Summit to bash Sarkozy?
President Nicolas Sarkozy, acting as president of the European Union in the last six months of 2008, seemed to adore snapping his fingers and calling emergency meetings of the EU's 26 other presidents and prime ministers. At the time one French commentator told me it was part of Mr Sarkozy's style: the ability to conjure headlines out of planned meetings that in the end didn't achieve, or even conclude, very much at all.
Perhaps it is fitting that the Czechs, now in the chair, have called an emergency meeting for the end of this month especially for other countries to dump on Mr Sarkozy. One insider said "essentially it's to tell Sarkozy to shut up". That wouldn't be a bad headline.
The EU is mustard keen on free trade inside and outside its borders, but now there are fears that protectionism will make a comeback. First there was the row with the United States over the mooted "Buy American" campaign. But the threat within comes from Mr Sarkozy, who appears to be attacking the very idea of a European common market, which is at the heart of the EU's philosophy...
First he announced on French TV that Peugeot, a French company, should think about coming home rather than having a big factory in the Czech Republic.
Then there's his loan of 6bn euros to the French car industry. It would appear to drive a coach and horses through EU rules against state aid on its own. But there are strings attached. It is based on the car companies' pledge not to close French plants. If there are cutbacks and French workers don't lose their jobs who will have to make the sacrifice?
Other big car-making countries like Slovakia, Germany and Sweden are worried that the French bail-out will support French industry and French workers at the expense of their products. The Czech prime minister pointedly said "reverting to nationalism is a short-sighted and irresponsible choice". He's apparently irritated, not only by the economics of all this, but at French sniping from the sidelines about the quality of his presidency.
So the summit could be uncomfortable for Mr Sarkozy. The same insider who thought Mr Sarkozy would be told to shut up wondered if he thought Europe's biggest Toyota plant, based in France, should take its business back to Japan. If he makes a fuss it could be even more uncomfortable for the EU as a whole. But is he wrong? Should countries protect their own workers and industries first? Although the BBC's Today programme, I think on Saturday, sportingly set up a debate on protectionism it ended up with one academic gamely defending protectionism in early stages of industrialisation. Anyone want to make a full-blown defence in the here and now?
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~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why is everyone so surprised at the behaviour of the French President! France has always dragged its feet on freeing up its internal market and has concentrated upon protecting French business. It is easier for a French company such as EDF to take over the Electric and Gas business in the UK than it would be for any non French EU business to take over anything French! The European COmmission has tried for years to get the French to follow EU regulations but to no avail. To the only thing that really changes is the six month Presidency rotation!
Complain about this comment
I don't defend or attack 'protectionism' - I am a staunch defender of democracy.
If Sarkozy had stood on a platform of 'France First' and had made pledge to only loan the car companies state money, borrowed from the taxpayer, on condition that French car makers were based in France, well...
If that were the case [and I'm not suggesting it is] then however displeasing, distasteful or indeed unproductive that might appear to the proponents of globalisation, then that is at least a 'democratic decision'.
Of course, one could argue that this will result in 'cutting one's nose to spite one's face' and result in retaliatory action, or be counter productive 'in the long run'.
But French voters are intelligent enough to be allowed to make such decisions for themselves, and shouldn't have to give up the right to endorse such decisions because some 'supra-national' body for whom NO ONE has voted has endorsed such a policy.
Complain about this comment
There are several problems to overcome but essentially it would come down to education of the dangers of protectionism. Anyone looking back to the last century will see what happened when protectionism occurred after the recession before WW2. Protectionism is the pursuit of saving jobs led to reduced trade and reduced money flow costing more jobs and a depression only a global war helped to end.
Unfortunately those who argue for protectionism are those with the most eloquent arguments. Protecting jobs can only be made when trade occurs between the EU and rest of the world not restricting trade within the borders of a member state.
Those who see the logic of free and open trade at this time more than ever must work very hard and focus their argument against the tabloid press, ignorant politicians and those who have not looked at recent history.
Complain about this comment
anyway.. sarkozy is crazy enough to do anything or nothing ..
one point is that the car industry or any other industry is operating beyond one country.. so, who should foot the bill? if one country bails out its portion, the others should do the same, so that they dont interfere in the free market.. what sarkozy says is not important, but what he does will make the car industry go back to france unless the czeck gov follows siute..
here we have countries competing against one another.. who can offer more aid...which will result in, insted of having companies too big to fail to fail, we will have countries to big to fail to fail.. and who will save the countries?
the bailouts are 'protectionist' solutions.. as we accept that our life is limeted, we have to accept that also certain companies or fat cats will fail, and we have to let them fail.. other new comers will subbstitute them..
lets stop the resentment and discrimination now.
Complain about this comment
This merely exposes the shallowness of the "EU Project".
But why should anyone be surprised at Sarkozy's attitude? The French have always ignored, or got round, any EU rules they didn't like. After all, wasn't yoghurt production designated a vital national industry to prevent a takeover by a UK firm?
Complain about this comment
France is a country that has declared the production of yoghurt as an industry of strategic importance and refused to allow Danone to be bought by foreigners...
... So what did anyone expect?
Sarkozy's problem is that he wants to be liked (and I like him - if only for Carla's sake), but all he need do is not give a damn and act like his predecessor Chirac, and tell the heads of those bothersome, pesky, little, non-protectionist European states that "they missed a good opportunity to keep quiet".
Non? Boof!
Complain about this comment
Had Sarkozy said that French taxpayers would be bailing out industries with much of the monetary profit ending up other countries he would have faced a virtual revolution at home.
As concerns free trade, for example, that between the U.S. and countries with similar wages and living standards it generally has benefited all of those involved. However, free trade between the U.S. and countries which produce the same goods but at much lower wages has resulted in the loss of skilled jobs and related wages in the U.S. and an exodus of industries to those countries which pay lower wages. In the U.S. one result has been a widening economic gap between those well off and those less so. In developing countries which are trading partners with developed ones the consequences are mixed, but often an outcome is a wealthy class and a relatively impoverished one which works for low wages and no benefits. For those who remain in agriculture large foreign companies often force them off the land by establishing plantations, and then employ many at very low pay. It is readily assumable that the same result applies in other comparable circumstances.
Complain about this comment
The Czechs are now worried about the lack of coordination among EU members? Maybe they could start by ratifying the Lisbon treaty, which calls for more coordination among the other things.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I'd love to offer you a full blown defence but there simply isn't one which works. We live in a global economy and the fact that we are in a major economic downturn does not make our interdependence any less real.
This was why I was so angry about the 'British jobs for British workers' fiasco. There was widespread industrial unrest driven by a complete fallacy - the absurd idea that you can participate in a common market and still operate a protectionist policy in the labour market. Knowing the penchant of the French for bending the rules and given that the grief the EU are going to give Sarkozy is nothing compared with what the French electorate have in mind for him, I would not put it past him to try something along those lines purely for populist purposes. It doesn't really matter much where you make Peugeots if you can't sell them.
You will not bring profitability back to industry simply by moving it around. In fact it is simply an exercise in diverting investment from something useful such as R and D or creative marketing into something completely pointless - relocation costs. Basically, protectionism might be good politics but it is lousy economics.
Complain about this comment
You can have protectionism AND free-trade!
All protectionism is, is looking after your own people instead of someone elses.
Example: UK business could be abroad, with foreign workers. How does this help the UK worker exactly?
If the UK business stayed at home nad employed UK workers and exported instead, there wouldn't be a problem either, only it is (some other countries workers) that are unemployed, not our own!!!
There is nothing wrong with it IMHO. Othe countries will have to become more industrious.
Complain about this comment
I think you are all missing the point, there is a crisis happening, a huge american made crisis, something unusual, something exceptional, something that calls for special billions and trillion dollar plans, something that requires bold moves, new rules for the hard times ahead, a deep rethink of the system, and that is precisely what Sarkosy is doing ! He won’t be giving money to the car industry for ten years, he does it exceptionally now so those industries can’t use the crisis as a pretext to relocate, to me that makes perfect sense, so yes, it is protectionism to some degree, but desperate time call for desperate measures. So of course you British can’t understand that, you don’t have an industry anymore!!! But we do, so be more objective and tolerant for a change.
And about Sarkosy...Mardell, you want him to shut up? But if he hadn’t spoken during the French presidency, went everywhere and talked to everyone to at least try to get a common response to the crisis, I think everyone would agree that we would be worst off without is enthusiasm and energy, even his worst enemies admit it, so maybe you could be gracious enough to recognize that simple fact. Brown didn’t save the world, Obama won't, and neither did Sarkosy, but at list the latter tried ! Furthermore, the present crisis is truly the crisis of Anglo Saxon neoliberalism, Thatcher and Reagan style, and it has shown its limits, in fact it failed utterly, so maybe a little humility would be in order, no ?!
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, I think there are a couple of approximations and missing facts that need to be alighted.
What did Sarkozy exactly told the French last week, during the TV interview ? He said 2 things : first, he said it is normal that Peugeot or Renault create new plants in India when it comes to sell cars in this country. Therefore, the Toyota example in your article is irrelevant : Toyota cars produced in France are for the EU market. The case of the French companies relocating within the EU borders is completely different. This is where Sarkozy came by adding that, when it comes to sell cars in France, it is not normal that French brands create new plants within the EU borders, in countries with man power at very low cost, and destroy jobs in France. On this, I and I bet most of us, do fully agree. Just imagine one second we are talking about the UK instead of France ? The EU should be an open and free and FAIR market, but no more than that. Eastern countries create an unfair competition, that is why I think it is normal when West Europe countries protect themselves. We needed to be careful by accepting in the EU only countries with similar level of wealth, but we failed.
Finally, this comment from Sarkozy was just "des paroles, des paroles, des paroles" : a lot of words but no action. The plants WILL stay in Czech Republic and I think the reaction from the Czech officials is just counter productive.
The second comment I wanted to make is about the 6billion euros for the French car industry. This money is here to protect the French workers. As long as this money comes from the French government for French companies, I think it is fair to ask them to keep the jobs in France, don't you think ? This is the way the French tend to do business, and I believe now they have been more than right.
Complain about this comment
sarkozy is playing a dangerous game. the eu is a lot bigger than the french project it started out as, a fact that many french voters have an uneasy inkling about but have not yet particularly had their noses rubbed in. overt french protectionism like the peugeot deal will just get slapped down by the european commission, and sarkozy is setting himself up for a spat with brussels as much as with anyone else, but maybe that is what he wants?
i suspect the outcome will be an agreement that there will be no more intra-eu protectionism, but that instead there will be a common eu protectionist effort aimed at outsiders, primarily the chinese and other major asian exporters (something the obama administration may privately applaud as cover for their own efforts in that direction).
behaviour like sarkozy's really depresses me. it's just one more sign that we haven't learnt anything from history. everyone is worried about a return to the 1930s, but people seem to forget that the 30s led to the 40s. i fear for my children.
Complain about this comment
The answer for free trade across borders being the best policy is really "because it is". It one of those economic orthodoxies that are self-evident, until you try to strip it down to the nuts and bolts.
Protection means tariffs, which mean taxation, which goes into the maw of the government. It takes liquidity out of the economy. Without tariffs there is more to spend on goods and services, and the economy should expand as a result. Protection means that home-grown goods often do not have to compete on a "level playing field", and therefore lack the quality of imported goods, buoyed up by their own captive market. Innovation suffers. Protection often means retaliatory action, and makes it harder to sell your goods abroad, even if you have natural advantages (eg British plonk vs French Chardonnay). Protection also makes life harder for third-parties, eg Fairtrade produce and the victims of Bill Clinton's banana wars.
We should be talking to each other, and trading with each other. That way, we might get along better. It is all about swings, roundabouts, give and take.
Complain about this comment
6. At 8:21pm on 10 Feb 2009, MaxSceptic wrote:
"France is a country that has declared the production of yoghurt as an industry of strategic importance and refused to allow Danone to be bought by foreigners...
... So what did anyone expect?
Sarkozy's problem is that he wants to be liked (and I like him - if only for Carla's sake), but all he need do is not give a damn and act like his predecessor Chirac, and tell the heads of those bothersome, pesky, little, non-protectionist European states that "they missed a good opportunity to keep quiet".
Non? Boof!"
He can get away with it because he is French. Without the UK or the Czechs or Denmark or Spain the "EU" would still be the "EU". Without France it would not.
One can say all sorts of things about what the "EU" is about but for many it means the avoidance of war in Europe. That usually means the avoidance of a war between France and Germany.
Complain about this comment
Re:14
Which is why the UK can never really have any influence in the "EU".
Complain about this comment
Sir,
Mr Sarkozy aids the french auto industry with a large loan package ( a french industry which appears to have a number of plants elsewhere in Europe including the UK). So do the British, the Czech, the German, the Swedish government and others in Europe.
As such a State's aid is not contrary to the Rome treaty as long as such id does not materially affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to common interest (see Article 87 of the EEC treaty).
Also the Treaty provides as a common aim mong members states the full employment of its people.
Would not it be time for the EU current Presidency and the Spokesman for the Commission to focus on conveying a Council to address common policies vis-àvis the current economic and financial turmoil instead of singling out one member State of wrongdoing?
Regards
Complain about this comment
A couple of years ago I had to read two or three hundred documents on the subject of trade tarrifs. Some were academic papers, some were industry comments, a few were from NGOs.
I observed:
(1) That all the economists were in favour of free trade. (2) That the free trade model seemed to favour large corporations but these actually contribute only a small percentage of international trade. (3) That *NONE* of the economists revealed any understanding whatsoever of how small and medium businesses actually operate. (4) That organisations with lots of money can easily manipulate the free trade rules to gain advantage over less rich competitors. (5) That academics showed little interest in or awareness of strategic issues. (6) That the one academic paper that did note strategic issues noted how the free trade of the British Empire had left Britain vulnerable to German aggression due to the transfer of steel production out of the UK into Germany and the USA in the late 1800s and early 1900s. (7) That free trade rules actually interfere with free trade in many cases. (8) That the side effects of free trade rules can be devastating for small businesses or seasonal businesses even through they are trading freely and fairly.
In short, I concluded that our present free trade arrangement is largely an invention of people who have never participated in real trade and business and that, whilst it might look good in theory and as an academic game, it is need of significant change to make it useful for the poor people and small traders who constitute most of the world's population and most of the world's businesses who actually do more than 90% of the world's trade.
Complain about this comment
It would seem that all my posts asking people if they get paid to post here have been removed.
Even the jokey one to myself asking if I got paid to post here has been removed.
I think it is an important issue.
One person admitted to being paid to post here.
Over at the Telegraph another person admitted to being paid to post there.
Complain about this comment
SB2
Did you seriously believe me when I told you I get paid to post here? Well...then there is no help for you..
Complain about this comment
Europe doesn't seem to have "changed" Sarko as much as he claimed at the end of last year...What a disappointment. Then again, a crisis like this shows us where we still lack coordination and people will feel frustrated about the unwillingness of Europe's leaders to get together and unite. The next generation of leaders will do a much better job.
Complain about this comment
Well you have to look after you own people and your country first, as the the ultimate people responsible for the the money each country borrows is its own people.
For example if UK banks go bust who is going to end up paying, its the people living in UK not EU, China or India. So what is wrong in protecting.
Another example is' are you going to buy a house on mortgage and let some one live for free while you are destitute.
So what Nicolas Sarkozy is doing is right.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
How can the E.U be anti-protectionalism when in essance it is a Protectionist Block of Trading nations. Inside the Block you have free trade but its ok to have a protectionistic view as to all nations outside the E.U.
This is Hypocrisy at its worst and much worse than the BUY AMERICAN part of there stymulus package
Complain about this comment
An Elected National Government has a duty to provide jobs for its citizens.
Who should they favour the people who voted them into power (The same people they need to vote for them again) Or foriegn workers who can not vote for them and form whom they have no mandate to Govern.
You can have free trade without a feeling the need to steal jobs from your neighbors .
Complain about this comment
My initial response was to suggest raising the incomes of those below the EU average so that the carrot of cheaper wages no longer become an incentive for moving production facilities, etc.
However, having seen what happens to those who get left behind, I am now tending towards the opposite - reduce the wages of those who are above average job for job (including the public sector) so that the fair distribution objectives of the EU can be achieved.
Of course, I recognise that it isn't going to happen!
So, if through whatever democratic processes exist in each country, the French want to support their car industry, the Poles want to support their dockyards and the British continue to support their bumbling political classes, then there seems very little that the EU can do about it.
Complain about this comment
It would seem that you don't even really have free trade, let alone nationhood where you look out for each other.
This whole EU thing is a scam to get Germany to fund the buying of a lot of oudated French military hardware that can not be given away elsewhere, for the EU.
If there really is a EU then Sarkozey has as much of an obligation to protect EU citizens who are Czech as EU citizens who are French.
But there is no EU, just a French scam.
I see one of the Von Stauffenburgs is challenging the Lisbon Treaty in Germany's Constitutional court. I would think if any children know the importance of standing up to Tyranny instead of Goose stepping along, this heoric line would be it.
