governmental legal documents? The UK's are no clearer, I promise you!
What is truly regrettable is that you are in favour ONLY "of the population becoming far more aware of the fallibilities of the EU ".
A fine example of fair play! Have you never heard that "there are two sides to any argument"?
And WEP has gone into hiding rather than answer 352.
Complain about this comment
When push comes to shove, France will take the low road....along with all of the other EU members.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7897342.stm
In the disUnited States of Europe, it's one for all, all for one, and every country for itself. How will they finesse this one with EUish ambiguity and doublespeak?
Complain about this comment
The economic turmoil is on the point of make up or break up.
But since it has make up all this time with corruption, incompetency and discrimination.. it's time for a break up all over the places..
what we enjoyed, was not what we thought.. there is always someone who is out there suffering alone because of us.. rage is all over.. and that's who we have become..
people without personality, ...shadows.. with no dignity..
there is no way from this time in this world that this can go unpunished by the unwritten rules of the nature..
greed is in you and you are full of rage..
you will feel just resentment and spent in agony the rest of your life..
if this 100 leaders think that with empty promises they can shore up the financial scams, they themselves have created, they are naive.
there is bleeding of money in EU not only by financial institutions, but even by other eu institutions, programmes, funds, busineses and companies, pro-EU NGO..and other propaganda soviet/style outlets.. practically everywhere to promote ineficiency, incompetency and extravagant lifestyle for some, but unimaginable for others..
a waste of money time resources has resulted in this gap we are today..
greed, belief and the ego has prevailed once again to the detriment of the poor, sound and respectable people
Complain about this comment
a PONZI scheme is what EU funds have become.. a fairy-tale lifestyle for some, and others in the pro-EU payrolls..
working people are subtitising the lazy ones.. the sinceres the liars, and the law abiding the thiefs.
Complain about this comment
UNITED they fall.., because eventually there is only the fall option..
since we have risen and risen and risen enough..
do we trust each others?? do countries trust each other? why is that?
there are always reasons for dissunity.. since unity leads straight to communism and socialising the losses..
Complain about this comment
the non-imperial empire(financial one)full of dreams and facinations has fallen..
let's save the 'skin' and forget about what was..
some say without a past you dont have a future.. or you will repeat the mistakes of past in the future..
but the truth is that you have to break with the past and the old so you can have a future and live it..
Complain about this comment
"Does the EU shroud itself in obscure language on purpose?"
No, and to say this makes you a eurosceptic who opposes the principal of comming together as a community of fellows.
Complain about this comment
392. At 5:45pm on 22 Feb 2009, karolina001
"there are always reasons for dissunity.. since unity leads straight to communism and socialising the losses.."
Are you comparing the EU to a communist socialist 'peoples democratic republic' if we all work together in a free trade zone rather than fight wars against one another?
If so that must be the most stuped, ignorant and idiotic thing you have ever wrote on this blog.
Well done.
Dean
Complain about this comment
i dont understand why some people get so infuriated when you say bad words about EU than when you say about them..??
anyway, i dont care of such low provocations, so you merit no answer..
diversion is a well known tactic in pro-EU circles.. like putting words in someones mouth..
maybe there are few people who agree with me and that's enough.
Complain about this comment
#393 Karolina 001 wrote: “The non-imperial empire (financial one)full of dreams and fascinations has fallen.... let's save the 'skin' and forget about what was...”
Can you advance some irrefutable proofs about the collapse of the EU free market practices? What do you mean by “let’s save the skin”?
Complain about this comment
396. At 7:43pm on 22 Feb 2009, karolina001
You are clearly a person who rather than see the EU, but rather wants a europe at war with itself.
You are a sick ill person if that is what you want.
Complain about this comment
392. At 5:45pm on 22 Feb 2009, karolina001
"since we have risen and risen and risen enough.."
yeh, we know what you'd want- to see Europe fall hard.
The brotherhood of friends in Europe is never going to die. The EU commission shall see to that!
Complain about this comment
396. At 7:43pm on 22 Feb 2009, karolina001
anyway, i dont care of such low provocations, so you merit no answer..
---
Your failure to answer only demonstrates your pathetic europhobia.
Get help quick!
Complain about this comment
#373 ikamaskeip
(This is a re-attempt at this post, in stages!)
ikamaskeip,
If I may say so, on reading your posts, you seem to sound a tad raving (in contrast it has to be said to oldnat). It sounds like fear and denial to me - not known for being the most rational.
I shall break the rules and post a relatively brief post!
"Glad that many of you can see the United Kingdom (not English) Constitution clearly."
Somewhat difficult to use it and the word "clearly" together, as it is a guddle of written statutes, court judgments and Treaties, plus unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions...hmm, clear!
Complain about this comment
#373 ikamaskeip
(This is a re-attempt at this post, in stages - stage 2)
"Glad that many of you can see the United Kingdom (not English) Constitution clearly.
"Yes, it's a fine one, isn't it: Not perfect, but a world away from the inflexible 'Federalist' EUrocratic dogma. Long may it stay that way."
EU law has effect in the UK only to the extent that Parliament permits it to have effect and Parliament could, as a matter of its law, unilaterally bar the application of EU law in the UK simply by legislating to that effect. (We know the European Court of Justice in practice is beholden to states.)
As parliament is sovereign, not the people, you are reliant on it to do so.
In light of that I ask why some like you are so panicky about EU laws.
The answer is of course that parliament cannot be relied on to do so.
And what can you do about it? Under your current system, zilch.
Complain about this comment
#373 ikamaskeip
(This is a re-attempt at this post, in stages - stage 3)
"Unsure why any of you would feel the UK should consider altering it (UK 'Democracy') to accomodate your version of 'democracy', when it has done so well by the UK Citizens for over 1,000 years. 'If it isn't broke don't fix it', is a maxim of eminent commonsense!"
So this is the system that serves and has served the UK so well!
I think you should fix it!!
"Unless of course, you (pro-EU) want the UK to change, in order to fit with your lesser versions that comply with the one-size-fits-all venal and corrupt EU version of 'democracy'?"
No, it needs to change so that the people actually have a say!
Once every few years you get one day (!) when you can vote and it counts for nothing in the FPTP system. The result, pre-poisoned by that, giving a majority to the "other lot" to have their "shotty", allows them such a free reign that the rest of the time you are a mere grumpy spectator in your own destiny.
And you like this?
Complain about this comment
#373 ikamaskeip
(This is a re-attempt at this post, in stages - stage 4)
""2nd quote: "... there are degrees of 'democracy'... you are only 'little people'... IF.. subjects of a Prime Minister.."
Well, I just refer you back to all my other quotes in 363 and my remarks on the UK Citizen also being sovereign in their own sovereign nation. Don't you go worrying yourself about us Brits/English: We do enough of that for ourselves, and have managed perfectly well for centuries, and
indeed, we shall continue to do so."
That is funny. "The UK citizen is sovereign in their own sovereign nation." Either you believe that to be true, in which case I am worried! Or you would like it to be true, in which case I see you point.
Thinking such fantastic things, does not make up for the glaring shortcomings in your system of democracy, in fact it pretty much blinds you to them, as we can see, much to your own peril (re the EU is trying to get us - well, if it was, it might indeed).
Complain about this comment
#373 ikamaskeip
Your loyalty to the English Constitution remind me a little of Lord Braxfield in a trial of Scottish radicals -
"Is the panel (Scots for accused) guilty of sedition, or is he not? Now, before this can be answered, two things must be attended to that require no proof: first, that the British constitution is the best that ever was since the creation of the world, and it is not possible to make it better. It's a pretty fair start, is it not, for a political trial?"
Complain about this comment
#373 - ikamaskeip
I was responding to your comment:-
"Unsure why any of you would feel the UK should consider altering it (UK 'Democracy') to accomodate your version of 'democracy', when it has done so well by the UK Citizens for over 1,000 years. 'If it isn't broke don't fix it', is a maxim of eminent commonsense!"
And yes, the Brits should gird themselves about the loins and confront the enemy. I wish I had the stomach for the fight but my passport was already made. Alas, no crowns for convoy in my purse.
Complain about this comment
May I once more plead for some balance.
Constitutional issues relating to the United Kingdom are entirely separate matters from the UK's relationship with the EU.
My personal view, for what it is worth, is that the UK must resolve it's domestic issues before addressing the wider question but since so many posters seem unwilling to accept that there is a domestic issue I imagine this could go on indefinitely.
Complain about this comment
#407 threnodio
Would you go for an English parliament or an independent England threnodio? Have a nice bit of PR...no Scots voting to keep Labour in and for top up fees in England etc., feel proud to be English without worrying about being tarred as the BNP.........and so on.
Complain about this comment
#407 threnodio
You may plead. However, as long as those criticising the "anti-democratic" EU structures as compared with the glorious democratic freedoms of the English constitution, then I'll post on the deficiencies of English constitutional law.
However, I'd much prefer to debate how both the EU and England (since the latter clearly need some help) could make their systems more democratic.
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (381):
Disclaimer: I'm drunk. Yes. I have to go to work in the morning. And yes, I think I'm enough clear to comment. Man just has to do what man has to do.
You brought the point of the winter war and I will say that it and the continuant war added to the Finnish psyche the sense that we can't never ever again be away from the tables were decisions concerning us are done and we have to actively work with others to make sure that we in the surviving side. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, so to say.
I would also add that this is not just about control or direct supremacy. If we go few hundreds years back the methods of exploitation of foreign countries and nations were from direct conquest and slavery to unfair trade treaties. From those days the methods of exploitation have changed. In comparison, in yesteryears countries paid tributes in gold, in today countries tribute by using the US dollar as currency of exchange. The control and exploitation are still there, what only has changed are methods on how this is done.
Now in practise where the price is paid is in material well being. A country that is exploited or oppressed economically can afford only lesser material and physical well being for its citizens. Thus to ensure that there is enough energy, housing, food, medication, etc. Essentially European nations must integrate into a union that negotiate as an equal partner with other superstates and set the rules of global engagement.
Complain about this comment
To karolina001 (392):
No offence, but I would really recommend that you take some time and take lesson in economics. If you are going to claim that the EU funds are just a Ponzi scheme then the only result what you will get is to loose your credibility. There are many Ponzi schemes in this globe that deserve to mentioned like the current Madoff case or if you are more sceptic you could claim that the US Federal government debt is one Ponzi scheme or that the western pension systems are just Ponzi schemes in general, those claims would have some more backing but just claiming the EU funds are a Ponzi scheme are just so unreal that you either have to back down or give your rational on claiming so.
Complain about this comment
388, greypolyglot,
re "Sadly, I have to agree about impenetrability of many EU publications. But have you ever tried reading any governmental legal documents? The UK's are no clearer, I promise you!
What is truly regrettable is that you are in favour ONLY "of the population becoming far more aware of the fallibilities of the EU ".
A fine example of fair play! Have you never heard that "there are two sides to any argument"
You are to a large point right about UK documents as I had to deal with many taxation documents some years back; although many have been improved to the point where they are almost readable, income credit system excepted.
However as to the "ONLY" point I have to say that the only way the negative things can get changed is if they are visible for what they are, negative. Unfortunately for the EU mandarins or morons that write these unintelligible words they also hide the good things that the EU does or can do. My beef has rarely been against the good things that are in the various directives but merely that most countries pay only lip service to them. Were honesty to be the rule and the EU members actually enact and abide by their directives then I think we would be unlikely to be having this discussion. Unfortunately as an article today by the BBC's business reporter Ben Shore highlights, the forthcoming 'protectionist' summit will only makes things worse and directives will be canned even more see here.
Complain about this comment
#394, deanthetory wrote:
"Does the EU shroud itself in obscure language on purpose?"
No, and to say this makes you a eurosceptic who opposes the principal of comming together as a community of fellows.
*******
Please let us know what you're on as that is quite an insane statement. Do you actually understand what you've said here? Asking for freedom of information is not treason or terrorism, it's asking why something is being hidden, is it money laundering, corruption or a number of other acts. Why is the EU so scared of transparency and why are you defending the hiding of truth and honesty within the EU and various governments. If there is to be truly a coming together of a community of fellows then transparency, honesty and justice is a pre-requisite! However, that must be a horrible thought to those currently with their snouts in the EU trough.
Complain about this comment
LibreHacer,
I read @376 as a Poem. I would never be able to word this as you did. Only you!
Enjoyed every word.
organic development approach - slow often chaotic ...at least from a westerner's perspective
imposing a general "normality" to ever larger swaths of the planet ... creating imbalances that off-set the advances to a significant degree
the general lack of "borders" helps to propagate apparently good principles .. that destroy natural defence mechanisms and annihilate diversity essential for the long-term survival and innovation
very little if any evidence such acceleration is possible
people lack self-consciousness to appreciate perceptual differences with others
the decision making mechanisms in contrast to meaning making mechanisms
such hierarchies easily turn into oppressive systems
orientation towards a decision-making process to accelerate the adoption of the "good" - one aspect of the "benefits" sought by a hierarchy built to make common good to prosper faster
such structures do not provide space for the development of a normal decision forming and making processes governed by people and their intrinsic values
"objectivity" (meaning better cost-benefit for someone) is hailed as a supreme value, while qualitative differences, with any innovative, disruptive or divirgent meaning - are lost
rejection and dissent need to be taken as datum and respected. Winning a vote can not be end of the formation of meaning
lack of leadership (your sudden conclusion, seemingly opposing all said before - but it doesn't!)
leadership can only emerge in action, close to constituencies and close to risks
processes necessary for a well balanced system
_________
In other words it's an Opera that I can listen to indefinitely, thank you ever so very much.
Complain about this comment
Accordingly, gentlemen, stop pestering Carolina001
"Rejection and dissent need to be taken as datum and respected".
She is making for you a meaning, for a sec.!in contrast to your prevailing "decision-making mechanism"
Complain about this comment
ironfranco #375
"we seek a solution to our language communications problem, not their new round of political competition based on values and rules we do not share..."
("the relation btw the USA and Russia are likely to return back to cold war times")
"you should post your arguments to another blog; the EU-Russia tensions blog will fit you perfectly."
_________
Wow. LOL. In other words, ironfranco, you're happy if Mavrelius defeats me once again in the new round of Cold war, provided we quarrel "in another blog". Away from Europe.
Since either of us - or our competition - is based on "values and rules we (Europe) do not share".
Curious; is it the new voice of Europe.
"Russia and USA go away, don't stand in our way of finding common language." :o)
Curious; I like that.
Complain about this comment
threnodio (378).
..in which it is a joke to use the word "democracy" and "Britain" in the same sentence.
It hurts because you know what you lost.
that's why you are so critical. I am jealous in a good way with your standards.
all true I mean. "snooping society"
"surveillance cameras on every corner, without.."
a bunch of "yes" people who troop like so many sheep
"unsurped the royal prerogative" (!) :o) yes, I mean, if you think into it. "...to better circumnavigate parliament alltogether".
"an over-enthusiastic executive plunged headlong into devolution without thinking it through. leaving the English - isolated. unrepresented. and resentful."
(I always thought that "executive" is a derogative term, :o).
_______
We've got here a set expression "The Russia we have lost". Seems to be the same feeling; even that we lost different things. we lost our achievements, another "intrinsic property". can't formulate what it was :o) in our case. but the feeling is of vacuum cleaner. some vacuum felt.
you lost yours.
And yes it is a loss for the world.
either way, we can lay hopes only on those, "intrinsic".
if they are truly intrinsic, may be they will shoot through the asphalt, like some ? dandelions
somehow. may be not. some asphalt de-layering won't hurt either!!!
an excavator ... or two... :o)
cheer up.
as they say - if there is something to lose.
- it means not all is yet lost! it's not yet evening.
:o)
Complain about this comment
Finally, Mavrelius. @372
- Don't worry Ironfranco, I understood both Russia and USA are extrinsic to the European interests. (I am real fasinated with intrinsic-extrinsic combination ;o)
Still I have my own interests and will reply him here.
You will have to close your eyes and skip this post.
And then we may find some long dead blog and continue the cold war there. :o)
Small hopes, though, to see MA in the "Europe-Russia tensions", as you suggested. LOL.
___________
1. "Russians want Americans to be dependent on them the way Europe depend on them for energy"
To the contrary, our strongest desire is not to depend in income solely on Europe, and in expense - constantly incurred by your poking in our yard - on USA.
2. "Do you know I made Gorby mad?"
Congratulations. And you aren't the only one. Gorbachyov went to the world with the open embrace - trusted the West. An idealist. Among the sharks.
One of the minor things USA and Britain promised him is there won't be any NATO expansion to the Eastern block, if we get our army out.
3. "We know every weapon in the arsenal."
Of great use to you, no doubt. Judging by, that from what you know - you create movies type "Hunt for the Red October".