Complain about this comment
Politejomsviking
"This whole EU thing is a scam to get Germany to fund the buying of a lot of oudated French military hardware that can not be given away elsewhere, for the EU."
Can you elaborate on this?
"If there really is a EU then Sarkozey has as much of an obligation to protect EU citizens who are Czech as EU citizens who are French."
I agree, but we are not there yet, obviously.
"I see one of the Von Stauffenburgs is challenging the Lisbon Treaty in Germany's Constitutional court. I would think if any children know the importance of standing up to Tyranny instead of Goose stepping along, this heoric line would be it."
Lol. You're WWII rethoric is rather outdated and appeals to no one but Max Sceptic and other Europhobes.
Complain about this comment
Is the CAP not just an E.U Protection mechanism for protecting French farming
Complain about this comment
Protectionism is all a matter of degree.
In the home we favour those near to us. In business we would rather see our company get a sale rather than the sale go to a competitor - assuming that we can make a reasonable return on doing the business.
Here we are starting to see the problems with protectionism - it is 'good' providing its results are actually beneficial.
Is this a defence of generalised protectionism? - probably not, but I have found that this brief rubric leads to the 'answer' to the question.
I personally believe that it can be shown that when protectionism leads to structural inefficiency that it is generally ill-advised as a strategy e.g. when a country subsidises or protects the production of a good that it is not well equipped to produce, say rice in Japan (!!!)
However when a country can become more efficient in production through investment in the means of production and the industry needs to make a profit to invest in the equipment then it benefits the whole World when the farmers, for example are protected.
I am not however very happy to justify American and European farm subsidies on this basis, but on the other hand neither am I entirely happy with turning over the whole economy to cash crops when a country could have fed itself with local produce if it had not gone for a cash crop.
M. Sarkozy's country has an history of resorting to protectionism, but on the other hand it has sustained a mixed and more broadly based economy than the UK and not exported all of its jobs to the third World. The UK has a protected Financial Services industry and look where that has got us!
Perhaps an American contributor to this blog would like to compare and contrast the domestic, foreign and World's costs and benefits of US Farm subsidies and the similar European system?
I am not very happy with competitive devaluation of a currency as a method of generalised protectionism - G. Brown please note!
Complain about this comment
Surely "free trade" involves beating everyone else into the ground (figuratively speaking) to sell your produce? The EU is an advocate of "fair trade" which I personally find a much more acceptable practice.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Some other parts of the world seem mightily in favour of "free trade" so long as it involves only their freedom to export into someone else's market.
Complain about this comment
I didn't hear much about EU rules when the Treasury started pumping cash into our banks and suggesting that they start making loans available for UK borrowers.
Certainly Sarkozy is a maverick, who doesn't seem to have thought very deeply about the wider issues of propping up Peugot. If he is so keen on underpinning French employment then why not put money into Toyota's French plant, too?
My guess is that EU rules will sit quietly in a corner, gathering dust, until we are no longer 'living in an emergency' and there is a fully fledged appraisal of just what has been happening since the 2nd half of last year.
Complain about this comment
I am pretty certain that France exports more cars that it imports. Moreover, imports also create jobs in France, for instance in car dealerships, garages, never mind French part suppliers to foreign carmakers.
In so far, for France, encouraging protectionism in the car industry "is worse than a crime, it's a mistake", to quote Mr. Sarkozy's predecessor François Miterrand.
Frankly, if this is the height of our political leaders' economic thinking, we are up the proverbial creek, without a paddle or even a raft. Mr. Sarkozy, do you want to help the French industry (automotive and otherwise)? In that case:
a) Stop meddling in management decisions;
b) Take non-discriminatory measures to reduce the cost of producing stuff and employing labour in France;
c) Take reasonable measures to stimulate consumption. I put the emphasis on "reasonable": as the satirical magazine "Le Canard Enchaîné" pointed out last week, only one year ago Mr. Sarkozy blamed France's economic problems on individuals "not being indebted enough".
Same goes, by the way, for all European leaders. It would be a good thing if Mr. Barroso (head of the European Commission) wasn't apparently MIA, but then, it was the national governments which, ever since the Delors era, have been purposely selecting pliable non-entities like him to head the Commission. They (and the Czechs, of all people!) shouldn't be complaining now that there isn't enough coordination emanating from the EC.
Complain about this comment
#32 - Turron
That is because no rules were broken. The broad rule as I understand it is that, within the Eurozone, the ECB is responsible for monetary policy but - throughout the EU - fiscal policy is in the hands of individual governments. So are economic stimulus measures of the kind which enabled both the UK and French governments to pump money into the automotive industry or bail out banks. Indeed, there has been widespread encouragement for governments to introduce stimulus packages.
What they are not allowed to do is take measures which mitigate against the competition rules or rules relating to freedom of movement. So plainly Sarkozy has every right to pump money into Peugeot but no right to link it to repatriating production to France. and Brown can invest to stimulate productivity in the UK but he cannot close the doors to European competition or introduce rules which would give British workers an advantage over their fellow EU workers.
Complain about this comment
#30 John
According to the searches that I am making 67% of US farmers receive no subsidies. Of those that do, 80% of them get less than $731, divide that by 12 months and you'll see that is hardly a reason to stay in a business yhat requires an initial investment of several $100,000.
That said, I don't think the US is claimimg to be in the same country as Europe, we are just Allies of certain States in Europe. If a Federation of States does not defend it's small member's rights against it's big member's rights. Again, can the Czechs not expect the support of a EU president in keeping it's factories?
You call people who are against the EU Europhobes, perhaps the name EUphobes would be more correct.
As to our beloved Allie France, since the begining she has done everything in her power to disorganize NATO and endanger the defence of Europe in her power. She is an Anglophobe to the point of making up words for English speaking countries inventions.
Complain about this comment
France has always been Anglophobe since the dawn of time nevermind that English Speaking people have liberated France from Despots on at least three occasions and then given it back to the people.
Sometimes i think maybe we should have either not bothered or ratained control
Complain about this comment
"# 36. WhiteEnglishProud:
France has always been Anglophobe since the dawn of time nevermind that English Speaking people have liberated France from Despots on at least three occasions and then given it back to the people."
Hm. Don't forget that the English actually controlled northwestern France in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Complain about this comment
35. politejomsviking:
As to our beloved Allie France, since the begining she has done everything in her power to disorganize NATO and endanger the defence of Europe in her power. She is an Anglophobe to the point of making up words for English speaking countries inventions."
But you seem to overlook that your French ally paid for your War of Independence and fought in it on your side. And that icon of America, the Statue of Liberty, was a gift from France and probably has "made in France" stamped on her bottom.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot
I wouldn't dare, or forget that it was a Frenchman who was led the last successful external army that conquered Britiain.
The right to rule the northwest of France in the 14th and 15th centuries came directly from that. We let them have it back eventually. France has been thoughout our History a much more natural enemy than Germany every was. With the possible exception of the Dane and Norse Pirates.
Complain about this comment
38# greypolyglot
Anything to try and get one over on the English besides they were promised Canada LOL
Complain about this comment
# 29
No, you are wrong, the CAP is there to feather the nests of all European farmers, not just our old bogeymen - the French.
Actually, if I had a choice between the UK countryside, dominated by "industrial" farming and the prairies that result from it, and French or German small "family farmers" I know which I'd choose, both from an esthetic and food quality standpoint!
Back to the subject though; and Sarko is wrong in his support for the car indsutry and the strings he has attached - just as wrong as the xenophobic "British jobs for British workers" rhetoric from our illustrious leader.
Complain about this comment
I know which I'd choose.
Increased food production in the UK creating more jobs and a reduction on the reliance of imports from other countries.
British jobs for British workers is not Xenophobic its common sense.
Complain about this comment
Your worried about Sarco being protectionist? Obama is alot worse. Gov. Riley of the state of Alabama was firmly against Obamas So-called stimulas package. One reason being there is a German car manufacturer in the state and if they dont use American made steel the state of Alabama will not get any help from the stimulas package. Riley said it creates an unfair competitive edge for American workers while the foreign companies here are also creating jobs for American workers. Obamas stimulas package has alot of government spending that the American taxpayer will be paying for generations to come. We live in a global society. You cant create jobs by being protectionist.You create jobs by having a skilled competitive edge and not by discriminating against foreign companies.
Complain about this comment
36.France has always been Anglophobe since the dawn of time
Funnily enough the opposite is equally true as well: Anglosphere world has always been Francophobe since the dawn of time or more precisely since the Battle of Hastings.
Also technically speaking the last time Britain was invaded was in 1688 by William III.
28.
"This whole EU thing is a scam to get Germany to fund the buying of a lot of oudated French military hardware that can not be given away elsewhere, for the EU."
Can you elaborate on this?
I believe not many countries are willing to buy French military hardware (especially in South America) since the Falkland Wars. Having something to do with giving the British military sensitive hardware information. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Whiteenglishproud
"The right to rule the northwest of France in the 14th and 15th centuries came directly from that. We let them have it back eventually. "
Oh really, you gave France back to the French ?! You guys are so generous, so gracious, but in truth, non English history books tell a different story, such as the french army kicked the English army's bottom out of France ! Remember Jeanne D'Arc ?!!! Does it ring a bell or have you erased each and every french military victory out of tour collective memory, which i suspect you have.
Politejomsviking
, we didn't just send the statue of liberty to our American friends, we played an decisive part in their liberation from the British, many books have been written about this, just read and get a proper education, we brought money, artillery, warships, French soldiers fought and died and France had significant victories against the English during the American revolution, remember Lafayette and other french generals ?! Na, I guess you french haters don't, its so convenient to focus on the Battle of France...
Whiteenglishproud
another thing, " nevermind that English Speaking people have liberated France from Despots on at least three occasions and then given it back to the people."
What on earth are you talking about ? Napoleon ? Read a non English book about Napoleon, the values he was defending and the vision he had for Europe, it might change your mind about him, or at least nuance your judgment, he was no Stalin or Hitler that's for sure. And maybe you are referring to Hitler for the second tyrant, but how on earth can you say that England saved France ?! Its amazingly pretentious ! You managed to resist for your own sake, and i applause, and on D day and in North Africa, you played your part, undoubtedly, but it was a much smaller part that the American or the Russian one, the simple truth of numbers, no shame in that, but who are the Russians and the Americans anyway?! We all know England defeated the Nazis all by them selves...
One has to wander, is revisionism a national sport in England ? Could Williamson secretly be your hero ?
Complain about this comment
#42. WhiteEnglishProud wrote:
"British jobs for British workers is not Xenophobic its common sense."
Could you sustain modifying that, without bursting a blood vessel, to?
"Local jobs for Local workers is not Xenophobic its common sense."
Would you disagree with my modification of your sentiment?
It is after all common sense to limit commuting distance, as was the case when I started working in that you had to move to live within 20 miles of your job - that would make a lot of sense and is not nearly as Xenophobic!
Complain about this comment
This Sarkozy behavior really fully exposes the hypocrisy of the EU development. On one hand, France aggressively pushes for greater integration, demanding approval of the Lisbon Treaty. On the other hand, French are absolutely ready to guard their own national interests at expense all and any other members of the union. Before any EU integration can proceed, before Lisbon treaty can be approved, there needs to be a decision about what is the purpose of the EU. Is it just to prevent a war between France and Germany? – in that case this was achieved and no further integration is necessary. Or is the EU supposed to be an integrated economic and political unit? – in that case there need to be clear, and simple, rules that even a big state like France cannot break at it’s pleasure. Until than the integration needs to stop because the EU certainly should not be a tool for France to selectively advance their economic and political goals.
Complain about this comment
The French in the past loved to use protectionism. Even in the eighties they protected their own car industry to such an extend that you hardly saw any non EU cars on their roads. If I recall correctly only a small percentage of the cars sold could be from outside of the EU. This backfired seriously as this kept the average French car having serious quality issues and lowered innovation. On their own market this was not that much of a problem however when exporting this had grave consequences. The same thing goes for French wine, so called “new world wines” have a taste which is better liked by a growing number of people worldwide, by consequence except for the top wines there is a serious problem for the French winemakers. Protectionism is a sign of weakness and on the longer term it will be bad for a country’s consumers (higher pricing due to the lack of competition) and companies alike. Furthermore your trading partners will most likely retaliate which could lead to saving your car industry on the short term while killing of an other industry at the
Complain about this comment
45. Cracklite:
I would agree with just about everything that you wrote but have to point out the British part on D Day was a lot larger than you seem to think. I leave you to check the numbers.
Did you know that your dear American allies planned a military government of occupation for liberated France and even printed up occupation currency? The only reason that it didn't happen was because Free French forces raced ahead of the general advance to Paris, the population rose up the Germans gave up so that Paris had, technically, been liberated by the French before the Allies caught up. (yes, yes, we all know that none of that would have happened if the Allied armies hadn't been hot on the heels of the FF but that's how it worked out in the end)
Complain about this comment
#40 - WhiteEnglishProud
Promised Canada?
They were chucked out of there before the Revolution and out of India after the Napoleonic War. No wonder they are peeved. Perhaps you should offer to return the Channel Islands?
Complain about this comment
First, he alienated Turks by calling them non-European savages and therefore currently creating an political enemy on EU's estern borders. And, now, attacking other European countries as he pleases. This guys will do nothing but destroy the core of European Integration, originally design to bring peace to the Continent. Unfortunately, nationalist French public feeds on Sarko's populist behavious, and he may be re-elected to continue destroy Europe.
Complain about this comment
Msr Le President Nicholas Sarkozy:
He came in a blaze of inspirational publicity,
No, he came on the back of a feeble man steeped in duplicity.
Ah yes, I remember it well!
He captured the public's imagination with daring policy shifts,
No, his empty, gaffe prone rhetoric made headlines and rifts.
Ah yes, I remember it well!
He stood EU trade emblazoned foremost on his mind and ambitions,
No, he persued Paris's vested economic interests into worldwide collisions.
Ah yes, I remember it well!
He took minority causes and Georgia to his restless heart,
No, he overran Carla's resistance but left Russia in Georgia's heart.
Ah yes, I remember it well!
With gratitude and consideration to Lerner, Loewe and Maurice Chevalier.
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy's nickname is Napoleon, isn't it?
You chaps send him over to us in Moscow next winter, and we'll let him walk home.
There's a precedent...............
Complain about this comment
Protectionism ?? I am new at this, Please explain the difference between "bailing out the Banks, and bailing out the Automotive Industry............
Complain about this comment
#51 - paul_allen,
funny, I do not remember Sarkozy calling the Turks "non-European savages". Yes there are tensions between France and Turkey because : 1. the French President does not want this country inside the EU because he considers most of Turkey is in Europe and its culture too far from the European culture. You may agree or disagree with this statement, but there is no insult there. 2. there are arguments around the Armenian "genocide". This is something the English may not understand as there is no big Armenian community in the UK. However, Sarkozy has never insulted the Turkish people the way you wrote...
Other funny thing I think is the way most of the Brits did criticize the EU. Everyone admits a lot of Brits are EU-phobe. But now there is the crisis, the EU suddenly becomes great and some even accuse Sarkozy to destroy it ! Is there any logical in that ? In 2 years, Sarkozy did much more for the EU than the UK in decades...
Complain about this comment
#53, alex1658,
What an opportunity, there are a lot of French who would love to get rid of this sufferer of small man syndrome, the French internet jokes have to be seen to be believed.
Still why make him walk on land, after all he is 'he who walks on water' and there is a sea route from Russia to France.
Complain about this comment
Greypolyglot
"I leave you to check the numbers."
I do know the numbers and I'm not trying to take from Cesar what belongs to Cesar, i was just illustrating the fact that some people seem to mistake history with nationalist propaganda, you know, the sort of guys who suddenly talk about Agincourt just before a big rugby or soccer match between France and England, which is odd, especially since the other people don't talk about Hastings every to seconds...
Complain about this comment
"Unfortunately, nationalist French public feeds on Sarko's populist behavious, and he may be re-elected to continue destroy Europe."
Unfortunately Paul_Allen, you didn't check your facts, because Sarkozy has a 36% approval rate in France, but never mind the facts, nothing should stop a good old french bashing ! Please, bash away !
Complain about this comment
I don't know we Russians are traditionally partial to France.
Even when their Napoleon was rambling around Europe he was very popular in Russia.
You wouldn't have found a nobility house here, well, a little bit, without his portrait in an oval.
Then of course when he crossed over those portraits were quickly thrown out, but after we took Paris we kind of relaxed about France again. And were in good relations.
In the 1st WW Russian military mission was based in Paris, co-ordinating the activities as much as they could, in armament purchase, in troops movement. (I have at home memoirs of the Head of the mission called "50 years in the formation", tsar general Ignatieff). He was getting desperate often, judging by the detailed acccounts day-by-day :o) about the co-ordination of the effort.
But the overal tone is definitely friendly.
Europeans sometimes ("sometimes". LOL) forget Russia lost 5 million people in the 1stWW fronts.
As to protectionism we've got one shining sample here of Russian car-maker VAZ in Togliatti Jesus Christ. 20 yrs they are pampered, financed, protected by exorbitant tariffs on foreign cars' import into Russia and what is the result.