Gave several people I know a lot of amusement.
4. "but they agreed to allow the US to overfly Russia to deliver to Afghanistan".
An enlightment for you, MA?
You fly over Russia to Afghanistan these 7 years. Otherwise you'd have eaten us alive long ago. If Russia closes the shop - nevermind bases here, bases there - NATO campaign in Afghanistan stops tomorrow.
You're loss-sensitive; and your only other route is within direct shot descending over Pakistan border.
Did Russia use it as a handle, to negotiate anything from you, in these years?
No. We'd like you to be successful in this enterprise.
5. With Kyrgistan base blame own greed. Also, must be difficult to hold way too many plates spinning; you simply took them for granted.
Their president asked you for money increase several times. You've negotiated the base for 1 year, and stay eight in a row.
He said he made it clear to the USA that "the circumstances have changed, times are different, (BTW he doesn't like dollars anymore), we need to review the contract."
But you relied on bullying your way through, as always.
From us he doesn't get cash, BTW. A small amount, yes, is money - but it is their debt - fiorgiven; the rest - investment into their infrustructure projects. We'll build there.
And I am glad you're learning from us - negotiatiate with Tajikistan from the offer to build them a bridge. Little by little, on a Russian example, you'll learn how to "win friends and influence people". :o)
Especially that Tajikistan is a better place for you; by location - they are hysterical about creep over from Afghanistan to them. There you'll find perfect accord.
6. Finally, no, I didn't mean Kursk sub.
And nobody here thinks a US sub is the reason.
Complain about this comment
aye_write and your series of interrupted Comments in reply to my own.
Well it is always good to have reasoned debate.
I am not aware of once offering any observation on your possible personality, characteristics or state of mind.
In 4 posts as part of your response to my Comments you have so far suggested that I am:
"raving", "panicky", mere grumpy spectator" and "blind".
Thank you for your concern; it is gratifying to know there is no limit to the depth of your observations.
Whatever my present condition I must decline your offer to to pay heed to your views on the UK Constitution. It is my experience debate-argument is seldom won by labelling the opponent and questioning their faculties.
However, having read all you have to say, I am quite sure that will not give you much pause for thought.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7904886.stm
Complain about this comment
#419 ikamaskeip
Good grief! Lets investigate.
"Well it is always good to have reasoned debate."
It is. Have you offered any?
No, you have merely focused on the slants you have suffered!
"Thank you for your concern; it is gratifying to know there is no limit to the depth of your observations."
(Have I touched a nerve?)
"Whatever my present condition I must decline your offer to to pay heed to your views on the UK Constitution."
You're not....sulking?
"It is my experience debate-argument is seldom won by labelling the opponent and questioning their faculties."
Were there no reasoned arguments in my post then?
"However, having read all you have to say, I am quite sure that will not give you much pause for thought."
Well, I've paused and here are my thoughts. You are acting as though you ought to be offended that I have criticised you - strange for an online blog. Do we need to bother that much?
Well, the answer must be yes because it is something you can argue about, whereas the points about the democracy failings of your political system you cannot.
Complain about this comment
oldnay and threnodio,
I've long held the thought that the biggest enemy of democracy is the establishment (bureaucracy), and that the bigger it gets the more powerful and unaccountable it becomes. Whether you examine the EU or the UK or even the NHS all you really see is the establishment, unelected, omnipotent and working on the basis of "don't rock the boat" or "it's the system", and totally resistant to any sort of change. I'm convinced the steady erosion of democracy from the UK has much to do with the rise of the establishment, with low grade politicians merely looking for sound bites about mostly unimportant PC issues to convince the voting sheep that they are doing something. In USSR it was the 'party' that was omnipotent, here it is the 'establishment', and unfortunately I see little difference between the two, even down to the preponderance of surveillance cameras suitable only to subdue and control the masses.
Finally, oldnat, as I've said before, I would very much like to see England be independent of Scotland and any of the other home nations that so wish. It is regrettable that so many these days are reinventing the wheel by trying to re-establish old dead (dying) languages purely on the spurious basis of it being their culture, likewise remembering old disputes, wars etc that any intelligent person would have long forgotten. Personally I'm wondering whether the rise of such cultural issues has more to do with keeping the masses occupied whilst the establishment (system) finalises its power base in the form of the undemocratic EU.
Complain about this comment
To get things back on topic, I thought the description of the roles (and powers) between the commission, council of the EU and European parliament made by Mark Mardell in last night's radio 4 Westminster hour was spot on, that's the way I've always seen it (certainly better then the commission is the politburo nonsense, spouted by some)
386. ikamaskeip:
I am curious: Did you read everything I wrote in order to find the one bit that you could find fault with?
Nope, there are other parts I disagree with but I won't bother. :p (I'm an avid lurker, not a poster)
The thing is you're not the first person nor shall you be the last one who claimed that the UK have been a democracy for 1,000 years and after reading such comments I just had to ask, in this case, you (my apologies for this ) if you truly believe what you wrote. Just because you have a parliament for 750 years that doesn't mean you have been a democracy for 750 years (far from it)
Complain about this comment
aye_write Comment 421.
Yes, you have criticised me on a personal level a number times.
Apparently, 'my nerves' and 'sulking' is now to be added to the list of my personal failings!
My views are up for anyone to criticise: You appear unable to see the difference between critique of idea and person.
I did not refer to the 'debating points' in your Comments as I see no reason to respond to someone who cannot tell that basic difference.
My opinion on the validity and functioning of the UK Constitution has no more or less merit than your views: Where I draw the line however, is in making any assumption as to your personal fitness to make a Comment. You are not alone; oldnat started casting aspersions about 'Kevin' the 'whining teenager' in reply to my Comments and all I can suggest to both of you is that this is not the place for playground ya-boo antics and I am not going to get involved in it.
Complain about this comment
Ticape 423
I agree there has certainly not been Democracy anywhere near as long as 200 never mind 750 or 1000+ years in the UK or anywhere else for that matter.
It is, in my case, I suppose just a sort of ill-thought out and oblique reference to the ongoing development of 'democratic ideas' in the British Isles over several centuries.
To be scrupulously accurate 'democracy' as a system is never fully in-place as it is a form of political processes that varies across the world - which may go some way to explain why we are all getting so het up about it - according to previous historical experience and ongoing demands placed upon it.
To some extent I feel my Comments on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the UK/EU/US etc democratic systems is a cul de sac: Afterall, I do believe mainland Europe has strong and virtuous links with the process of 'democracy' we all hanker after, and, in that sense is no different from the UK. Where I differ from some of the Commentators on this Blog is in my belief that the UK 'Democratic' process is best served by continuing to develop outside what I see as the various constraints and unaccountable binding ties of a 'Federalist European Union' form of Democracy. It is also true that I have grave suspicions about the intentions towards the United kingdom and the political motives of the principal Political players in Paris-Berlin-Brussels whose commitment to 'democratic ideals' seem to me, to be less than grounded in respect for the ordinary Citizen's rights and responsibilities.
Others disagree, as is their right, and see the EU as the way to improve the UK's democratic process.
In the end it may be that force of world political circumstance will make the decisions of London-Paris-Berlin-Brussels etc. very different from that which all sides take for granted at this present time. The argument for the EU on economic grounds is very strong; the argument for individual National states on grounds of political accountability is also powerful.
My reference to 'world political circumstance' is because an awful lot of assumptions are being made about what exactly is happening in the world in this era:
Almost everyone (among the great and the good) is assuming the emerging might of China, India, Brazil etc. with their market-driven governments and populations coupled with the possible decline/readjustment of the power of the USA will be the dominating influences in the next 30 years (alongside the environmental Global warming crisis).
In 1909: There were 4 trans-continental Empires - British, French, Russian and Turkish - The general assumption of the 'great and the good' was that the USA would emerge as the 5th Imperial power, but, almost no one foresaw the decline and collapse of the other 4, by mid-century.
100 years on from 1909 all the present predictions and presumptions about new economic-political powers and environmental catastrophes taken in the context of Human experience are in my humble opinion just straws in the wind.
Afterall, it was only in 1911 the UK Parliament Act finally wrested power from the Peers of the Realm and gave it to the House of Commons and also Paid MPs for the first time - the 'Democratic process' we have both referred to, and who would have believed in 1909, that in 1911 a Duke would only have the same one vote as a Commoner!? The world is not as sorted as some Commentators and many Political elite imagine it to be!
Complain about this comment
a Ponzi scheme doesnt necessarly have to finish will a colapse of the scheme.. it can be also a scheme where many people contribute, but same some people benefit.
Why the EU needs to fund propaganda pro-NGOs, if the benefits of EU are clearly visible for everybody to see?? if eu has facts, it doesnt need propaganda?? and who is doing the eu propaganda guess? not me..
Those funds can be used otherwise and not wasted.. if a high way is build with EU funds, it is just neccessary for EU to put a sign in both sides of the high way to show it did it.. and not employ speculators on payroll to remind every time that that road is build with EU (our) money?
we need more doctors and not propagandists and speculators, why do we need to import the proffesion of a doctor.
if Chinese stop buying US debt............ US becomes a Ponzi too
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot (353): It is straightforward to prove that a better informed public is a more EU-sceptic public. During normal times self-serving politicians and their supporters in the media are able to shape public opinion on EU matters through control of the news agenda. But whenever there is a referendum on an EU issue, the consequent debate leads to greater knowledge of the EU among the general public, and we always see the same phenomena of the anti-EU side coming from behind to win the day. This phenomenon can be observed in every EU referendum, no matter what the country.
EU federalists are like woodlice that can only thrive in the dark, but they must be given no place to hide. The dwindling band of federalists must be sought out wherever they nest (including this site), confronted in debate and intellectually exterminated. The inability of a single pro-EU poster on this site to sustain a single pro-EU argument in over a year shows that the EU Project is intellectually bankrupt.
That is why those like you whose income depends on the EU Project are being disingenuous in saying that there should be more 'information' about the EU. The last thing you want is a better informed public. What you really want is another increase in the EU Communications (propaganda) budget that pays your salaries and pensions and which already runs to 2.4 billion euro a year. Given the tough economic times there is NOTHING that deserves to be cut more than the EU propanganda budget. If we could strip away this expensive buttressing of the current system, we could not only put a lot of money to better use, but we would likely hasten the day when a real EU reform treaty is introduced that officially removes the goal of 'ever closer union' and restores political power to its rightful home in the democratic arena of the nation state.
The reversal of the histortical error of European political integration would be one of the greatest steps forward that mankind could make in the current era (second only in significance to the democratisation of China).
Complain about this comment
#424, #425 ikamaskeip
Come along :-)
If you and oldnat were my children I'd tell you to give him a "big hug" (and tell nat to accept!).
But when you are over it, here's a debating point. I hope you will listen.
"Others disagree, as is their right, and see the EU as the way to improve the UK's democratic process."
That I think would be difficult. Do you see that some see the EU as a "big fix"? Well, the UK's democratic process DOES need to be fixed.
But here's why. At the moment you are left wide open to the alleged scheming of EU ministers. If I'm right you say you do not want greater integration to a federal or supranational body. So therefore you would express you have legitimate fears that this IS a threat.
Lets establish you are right and it is. What is the antidote? Arguing for greater democracy in the EU? Well most sensible people would probably want that. But it won't help the UK. Lack of EU democracy is not the reason why in your eyes too much power is being ceded to it.
For that to be the case the EU must have first been given the power to allow it now to 'take' it, and the only body that can give that power away on behalf of the UK is its parliament - parliament must first have allowed this.
It can then legislate to take it back, some steps or all. But it won't, because it doesn't suit power hungry MPs and MEPs. And as we keep saying, sovereignty lies with parliament and not the people, so parliament will please itself. And you must watch. That is the result of the UK system of 'democracy'.
So there is your problem, not the EU and its imperfect systems, but Westminster and its. The EU only takes advantage of the system as it is, as Westminster allows it. And so does every one of the posters on here who fails to recognise the flaws of Westminster re erosion of national sovereignty and crucially who fails to challenge it.
You let the EU do what it does. You want to stop it? You need long overdue constitutional reform of the current UK model to have anything like a chance. And you'd better hurry up.
Complain about this comment
# 381 ikamaskeip - I am sure you don't think in terms of 'small people' or ' important people', but the labels do suit the general patterns of self-perception that mark the EU discussion. Starting from who is qualified enough to understand what is written and interpret what it means, to the reduction of all issues to a quantitative tenor.
My view I believe supports yours in the perception that there is something intrinsic to every group of people that must be able to offset the prevalence of power and numbers.
That 'all people' are equal in their stature as humans and citizens of the world carries in my view a neglected qualitative element .
I also support your defense of the fact that organic development of democratic principles should follow historical tracks. Adaptation that is not grounded in the cultural matrix of a people is mere acculturation. I don't mean in isolation as I am sure you mean as well, but adaptation in interaction and relationship with other 'equals' however they perceive themselves.
Evidence of how 'forced' processes have a distinct tendency to come back to bite you abound. Every imperial or ideology based power eventually realizes it after more blunders than anyone likes to count.
In this sense I used the expression of cost-benefit to demonstrate the absurdity of the obsession with 'objectivity'; to highlight the implicit short term and circumstances bound nature of such 'objectivity' . The later is so frequently brandished as the 'enforcing' mechanism without realizing, as you well say, that meaning emerges from the true experiences of real people (blood, sweat and tears unfortunately).
Since perception is a psychic experience that includes the subject, a process or system that negates subjectivity denies in effect the essence of humanity, and that of any principles of people being equal. Inter-subjectivity would therefore be a more legitimate aim of a true democratic process, while pure objectivity will always thread on the abyss of despotism.
Complain about this comment
If you want to get really depressed about Eurospeak, trace the story of the word 'approximation' through the process of assimilating new countries to the EU. It was used to describe the process of aligning laws and consitutional matters with some Brussels standards. Sounds harmless enough, eh - 'approximation', getting them nearly the same with a bit of leeway here and there. But no, the Humpty-Dumpty, words-mean-what-I-say-they-mean bureau-rats were using one end of the word's French lexical field that meant 'make them EXACTLY the same'! Neat little trap, that, putting everyone in the wrong from the word 'Go'. As someone wise said, approximately, the more laws you have to break to live normally, the more totalitarian your state.
Complain about this comment
aye_write and Comment 428
Damn and blast! Undone by the offer of a hug!
Oh, how lonely is the path we must tread!
Yes, UK membership of the EU is down to the likes of me and 70+% of the British electorate in 1975.
Yes, the gradual entrapment of the UK in the present political quagmire of an unaccountable and venal (see below) EU is largely down to the UK Political leadership negating the Citizens' will. From Thatcher's era every UK PM has ignored calls for Referenda on various EU debates/policies and of course actual Membership.
No, that does not mean UK 'democracy' as such is at fault, but that the process is as you suggest in need of change. However, that change is extremely unlikely whilst the UK is still a member of the EU! For where I fundamentally disagree with your premise is in that I believe it is the EUrotocracy that is at the core of the machinations to prevent any such Referenda on Membership ever being held in the UK. Afterall, if (and granted it is only an 'if') the UK Electorate, or England in particular, were to vote itself out of the EU then there is a likelihood others might follow and the whole corrupt ediface come tumbling down. Furthermore, I disagree with your version/reading of how a Member State might go about withdrawl: It is the primacy of EU Law that makes nul and void the 2 year process set out in the Articles of EU Membership by which a State is suppoosed to be able to get out.
Thus, UK Politicians are only as human (!?) as all the European ones, and see their best chances of advancement, security of tenure and wonderfully enhanced gratuities (see below) lay within the bottomless pit of EU tax-paying public schemes and funds. It's an easy choice for the standard ambitious politician who has any aspirations to leadership posts or to longevity of seat: Should I resolutely stand for the interests of my Constituents and risk everything my career is about or should I follow the Political consensus line as laid down by the Party Leadership?
Now there's a Gordian Knot if ever there was one!
How to effect a change in the UK's 'democratic systems'? Well, I am an advocate of consensus pressure, but, it has been a number of years since this method has had any real success. It would seem, as I have indicated in previous Comments, that direct Public Action is more likely to change the average MP and No.10's mind on policies (Poll Tax, Fuel Duty escalator), although not always, as evidenced by the mass campaign of the anti-Iraq invasion group.
It is very likely that whichever Politician inhabits No.10 over the next 5 to 10 years they will be as wedded to the EU as PM Blair appeared to be to President Bush's foreign policy.
This does cause me great concern: For as I also mentioned elsewhere, a thwarted and disenfranchised UK Public may turn to more extreme methods as the realisation of the EU yoke becomes ever more glaringly obvious. This phenomena of Active Citizens Resistance exists to some degree in every EU nation. In that festering resentment lays the opportunity of exploiting the Citizens' justifiable anger far more than any downturn in the economy. UK and EU Politicians beware!