1. A whole flock of oligarchs "graduated" from VAZ ownership at some time. You'd know name of Berezovsky, for example.
One doubts the factory actually ever once saw the money.
2. The engine is still said to work 150,000km after which it needs capital fixing ("kapitalka").
3. Ecological standards of emissions Euro-3 Euro-4 whatever forget about it. Euro "minus 5" ! it is.
4. "computerised" whatever plain forget.
5. Air-cushions in front is still "a luxury extra".
As the saying goes "in the front panel where all the world has air cushions Russians have 3 holy icons."
Complain about this comment
Sorry have to add France didn't behave to Russia extraordinary well in 1917, in spite of our fighting together. The revolution/coup day Alexey Ignatieff was Rus. military attache in Paris in charge of buying armament for the Russian army in the 1st WW. In the bank he had a deposit of 225 million golden roubles, at his sole signature, for purchases. France immediately said they don't recognise Russia after revolution as a country, and nationalised all Russian property in France. (grabatised).
This account was the only one saved from France, and exclusively because of Ignatieff who figured out the lay-out in the first hours, ran over and transferred the whole sum onto his personal bank account.
Hilarious money, 2 bln dollars equivalent.
The next years French authorities were beating about the bush trying to press Ignatieff to surrender the sum; he couldn't return home as he was a tsar general to be killed within seconds; all Russian immigrants in Paris pressed Ignatieff "to give money to France who gave us a roof and new home."
Ignatieff held as that robust tin soldier; a coup was organised by Russians in Paris to kill him, the killer elected was his own brother. Bullet passed through his cap, and he kept the cap the rest of his life as "brotherly present."
Anyway he didn't spend a copeck and lived on bread and water.
When France came to senses and established diplomatic relations with USSR again, Ignatieff modestly appeared in the Soviet embassy and handed them the check for , practically, LOL 2 bln dollars, of which all forgot and wrote it off entirely. With the words:"This is property of Russia."
After such an appearance he was spared by Stalin and let to return home and fight in the 2nd WW as well. He fought it, and then died.
I rather hope the new Canadian star politician Ignatieff is from the same family, hope even more he isn't from Ignatieff brother side. ;o)
Complain about this comment
All for one, one for all, and France for itself. Hypocricy, thy name is Europe. I love watching the show they're putting on. First the Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict, then the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, and now this. How nice to have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. And nobody complains. Just an occasional grumble now and again.
Complain about this comment
#61 - MarcusAureliusII
Are you talking about the specific British set of EU rules ?
I think there is a major difference we should not forget between France and the UK : France has built the EU alongside Germany since the beginning, whereas the UK is just a member amongst others since the 70's.
Oups, in my previous post, one should read of course "Turkey is mainly not physically part of Europe".
Complain about this comment
Cracklite
If you wish to discuss the merits of Napoleon . I'd be more than happy to oblige. He may have started out as a man of vision, but he became a Tyrant that used his military to cling to power. He did introduce and reform Government in much of Europe, but he only did this so that the French Empire could support the Huge Military that he needed for his favourite pass time WAR.
You will note that i put "English Speaking people " not England and therefore the Help of the US is already Accredited. I admit I did not do justice to the aid of our Russian Friends.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Local jobs for Local workers is not Xenophobic its common sense
I agree with that sentiment, however I still maintain that National jobs for National workers is not intrinsically xenophobic its just sensible to proterct the jobs of those who vote for you.
Complain about this comment
#58, Cracklite,
Sarkozy has a 36% approval rate in France? that sounds like one of Browns sponsored opinion polls, always guaranteed to give the desired result. Unfortunately when you ask real French people the approval rating is minimal, some like that he has actually done something but can't stand the man. A recent joke I got from France as I have many contacts there, compared Carla Bruni to her younger sister and finished with 'yet another thing Sarkozy has got wrong'.
Complain about this comment
Sarko is just the French president and France's EU-rota turn is over, not that the Czech's in.
As a French president he is bound to act in a way to chase the French's votes (not the Czech's) and given his plummeting approval rates combined with the sorry state of the economy it's natural for a populist like him to pull out protectionist piecemeal policies.
Thank fortune this has happened and finally Sarko's real face (that of an opportunistic U-turner) is revealed.
The EU (assuming the U stands for something in this bigram) clearly needs a mechanism that restrains heads of member states, when their policies may harm other member states.
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy/Napoleon mark2 is one man.
To imply or use his intransience, and odd ego driven behaviour, as a justification for the EU being a failed project is frankly nonsensical.
Something that seems to be missed in these discussions, is the millions of EU citizens who happily crisscross Europe, visiting different countries, and enjoying the differences in culture, architecture, music, etc..
Trade continues apace, even in these challenging times for us all, and structures like the schengen zone have brought Europeans closer together. That may not suit Little Britons, but it certainly suits millions of Europeans, who have adapted to this new reality in their lives, and prospered as a result. Specialist companies that previously had a small market to sell to, now have a much bigger range of potential customers, and can expand and grow, hiring people along the way.
And to blame the people of France for the current economic woes is nonsense too. It's well documented that the trouble began with 1) citizens in the US and UK spending, with credit, beyond their means, 2) The avaricious nature of financial institutions, none of whom are waving a national flag, or have any interest in....patriotism, and 3) The spectacular failure of Governments to regulate correctly, and keep their eye on what the traders, and speculators were doing, either through incompetence, or more likely, complicity.
And worse than this, those self same financial institutions banded together and started selling each other bad debt, packaged up as 'products', with a thin veneer of lipstick, and make up to make them look far more attractive than they were.
To use the above as a reason to justify the 'failure' of the EU is not only narrow minded, but incorrect.
Whether you like it or not, two countries got the recession ball rolling, and a lot of financial traders, banks, and speculators around the world, jumped on the bandwagon.
It's often been said that if the US economy sneezes, the rest of the planet gets a cold. That may have been true this time around, but it also includes the stupidity of putting all one's eggs in one basket.
Personally (and i speak only for myself), i think nations are going to be decidedly more cautious in the future, and trade less in US dollars, instead spreading their asset base over a wider currency and resource portfolio. We can already witness this in the rethink on oil trade currency, where countries are considering pricing oil in other currencies, like the Euro, and in our case here, the Rouble.
It's also inevitable (in my humble opinion) that Russians will go down the Euro route. I spoke to some friends and colleagues before posting this, to garner their views, and they said using the Euro was ok with them, as a preferred currency. Russians like their rouble, as a symbol for the country, but they're also practical people, and can see the potential benefits of using a common currency with their neighbours and trading partners. Indeed, the Euro as a national currency in Russia would probably make trading, and daily economic use easier, but I admit that's just my opinion, and should be treated as such.
The one difference that stands out is the perspective difference between continental europeans and Britain. In general, Europeans, including russians, are ok with changes to currency, etc... as they tend to be open and pragmatic about these things. Britons , generally see any change of currency as a loss of rights, self identity, and with the hysterical rhetoric in the newspapers, a 'loss of blood'.
Emotive 'patriotic' stuff, but irrelavent in the bigger picture of human evolution, for not only Europe, but the wider world.
Complain about this comment
Hey, WhiteEnglishProud, are you going to acknowledge Latvian Hard Times #262/263/264 prepared especially for you ?
Complain about this comment
"Other funny thing I think is the way most of the Brits did criticize the EU. Everyone admits a lot of Brits are EU-phobe. But now there is the crisis, the EU suddenly becomes great and some even accuse Sarkozy to destroy it ! Is there any logical in that ? In 2 years, Sarkozy did much more for the EU than the UK in decades."
I am a eurosceptic - and proud of it. I also have a long record of working for European co-operation and am proud of that too.
To claim that for "phobes" "the EU has suddenly become great and some even accuse Sarkozy of trying to destroy it" is just nonsense. We are simply pointing out that Sarkozy's actions are an indication of the shallowness of the so-called "EU Project". France is - and always has been - in favour of it as long as someone else pays, preferably the British, and the rules can be bent, or broken, in France's favour.
As for the Russians joining the euro, that presupposes the euro will survive. If you get out of your ivory tower and look at what some of the independent - and unblinkered - commentators are saying about the weaknesses that are inherent in it and that are now beginning to surface, you would not be too confident that it will.
Complain about this comment
"I admit I did not do justice to the aid of our Russian Friends."
My point is they did more than aid, THEY broke the back of the German war machine, THEY profoundly demoralised them and made them doubt their own strength and will, THEY are the reason the western front didn't have half of the number of German soldiers that was required to stop an invasion from the Atlantic, in other word, the Russians made D day possible, its a recognised fact. And not to sound to nationalist, but one could argue that the work of the French resistance, especially right before D Day,and the victories of the Polls and the free french forces in North Africa, may have played a small but real part in Germany's defeat.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot
I have spent some time looking in to you claim that I am wrong, an I started to Suspect that you were right, when I revisited the telegraph artical you layed on for me. And followed the history of the story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317286/Union-Flag-banned-on-car-number-plates.html
Paragraph two of which states:
However, it will be legal to carry the European Union symbol of 12 yellow stars on a blue background. A coalition of Tory, Liberal Democrat and nationalist MPs failed to block the proposed law, which is intended to implement an EU directive to harmonise number plate design in the interests of "clarity and safety"
Thats right an EU Directive. However after only a brief look I have been unable to find more details I will look now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
greypolyglot
I believe it to be regulation 2411/98 however as usual EU regulation documents are confusingly written and can be interpreted in different ways
Complain about this comment
#69 - dwwonthew
I hope you are not serious. Who famously said in the 80's "I want my money back" ? Mitterand or Thatcher ?
Following this, every year the UK receive around €4.6billion back from the EU in compensation of a lack of strong agricultural sector...
Therefore, the reality is the French perceive more money under the CAP than the UK for the ONLY reason thier agricultural sector in France is bigger and stronger than in the UK.
FYI, France makes now a net payment into the EU budget, so it is wrong (or propaganda from the British) to say France receives a subsidy from the EU.
And guess what ? Half the €4.6billion the UK receives every year is paid by France and Italy only, whereas the second half is paid by the rest of the EU members.
So was your comment fair ?
Complain about this comment
"France is - and always has been - in favour of it as long as someone else pays"
Actually France as been a net contributor for quite some time. So has Italy.
"As for the Russians joining the euro, that presupposes the euro will survive. If you get out of your ivory tower and look at what some of the independent - and unblinkered - commentators are saying about the weaknesses that are inherent in it and that are now beginning to surface, you would not be too confident that it will."
Would these be the independant and unblinkered commentators that were trumpeting the much lauded anglo-saxon model of economics which has brought the world to the edge of ruin? I really can't hear the answer as its hard to descern any sense from the europephobe ivory towers... some of them are buried too deep underground.The european ivory towers may need some restructure to improve accesability and some much needed structural change, but the europephobe ones really need to clear out some of their nastier preconceptions lurking within.
Complain about this comment
Axel3175
What exactly is your point, that the UK was not one of the founding tyrants? It didn't realize what benefits it could realize from being a member until it saw what it was missing? BTW, exactly what benefits did the UK get out of joining? Oh yes, now I remember. Grey little men who are tin pot gods like Gordon Brown could impose EU laws like those embodied in Lisbon by fiat. With the stroke of a pen, his will goes into legal effect without even having to consult, let alone get his approval of his rubber stamp Parliament. Doesn't matter to me. Just don't put the UK on a pedistal above Zimbabwe, Iran, Burma, or China, I see right through that tissue of lies.
Complain about this comment
"#71. WhiteEnglishProud:
greypolyglot
I have spent some time looking in to you claim that I am wrong, and I started to Suspect that you were right, when I revisited the telegraph artical you layed on for me. And followed the history of the story."
Well at least you're making an effort. Thankyou.
Would you care to look also at the European Commission's outright denial for which I also provided a link?
The BBC removed the link to the United Nations that I gave but a little research on the ECE website will give you the Vienna Convention updates.
Complain about this comment
dwwonthew
I can see that you are easily confused by the general British position.
Let me explain it for you
We like the idea of co-operation with Europe
We don't want to be Governed by Europe we want to Govern ourselves.
Even if the E.U was a perfect democracy the dilution of voter power ie 500,000,000+ voters instead of 60,000,000 is a situation that weakens democracy not strengthens it.
We understand that the intrements of Government in the UK are not fit for purpose, and need vast reform
But we feel the same about the E.U
We are enraged that we must susidise other nations especially France.
There is need of a choice for the future not in or out but between different models for the way forward with the EU we want a choice, not a Ditator, I know European love there Dictators but I would have thought you would have realised by now that we don't
Complain about this comment
#78 - WhiteEnglishProud
Please have a look to my answer to dwwonthew. France is a net contributor and moreover is the main contributor to the €4.6billion cheque to the UK... knowing this, I am not too far away from thinking this is actually France who subsidies the UK, and not the Uk that subsidies France...
Complain about this comment
dwwonthew
Sorry that was meant for Axel3175
Complain about this comment
alex1658
Indeed Russians will be allright with euro.
To be honest, Russians will be allright with yen, dollars, British pounds and anything that is called here "hard currency".
We have such a training to operate in non-own country money - like no one in the world!
Some Zimbabwians may be also live and think in dollars, but that would be one currency.
Whereas every Russian is personal walking stock exchange for the past 20 years, every day you figure out into what to convert your rouble salary to put money aside for a note-book in 1 month, into what to return some debt in half a year time, into what to pay to buy an apartment (all property sales prices quoted either in dollars or euros), into what
to buy a trip to Cyprus (all travel agencies' travel trips quoted in euros) and into what to buy the same in another agency that charges "rouble equivalent of dollars."
Euros are as free operating here as dollars and recently more of euros. Friends return debts to each other in euros.
The only problem with both dollars and euros is we don't have coins of either.
Banknotes only.
Also must say various pictures on various euros confuse Russians - "is it a real banknote?" (how should all dollar banknotes look we've all learned by heart).
Rouble last 2 years behaved well, so we operated a basket of 3 currencies easily switching the mode btw - roubles, euros and dollars in everyday life.
Now of course rouble fell down like crazy, but is still needed for apartment bills and subway pass, and food in the shops - all one's key expenses. No point to convert back and forward for short-term payments.
Complain about this comment
Rouble is good because it is like small change within 1 euro or 1 dollar.
If you let absolutely all businesses to nominate prices in euros or dollars - everything will become awfully expensive! They like to "round up" prices, all of them, to the higher thing.
Food ought to be rouble-nominated, and apartment bills, and transport expenses, otherwise how can the normal and poor folk live?
In fact I strongly recommend the EU to introduce rouble approach for minimum expected survival expenses, to guarantee survival! :o)
And for fridges and irons and holiday trips and mobile phones and property - I'd agree for euro-nomination.
Complain about this comment
"We are enraged that we must susidise other nations especially France."
Quite lying about that, you're not subsidising France, a certain amount of subsidies goes to every farmer in Europe, including in the UK, it only happens that we have more farmers than the UK, and there fore receive more money from Europe, and i can see why it "enrages you", but France is not asking for more money and is not banding laws for its own good, it's all a question of mathematics: more farmers=more subsidies, so France should not be criticised for it, period.
Should the law be changed ? Probably, if only to shut haters like you up, but again, France is not to blame here, like it or not.
Complain about this comment
Cracklite
I would love to pay more homage to the Russians, but as usual they accted sole out of self interest and therefore whilst what you state is acurate, it is not as praise worthy as you believe.
As for the French resistance damn right some of your Country men/women found the courage to fight for there Country shame on the majority and the government but hey ce qui vous prevoient
Complain about this comment
78 and 80
Thank goodness you corrected yourself. I'm not at all confused about our position and agree with most - if not all - of the points you make. And that is despite - or perhaps because of - my contributions to European understanding being recognised at a pan-continental meeting last July.
Complain about this comment
#70 Cracklite.
Excellent post.
But you'll never convince little britons, as the idea of an empirical invincibility is so deeply engineered into their upbringing by selective educational propaganda, that it effectively prevents them from questioning the information they've been....'taught' is true or not.
Russia indeed broke the back of a terrible ideology, and in doing so, signalled a death knell for continent wide fascism. The georgian Stalin and his subsequent actions can certainly be questioned, and indeed are, here in Russia, but there seems to be a singular lack of momentum on the part of british and american governments and historians to recognise the reality of those dreadful events, in favour of a rose coloured....glory, almost solely in their favour. (This is not to denigrate the lives given, or efforts taken on the part of US and UK troops. On the contrary, i lost several of my ancestors as a result of the European wars).
I'm another who will applaud the efforts of the french, belgian, dutch, and scandanavian resistance movements, who all played a major part in dismantling the Nazi framework, and freeing Europeans, including many Germans and Austrians, from future enslavement.
Truths that deserve an equal place in our historical records, and not tainted according to nationalistic or political perspective.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAuruliusII
My point is that when you wrote "all for one, one for all and France for itself", I can't believe this to be serious coming from an English guy (maybe you are not and in this case I apologize).
To me, the following makes much more sense : "all for one, one for all and the UK for itself - as it has always been".