So, in the final analysis I would say it is for the UK Politicians to show true leadership of their Citizens: Either by convincing and proving to them the EU is a positive, or, by taking the inevitable strain of strident disapproval and lead at least England to the 'democratic' safety of being nothing more than an associate-economic member of the EU.
When viewing the present 500 or so English MPs' instincts for longterm EU preferment and fat pay-cheques against the modest emoluments of an English democracy I am bound to admit I shall not hold my breath for a quick turnabout in their political affections!
EU Unaccountable Venal Enhancement:
Today's news from the EU that MEPs can earn upwards of 1,000,000 Pounds p.a. when everything is added together is exactly my point about why 'Democracy' is under severe pressure if the EU is to be its guardian. Naturally, most do not claim anything near as much! No, by all accounts most MEPs limit themselves to between 195,000 and 300,000 pounds p.a.!
Of course, as the Mirror rightly headlines today, UK MPs are at it as well; lining ones pocket at the expense of the Tax-payer is not new or exclusive to the EU, but, it is on a far grander and therefore eminently more dangerous adverse scale to the interests of Citizens.
Complain about this comment
Just a quick observation...
Stories like these make it clear there has to be stronger EU. In last Sunday the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy got together with the Commission and the Czech Presidency to discuss and reach a common position on regulating global financial markets to be presented in the G20 meeting at London.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7904300.stm
The problem? The problem is that big countries went ahead again and stepped over smaller members to form an 'European' view for the G20 summit. However their view can't be the view of the Europe of the EU as they represent only a partition of it.
According to Helsingin Sanomat which headlined their story more or less directly translated follows "Full row: unilateral action of big countries angered small EU countries."
The Belgian foreign minister took this issue to public and immediately Finnish, Portuguese, Polish and Luxembourgian representatives gave their support for the Belgian minister.
Now to this news you can react with two ways, either you can say it that it proves that the EU is harmful for the small countries or that for small countries there is even more need for stronger and unified EU.
From my view the decision is simple, there has to be stronger EU so that the EU speaks and represent itself in international meetings and negotiations with a one voice rather than with voices of few big countries. This is evident in G20 summit where there should only be a one representative from the EU and no other representatives from individual counties. The same also holds true to the UN security council where France and UK both have permanent seats with a veto power only due to historical reasons not for real political reasons.
Also another case against being alone without the backing of the EU was again made when the US strong armed the Swiss bank UBS to brake the Swiss privacy laws concerning bank accounts and give it details of 250 US citizens having accounts in it. Essentially US used its power to march over Swiss sovereignty by a mixture of economic pressure applied to UBS and to Swiss government on not to intervene the matter. Of course many in Switzerland didn't take very kindly to this and a right wing group has announced that it wants to punish the US for its action.
http://www.xe.com/news/Sat%20Feb%2021%2010:08:00%20EST%202009/258517.htm?categoryId=1¤tPage=1
Complain about this comment
MercTrasher @430
"the more laws you have to break to live normally, the more totalitarian is your state".
Oh God. And we're famous for playing with government in hide and seek. and they with us. and overall we all pride in these rule-breaking records.
as the saying here "the cruelty and abundance of Russian laws is off-set only by the un-obliging off-hand manner in which they are neglected by masses."
Now I know why! a moment of truth.
(will start counting from now on, how many I violate a day. today ? so far. of what I know I violated - only 3 since morning. 1 for dog, 1 small bribe, 1 on the piracy side LOL.
Ought to start keeping a barometer.
_________
On the un-related subject - congratulations to Britain with the Oscar-s.
_________
And where is our Oscar? for the "Song without a name", :o) "the longest self-surviving blog in operation"
Complain about this comment
#431 - ikamaskeip
The problem you come up against over and over is the one of Parliamentary sovereignty. Unless Parliament can be persuaded to suspend it's sovereignty either for the single issue of a referendum or address the whole constitutional issue, the outcome of that referendum is not binding. I do not know how they did it in 1975 but, if it was possible then, it is possible now.
Then yes please - bring it on. Let the British people decide for themselves.
Complain about this comment
427. Freeborn-John,
i agree with you.. we need a new Europe, a Europe for everybody, not and EU for some.
i am sure that also the pro-EU supporters can see what is wrong with EU and what needs to change and be improved but the least they want is to do or to make this changes or informed the public.. since the like the status quo and their unsustainable lifestyle..
clearly a conflict of interests..
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell: I heard your piece on EU-speak on Radio 4 last night as I drove back to London. I have to say it is one of the best reports on an EU topic that I have heard on broadcast radio or TV for a long time. It seems a shame to nitpick about such a broadcast but there were one or two areas where I would disagree with your analysis. Firstly I do not think it correct to say the EU is a unique political organisation. Of course every political organisation is unique in the way that every human is unique but that does not mean that the EU cannot be readily be characterised as a confederation in the same that each person can immediately be recognised as a human being. Humans have been creating political institutions for thousands of the years and there is nothing new left to be discovered in that field. The one thing that makes the EU unique in the modern age is that it exercises political powers without the consent of the governed. And that is something you totally ignored.
You referred to the similaraity between the EU and the feudal systems that existed in European countries before the rise of the modern nation state. I think there is a great deal of truth in that. In addition to the parallels that you drew between the EU and feudal systems I would also add that the EU institutions are based on a separation of interests system which prevailed in medieval Europe where political institutions represented the interests of the three estates of aristocracy, the common fold and church, rather than being based on the more efficient separation of powers system popularised by Montesquieu. In practice the institutions of the EU hold mixed powers and represent either the supranational interest (in the case of Commission, ECJ and EU Parliament) or the national interest (in the case of the EU Council of Ministers). This unequal institutional contest is the reason why you are far too complacent is assuming that the lack of support for federalism will mean that a federal Europe will not appear.
The representatives of the supranational interest have a monopoly on proposals to changes in European law which mean there are never any proposals to reduce the volume of European law. They are able to use ECJ rulings to re-interpret European treaties as being more federalist than those who signed them would have imagined, or simply to declare that European law is superior to national and has a direct effect in our legal systems whether we like it or not. The EU already has treaty-based powers that allow it to create an unending stream of European law that will replace not just national law but also the legislative power of our national parliaments and which come permanently into force following a one-time vote in the EU Council of Ministers in which our representatives can be outvoted. Therefore a federal Europe will emerge by default unless there are new treaties to remove EU powers, and such a new treaty will require the agreement of 27 governments. Therefore you are woefully complacent in assuming that declining support for federalism means a federal Europe will not materialise. Federal Europe wil not stop unless it is forced into retreat. And that is what is the next EU treaty should be about.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Jukka_Rohila for Comment 432
You set out a number of pro-EU points with clarity:
1) "There has to be a stronger EU": Yes, you would like an EU responsive to the needs, interests, beliefs of 27 nations and speaking with one voice at each and every international body meeting.
No, it is already far too large and the voice of all is simply unfeasible, however, to help I volunteer the UK to withdraw within a calendar year.
2) "The big countries went ahead and stepped over the smaller..": Yes, that's because your Finland, Belgium etc. do not represent the mass populations of the largest EU economies and in an EU baseed on the Political interests of the leadership and not the Citizens it will always be that way.
3) "Only one EU representative at the G20..": Yes, of course, Germany and France are going to allow the Minister from Luxemberg or Estonia or Bulgaria as their EU spokesperson! I'm all for it; I can see the pan-European political fallout now and its hysterical! There will be so many economic-political knives between National shoulder-blades the blood flow will compete with the Rhine!
4) "EU to replace G.B. and France on U.N.O. Security Council: If you really imagine that Paris, the lead founder of the EU, is going to hand over its UN seat to the organisation it set up to serve its primary National interests then you must live in a political vacuum.
As for the UK, well like France, the idea that Europe's 2 Nuclear Weapons Powers would not have an independent voice at the U.N.O. is the stuff of fantasy!
5) "USA strong-armed the Swiss Bank authorities..": So, do you mean you want the EU to have the same blackmailing ability or that you fear the USA could do the same to the EU? Either way, it is yet more evidence of the most detrimental aspect of the EU - a 'supranationalstate' that rides roughshod over its Citizens' rights by forcing access of their private affairs. You respect that power, I detest it.
As I said at the start, thank you: Seldom can the over-reaching and utterly undemocratic Federalist viewpoint have been more exposed. That you were unaware of the full import of what you wrote I have no doubt, nonetheless, it is enlightening for those who claim there is no real threat to independent National status by membership of the soviet EU.
Complain about this comment
"427. Freeborn-John:
Greypolyglot (353): It is straightforward to prove that a better informed public is a more EU-sceptic public."
Oh, you're back are you? So, what's your objection to a better informed public? According to your beliefs that should suit your purpose.
"During normal times self-serving politicians and their supporters in the media are able to shape public opinion on EU matters through control of the news agenda."
Well, for once I have to agree with you. But has it or has it not come to your notice that almost every word published in the UK media is anti-EU? Try reading the following:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/facts/index_en.htm
"But whenever there is a referendum on an EU issue, the consequent debate leads to greater knowledge of the EU among the general public, and we always see the same phenomena of the anti-EU side coming from behind to win the day."
So you acknowledge that the anti-EU is normally "behind"?
"EU federalists are like woodlice that can only thrive in the dark, but they must be given no place to hide. The dwindling band of federalists must be sought out wherever they nest (including this site), confronted in debate and intellectually exterminated. "
Descent into personal abuse is a sure sign that you're either "losing the plot" or losing the argument. Every time you find yourself unable to cope you just skip to another thread or disappear for a week or so. Now, who's "intellectually bankrupt"?
By the way, how does being a polyglot make my "income depend on the EU Project"? My income is assured either way. In fact the way language teaching is headed in the UK my future earnings are looking rosier every day!
I assure you that I am not "being disingenuous" in saying that there should be more 'information' about the EU. I most certainly DO want a better informed public. A public that gets to read something more than the twisted reports of the UK's media.
Was this really the best that you could manage in response to #353 ? Poor you!
By the way, what about # 354?
Complain about this comment
#414 Web Alice thank you very much for your kind words. I have never received a compliment that I appreciated more.
That you may see poetry in my words and think of opera is so very touching coming from a Russian soul. I kept thinking which music you would choose ...
Complain about this comment
436. Freeborn-John:
... I do not think it correct to say the EU is a unique political organisation. ... The one thing that makes the EU unique in the modern age is that it exercises political powers without the consent of the governed."
Whilst I disagree with both of your contentions I can't help but laugh at you contradicting yourself within the space of a single paragraph.
Keep it up! At last I'm beginning to find you more amusing than boring.
Complain about this comment
#436 Freeborn-John
"Humans have been creating political institutions for thousands of the years and there is nothing new left to be discovered in that field."
I sincerely hope this is not true for we are politically and socially challenged in more ways than we care to count.
The recurrence of our mistakes and folly suggests to me that we are indeed only still in the very early stages.
I surmise that if we don't see a lot of change is because we are stagnating, terribly distracted by the sole game in town.
In parallel, our view of people from the perspective of the 'system' is currently terribly skewed and incomplete. And therefore, our models of organization, which mimic the person and the family, are equally incomplete and have made little progress from a humanity perspective.
Complain about this comment
#431 ikamaskeip - about the gordian knot
"How to effect a change in the UK's 'democratic systems'? ...This does cause me great concern... a thwarted and disenfranchised UK Public may turn to more extreme methods ...in that festering resentment lays the opportunity of exploiting the Citizens' justifiable anger far more than any downturn in the economy...beware!"
"... it is for the UK Politicians to show true leadership of their Citizens: Either by convincing and proving to them the EU is a positive, or, by taking the inevitable strain of strident disapproval and lead at least England to the 'democratic' safety of being nothing more than an associate-economic member of the EU."
English legend spells out exactly what is the essential process to resolve this problem. From time to time the higher discernment of the Land, represented by the sword, is petrified, i.e. plunged into the stone.
At such times darkness descends on the reign and terrible things happen. For discernment and meaning are lost, and the rule of the petrified ideas loses touch with the people.
The legend goes on to say that the mighty, in this case the MPs, etc, are not the ones who will draw the sword and restore the reign. No treaties and bailouts will do the job if legend holds true. As nothing the beloved FDR or the League of Nations did solved the problems of the world from 1930 to 1945.
It is the destiny of the insignificant to embody the rebirth of the reign, and it is here where leadership will emerge. Not by coercion, convincing, manipulation... but somehow, from the ingenuity and true identity of specific people and groups. Not from the abstraction of institutions, but from specific individuals whose roles will befall them. Not from ambition and careers, and aggressive goals, but from the clarity of the changes in the forces at work.
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (437):
1. EU is not too big. Yes, its functioning could be better and more efficient, but that question can be solved and at least partly will be solved with the Lisbon Treaty.
Of course not always all member states won't get what they want, but at most cases there is a compromise that satisfy everybody or at least lets nobody be bitter about the result. Having a one voice is just matter of willingness to work and resolves differences in the common table.
2. No. In the EU we should all discuss and work for a solution in a one common table. Of course the bigger countries with more population will always have more louder voice, but then again a large group of small countries can if needed find a very loud voice that the bigger countries have to note.
3. The EU especially the Eurozone works more and more as an single economy thus all member states share same basic economic interests and have a common motivator work for the benefit of the whole area as it benefits themselves too. And again, the voice of the EU as always, be it G20 summit or something, will be found from a common table where 27 member states give the EU representative the guidelines and scope of authorization that can be used.
Anyway in the future more and more European countries that are now members of the G8 and G20 will be dropped of from the group as developing countries are filling the gap between us and them. If Europe wants to have an global impact, it has to do it together.
4. What actual impact can the UK and France have in the security council in reality? Loud objections of France didn't restrict US and UK going ahead and invading Iraq. The fact of the matter is that the voice of France and UK in the security council is just ceremonial, the big superstates of USA, China and Russia call the shots.
I should also add that the security council in the future will be restructured. States like India and Brazil will have to be given a permanent seat and so should the Muslim world given position too and Indonesia, the worlds largest Muslim country, be given a permanent seat. In all fairness Africa too should be given a seat not only because it has sizeable population and special needs, but also because South Africa is a rising power.
In that context I really can't believe that two permanent security council seats should be given to two middle power European nation states that have less and less impact on the global politics.
5. USA and every other power in position to abuse its power will abuse its power. The only way to stop that is to form an power block that can negotiate with other power block in equal terms. I don't like it, but that is how it is and that is how it will be. The only choice what we have is to decide will we be blackmailed or we will group together and not be blackmailed.
May I also add that the Federalist viewpoint is the only way to save the core of the nation states. If we are not together then we will be punched by bigger powers at will. With grouping together as an Federation we can maintain our culture, our way of life and achieve security with other powers by balancing their power with ours.
Complain about this comment
The makers of "Slumdog Millionaire", awarded 8 Oscars at the Academy Award ceremony in Hollywood, received €830,000 support from the EU's MEDIA programme.
Will that be reported in the UK's anti-EU press? Anyone taking bets?
Complain about this comment
FBJ
You're always banging about the EU imposing legislation on an unwilling populace so let's have your analysis of what is wrong with, for example, Protocol N° 1 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila, @443.
In other words what you are saying is:
"not that it is so much the best way to exist but the only one; the dillema is to be a big fish in the pond or to be chased and eaten by other fishes-species."
I am a sample of other "fishes-species", and am not taking sides in European internal process of formulating themselves. accompanied by the ? say internal conflict of interests. Don't have enough feel of the fabric of your society, to take sides.
However am interested, since the resulting configuration is as minimum a neighbour.
and also a customer, an investor, markets and many other many. to explain it to you in your practical parameters that you like so much, LOL.
(In fact I'm not interested in "markets". Simply curious.)
So, Jukka, big fishes do have big advantages. But the defects they have - are also big! And the mistakes they can allow themselves to make - are simply huge!
I mean internally. Not external kicks' exchange with other species. But internal, what will affect the fabric of which you are made of.
When you successfully border and fence from others, can stand up for your position in the world, there is a tendency to project your external achievements onto your internal issues. How to formulate - you start excusing yourself own mistakes. You make more and more of them - and nobody can say you anything of the outsiders - mind it.
No natural controls from neighbours to the degree of your madness. The defects plain grow exponentially. Anyone outside complains - get lost - is the immediate healthy reaction.
I think what will be inside your future paradise plan does have a risk of being of less quality as compared to the state if you continued to exist in competing separate constituencies.
Complain about this comment
This includes internal critics as well.
"Get lost" is being said not only to the outsiders pointing at your various defects, but to internal voices as well.