Why ? Because once again, France was a founding members and remains the EU engine today (alongside Germany of course) by creating and adopting the Euro and the Shenghen zone for example. In the meantime, what did the UK for the EU ? The UK still has the pound, is still not part of the Shenghen zone etc. So the UK contribution to the EU is nearly nothing, but arguing to get 4.6billion euros cash back from the CAP and complaining on the way the EU institution works.
But if the UK is not happy with this, 2 things : either the UK participation in the EU is irrelevant, and therefore it should leave the EU - either the UK should implicates more istelf in the institution and the development of the EU. This is the only way the UK can change the things.
The problem with the UK is that the British want no implication within the EU, but only to get all the benefits from it ! That couldn't work this way, I am sorry.
So to summurize, my point is : guys, instead of complaining on how the things work, just take actions.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot
I have read there denial they fail to mention that whilst it was the choice of the th UK government to implement it at the time they did 2411/98 must be implemented by the end of 2010 and thus the UK government would have had to enact it at some point.
The UN regulation is not relevent as the UK is still a Nation and as such choice what ever it wanted as its distingusing symbol.
Complain about this comment
Cracklite
At no point id i say it was france's fault that they recieve susidies my anger was not directed at france byut the E.U.
The only way you could concieve that my anger was directed at France is that you believe France rules the E.U
Complain about this comment
Why was my factual comment at 72 about Sarko being nicknamed "Nabotleon" by the French referred to the moderators?
Was it felt to be insulting to other persons of limited stature? If so, sorry, no offence intended.
Complain about this comment
Cracklite, and WhiteEnglishProud "Russia acted as usual of own interest and is not so praise-worthy".
You don't confuse two world wars? We spoke first about the first one and then changed to the 2nd.
Anyway Russia participated in both European wars.
In the 1st war we had one of the largest armies I think, judging from the loss of 5 million. In usual Russian in-effective un-equipped but brave way.
WhiteEnglishProud in the 1st WW there wasn't a reason on earth for Russia to participate. Simply someone French forgot who arrived to St. Petersburg, a high official, there were festivities and processions, even Marseillaise song was allowed to be sung in the streets (which was anathema revolutionary to the Russian tsars but you couldn't do anything as it happened to be the national anthem of the large French delegation).
Old St. Petersburgers had extraordinary fun being able to sing Marseillaise and not be arrested for it. The whole city sang.
Anyway the French asked us to join in on that day and we joined.
They were our immediate neighbours back then, as Poland was Russia so we bordered immediately.
Self-interest forget about it. We didn't want anything in Europe. And what we got from the enterprise all knows - Lenin packed over by Germany to switch off Russia from the war.
And then we were so effectively "switched off" - for the whole 75 years forward!
Kicked back in development for a couple of centuries backwards nearly into middle ages.
That's what we got from the 1st WW, to say nothing we fought 1914-1917 and lost 5 million best army men we had.
While these alive could have come handy at home during the coup and revolution.
Kind of, the tsar would be able to hold on, should he had army. And Lenin would be kicked out.
Lenin scoundrel immediately signed the Brest shameful peace with Germany among his first Decrees, and thus took Russia out of the war.
With loss and shame and all dropped abruptly in the middle, without any achievements - that is victory.
That's why we don't boast about the 1st WW, and as to Europe - you simply forgot Russia fought together with France.
Since we became communistic and cut off - you simply forgot about all Russia there were before.
As to the 2ndWW, self-interest you bet as we were occupied. However our self-interest saved Europe other.
And surely it was exclusive Russian effort to bring France back onto the stage as victorers in the war ' side. Britian and USA were happy to leave them out in the category "all the rest". And basically, tucked them into the corner already, interested in splitting their colonies in the world. Stalin got hysterical and exchanged a storm of messages with the two others, and demanded the status for France "France - is a victorer." And had his way. as it often happened with him ;o)
Besides he could dictate conditions Red Army in Europe prevailing.
Complain about this comment
88. WhiteEnglishProud:
"I have read there denial they fail to mention that whilst it was the choice of the th UK government to implement it at the time they did 2411/98 must be implemented by the end of 2010 and thus the UK government would have had to enact it at some point.
The UN regulation is not relevent as the UK is still a Nation and as such choice what ever it wanted as its distingusing symbol."
You are making heavy weather of this.
The UN in Geneva is where all the common vehicle and traffic rules were agreed after WWII. The UN Vienna Convention is not irrelevant because the UK signed up to it long before joining the EEC.
The UK also voluntarily signed up to 2411/98 which is simply an EU codification of stuff already agreed in the UN with other, non-EU, countries.
Complain about this comment
#87 Axel3175
"The problem with the UK is that the British want no implication within the EU, but only to get all the benefits from it ! That couldn't work this way, I am sorry."
Nor should it work this way.
An astute observation.
Complain about this comment
#82 WebAlicein wonderland
I've been used to switching currencies for most of my working life, so don;t have a real affinity to one in particular.
Suffice to say here in Moscow, Roubles and Euros do fine, and it's with sense of....freedom, that i can switch between them, with no problems from the russian people.
Another multi 'cultural' facet of what it is to live in Russia.
Complain about this comment
Correction.
In the 1stWW Russia didn't border with France. We were friends simply so.
There was Germany in-between us :o).
The one who visited us in St. Petersburg with official delegation, urging for war, when all sang Marseilleuse was Poincare. French president. 1912 and then in 1914.
Russian loss in the 1stWW not 5 million. May be feels so, close, together with wounded, "disappeared without notice" and "died in captivity" etc.
Army Loss
Russia 15,398,000 1,811,000
France 7,891,000 1,293,464
Britain 6,200,000 702,410
USA 4,273,000 116,708
Germany 13,251,000 2,036,897
Austro-Hungary 9,000,000 1,101,000
Complain about this comment
I've got a radical suggestion: France and Germany ought to swap places. Re-locate.
What's that really any war France is separated from Russia by Germany. How very un-convenient to fight.
Note Britain now would be happier to border with Germany. By natural inclination, in spite of 2 world wars.
They got tired to quarrel with each other for centuries.
Poland I bet would also prefer to border with France, they also naturally like each other.
So Russia happy, Poland happy, Britain happy, Germans in fact may be also happy to border with Britain.
France will lose in good weather and good agriculture grounds greatly; you can't compare their place and German's.
But in order to get rid of Britain finally... :o)
Complain about this comment
#96 WebAlicein wonderland
Haha, a humorous suggestion.
There is always more than one way to kiss a bear, yes?
Complain about this comment
I don't think the French could give up the Cote d'Azur, Gironde or Sovoie.
Despite that Half of France is full of Brits they're fiercely territorial - a bit like cats.
;)
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglish proud:
"We are enraged that we must susidise other nations especially France."
Why France in particular? It is a net contributor like Britain, unlike some other poorer nations... meaning you either do not believe that they should be able to keep their farming sector and import their food from across the other side of the world ( such fresh produce!the carbon footprint!...but its point that can be genuinely argued I concede ) or...or... you dislike the french for being french (and possibly thievin'?). Hence Xenophobic.You dont see the french complaining about EU money (also their money) being pumped in some former Northen English industrial town for redevelopment.
Complain about this comment
We'll see if the EU and the Euro can withstand the global economic downturn without an escalation of the nationalism that is currently beginning to perk up. Personally, I find it amazing that the EU is beginning to take on the role of a political entity with no democratic process whatsoever. That just seems ripe for corruption and 'votes' being given to the highest bidder. My guess is that within ten years either the national borders of most of the EU states will be dissolved and something like the United States of Europe will evolve over the next couple of decades, or this crisis will break the EU down. If one EuroZone member goes back to a nationalist currency and succeeds it will all fall apart very quickly.
Complain about this comment
Whiteenglishproud
"shame on the majority and the government but hey ce qui vous prevoient"
Shame on the politician who gave the keys of France to the Germans, YES indeed !
Shame on the generals who miserably failed to prepare the french forces for the type of gear and strategy used by the Germans, ABSOLUTELY !
But shame on the majority ? Definitely no ! When a country is occupied, it's always the same scenario, a minority of partisans appear, a minority of collaborators take advantage of the situation, and the majority doesn't make waves, this is exactly what happened in every country occupied in Europe and anywhere around the world through history, it has nothing to do with being French ans everything to do with being human. In fact i bet that if the UK had been invaded by the Germans, wee would have seen the same thing, a vast majority would have stayed silent, not because they approved of the occupation and not even because they would be cowards, but simply because true heroes are a rare breed, they never constitute the majority of a population, i think anybody could agree with that. It's common sense, don't you think ? So go easy on the French, they're no better than the rest, but certainly not any worse, even if the Sun and the Sunday Telegraph disagree.
Complain about this comment
#96
I've got a radical suggestion: Russia and the South Pole should swap places. Re-locate.
On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea after all. I don't think Russians could stand the increase in temperature. And it's getting warmer at the South Pole all the time.
Complain about this comment
Mapenguinus,
South Pole is not so bad an idea.
On the Northern side we seem to have tried it all.
The South is un-explored, calling for attention, in lack of Russian friendliness and as many here say - "genuine interest to foreign cultures." :o)
South America is definitely a short-cut way to you, a novelty approach, from an un-orthodox side. "Russians, based in Belize..."
Besides there are good news of the Antractida since several days ago, making it quite a well here I cut myself short. this is for me to know and for you to? not to know Until it's too late!
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
"not to know Until it's too late!"
??????
Oh NO! Not satisfied with having planted a Russian flag at the bottom of the sea at the North Pole and claimed that for themselves, they have found a way to get a submarine under Antarctica and reached the south pole too. They are going to claim the south pole for Russia too and then everything in between...except for the Maldaves where all of the rest of us non Russians will have to move to. But as global warming causes the sea level to rise one meter, the Maldaves will be under water and we will all drown. Nobody will be left alive...except Russians. It's better that way anyway. Who wants to live in a world of only Russians? I'd rather drown with everyone else.
Complain about this comment
I am glad Manautilius you're taking it as a gentleman, no hysterics, cool mind, steady hand, packing the snorkeling equipment (don't forget flippers).
To give you an idea of the future Russia-free zone, you can count on +30/-30 degrees on either side of the equator.
To be on the safe side, I'd head to the area btw the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.
In these latitudes dry white wine portions are still issued on board Russian ships to help survive oven conditions. 150 grams a day. but nobody wants them.
we feel genuinely better in latitudes where 100 gram vodka portions are issued.
Did you start up global warming to get rid of us? I knew it. "excess spending of resources, no concern for the environment, hunt of the golden calf un-limited, neglect of emissions' level" - that's all explanations for sissy boys.
We know your true reason.
Will go open the freezer door sit neaby to be able to think clearly.
Complain about this comment
Besides, Mabraveheartius, it's not so scary to be a Russian. You won't even notice how it happens to you. :o)
Our own definition of the ailment, er that is, condition, that is I mean - the excellent state of one's affairs! is , how to translate
"you've also sufferised - which means became Russified".
In other words all that is required from you is to suffer from Russia at some point.
I think many can qualify at this point, so - voile la.
(a 5-10 posts more and you can go to the Russian embassy claim the passport) (bring the print-outs with) (not all. or they'll give you two Russian passports.)
Complain about this comment
Web Alice, there's a difference. When you Russians go open the freezer door to sit nearby...it's to warm up.
Complain about this comment
The Tin Man periodically became rustified in the Wizard of Oz, especially if he got wet. All it took was a little oil to cure that.
But that was Oz, not Wonderland. In Wonderland they use a different kind of oil.
In Wonderland, to become Russified, you have to drink at least 750 ml of Russian Vodka every day for exactly one year. After that...you will be Russian...if your liver doesn't give out first. Fortunately, if you survive it, so many of your brain cells will have died that you won't care.
Complain about this comment
#106 WebAliceinwonderland
Oh Dear. I'm not a drinker. (Sip of cognac once a month is about it for me.)
Does this mean I'll be excluded from further residency status?
Pravda!
Complain about this comment
74: Axel3175
Yes. I am perfectly serious. I think you will find:
The UK has been a net contributor to the EEC/EU ever since we joined, even allowing for the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher.
If France is indeed now a net contributor it has only recently become so and the amount is still less than the net contribution of the UK.
Our contributions are due to increase considerably over the next few years because of the poor negotiating skills of Tony Blair influenced by his desire to be President of Europe. He agreed to a reduction in our rebate in exchange for a renegotiation of the CAP. France is now back-tracking on that.
We are - or will be over the next few years - the second largest gross contributor and second bottom in terms of receipts.
Additionally, recent research has revealed the CFP alone has cost us GBP2.81 billion a year in terms of lost sales, jobs, tax revenue and dumped fish.
As for those expressing a realistic view of the euro, they are not just people who advocate the Anglo-American economic approach. Indeed they come from a variety of backgrounds. For example:-
David Smith, Economics Editor of the Sunday Times: "If there was a currency I was worried about at the moment it would be the euro. Three of its members, Greece, Italy and Spain, have had their credit ratings downgraded and Ireland is on 'negative watch'. The European Central Bank, having started well in the crisis, is now dragging its feet and seems in a similar state of denial to the bank of Japan in the early 1990s before the 'lost decade'. ..... Europe, if it is not careful, could be the next Japan".
The Chief Economist of the Centre for European Reform, a pro-EU think tank: "Membership [of the euro] is not a panacea for a country’s social and economic problems. In fact, there has been a huge divergence in competitiveness that shows up in massive trade imbalances."
Charles Dumas, analyst at Lombard Street Research in London: "Adjustment in the overvalued euro economies [Italy grossly, Spain moderately] will be much more painful and Italy's possible exit from the euro augurs for years of crisis".
Peter Sutherland, a former EU Commissioner and now Chairman of BP, in a recent interview was asked how euro countries that needed to devalue, but could not, would cope with their problems snapped - and that is the right word -: "Wages will just have to come down".
Supporting that the Irish Finance Minister, interviewed on TV, admitted that cutting public sector wages was a possibility being considered as part of the solution to Ireland's problem. I believe the figure suggested is a cut of 7.5%.
Paul Mason, Economics Editor of the BBC’s Newsnight programme [the BBC is generally pro-EU] on a recent blog: "My credit crunch radar is bleeping with all kinds of worrying dots and they're mainly concentrated on the edges of Europe. …….
If we dig into what's happening there are many layers. First, there are the austerity measures being introduced by governments……
The second layer of problems Europe faces concerns the East European banking system. Though most of the stricken countries are outside the Eurozone, there are some big Eurozone country banks exposed to the near collapse of east European banking - above all in Austria. …….What analysts fear as a worst case scenario (why am I using this phrase a lot right now?) is that a banking collapse in the east pulls the Austrian banking system down with it.
The third tier of crisis concerns the Euro. The EU's commissioner for economic and monetary affairs has said today that the Eurozone "will not break apart" because of the stresses on its weakest countries. But the question is being asked.
The reason is the growing 'spread' between the interest rates governments have to pay to borrow on the international markets. Theoretically, because they're all part of the Eurozone, they should have the same interest rates. But it's always been slightly divergent and now massive gaps have opened up. Greece had its credit rating downgraded on 14 January; Spain lost its AAA rating last week. Portugal has also had its rating cut. As a result these countries have to pay significantly more interest on their sovereign debt compared to the baseline country, Germany. Ireland is in the same boat.
What this means is that, although there's a single currency, there is a differential risk of a sovereign debt default, a different interest rate for government borrowing and so, in the fullest sense, there is not really a single currency."
Sorry to pour some cold water on the naivety of the euro-fantasy but it is time for a dose of reality.
Complain about this comment
#91 Web Alice-
I believe you got your history of the First World War backwards.
An Austrian Arch-Duke was visiting Sarajevo.
A Serbian funded terrorist group called the Black Hand was responsible for the Assasination of the Arch-Duke.
The Emperor of Austria whose son and heir had been killed demanded satisfaction from the Serbian government.
Serbia went to war in defence of her right apparently to foster revolution and assasinate foreign leaders.
Russia seeing the wisdom of Serbias cause (Duh) mobilized for war.
Germany knowing that Russia was allied to France mobilized for war with both. For Germany to survive her General staff believed that she had to knock France out of the war, before Russia finished mobilizing.
Germany therefore attacked France through Belgium and Britain was now in the war, because they had Guaranteed Belgiums neutrality.
Italy which was allied to Germany stabbed her in the back and fought for the Allies (for Cash).
Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey all fought together.
The US government offered to mediate a peace treaty on Wilson's 14 points. Germany sunk shipping in British waters using submarines without warning, the resultant loss of life for US citizens inflamed public opinion against Germany. Which was initially very supportive amongst it's German population. Germany's transfer of weapons to Mexico and the interception of a coded telegram offering Mexico the States of Texas, New Mexico and California brought America into the war.
The Russian Army was knocked out of the War by this time, so Germany launched the biggest offensive of the war in order to win it before America's industrial might would make victory impossible.
The French Army mutinied.
French and British Generals wanted to use the US Army as replacements in their own Armys. The US refused and insisted on fighting as an independent Army under US officers as we were not part of any Alliance.
Only when Ferdinand Foch was made Supreme Commander did the American's agree to be under a foreign General and then only because the British and Canadians were too.
The Americans were thrown into the sectos were the French Army colapsing. Even though the US heavy Artillery had not arrived from the US the Americans picked up plenty that was abandoned on the ide of the road by the French Army.
The German advance was stopped with the help of the Allied troops that did not collapse. General Pershing ordered the US Forces to clear Buella Woods and the entire Muese-Argonne salient as a distraction for a large British offensive. Both the US and British Empire broke through.
Germany asked for an armistice.
General Foch was very complimentary and France awarded the Entire 4th Regiment of US Marines and an Army Unit the Croixe De Guerre, and those Units wear the cord for the Croixe De Guerre to this day as it was a unit award.
General Pershing said "write it down and take pictures, in a week they will say you weren't here". A typically uncooperative, unilateral, Full of himself American, ha, ha.
Complain about this comment
Naivety of the "euro-fantasy" you wrote. Funny.
A few months ago, I remember reading in the English newspapers a lot of comments around "the UK that will be the 1st European economic power by 2050, 1st to Germany", "the UK that will be the most populated country in Europe by 2050, first to France", "the UK..." blablabla. Funny. Especially when you know that nobody can predict what the economy or the demography will be in 5 years, the British economists are able to predict what this will be in 50 years ! Congrats, fantastic job. No suprising I don't trust your economists anymore.
The reality is ok, the UK had a better and enjoyable growth than most of other European nation since 2000... but now it is clear and more than obvious this growth was only fictive. So just remind me, who is (was) naive there ?
"Continental Europe", including Germany and France, has understood that they can be strong only together. The British, hummm, they still believe they have some influence in the world by themselves. Ok, why not. Wake up and open your eyes now.Just compare the UK to the Eurozone, the US, Japan and China. You still believe your country can face all the other big blocks in the World ? If yes, this is what I call being really naive.
Yes, Europe is facing some big challenges in a near future, that is correct, and I have never said it will be easy. And maybe the EU will failed, who knows ? But don't you think this exciting ? My guess would be... no. But at least, European have understood together they are stronger and they try to build something together. They have ideals.
And a final reminder : the crisis came from the US (mainly) and the UK. Thanks. The crisis the UK is facing is more structural than anything else : 30% of its GDP is related to Finance... this is not the case of Germany or France. So today (I dont know what will happen tomorrow, maybe this will change), it is not a surprise if the UK predictions are the darkest of all.
Knowing this, please don't tell me the way the UK has chosen (being on the edge of EU) was the right one.
Complain about this comment
Some more informations concerning the EU budget, the CAP and the British rebate.
In the 80's, the UK was one of the poorest countries (GDP per capita) in the EU and that helps Thatcher to get this rebate.
In 25 years, the UK economy has improved strongly to become comparable to France wealth (even a bit higher, actually). In the meantime, the EU budget for the CAP has decreased ! (from maybe 75% to 40%, I believe).
Is this rebate still fair ? Obvisously not. British still argue around the amount of money France get under the CAP. But where is the problem ? There are strict rules that say : the more farmer you have, the more money you will get. If you think it is unfair, then what can we suggest but leaving the EU ?
Under the CAP, the same rules apply for every country. Were the agricultural sector as strong in the UK as in France, this country would get the same amount of money.
On the other hand, the British rebate just apply to the UK. Therefore it is unfair, especially when you remember this was created by the time where the UK was one of the poorest country in Europe !
Look at the figures in 2005 now : UK net contribution to the EU budget is 5 billion euros... compare to 3.1 billion euros for France.
And in 2005, agreements around the EU financing makes that the UK and France will do a comparable net contribution between 2007 and 2013.
So is there still any reason to complain ?
Complain about this comment
So much for the Euro saving Europe
Germany has plunged deeper into recession, with poor figures in France and Italy also helping drag the euro zone economy to its deepest contraction on record.
A number of big German brands have struggled amid the slowdown
Germany's economy shrank by 2.1% - the country's worst quarterly performance since reunification in 1990.
Gross Domestic Product in the 15 countries using the euro shrank 1.5% in the last three months of 2008 compared with the previous quarter.
It was the third consecutive quarter of contraction for the euro zone.
Today's data wipes out any illusion that the euro zone is getting off lightly in this global downturn.
Jorg Radeke, analyst of CEBR
France took a step closer to recession, registering a 1.2% decline in GDP, its fastest decline in 34 years.
It was its first period of shrinkage in 2008 after a surprise 0.1% rise in the third quarter.
Job cuts and falling output in France placed it on track to join Britain, Spain and Germany in recession in 2009.
Italy provided no respite - its economy declined by 1.8% on the quarter, significantly worse than forecasts and the biggest drop since at least the start of the data series in 1980.
Analyst Jorg Radeke of CEBR said: "Today's data wipes out any illusion that the euro zone is getting off lightly in this global downturn.
"Indeed, what has started as financial market turmoil, has long moved to the real economy."
Spain entered a technical recession yesterday when it reported GDP fell 1.1% in the final quarter of 2008, following a 0.2% decline in the previous three-month period.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7887659.stm
Complain about this comment
I think it's a falsehood to tie personal opinion of the Euro to falls in GDP, recession measures or anything else. It's a means of common trade, and is subject to the vagaries of economic movement, as is the case for any currency.
And we can only imagine if European countries were still in possession of their own currencies what the damage might be. I suspect we'd be no better off, and quite possibly worse for some. (Spain springs to mind here.)
The Euro isn't perfect, but neither is anything else in life, so we're in best percentage territory here.
If not for the speculators, profiteers, and greed of some ordinary people, spending and acrruing debt well beyond their means we'd be better off. Even those who try to live outside the system, in a more modest lifestyle, will be, to at least some degree, victims of the actions of the rest.
So just maybe we can see this in an objective sense, and examine the actual causes, and not the consequences as a gleefully written excuse to "hammer the euro".
The economic policies and practices of people and companies here and beyond are responsible for the current economic challenge, not currency.
That's a victim too.
And finally i believe we're better off as a group, to limit the excesses, and reduce the plunge. We could be a lot worse off at the moment, although some may not see this.
Iceland found that out when the UK government enacted the cowardice of using terrorist legislation to crush the Icelandic economy.
I find that a far more ruthless and savage gesture, replete with danger and mistrust, than anything within the framework and structure of the EU. I would not blame the Icelandic people at all if they cut off all economic and trade ties with the UK, and put them at the top of the 'not to be trusted' category. Actions have certainly spoken louder than words in this case.
The Euro has its ups and downs, but it does provide a embryonic form of check and balance, and i think that's good. Time will tell if it matures into stability, but it's the policies and actions of vested interests that will influence it into success or failure. A common currency across Europe and beyond will help limit their influence, be it good or otherwise.
Complain about this comment
#8, lacerniagigante wrote:
"The Czechs are now worried about the lack of coordination among EU members? Maybe they could start by ratifying the Lisbon treaty, which calls for more coordination among the other things."
I am a proponent of a federal Europe but as things stand this does not seem to be achievable in reality. Let us face it. The EU in its current form is a complot to take away powers from small members states and shift it to weak institutions in Brussels who have no democratic accountability and are controlled from big member states especially France and Germany by means of back-door intrigues and shady deals. It is absolutely unacceptable that you are defending Sarkozy's bullying while trying to push Czechs into adopting the Lisbon treaty. I assume you must have been blushing when writing that hypocrisy.
If the French refuse to respect the purpose of the EU, which is the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, they should withdraw, or be forced to withdraw from the EU, rather than forcing other states' legislatures to adopt an amendment to existing treaties.
While Western European companies were cheaply buying most of CEE's industry in privatizations and selling their goods to CEE, everything was peachy. But when it comes to having a balanced trade relationship, let alone workers from CEE working in Western Europe, that is suddenly not good enough for Sarkozy. Shame on you, France! If this is what France stands for, then the CEE countries should impose reciprocal measures against France and they should boycott Airbus, Areva, Danone and all the useless luxury products which France dumps on the rest of the world at ridiculous prices.
And no more subsidies for beaurocrats studying French - the whole civilized world speaks English, so the French should finally please wake up!
Complain about this comment
I think you are wrong...
Did France and Sarkozy stand against free movement of Persons ? No. Goods ? No. Services ? No. Capital ? No.
Otherwise, why Peugeot Citroen would have plants in Czech Republic ?
Once again, Sarkozy told it is not acceptable that French companies create new plants in low cost countries whithin the EU borders. Because this is unfair competition. And this is why it was a mistake, I think, to accept eastern countries in the EU. I have nothing against those fantastic countries, they are marvelous countries. But we only understand nowadays that this is not for our benefits (our = Western Europe)... This is not a matter of culture, but a matter wealth and cost production. So I think Sarkozy was right to say that because this is NOT the purpose of Europe to destroy job in one country to create new jobs in another EU member. The purpose of the EU is to create an inertia between its memeber, not unfair competition.
I understand why you would disagree with this statement, though.
However, Sarkozy told this to the French, but there will have no consequence.
Even the 6 billion euros loan to the French car makers is kind of useless. Why ? Because 2 days following this announcement, Peugeot Citroen told the French there will be a 6 or 7.000 job cut IN France.
France should withdraw ? The only 2 countries the EU can not live without are... Germany and France, like it or not. It is shame I agree, I would like the UK, Italy, Spain and even the "smaller" countries like Poland, Czech Republic etc to play a bigger role within the EU.
Finally, English is maybe the first international language in the world, of course... but as far as I know, German and French are the 2 most spoken language in Europe (don't get me wrong, I talk about native speakers), English being the 3d language... And just imagine how arrogant your comment may be perceived : "the whole civilized world speaks English". Do you think diversity is a misfortune ? And if you love English that much, then you would be wise to know that 30% of the 100.000 most common English words are... from French. Suprising, isn't it ? See, how useful it is : learning French can help you a lot to improve your English (if you don't believe me check on wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language).
Complain about this comment
For the French government to offering a subsidy to Peugeot conditioned on moving operations back to France goes directly against free movement and nondiscriminatory trade flows.
We are in a major recession and saying what Sarkozy said sends out the totally wrong message, i.e., that France will do what it thinks is in its interest even if it will damage other member states. Friends can be recognized in bad times, and Sarkozy's statements mean that the Czech Republic is regarded as an enemy in France. Sorry, but I do not have any other interpretation for his statements. Czech Republic cannot delegate powers to an EU which is largely controlled by an enemy of the Czech Republic.
I am not speaking about native speakers. The EU is about communication and flows among different member states. Therefore, the sum of native and non-native speakers is the relevant criterion, not just native speakers. Accepting your reasoning would mean that the EU may one day need to adopt Turkish as it main working language, which in my view would be unhelpful.
I have nothing against French. The fact that English can easily accomodate words from other languages including French makes it more palatable as a language of international communication.
Complain about this comment
Politejomsviking, @111.
The organisation wasn't called "Black hand" but "Mlada Bosna" - Young Bosnians, grouped to unite all South-Slavic nations into one state.
Antanta countries were Russia, Britain, France, Serbia, Japan.
Turks sure I know were the German side we fought them in the Caucasus in that war (again!)
__________
28 July naturally Austro-Hungary announced war to Serbia.
This is reasonable theirs Ferdinand was killed.
But then Germany made a wide sweep:
Announced war to Russia 1 Aug
war to France 2nd Aug
war to Belgium 3rd Aug
After which Britain completed the main round, announced war to Germany Aug 4th.
That's roughly set it. The rest was a cascade one announcing war to another until half the world was in.
__________________
I know Politejoms you're Germanyfan, and would never ever believe it, in your opinion Germany didn't want to fight, was always white and fluffy.
For somebody who doesn't - it suspiciously fought too much and too well, twice in the 20th century.
Both wars in Russia are called simply "1st Germanskaya" and "2nd Germanskaya".
What is there "in the world" we don't know.
Somehow it is always the two biggest armies in the most deadly lock, Russian and German.
By fact.
If Timbukty announces war to Galapagos islands, I'd start mobilisation for the war with Germany, and they will, for the war with Russia. :o)
Others may wish to call it "world" names.
As min that was the reality in the 20th century.
(Have no doubt at the point Russia and Germany exhaust each other to last crumbs - there will fly in American batman and save Timbuktu. LOL. Historical arrival time - 4 years after.)
For Russian mobilisation urged exactly French president.
In case you can't imagine Russia has been a place same big as USSR only even bigger! in 1914. Mobilisation here back then took 25 days.
Only an idiot wouldn't start it in advance knowing that the war will be announced to you any next hour. So we had 4 hours ahead, LOL, of our 25 days. Great help.
____________________
I don't know. For the 60th anniversary of the victory there was a project of a Dutch journalist who interviewed 2ndWW surviving veterans all round the world. Photos and interviews were published. Not sure in your newspapers or in the British ones but in Germany, Holland, Russia and Poland granted. Whole central roll-out pages.
All were interesting, and by the way there was one German from von Treskov group, I keep that newspaper, put it aside. And American veterans were interviewed. And British, all asked of their war impressions.
3 Russians were interviewed one girl and two men.
One of them said a phrase, along other things, that I remember struck me back in 2005 as very stubborn, un-forgiving and stupid. He said - I know Germans. I fought them, 5 years, in hand-to-hand combat, at a distance, I know the people. I will never believe they left their old habits. They'll wish to conquer Europe yet again in future, this time may be not military but economically, but they will.
Complain about this comment
118.France should withdraw ? The only 2 countries the EU can not live without are... Germany and France
Quite wrong. The days of a Frenchman being the centre of the EU (Monnet, Schuman, DeGaulle's empty seat, Delores) is long gone and won't be returning. This shift happened when Germany was reunited and the former Soviet bloc joined the EU.
In fact, I would say the EU would be improved without France especially monetarily speaking: no wasteful one week trip to Strassbourg and CAP would scrapped faster then you can say "Sacre blue" ;p
So basically the only country that the EU cannot live without is Germany. Which pretty much reflect the economic reality of Europe.
I would like the UK, Italy, Spain and even the "smaller" countries like Poland, Czech Republic etc to play a bigger role within the EU.
How can they play a bigger role if they don't have an equal say (compared to France with the exception of the UK) within the EU, especially in the council? Unless you're suggesting that every country should have equal say within the council: one state one vote. I would love to see that. No way Berlin, Paris or London would ever agree to this. :)
Complain about this comment
oulematu,
Sarkozy is a very offensive president. Don't take his words as a reflection of the French views.
I fear protectionism will spread worldwide in the next few years, and the French are, unfortunately, not the only one to adopt such a drastic (and unpleasant) attitude. All the big countries in the world will do what they believe is better for them, so the French are not the only one to blame.
As for your second statement, I am pretty sure that nobody in France believes Czech Republic is an enemy. There are fears of big companies relocate their plants, this is in some ways quite different.
As for English, you are right. What is great with this language is the way it can accomodate with foreign words. To me, this is what make English a great and strong language. I love that.
However, I don't see why English should be the only language spoken by the EU commission. But, you would notice that English is already the main language spoken our deputies. Even the French ministers start to speak English wihtin the EU institutions (oftenly very badly... but that is a good start !). The thing is that German and French are still 'official' languages alongside English, what I think is a good thing. It would be sad not to keep a kind diversity in the institutions.
Complain about this comment
Oups, I forgotten one thing : French government has given subsidies to Peugeot, BUT it has NEVER been asked to move plants back to France !!
I think there is a huge misunderstanding here and a confusion due to te fact that this loan was announced just after Sarkozy interview.
To be precise, it has been asked not to fired workers in France... but as I wrote, 2 days after Peugeot and Citroen announced they will cut 11.000 worldwide, including 7.000 in France. Don't forget that Peugeot Citroen and Renault are not owned by the French government.
Complain about this comment
I disagree with your view. Ok, it has been now a long time of a Frenchman being the centre of the EU... but not that long actually, and the statement is exactly the same for Germany. Would you be able to find a very important German leading the EU those days ? No.
The shift you are talking about did not happened when Germany was re-unified, but appears years after years when new countries entered the EU.
However, modern Europe is the Eurozone. The UK does not belong neither to the eurozone nor to the Shenghen Zone. Because of its lack of implication within the institutions, the UK has few influence in Europe. So the 2 big countries left are Germany and France.
They lead the Eurozone by being the 2 biggest economies (Germany being the 1st, of course).
Don't forget that Europe also implicates : Airbus, Ariane Space, Galileo, and other huge cooperations. And who lead this ? It is not the UK even if it has small part in it, not Italy, not Spain, but Germany and France.
Germany and France are main partners to each other. Those 2 countries work together. Remove one, the other can not stand all alone for longer...
On your final point, yes travelling to Strasbourg is stupid, I agree on this. But I think this is a kind of reminder for future generations, this part of France being one of the reasons of the 2 world wars...
As for the CAP, what can I say ? Keeping the European agriculture strong is a major issue. If France has the strongest agricultural sector in Europe, it is normal it gets more money under the CAP. Plus don't forget Spain. And don't forget the UK has an unfair rebate (agreed 25 years ago when the UK was one of the poorest countries in Europe). And finally, don't forget that thanks to agreements in 2005, France and UK's net contribution to the EU financing between 2007 and 2013 will be pretty similar.
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.
"The fact that English can easily accommodate words from other languages including French makes it more palatable as a language of international communication."
Firstly, the French occupied England for centuries, that's why there's so many french words in English, it as nothing to do with a imaginary capacity to accommodate foreign words !
Secondly, England isn't the language of business because it is more palatable, what a ridiculous assertion, it's the language of business because the USA are an old British colony and happen to be the most powerful and influential country in the world today.
Oulematu, you should stick to the facts, they're so useful, please try it, if only once, i beg of you !
Complain about this comment
124. Axel3175:
Germany never had the central focus in the EU but was always the country making the most sacrifices. This of course had to do with the war they had the feeling they had to make up for it. That's why the French and German alliance was always so powerful. However this mentality was lost during the reunification (hence I mentioned it) that's why the French and German friendship has been slowly falling apart.
For example Schroeder and Chirac may have been close during and leading up the Iraqi war but before that the friendship was falling apart: Germany wanted a rebate just like British, France would have none of this. After several painstaking discussions a compromise was made (in favour for France) If I take a look at the Merkel and Sarkozy, they don't look close to me in fact Sarkozy seems to be switching partner every week or so (One week it's Brown, after that it's Merkel etc.).
You may think that this friendship is necessary for Germany, sadly enough for France no. For European interest it's best if the friendship does break apart, it's best for European interest that the driving force behind Europe is democratically elected by 500 million EU citizens instead of 140 million Germans and French. It's best for European interest that half of the EU budget doesn't go to paying farmers (effectively people are paying twice for their own food, how silly is that?) it's also best for European interest if all states have an equal say and that the MEPs don't go on a trip to Strasbourg every month (I don't think the MEPs really need a monthly reminder of the wars that were fought across Europe).
Yes I realise all of this doesn't serve French nor German interest but to quote Jean-Claude Juncker "If national interest is won, then Europe as whole loses"
Complain about this comment
Don't want to be too presumptive, but, WebAliceinwonderland, Cracklite, alex1658, WhiteEnglishProud and politejomsviking, may I suggest you all pause on the 'Russian History' tour and take time to read:
A People's Tragedy, 1891 - 1924, by, Orlando Figes.
It's a lengthy read but the depth of research and informative text make it the number 1 English language History of the Russian Revolution.
Suffice to say, even allowing for the limited space/time etc., nothing in the greater Russian peoples' experience is quite as you have all attempted to describe in this Blog.
So far as I am aware there are as yet no similar books by Russian Historians due to the political-social atmosphere prevailing in the quagmire free-for-all of Yeltsin's reign and even less in Mr Putin's era.
Complain about this comment
Ticape,
agree with you a lot. That is correct the friendship between Germany and France is less strong today than 10 or 15 years ago.
Sarkozy and Merkell having 2 different conceptions on economy and the EU does not help.
However, even if there are political disagreements between the 2 countries, they are still the main partners to each others.
I think when there are political arguments, what necessarily happen, then economical interests lead the way...
Is it in the interest of the EU the friendship falls apart ? Maybe if both countries share selfish interests. Maybe not if they manage to balance each others as it happened for almost 4 decades.
Of course I do share Jean Claude Junker views. But unfortunately, during those tough days France is not the only country to put its personal interest prior to the EU. Actually (almost) every country does. Look at the UK, Italy, Spain, Germany etc
I think the next few years will be hard time for the EU. Wait and see.
Complain about this comment
Just found some figures on the CIA World factbook :
Germany is the main export partner to France with 15% of the French exports. It is also the main import partner to France with 19% of the French imports.
Now look at the German exports : France is the main partner with almost 10%, following by the US with 7,5%.
In terms of importations, Netherland is the main partner, France being second.
Those figures would even suggest that Germany would have more to loose than France if they break their friendship.
Plus think about Airbus and other strong cooperations between those 2 countries.
To me it is clear that this friendship is necessary for Germany too : Germany having some "facilities" that France does not have, and France having other "facilities" that Germany does not have.
Complain about this comment
We are in the grip of a very serious recession and it is so very important to ensure our own citizens do not lose their jobs. Once the situation improves then one could think of being more magnanimous. These are trying times where countries are desperately trying to save their own industries. Politicians know that when citizens start losing their jobs, their own positions could be in jeopardy. So can you really blame them for being protectionist? There seems to be a very strong anti-Sarkozy bandwagon! Give the man a break!
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip,
I wouldn't read. Others that is are welcome very much, the more you know the better, and all.
I am in St. Petersburg, where the revolution was. In the 6th generation here. I had my grandma tell me about it. And grandfather. And greatgrandma I also managed to meet. And all my friends and cousins' grandma's and grandfathers.
Why should I read about myself in a foreign book?
What we see about ourselves in foreign books - won't say always - but pretty much a lot - is poor foreigners trying to grasp the idea. Especially the English-language ones.
I understand OK more or less, in French - they were tied up, our society into their society, for 2 centuries. To the degree French was used in official Russian papers.
I understand OK, German, as we have also had much of criss-cross and thousands of Germans here. Besides, Germans write boring books but are at least very careful with details, and approach every subject to write about deeply and profoundly.
But in English?
We are happy Russian history feeds and will continue to be feeding generations of foreign historians. You are welcome to have your piece of the pie.
How to say. There is an old saying here
"This is the place where history of our nation - is not passed over in translation."
I think the English would do well first translating to themselves the times in detail when France ruled them. Or the Dane's law.
To find out about themselves, in translation. ;o)
Complain about this comment
Axel3175
Oh I definitely agree that France isn't the only country that gets away with national interest. For example Spain gets away with national interest during the CFP (Common Fishery Policy) discussions in the council. Another example I once saw an interview with Guy Verhofstadt (former Prime minister of Belgium) where he said that the words 'European interest' was never mentioned during all of his council meetings.
This is precisely why I want to see an one state, one vote rule in the Council, that way compromises must be made even among the bigger states.
As for Germany France friendship, I don't necessarily mean that the French and German government should be at each other's throat, I simply meant that the relationship should be slightly more stand offish (I suppose similar between Germany and UK?) that way the smaller countries might step up and take the leadership role.
Although France might be Germany's most important trading partner, the Euro for example would have been worthless without Germany's participation (I can't say the same for the French Franc) stuff like this makes me believe that Germany might carry well on it's own, while France may not.
I think the next few years will be hard time for the EU. Wait and see.
I agree and the lack of a proper EU response with no strong leadership within the EU nor within the member states will make it much worse.
Complain about this comment
Webaliceinwonderland and Comment 133.
'.. 6th generation.. spoke to parent... grandparent etc... why should I read about myself in a foreign book..'
I had assumed you were from Russia. It was also apparent you have a very good knowledge of your homeland and a deep, sincere respect for its history.
Respectfully, however, it is my contention, there is always room for another's point of view if we are to have the fuller picture of people and events.
My late father was in the Signals Regiment and a veteran of Dunkirk, D-Day, the liberation of Nazi occupied Brussels, and infact ended up WW2 just south of Flensburg listening/spying on the movement of Soviet Red Army forces across the river! He told me many things, but always added that he knew very little himself about WW2, as everything he did was on the orders of others who never once consulted him.
I suspect, unless your family relations had connections with the Romanov Court, Nikolai Bulganin, Lev Bronstein, Vladimir Ulyanov, Lavrenti Beria, Josef Djugashvili et al then they were very much in the same atmosphere and experience as my father: A singular participant and witness to Historical development, but hardly anything of substance.
If you are set against any foreign text then there are 2 more recent Russian works that at least shed some objective light on 'Uncle Joe's' Mother Russia:
The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire, by Dmitri Volkogonov, pub. 1998
Hope Against Hope, by Nadezhda Mandelstam, pub. 1989
Anyway, I hope you realise I meant no ill-will and sincerely wish you and your illustrious nation a good future.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip, now :o), that's a better placed offer.
Because when it is an offer, a suggestion, to read - who'd object I mean, to know a name of a useful book, in case of anything, and all. :o) When you rule out all Russian written sources about the revolution, as composed in defective Yeltsin time and even more defective Putin's ones, - and instead say - read that one, in English. ???
I mean.
I knew you knew I'm Russian. Therefore found it even more strange a proposal to use the source in English.
_________
On the abstract side of the discussion - "how much one can see of a whole being a tiny wheel in the system" - still disagree.
One's perception of a time period is not based on the pages xxx - to xxx Chapter 6 see Appendix. It is combined like a jig-saw, of pieces. On-going access to these "pieces" - is the prerogative of the locals. Russians are communicative. They talk in kitchens. Write letters to each other. You have old family albums commented at birthday parties of your, say, cousin - "see here - it was.. when..." It's combined of anecdotes, folklore, chastushka-s (Russian limerics unprintable), pieces of documentaries you see on various annoversaries. When a theatre critic criticises a play on another subject - 40 years later - but a chancy phrase refers to... Columnists' columns "one can't help to remember that." When you go by chance, on professional duty, to archives, after another thing - and then stumble across "Oh and here we have."
Even when you compose a family tree.
When you rustle yellowish papers, graduation certificates. Mayakovsky lyrics, where you suddenly read "..not chocks, not sweets but to my sweetheart, visiting - I carry two yellow carrots, holding at the greenish tails". When the house where Mandelshtam worked is turned into a five-star hotel. And it was cultural centre of our poets in revolution. And you read about the "literary courses in 1917." I mean, it's a neverending list of impressions.
Above the stove in the dacha my brother scribbled jokes, on the wall. One of them is "Oh Feodor! haven't seen you these 60 years! Since Revolution, rember the Palace Square? How are you? - But how did you recognise me? - By the coat of course!"
"CCCP - what does the Russian abbreviation stand for? - Three Jewish and one Russian." (That's a joke times 1920).
And, by the way, LOL, my grandma worked as Lenin's secretary. If you press so much for historical objectivity. ;o)
The last one Yhat
Complain about this comment
besides :o). ikamaskeip. just an idea.
so that we could discuss revolution on the similar footing. :o).
I suggest you make synopses of 500 works relating to the years. Like I did. Marx and Engels granted, then Stolypin, Kerensky, Lenin, Bukharin and Trotsky, don't forget a splash of Dzerzhinsky and Lunacharsky, include absolutely all laws and decrees issued by the power in the first years.
Don't hand copy!
Copies are no good. Don't make you think and ask questions. No, you extract the main thought of each paragraph. One after another, after another. Think critically! Finish off by connecting to the previous piece and seeing them in perspective! "Critically analyse" each work.
Write up a summary. Especially recommend
Lenin's "One step ahead, two steps back" and "How should we re-organise Rabkrin."
Remember as now - were my favourities in the course of the history study in the university.
After you are done with this (and it'd seem to you - once and forever in your life, and "never never again better jump off down from the bridge) - then I will recommend you to read a new exciting book, on the revolution.
:o)
Complain about this comment
#137 Web Alice and Ikamaskiep-
You don't have do all that. I can sum it all quite nicely for you.
The Romanovs, the worst government in Europe. Were overthrown by the kerensky government, who attempted to form a democratic government. They in turn were overturned by the most viscous group of murders in historty the Bolshiviks. When not actively allied with Hitler as in the Rape of Poland they spent the nations wealth encouraging other Marxist murders around the globe. Their other accomplishments were winning some gold medals at the Olympics, installing adictator in Cuba, enslaving Eastern Europe and Germany and promoting talent. Talent was other murders like Chaimen Mao (most sucessful in history), Pol Pot not most successful but for is talents in the murder field a definite Honarable Mention award, the Stasi(shot mostly their own people), the North Koreans(no idea how many they killed, because still enslaved and don't forget every little tribal murder in Africa who ever did a genocide with a new AK-47.
These were all so awful that they make a KGB guy like Putin look good.
Total lesson, don't do this!
Complain about this comment
Oh dear! You do seem to be getting yourself in a tizz. However, let’s take a logical approach to the point you raise.
"A few months ago, I remember reading in the English newspapers a lot of comments around the UK that will be the 1st European economic power by 2050, 1st to Germany" …….the UK that will be the most populated country in Europe by 2050 ….Especially when you know that nobody can predict what the economy or the demography will be in 5 years ….. ".
In which newspapers did you see this comment that the UK will be the 1st European economic power by 2050? I read a range of British newspapers but did not see this prediction.
As far as the figures on projected UK population growth are concerned, they were a statistical extrapolation. They were not produced by economists. And if "nobody can predict the demography in 5 years time" how do governments plan for such things as school places?
2No suprising I don't trust your economists anymore." The sources I quoted highlighting the problems within the eurozone were not economists. Each of them is highly respected in his/her own field. I could quoted a good many more.
"The reality is ok, the UK had a better and enjoyable growth than most of other European nation since 2000... but now it is clear and more than obvious this growth was only fictive. So just remind me, who is (was) naive there?” …it is not a surprise if the UK prediction are the darkest of all….." The reality - as shown by the figures released on Thursday - is that in Q4 of 2008 the decline in the UK’s economy was the same as the average for the EU. Germany’s was worse. The recession started in the eurozone before it did in the UK and in some countries it is already deeper. Also, there are indications that the devaluation of the pound will allow Britain to be the first to emerge from the current downturn.
"Continental Europe, including Germany and France, has understood that they can be strong only together." The rhetoric behind the EU and its predecessor institutions was all about peace, mutual help etc. The reality was a trade-off between German industrial interests and French agriculture.
"Just compare the UK to the Eurozone, the US, Japan and China. You still believe your country can face all the other big blocks in the World ? If yes, this is what I call being really naive." And given the fault lines that already appearing in the Eurozone do you really think the EU will be able to face all the other big blocks? The EC has acknowledged that its share of world trade will fall substantially over the coming years.
"The crisis came from the US (mainly) and the UK. Thanks. The crisis the UK is facing is more structural than anything else : 30% of its GDP is related to Finance... this is not the case of Germany or France." The crisis now emerging in the eurozone did not come from the US or the UK but was inherent in the way in which the euro was launched. Several countries - Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece - did not meet the specified criteria for joining. That was glossed over in an attempt to give the project 'bulk' and to message some politicians’ egos. Now those countries have massive problems with sovereign debt. The folly - and hubris - of the politicians is now coming home to roost.
"Knowing this, please don't tell me the way the UK has chosen (being on the edge of EU) was the right one." Yes, it was the right one. Had Britain been in the euro our problems would have been worse than they are now. Despite the dire world economy our exports increased in Q4 due to the devaluation of the pound and that should stand us in good stead when the general economic outlook picks up. In contrast, the ECB has kept interest rates too high. At one extreme that has adversely affected Germany by making its exports too expensive and at the other extreme it has made the situation worse in countries like Ireland, Italy etc where not just lower interest rates but devaluation is badly needed.
"Yes, Europe is facing some big challenges in a near future, that is correct, and I have never said it will be easy. But at least, European have understood together they are stronger and they try to build something together." The problem with this notion is that they may also go down together - as may well be the case with the current situation.
"They have ideals." Unless ideals are tempered with a strong dose of realism they become, at best, out of date. At worst, they become highly dangerous.
"But don’t you think this is exciting? My guess would be …. No." Actually, I would be quite happy to compare my record of working for European understanding and cooperation with yours. However, as I don’t like to boast perhaps you would like to set yours out first.
Complain about this comment
What concerns me is that when the case for protectionism is made, usually with a tricolour in the background, what is never articulated to the French populace by the same politicians is just who is going to have to pay for this because like it or not, it comes at a heavy price.
In France many perfumes can only be purchased from authorised distributors because the perfume industry must be protected. Result? A French perfume purchasable in the Uk or USA around 15-20euros costs in France 40-50euros. A portable telephone recently purchased in the UK for 40pounds is on sale locally in France for 184euros because distribution rights in France are 'protected'. Ditoo a games controller - 20euros in the UK and 45euros in France.
The car industry is now being 'protected' to aid French workers. A French car purchased in France (new or secondhand) is frequently 25% more expensive than the same French vehicle purchased overseas.
So, happy as I am that billions are being pumped into these industries to protect jobs, and keep the CEOs in their executive limos and seaside second home villas, I am concerned that the reality of what comes with this is never outlined - i.e. that these costs in the end are paid DIRECTLY by the French taxpayer and consumer through some of the highest business and personal tax/social charge structures in Europe or the entire world. This in turn means many French manufactured products have too high a cost base and can't be sold anywhere outside of France. Solution to that problem? Why we need MORE protectionism of course!
It's a lesson France has to grasp.
Complain about this comment
Webaliceinwonderland and Comments 136 and 137.
Thank for the advice on, 'make a synopsis of 500..', '..no copies' and, '..extract the source from each paragraph'.
Your expertise is second to none: To have done so much literary investigation/reading yourself, have a grandma who was Lenin's secretary (is she the one in the background of the photos or are you hinting she was the famous Nadezhda Ulianova, Madam Lenin?), all rounded off by your fine line in Russian quotes and jokes. Marvellous.
It seems I may have offended you by initially suggesting a Historical text written in English!
Of course, I was including your good self with others in my suggestion and I suspect that like me their ability to access Russian is limited to translations. Whereas, you have that skill and knowledge to read an english text.