"Look around - 400 million happy with the lay-out and you are unhappy?!"
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot Comment 444:
830,000 Dollars from the EU! Well, that's certainly not chicken-feed.
Then again, it does leave 14,170,000 Dollars contributed/invested by UK-US-Indian Companies.
Upto the Oscars 'Slumdog' had grossed 130,000,000 Dollars having been promoted mainly by 5,000,000 Dollars on Warner Independent funds (who look after the 'smaller budget' films of Time-Warner.
In all truth, I wonder if anyone will bother to report any of it? It's all a load of pap and certainly does not reflect the true miserable lifestyle for many millions in Mumbai!
If, like me, you have been to Mumbai and actaually seen the atrocious living conditions of 70% of its Citizens then you'd really be considering how the Indian Government has the nerve to develop Nuclear Weapons when its own people still mainly live in 3rd world poverty and distress!?
You might also wonder why the EU or the UK/US invested in a film for private profit instead of a drainage scheme for a couple ofr Mumbai's backstreets!?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila and Comment 446.
Sorry, but almost everything you wrote in this last Comment was based on the premise that the UK-France-Germany-Italy and to some extent the USA are going to just hand over their political-financial-military to some visionary future EU!
It is all stuff and nonsense!
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (449):
The Eurozone countries have already given most of their financial power to the ECB. The EU itself has been given large authority in regards anything that has to do with the single market and external trade.
Remember that economics, politics and security are all interlinked together and it's the economic power that creates both the political power and military power and political and military power together are used to gain advantage in economics.
The question isn't any more will European power pool the rest of their powers together or not, the question is when does it happen. We already have more than enough of examples where the economic and political interests of member states were breached and they couldn't do nothing while the combined power of the EU could have made the difference.
In the end, do remember that British lads are not dying in Iraq because of liberty or democracy, they are dying there to keep and make sure that the US dollar is the only currency for oil trade.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
In my Comment 449 I of course meant your Comment 443 and not webal's 446.
Apologies for the error, but not for the 'stuff and nonsense' observation.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila and Comment 450
"..British lads dying for.. US oil-dollar price.."
I am amazed you wrote that! Until that post I always credited you with being very upto-date and in-touch with how the modern world works.
Where have you been since 2003?
All that guff about an 'oil' war has long since been exposed as utter trivia! There was not and is not an Oil Companies Campaign in Iraq! Surely, you have followed the events to some extent?
As early as January 2005 there were democratic elections and by November 2005 the Iraq Government with full U.N.O. Mandate had taken control of all Iraq's Oilfields and production facilities. As with every oilfield in the world there are 'technical experts' from overseas at work in Iraq's Oil industry but ownership and the Price of oil or the Currency are not issues in Iraq.
No one was suggesting pre-2003 that the Dollar was no longer suitable: You have fallen into the rise of EU and China syndrome in which everything is based on Euros or Yuan as the economic downturn has taken hold. Changing currency is not an answer to the World's economic issues: Tighter, more accurate and objective regulatory measures of all the Bank and Finance industries is the way forward.
The Iraq Campaign was a brilliant military success for the US-UK and 'coalition of the willing' armed forces: The aftermath a bloody disaster for the Iraqis. Undeniably the fault of the US-UK Political leaderships' lack of foresight, planning and understanding of the Shia-Sunni divide!
However, all of that debacle had almost nothing to do with Iraq's Oil!
Really disappointed that you lack such basic knowledge on that Iraq oil issue: It leads me to question even more your views and judgements on the UK v EU debate.
Complain about this comment
I am very late on this discussion but have been intrigued by the opinions and views of the Finnish contributor. Who but a contributor from a small EU state would argue for cultural equality with the likes of Italy of France (or Germany or the UK)? Who else would lecture a Scot on his history based on readings from Wikipedia - one of the most unreliable sources of information on the internet? Who else would argue for the pooling of sovereignty amongst a union of "equals"? It is posts such as his/hers that confirm all my fears about the EU and its future. And, yes, I know a fair amount about it having worked on one EU policy area for 30 years (sometimes even for the Commission itself).
Unless the Union can become more democratic, unless larger countries are given more power in proportion to their contributions and their populations, then there is no future for it. And this implies that the smaller countries will have to give up some of the many privilegies they have acquired from membership
Complain about this comment
Jukki, I agree with ikamaskeip, you are "running in front of the steam-locomotive".
Complain about this comment
To ikamaskeip (452):
Maybe its you who is not up to date with the Iraq war.
In September 2000 Saddam Hussein made it public that Iraq would move its oil trade from US dollar to Euro. Iraq did the deed and started to sell its oil denominated in Euro. In June 2003 after the successful invasion to Iraq, the occupation administration declared that all oil sales will be moved back to US dollars. In the same event also all Euro denominated holdings of Iraq were moved to US dollars.
So tell me again how the Iraq war wasn't about the position of the US dollar having monopoly on oil trade?
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (446):
The duty of every generation is to do and work for what they see as right and as beneficial not only for them but for the future generations in general. After a generation has done its work, the duty of following generation is to judge the work passed by the past generation, take notes and judge, and do and work in turn on what they see as a right and beneficial.
Right now when we look at history, at our current world and trends in it, it seems that this century will be the century of superstates and super blocks. From this point of time it seems that no European country alone can make it in the world of 2050 or 2100. Thus there is valid motivation to develop a European superstate and as that development is equipped with huge economical benefits, its very clear that the right thing to do is to develop and advantage towards a European superstate, Federal Europe, that can manage in the world of tomorrow.
Now do I think that there is a possibility that it will rotten from inside? Well there are no guarantees, but by taking lessons from history, by looking on what has worked and what hasn't worked, I believe that we can make the Federal Europe work. Also as looking on how the world is developing, my believe is that the competition of power blocks will keep each one of them under stress so much that they can't afford internal short comings. Thus I think that in overall European superstate is not only good for Europe, but it is something that its neighbours don't have to fear but can work with it.
Now of course there is distant possibility that the European way of doing things, forever bickering internally and concentrating mostly to internal matters, is the winning concept and thus takes up the hegemonic position and spoils itself like the Americans have done. That however is not my trouble, that is the trouble of future generations to bicker and find their way out of the mess that they have generated.
Complain about this comment
Bonzerpeach and Comment 453
Yes, it comes as a bit of a reality-check doesn't it when you and I read how astonishingly naive, but also, the developing, overwhelming ambitions some of the smaller nations of the EU have in mind.
It has become another reason to suspect everything about the EU: The envy and jealous aspirations of the Slovaks, Finns, Latvians etc. now lays alongside the Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis of ill-intent towards the UK as prime reasons for the UK Citizens to have a Referendum on Membership of this corrupt and venal institution.
Complain about this comment
I think in pictures. We are all Russians neanderthals, who used to draw mammoths on the walls. pictorial thinking. think in images.
So what's the picture of the EU in the future. as you wish it to be, Jukka.
?
________
Let's imagine others. LOL.
China. A dragon 100%. Colour yellow and red, lots of gold. Some metal clank of munition (scales). Long, muscular body, short paws, big head. Long head. I think it is a crocodile, in short. :o)
Wings purely symbolically, wings of a kite. butterfly wings attached to the crocodile body. (wings need to be thought over in detail. interesting). Anyway we haven't seen China flying. yet.
But it can definitely run very fast! suddenly. with the speed you don't expect from a reptile. on the ground.
Anyway. a red dragon. a golden dragon.
USA. (to make it easier for you, Jukki, to understand what I mean, imagine a PowerPoint slide show. this slide. no, wrong. take it away. next slide)
So, imagine a Loch Nessy. Make it a cartoon version. Big happy Loch Nessy, after a good breakfast, with a round belly. Round happy body, thin slender limbs. Sitting on the side of the pond, smiling. Small head, may be crowned like a statue of Liberty is ;o), lazily stirs the water in the pond with one whatever limb. Gazing melancholically at the rings on the water. No. there are 2 waters.
turn 90 degrees around, put in the position how in old yellow pictures when a group picture is taken - 2 chaps lie in front on the ground. Leaning onto one elbow.
So, a Nessy - head on the Atlantic Ocean side, hind paws on the Pacific. Lazily tries the water there, by the left hind paw. in San Francisco. brr. cold.
May be some "tummy gazing". LOL.
Happy content smile.
Russia
Well. I'll be traditional, a brown bear. Small round brown eyes. Not extraordinary friendly stare, LOL. But intelligent. Alert. Kind of hungry. More like a dog! you have a clear feeling: "Understands all - but can't say!"