As it happens I am already aware of Lenin's 1904 'One Step Forward, Two Steps Back', which alongside his 1916 critique labelled, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism (The Crisis in Our Party) exemplify the didactic nature of the marxist-leninist-socialist arguments of the period. Infact, by going back to 1897 and Lenin's A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism (Sismond and our Native Sismondists), it is possible to trace the whole divisive argument.
Unfortunately, I am mostly restricted to the English translations as my Russian language is very limited.
However, do not assume that not being a native russian speaker prevents analysis of Russian history: That would be as foolish a notion as believing anything published in Russia by a Russian between the demotion and detention of Rykov (circa 1934-36) and the 1956 Soviet Congress was in any way a reliable text on what actually happened inside Russian Government or Society within that time-span!
Many important, indeed great, novels, poems, songs, letters, diaries etc. were written throughout the Leninist-Stalinist Soviet era of the Russian experience. Inevitably, some of the published work in all those areas was tainted by oppressive political interference and some was never to see the light of day. Naturally post 1989 Russia's freer, more liberal atmosphere enabled a wider and more challenging range of works to find an audience both in and outside Russia (although, not necessarily of better quality!). They are all forms of a historical narrative and as such must be taken into account.
Actual Historical texts written in the Soviet era are also a part of that narrative, but, inevitably a very lop-sided account: I would liken them to the Bolshoi Ballet Company performing without theatre or musical accompaniment. The substance is there but not in its true form or value.
I do appreciate that the 'jump off bridge' remark was alluding to my exhaustion were I to have undertaken the analytical approach to every piece of Russian text. All the same, I also respectfully point out, with all the bridges available in St.Petersberg my choice would have to be Annunciation (Nikolayevsky) Bridge, or Andreyevsky Bridge in Moscow (more chance of hitting water than Gorbaty Bridge).
Apart from which I would have to have consumed large amounts of 'Samogon' to find the inebriated will-power after all that rewarding reading!
Complain about this comment
dwwonthrew
I am not optimistic for the EU, but I am even less optimistic for the UK.
Why ? First, the UK has the most pessimistic economic forecast for 2009 with a predicted recession of 2,8%... compare to 2,25 for Germany and if I remember well around 1,8 for France. I don't say this will happen, this is only forecast. But I think there are good reasons for being that pessimistic.
Secondly, I might be wrong again, but : 30% of the UK's GDP is linked to finance. However, finance will never be the same. That means the UK will face a major challenge within the next years : rebuild its economy.
Please read here for an example of the prediction concerning the UK : http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/08/economy-gdp-uk-italy-france
So where did you read the UK will be the first country to recover ? The weakness of the pound does not help that much actually, because the UK is maybe the 7th or 8th main exporter in the world, but a lot of this comes from oil exports... which I believe is paid in dollars.
As for Germany, it shrank by 2% in the last quarter of 2008, which is worst than the UK. But the explanation is easy to understand : Germany is the main exporter in the world. If the world economy collapses, no surprising that the volume of exports declined... and therefore Germany is hitten that hard. Then I would expect Germany to be one of the 1st to recover.
In summary, I believe the UK recession is structural because of its lack of diversity, whereas Germany's is only about circumstances.
BUT don't get me wrong, I don't wish this at all for the UK because it would be bad news for everyone if this has to be confirmed...
Did you write in your comment that the euro is responsible for the crisis ?? If yes this is the funniest comment I have ever read. I would then suggest you to read again on the historic of the subprime mortgage crisis. This all started in the US... and everyone knows that the UK's economy has similar bases so it helps the crisis to spread in Europe.
As for the comment concerning the UK's economy predicted to overtake Germany's (from British sources obviously), please find here an article from the Telegraph : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2862512/UK-economy-will-be-bigger-than-Germanys-minister-predicts.html
Complain about this comment
ikameskeip, LOL.
You are an expert, in works, and bridges, alike!
My reference to bridge jumping was simply to apologise for a kind of hysterical attitude Russians slide in, when advised to read more about the revolution.
I mean, my be we read all the wrong things, but were made to study so many! that it's about the last period of the world history a Russian can be interested in. as if it's not enough Soviet powers made us learn the glorious pages day by day; now we thought, we can count for a break! but no! now the West is interested to make us read :o)
In other words I'm afraid this work won't sell here as hot pies.
Anyway, no, my grandma wasn't Krupskaya thank God; she was simply very young and got into it by necessity of hunger in Petrograd. She was studying to become a lady in waiting in the court when bang ooops the world upside down. She wasn't Lenin's proper secretary but his telephone girl those who rolled over those? you know how old telephones looked like and connected him to places. Got the job because had a good education, languages.
Said he was always extraordinary polite and gentlemanly, Mademoiselle, will you please now connect me to ... etc. So she had best impressions from the job and the boss. to say nothing of special Smolny food ration cards.
Moreover the paper that she worked for Lenin and reference letter LOL
has been saving her the rest of her life, because the times were dangerous, Stalin repressions etc you know, and any move in the wrong direction she was extracting the yellow certificate and waving it into the nose of intruders into the apartment "Just try to touch me, I was Lenin's secretary - look here." Which did work as a pass.
In grandma's case it was in fact very handy, because she absolutely skipped working the rest of her life, marrying well instead :o).
While the profession of "housewife" didn't exist as such, 2 months not working - to the prizon.
So she was, like, morally resting from the first (and last) employment, LOL, and, I mean - where else can one find such a boss and employment next? she put this as an explanation, seriously. it is for granted "nothing compares, nothing compares - to you!"
anyway this worked somehow. plus husbands, of course, shielding her, in her wrong bourgeoise style.
Of bridges; very sensible you don't plant to take the humpy /"Gorbaty" - it is reserved for miners protesting about salaries and mines' closing, and knocking down their helmets.
Andreevsky bridge in Moscow hopeless either, last time I remember it, it was a long transparent plastic tube with shops inside, for walking. I haven't seen one opening to go out to the open.
Annumciation in St. Pete we still call by old name Leutenant Schmidt bridge. The old/new name didn't catch on. A taxi driver will be lost if you ask for Nikolaevsky oor for Annunciation. Leutenant Schmidt sounds far more heroic though absolutely all forgot who he was.
Except that post-revolution the country got flooded by "children of Leutenant Schmidt" demanding special treatment from powers, in memory of their heroic revolutionary father, 1 to 10 children in every Russian city.
So the phrase "- a child of Leutenant Schmidt is still a set expression", LOL.
Complain about this comment
dwwonthew,
Oups I have forgotten to reply to one point :
The problem is not the way the demographic predictions are done, but how they are reported by the British's medias.
As you wrote, the demographic forecast is done on statistical extrapolation... meaning clearly this is nonsense. One can mention it of course, but has to be careful because the reality will be necessary different.
Please look at the following article : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/population.eu
This article seems to say "this will be". Quite wrong.
The problem is it contains a lot of mistakes. For example they are talking of a birth rate of 1.91 in the UK ! Funny. First, this is not a birth rate but a fertility rate. Then the UK fertility rate is 1.66, and not 1.91.
And then this article says : "Of the biggest six EU countries (Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland) Britain has by far the greatest birth rates. Only Luxembourg, Cyprus, and Ireland are growing faster than the UK"
By far ?? Ok, I though France has a birth rate of nearly 2...
Finally, the Eurostat forecast is the only one I have ever heard to predict the UK to be the most populous country in Europe in 50 years. So why don't they report all the other predictions ?
Sooooooooo, I agree fertility rate, demographic forecast etc are not important matter at all... but to me this shows one essential thing : the way the UK's medias is depicting informations with approximations and, most of the time, in favour of this country (well this is only my feeling).
So to come back to our initial point, I am still wondering how is naive here.
As for your last point, I am French, my mother is Sicilian and I am living since 2007 in the UK which is, I believe, a really great country (even if I HATE your medias and politicians), and I love my life here.
Complain about this comment
Axel3175
"Did you write in your comment that the euro is responsible for the crisis ?? If yes this is the funniest comment I have ever read. I would then suggest you to read again on the historic of the subprime mortgage crisis. This all started in the US... and everyone knows that the UK's economy has similar bases so it helps the crisis to spread in Europe."
I did not claim the euro is responsible for "the crisis". I argued that the problem in the eurozone was inherent in the way in which the euro was launched. Because some countries were allowed to join without meeting the criteria they now have a massive problem with sovereign debt. Also some of the eurozone countries need both lower interest rates and devaluation but do not have those remedies. Added to which the ECB has been slow to react, damaging both Germany and countries like Ireland.
The article in the Telegraph that you refer to quotes a junior minister in the Labour Government. If you believe what Labour minions say you will believe the moon is made of green cheese. Similarly with the Guardian.
Complain about this comment
dwwonthew,
sorry I misunderstood what you meant. I do agree with your comment, but not fully. Some economists said the euro has limited the consequences of the crisis within the eurozone.
However, even if it is hard to accommodate every country under the euro, I still believe this is a great challenge.
Unfortunately, at this stage you will always find an economist or "specialist" opinion that would fit with yours...
Only time will telle, so wait and see.
Complain about this comment
"It's a lesson France has to grasp."
If it is indeed the French who have to suffer from France protectionism...then why should you care ?!!! Plus, if we are going to talk about lessons that need to be learned, how about accepting and dealing with the fact that Anglo saxon types of capitalism have just miserably failed ? How about being honest about that instead of trying to distract us with stories of french protectionism, when in fact protectionism is making a huge comeback everywhere anyway?!
Now, I'm afraid pride will will keep the UK and the US from making their much needed aggiornamento, which is sad and dangerous, because that's a lessons the world, and the Brits in particular, cannot do without.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip, to your "revolutionary" collection:
Lenin was a merry man. One of his first decrees was "The Decree about Ground/Land." ("Factories - to workers, land - to the peasants")
This land the peasants haven't seen by now, 90 years later.
Russian peasants were also merry people.
That's why Lenin hasn't seen the ground either.
You can draw? You wish that your posters are hung in the national galleries? Draw the E3 part of the chess-board, give it a funny name, and then, if you're lucky...
You are young and energetic? Collect your people. Give them a funny name. Select for them a tsar and win an exciting trip - 40 years tour across Egypt.
Your name is George? Your father's name is also George? You're looking for the chemical weapons? Collect 5 thousand paratroopers. Give them a funny name. Send them to the address: Bagdad, Presidential palace, building 1. And then, if you are lucky, you'll get temorarily control over oil fields. If you are lucky.
You're clever and ambitious? You wish to live in the marble studio in the Red Square?
Collect workers and peasants, give them a funny name, imagine for them a funny bright future. And then, if you are lucky... Then everyone else will be not.
You're tired of driving your tractor? You feel you're capable of more? Collect 15 republics, figure out for them a new funny future. And send 14 of them to... Just send them away. And then, if you're lucky, you will get a fascinating rest in a health resort, in Crimea.
You're tired? You want to leave? We also want that.
You can speak foreign languages? You love sport and live in St. Petersburg? Find in Moscow a merry tennis-player. Tell him about your plans. And then, if you're lucky -
you will win 8 years of driving in Moscow without traffic jams.
Complain about this comment
A world government or global economics is a great way to destroy the protuction of items that a nation in times of war or economic down turn needs. Protectionism is needed unless you are willing to put your neck under the axe if a war starts again.
We have two paths here, the first is a one world government setting price and output. Your German model. Or second nations that understand they have to be able to defend themselves from others if and when the time again arises.
At the very bottom, each nation will make protect its people. That is what governments are to do, protect those who have choosen them to govern.
If you think I am misslead, why did you not in Europe throw open your boarders when the USSR failed. Protectionism and fear.
Complain about this comment
Looking at Sarkozy's picture and thinking about that famous interview he did with Charlie Rose in January 2007 (or was it 2008), it struck me that he's a cross between Danny DaVito and Lucile Ball with maybe a touch of Harpo Marx and Charlie Chaplin thrown in. I could see Arnold Schwartznegger as his alter-ego. Be a clown. Hard to take him at all seriously. By contrast Brown and Merckel are grim, Brown morbidly so. Brown makes the grayest cloudiest gloomiest day look sunny by comparison. A quintessential stereotype of a bean counting banker if ever there was one. Hail Brown Chancellor of the Exchequeur of the United Kingdom! Hail Brown Prime Minister of all Great Britain! Hail Brown and Captain of the Titanic! "I am the Monarch of the Seas, the ruler of the Queen's navies. Who's praised Great Britatin loud with chants, and so do his sisters and his cousins and his aunts......"
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy is not French as in a Frenchman, he is a clone, puppet, facsimile of the new world order type partial humanoid such as Blair, Obamah, Brown and all the rest. He was nurtured by the cia and taught the psy ops necessary to gain power and then wield that power without thought of those he is supposed to represent.
You can bash him, gag him, dress him up and tag him he won't shut up he won't go away!
The age of " A voice of the people" is nowhere to be found and when history is studied you find it never existed nor will it ever be.
The only difference between previous dissemblers and modern day dissemblers is that today's variety care not that you the people are fully cognisant of it.
They add industrial waste to your water (flouride) to kill your ardour, feed you trash and disinformation in the media and you go vote for them. Easy innit!!!
Complain about this comment
#150 Mac-
You don't think of him more as a French version of Mr. Bean? Why not they could be each other in a movie.
Complain about this comment
Hi Cracklite.
I'm afraid your reply to my article doesn't really refute anything I said based on rationale - it just seems to imply that nobody other than the French have a right to comment on French protectionist tendencies.
Well, you are making many assumptions such as a) I am not French, b)I do not live in France c)whatever my nationality, I am not speaking for many French people and d) that because I have criticised French protectionism I must be implying that everything is OK with the traditional Anglo-Saxon model.
I am not sure what I said to make you think these things but if you read my comments again you'll see that there are no grounds for assuming any of them.
France has always been highly protectionist in its commercial activities and when it is, European law and the usually proclaimed philosophy of "we're all Europeans here" are both simply thrown out of the window.
This is not just a factor of the current crunch - remember the lamb lorries being burned in French ports while the Gendarmes stood by and watched? I could cite many many other examples.
It may surprise you to note that I am not saying that ALL protectionism is ALWAYS wrong. It is thanks to this in part that France still has many large manufacturing industries to be proud of whereas countries such as the UK are now largely an industrial wasteland.
Yet protectionism is overall disastrous. Taken to its logical 'spiral down' conclusion it results in catastrophic parochialism whereby jobs in Tyneside must be reserved for Tynesiders not soft southerners or the sale of wines from the south west of France becomes illegal within 100k of the Loire valley to protect the interests of the local wine growers in that region etc etc etc.
This is NOT just a French problem - you are 100% right. This tendency exists in all national entities. The difference in France is that this tendency is often encouraged directly and indirectly by governments of both political inclinations whereas in most other countries it is spoken against by politicians and acted against by the judiciary.
We have a choice. Either the EU is simply a vast job creation scheme for administrators or it is something to change the way we think about the world and interact with each other in all respects including commercial. Protectionism is one aspect of this debate and the decisions required of France here will be tougher than for many other EU countries.
Complain about this comment
Just have to comment a bit on several rather variable comments on history in the above.
a) It is absurd to say that France occupied England for several centuries. At the time of the Norman conquest (please note the use of 'Norman' here) and for some considerable time afterwards during the Angevin empire etc France as a political entity extended to a few kilometres around Paris in the Ile de France. The Kings of France could not even 'rule' their own nobles a hundred kilometres away let alone Normandie or England or Aquitaine etc.
b) In 1066 the Normans were of fairly recent Scandinavian origin (as in Norse-Men) and never thought of themselves as French. They spoke Norman-French.
c) The Danelaw was a comparatively short-lived political entitity (well, it was an area rather than a poltiical entity as we would understand it) that never ruled over all of England and which was reconquered by the descendents of Alfred the Great. This lasted until conquests by the short-lived Scandinavian empire and eventually the Normans.
It is always dangerous to start digging around in ancient history to explain modern situations.
The English language is a hybrid of old German, Anglo-Saxon, Norman-French, Modern French and some Latin. More recently many words from (eg) the Indian subcontinent have also been absorbed into it. All these peoples, their languages and their culture, have made a rich and valued contribution to the modern English language and the cultural values contained within it.
I'll offer an opinion about global language pentration. From the late 18th century through the 19th and earlier 20th centuries, English increasingly became the global language of commerce because of British commercial and to some extent imperial power. As the UK declined after WWI - it was the US that continued to drive this again through primarily commercial power.
Today the position is more complicated. I do not know of a single person, French, German or Anglophone, who believes anything other than that the English language is structurally and grammatically simpler and easier to learn/use that say German French or Spanish. As in business complexity=costs, I suspect its continued growth is more to do with that than Uncle Sam flag waiving or commercial imperialism.
Complain about this comment
AsidesRus @154 I agree with your historical review. More or less. What I wished to note is that during the French rule, or un-French rule as wish to say - all state documentation and legal papers and anything of importance. Well. must be all there was in writing - was done in Latin. Which was kind of opposed to the spoken English on the ground.
Surely English was just forming as a language, however it was distinctly different from Latin. I mean one could see the difference - one lanaguage in writing, and the other - in speaking.
And later on the speaking tongue won over, the first break-through translation of the Bible into English - so that everyone could understand it, for the first time! and all.
But when a historian looks back into that period of English history - I am sorry - he'd have no choice but read about the English history - in Latin.
2. Dane law may be indeed a short period, but nearly half of the country occupied is still a lot. All the North I mean.
And in the English language formation this played a remarkable role because this is exactly when the language got stripped itself of grammar, all the endings, inclinations, as it held like absolutely all the other tongues - until that very Danelaw point.
Very roughly one can imagine it happened because one side had to trade and agree with the other side, over the line, and lengthy endings stood in the way of speed of comms. So it became nearly centre-pieces of words only.
Later on the words took on board some trimmings again, but a radical grammar simplification occured during the Danelaw.
Complain about this comment
Hi WebAliceinwonderland
On the development of English. Prior to the 1066 conquest the English language (anglo-saxon) was used in writing alongside Latin. It created a strong vernacular written culture. The English of that period is now very hard for modern English speakers to understand but odd phrases are intelligble. Prior to 1066 it is possible for historians to read formal documents in anglo-saxon English not just Latin.
After 1066 its use continued but declined rapidly in formal use by educated folk such as monks in favour of exclusively written Latin and of course the new Norman nobility spoke Norman-French and later medaeval French. It does though re-appear in the 14th century as a melange incorporating the influences of Medieaval French into an anglo-saxon base. Chaucer for example, is still very hard to read and understand in 14th century original terms but it is easier than pre-conquest Anglo-saxon. English of that period sounds a lot more like old ango-saxon than French, at least to my ear!
I agree 100% with you. The Scandinavian influence on the development of English was real and I forgot to mention them in my list of acknowledgements!
Good discussion! Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
The French President is trying to do what is best for his country which is being hit hard with recession. You should see how bad it is in the United States. They are closing all sorts of plants. Once we get thru this things will probably go back to normal. There are some wealthy people who have really messed us up. Loans given without even a deposit, over valueing homes, then selling the investment to iceland you the rest of europe. Which was picked up by your bankers it's rediculous!!!
Personally i don't understand why you want to become the United States of europe when each country has it's indivual language and differences. Congratuations to the EU you have done what Hitler tried to do without firing a bullet, you used bankers.
My fear is you will become the Islamic United States of Europe. What were you thinking when you were so indiscriminant in allowing immigration to that extent. Now you fear those very immigrants and their children have blown up the underground and look at whats going on. You are also returning to you deep seeded anti-semitism. It's very scary to me across the pond.
Complain about this comment
Please do not under estimate the lives sacrificed in world war 2 by americans and brits. Just go look at the graves. No family was untouched in the US. Prior to that the french were waving their white flags and welcoming the Germans and turning in their neighbors. Germany there is NO excuse for. Only England stood up to them and would have to the last person then we got into it because england is part of us.
Complain about this comment
KateOfCalifornia,
I fear your knowledge in terms of history and sociology is very approximate.
First thing, I think nobody underestimates the importance of UK and US roles in WWII. But don't forget that Russia's role was also a determinant factor in this war (21 millions of Russians lost their lives in this war, they suffer the biggest losses by far). In comparison, the UK, the US and France suffered around 500.000 dead each.
Secondly, the US did enter the war against Japan, hence against Germany, following the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. Therefore it was mainly driven by national interests.
As for your comments on the Islamist United States of Europe, can you develop your thoughts please ? What is going on with immigrants here ? You also wrote we are returning in our deep-seeded anti semitism... what a non sense. I can only suggest you to come here see how the things are really happening and you will be surprised to see this is far from what your TV our newspapers describe.
Finally, you wrote we have done with the EU what Hitler wanted to do. I hope you are joking (in which case that would be a very bad joke), if not please, please, please, read again your history books. Is the purpose of the EU to exterminates the Jewish community ?? Of course and fortunately : NO !! Nothing to do. So please, don't make any parallel of that sort between the EU and Hitler.
Complain about this comment
To KateOfCalifornia (157):
Isn't it obvious why the EU has been formed and why it is developing to become the United States of Europe?
Just look at your own country, US of A.
Might it be that in Europe people have also seen the light in having...
...the leading reserve currency, hence ability to externalize inflation to the rest of the world and the ability at times of economic crisis on just printing the money until the crisis is over.
...the combined political power that can be used to dictate trade terms to other countries or use that power to protect the interest of your global companies.
...the leading intelligence services like the NSA that provide the US both valuable political, but also economical intelligence information and give it a competitive advantage.
...the leading armed forces that can be used either indirectly by sending a carrier group near a hostile country's capital and blackmail them into submission, or just direct force to make regime changes or to take control of strategic assets.
Shouldn't it be obvious that in Europe there is strong will on uniting, not just to obtain advantages mentioned here, but to be able to make sure that we can't be held hostage with these instruments.
For example even now the US state and commerce departments letters to individual EU countries are just hollow threats and can be thrown into garbage bin as the EU has enough power and will to retaliate heavily against any sanction set up against any of its member.
So why not to have US of E. as the US of A. has worked so perfectly. I even think that we can this time make it even better as we know what are after.
Complain about this comment
Dear Kate,
welcome to the "Have your say " section of the BBC, the original home of psuedo-education.
First of all your dead right, about the Anti-semitism if you feel the urge to advocate the destruction of Israel or would like to make some statements about her being a terrorist state that secretly intends to nuke the rest of us, this would be the appropriate place to post it, because we have people gullible enough to buy it here. That part of Europe hasn't changed, there is still the same zionist boggeyman under their bed that Hitler, Stalin and the Czarsalways knew were there. That won't be changed by the IDF being willing to cooperate against terrorism with anybody in the world , who asks for help.
If you have an urge to write that the US government kills it's dissidents without proof and don't want to be thought of as a loon. This is the place o write it. That's why Obama, all the old Weather underground and Black Panthers are not alive. According to the posts here the US Government kills those old dissidents.
By the way you probably didn't know it but the US government doesn't issue Treasury bonds to raise capital investment, we just print more money. There is never an explanation of how we do this without creating inflation. All those bonds that British, German, Saudi and Chinese investors bought don't exist.
We have also been treated to thie information that Hitler's Waffen SS were honorable men, just like their Army instead of Genocidal racists responsible for some of the most horrible massacres in history(look up Malmedy or the slaughter of the Canadian prisoners in Normandy or any one of hundreds of villages in Russia they slaughtered).
Oh yes by the way the USA uses the NSA to steal economic intelligence. That's pretty rich, we can't give a single example or even know a catagory of item that the US doesn't lead in the develpoment of, but that is probably true. Computers, no US leads, Nuclear weapon technology, Space program, Internet technology, they lead in all of that junk's development technologhy, so I don't know what were stealing, but no doubt the poster will inlighten us.
By the way the US uses it's military to oppress the world and steal resources. The fact that the Oil from Iraq was put under the control of the Iraqi Government and that the US Military buys it's Oil from the Kuwaitis is just another inconvient fact. Currently the Iraqi oil goes on the same world commodities market as everbody elses oil.
By the way, the importaion of large numbers of people into Europe who believe that they have a holy duty to convert them or kill them probably won't change things at all, nope when their 50% of the population everything will be just peachy kean.
Don't forget that all those countries that have Dictators for life and shoot their own people when they try to leave the country are every bit as free as the USA and Great Britain.
So if you've got some friends who have some figures on how the US causes cancer, or how the CIA destroyed everbody's brain in Spain or understand that once you combine France, Spain, Portugal, Lichtenstein and Belgium they will be able to Challenge Russia, USA or China, all without spending more on defence, THEN THIS IS THE PLACE TO POST IT, BECAUSE NOTHING IS EVER CONSIDERED DUMB HERE.
Complain about this comment
157. At 03:09am on 18 Feb 2009, KateOfCalifornia wrote:
My fear is you will become the Islamic United States of Europe. What were you thinking when you were so indiscriminate in allowing immigration to that extent. Now you fear those very immigrants and their children have blown up the underground and look at whats going on. You are also returning to you deep seeded antisemitism. It's very scary to me across the pond.
As a American I am greatly offended by your bigotry. Immigration is one of our greatest strengths. America is the great melting pot, its part of our cultural identity. I myself am Irish, German, Ulster Irish, French, and Blackfoot Indian, I am proud my heretical diversity. Almost every American is from immigrant origins. And last I checked America is suppose to be the land of the free were it doesn't matter what you race, creed, skin color, and religion is you should be treated equally.
If some reason the the EU ever expelled there Islamic immigrants I would have no problem with them immigrating to the USA, I would welcome then to be part of our own, to strengthen us with there diversity. I have no problem with the a Muslim becoming President of the USA someday, or a Shinto, or a Buddhas, or a Chinese, or a Russian, or a Czech, or a Hindu, or a Indian.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me"
Complain about this comment
162. Aikuchi:
I applaud your refreshingly open attitudes on race and religion.
However, although
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me"
was a wonderful sentiment when first expressed, isn't it just a bit out of date today?
Complain about this comment
#162 Aikuchi-
Your making assumptions about what Kate said that she never said.
I think everbody is aware of the contributions of immigrants to the US, but our melting pot was truely that, you came here and bacame an American. You didn't continue your allegiance to the old country, you certainly did not bear Arms against her or give aid and comfort to her enemies in time of war.
That is exactly what many of the so called immigrants to Europe are doing. Surely I'm making this up right:
1. Bombs in Subways
2. Bombs on buses
3. Crashing cars with gas bombs into Airports
4. A plot to take British soldiers on leave hostage and behead them
5. Clerics supporting terror taking over the places of worship
Those are Britain, and Britain gave those people better lives than they would ever have had at home.
What about France:
1. Active Terror cells
2. Multiple riots where they burnt the cars of the other citizens
3. Shoe bombers on air planes
Germany:
1. The terror cell responsible for 911 was based there
Spain:
1.Everybody forget about the train bobing already
Denmark:
People killed over a cartoon!
That doesn't sound like a great melting pot to me.
I'm an American of German decent and when we ent to war with the Kaiser and later Hitler, there were two kinds of German:
1. Those who supported the US
2. Those who were deported to Germany or interned
Peaceful Imigrants are welcome, but they should hever all be from the same group, allowed not to assimulate or participate in violence against the government or it's citizens. Those people who advocate or act on behalf of violent ideologys like terror or Nazism, should be shown the door, whether political or religous.
Complain about this comment
politejomsviking,
"it doesn't sound like a great melting pot to me".
Obviously you are talking about something you do not know or, at least, do not understand at all.
Let's take an example I perfectly know to show there is something wrong in your comment : in France, one third of the population have at least one grand parent born in a foreign country. Just around, me most of my friends have Portugues, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Vietnamese, Thailandese, Algerian or Tunisian roots. My mother is for example Sicilian.
Believe me or not, but they all are perfectly well adapted to this country, studied here and now have a good job and a family life like everyone else is dreaming of.
And I guess this is also true in the UK, Germany and everywhere else.
So when you are talking about immigrants, either you are talking of all immigrants and in this case your comment is just far from being true, either you are targetting a specific community.
Having a look to your comment, putting this in perspective with references to 911, the London and Madrid terror attacks, I guess your comment was mainly focused on Muslims, am I wrong ? If yes, the term "immigrants" is a very bad approximate... but I guess this is because it sounds by far less xenophobic than Muslims, correct ? So there is some kind of hypocrisy here. But anyway, let us forget about this.
Terror attacks you are talking about were performed by EXTREMIST islamists. Do you know that most of the Muslims are NOT extremists ? And, how strange, you did not mention terror attacks performed by ETA, or nationalist Corsicans or other "white" organisations for example. So why are you focusing only on Islamists ? Because your medias are doing an efficient propaganda against Muslims.
So what ? I think you should definitely make a distinction between immigrants, muslims, islamists, extremists etc... because your comment is so full of approximate statements we can not read it seriously.
Complain about this comment
This whole situation is a pathetic mess because 6 pulling one way and another 6 the other. They created the EEC as a FREE zones to buy, build and market products without boundaries and without disabling tariffs. Now SARCASTIC SARKY is crying in his champagne because Citroen/Peugeot group make cars in another section of the EEC and sell them to the Frogs. When that group was turning a handsome set of figures and paying good premiums to its shareholders - he never said a word did he. Really, ANYONE who wants to tear down the system, I will support along with millions of others. But you see that will NEVER even be discussed - why? simple my dear watson - how many gravey train riders work on the EEC railroaders, they are extremely comfortable and for ex PM's and such it is a great retirement catchment area. NO No nothing will be changed, and if you dont like it, tough!
Complain about this comment
#165
Axel3175
it is an often repeated statement that not all Muslims are extremists. However, what nobody cares to explain is what is considered extremism. Yes, the majority of Muslims reject terrorism. However that does not necessarily mean they are not extremists. Ask the same Muslims how many of them support the rights of gay people? How many of them want the UK, Europe and the whole world to became Muslim? How many of them would support freedom of speech when it is about criticism of Islam? How many agree with the independance of women? How many would accept their fellow Muslims converting to another religion?
Ask all these and similar questions and you would be surprised by the answers. Views like that are quite extreme compared to the views in a democratic country, therefore the people who uphold those views can hardly be referred to as moderates.
Complain about this comment
Kate of California;
"England" or correctly if you knew geopolitics Britain is not part of the United States and never could be. They are not us, they are not really like us at all. Read history. Their imbecile Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain DID capitulate to Hitler, DID keep Britain disarmed because he didn't want to antagonize Germany and risk going to war with them while it was still possible to defeat them easily if he'd tried, DID give away Czechoslovakia, and blundered so badly in misjudging the world that his mistake is held up as an example of how not to conduct a nation's foreign policy. But it's a lesson Britain and Europe have completely forgotten. Somewhere in the dim memory of our consciousness we haven't completely although I often wonder how much of it is left given how we allowed the USSR to become a major nuclear power and now sit back as Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons. We must be crazy to let this happen. Britain was on the verge of defeat when Pearl Harbor happened. It was the only thing that saved Britain from defeat by the Nazis. Churchill emplored Roosevelt with every argument he could muster to give the war in Europe and the saving of Britain top priority over responding to Japan's attack on the US. In retrospect, it was probably the most practical approach given the military realities of the situation at the time.
Europe is a lost cause that should be written off by the US. It always was but that truth is now inescapable. There can be no denying that Europe is on a course straight to the bottom of the ocean. Even Obama said early on in his campaign that Europe has a ticking demographic time bomb that will one day explode. And he was right. Forget about them. They are no good. Just watch them go at each other again. I'll bet it wouldn't take much to get Greece and Turkey into a war over Kosovo. All we'd have to do is walk away and they'd fight World War I all over again just the way they almost did when President Clinton finally stepped in in 1999 with them all kicking and screaming. As for the French, they'd turn their own mothers in if there was money in it.
America's future important relations are in Asia, not Europe. President Obama is taking steps to strengthen ties with major Asian powers right now during his first month in office. Smart move.
Complain about this comment
"the English language is structurally and grammatically simpler and easier to learn/use that say German French or Spanish. As in business complexity=costs, I suspect its continued growth is more to do with that than Uncle Sam flag waiving or commercial imperialism."
English is easy to learn, yes, but people around the world do not try to learn a few languages just to compare, so it's irrelevant.
The ,English empire ? sure it's was huge, but the then again, also smaller, the french empire was pretty huge too, so no, i don't think it's reason enough, and so again back to the same conclusion, the USA have culturally and commercially flooded the entire world, and that seems like a reasonable explanation for the sate of things. And i don't think it takes anything from English culture or English history, but people speak American around the world, not exactly English per say.
Complain about this comment
" It is absurd to say that France occupied England for several centuries. At the time of the Norman conquest (please note the use of 'Norman' here) and for some considerable time afterwards during the Angevin empire etc France as a political entity extended to a few kilometres around Paris in the Ile de France. "
Not absurd, France was a nation to be, in construction, and the Normans were to be a part of the French population and there land a part of France, so was it France who conquered and occupied England per say ? no, it's more subtle, but to say that Normans (speaking Norman French and later medieval french) and residing on future french land, certainly blurs the lines. We say french, or at least french to be, you say no, pure Scandinavians...As usual, the truth is in between, under attack by french and English pride, as usual !
Complain about this comment
The french have been using the EU to suit them for decades just look at the Common Agricultural Policy for example . Its one rule for the french another for everyone else . I worked for a major engineering company that was involved in aeropsace industry . At the behest of Airbus Management we opened offices in Toulouse staffed entirely by french nationals with french manager . It employed some 50 people but found work hard to come by as middle managers in Airbus never allocated work to non-french companies against Airbus's own policy . At a dinner in Toulouse the guest speaker the French Trade and Industry minister talked of the success of Airbus and urged that no business be given to non-french companies despite better pricing , service etc. and he named our company to the embarrassment to the our french manager sat in the audience with his table of 10 guests .
Complain about this comment
France at that time wasn't so tiny. I'm sorry we have a cross-over here for a short time with Russia's history; namely our Russian girl was ruling France. LOL.
OK, she was Queen at her son, an 8-year King of France, Philip I.
Philip I was crowned in 1