Omnivorous.
Strictly seasonal creature, 8 months a year puts out a sign: Sorry, bear is resting.
Strict hystorical rythm, when under snow blanket all activity freezes. General attitude to outsiders during autumn-winter-spring "Get lost; we are busy with our bear things that you can't understand as you are not a bear. we sleep in the den (dream; day-fream; compose fairy-tails and our bear songs.) anyway it's sleep time you can't do anything 8 months of the year snow cover.
One paw holds a benzine canister another paw - a glass of... gas!
When woken up in winter gets hysterical, all wrong no white outside of the den, no food, starts rambling in the forest killing everyone on the go. The so called phenomenon of the "shuttle bear" (a bear woken during winter sleep).
Lately active in un-seasonal time due to the climate changes and global warming. Snow vanishes - how to live further on - unclear. Last decades displays un-healthy activity in un-usual seasons, "winter" shrinks in duration.
Now, the EU.
I am sorry, Jukks. Your vision gives me a vision of one body and 27 heads.
A Loch Nessy model. one body, 27 heads.
Scary to think. It's a hydra. LOL. Any passing St. George would recognise at once.
Any alternatives? :o)
Complain about this comment
It's a so tricky impossible balance. what's called "to climb up a fir-tree and not get scratched".
of course many things are tempting to pool things together, economies of scale, and defence yes can be umbrella-like, and buying power. (just to think of our individual gas contracts for a sec, LOL.)
and still if/when you do you are a USSR 100%. don't get angry with me. "I was born in the Soviet Union, I was made in the USSR." (tra la. a popular here song). I recognise one.
you don't like USSR option (one centre creates policy for all), you don't like USA option (homogenious insides), it's a real fir-tree in climbing, unprecedental so far.
Now, OK, not a dragon with 27 heads, separate bodies. Keep separate bodies. own legs. for standing. and running away, in case of anything! LOL. 27 cats and dogs. in a shed. :o)
I found a solution. It should be dogs only - same creature, varous brands, extreme variety.
27 dogs from lap-dogs to bull-dogs!
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (458):
Smurfs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smurfs
The EU is the Smurf village. Papa Smurf is the EU commission as Papa Smurf is always right and everyone knows that.
From the list of different Smurfs there should be a suitable Smurf for every member state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_The_Smurfs
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila and Comment 455
"..Saddam changed Oil valuations to Euro.. tell me again about Iraq war..
First, of course, it is important to remember one of the main background reasons for the introduction of the EURO was as a competitor to the Dollar. Getting any product traded in Euros instead of Dollars would bring large revenues to the EU and of course the sticky-fingered EUrocrats would just love getting their hands on some of it. So, indirectly, if what you claim as the reason for the invasion of Iraq were to be true, then it could in some ways be the fault of the EU and Euro that the Americans felt compelled to 'defend' their 'dollar-oil economic interests'.
Maybe when you have read that accusation it will give you a little pause for thought about the dangers resulting from the EU just going to step in and take over at G20, G8, UN Security Council etc.
However, fortunately for you and the pro-EU lobby, the US-UK and 'coalition forces' invasion of Iraq was for almost entirely different reasons.
Somewhere along the line you have either misunderstood or been misinformed about Iraq and its Oil Revenues.
As a result of the successful U.N.O. Armed Forces liberation of Kuweit in 1991 strict Oil Trading measures were imposed by the U.N.O. on Saddam Hussein's regime. The brutal dictator did and said many things that were designed to break these restrictions: In November 2000 one of his suggestions to OPEC was to value Oil in Euros - - - it never happened!
Saddam traded oil for Euros as the currency and made a profit - - - fellow OPEC Members never did (Venezuela considered it) - - - Saddam continued to breech and cheat on U.N.O. embargos in order to continue lining the pockets of his equally brutal supporters.
It may be at this point you will want to consider the EU's stance on Saddam's tyrannical rule and its (EU) willingness to do deals with such a person? Afterall, it is in this EU-Saddam Euro-Oil deal period that Saddam was butchering thousands of 'Marsh Arabs' in the south and 'Kurds' in the north whilst thousands of Iraqis went without medicines, food and water.
So, as you asked, I will tell you again: The invasion 3 years later was as a result of Saddam constantly flouting U.N. measures, a fear amongst Intelligence Services of his possessing/developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and, to effect regime-change.
The UK Parliament voted in favour of UK Forces participating in the US-led invasion because of the 2nd reason, 'WMD'. British forces are still in Iraq because neither the Oval Office nor No.10 had given sufficient thought to what should be done with the post-Saddam 'liberated' Iraq. They did not go to war for oil, did not remain for oil and will not be leaving later this year with oil!
Now, we really are along way from EU-speak: Let's again, agree to disagree, as I just don't want to get involved in the Iraq affair on this Blog.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, re the smurfs, not bad.
When you leave the track "we ought we must" and get into more playful moods you immediately give me hopes! :o)
not, may be, very smurftastic... but quite, quite smurfy!
Complain about this comment
Not Smurfs, 27 salamanders.
Complain about this comment
LibreHacer @439,
you are way too "compliment-ary" to me yourself :o), I am even lost how to reply.
No I am not lost, I am glad you liked it!
"which music you would prefer..."
was thinking of various themes, took me quite some time. how can you sing here.
many gliding themes that express the Russian un-translatable word "volya".
(isn not voila :o)
may be had something in common at some time past, with the English "will"
it's will, at someone's one will, combined with vast space. "volya" is when you are free gliding in a vast space, at your own will, in very good moods, feeling unlimited.
being in the "volya", as opposed to depressed-supressed moods in claustrophobic boxes. Like you go out at? some meadow, hills or whatever are gliding one into another as far you can see, you breathe in deeply by the full breast, and say "oh/wow/finally. "Vol'ya vol'naya" - willy will. there is where to go, anywhere to go. :o)
Complain about this comment
@453 bonzerpeach
"Who but a contributor from a small EU state would argue for cultural equality with the likes of Italy of France (or Germany or the UK)?... Who else would argue for the pooling of sovereignty amongst a union of "equals"? It is posts such as his/hers that confirm all my fears about the EU and its future. And, yes, I know a fair amount about it having worked on one EU policy area for 30 years (sometimes even for the Commission itself)."
Columbus found a supporter in the Spanish union to discover a the world was spherical. Unfortunately it keeps being flattened all the time. By choosing two variables, size and wealth, you have done the trick again.
I don't blame you for the professional bias, after so many years on the job and prisoner of the dominant world-view, you are in good company.
I am aware that you believe 'policy' is a good word but I hold my reservations. For the depersonalization, the removal of qualitative differences, reducing everything to numbers and factors, and the disregard for the demonstrable lack of competence people have in understanding complex phenomena (climate, life, love, happiness, wealth, etc) produces cartoon-esque views of reality.
The role of small countries speaks to the 'borders' that Webalice @446 finds so necessary to prevent the monster to awaken. These countries are the sparks of consciousness, what in fact is the only factor to keep the EU vibrant.
Haste and expediency, which is what size and numbers seek is at every step threatening to destroy diversity. And sadly few seem to notice that this process is similar to replacing all of nature by genetically modified life forms.
Wiser people don't dare to forget that the devil's hand is in such things.
Small countries and regions are qualitative determinants and serve a role. We may not understand it, as we don't understand nature, but as we strive to become more ecological, we would do well to question our mono-species tendencies.
Complain about this comment
@464 Webalice - Volya - I found this so very Russian and poetic, perhaps it is a good translation of this wonderful word
Austin Osman Spare wrote: "Self-Love is a mental state, mood or condition caused by the emotion of laughter becoming the principle that allows the Ego appreciation or universal association in permitting inclusion before conception...
... it is the void at the core of an identity which is freely able to move into any desired set of social relations, without becoming trapped or identified entirely within them.
...As the core of the sense of self is Self-love, rather than any label which encapsulates any particular set of behavior, beliefs and life-patterns..."
If this is approximately right, then I will remember 'volya' as a capacity to perceive and experience the world of Alice (-: ;-)
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell:
Thanks for the excellent lesson regarding EU speak...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
To #464: I apprehand some virus if not a deliberate intervention has interrupted my participation in this blog.
However, tomorrow we shall commemorate the liberation of the Bulgaria which was solemny announced on march 3rd 1878 in San Stefano (at the outskirts of Istanbul)...
Nazdrave!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS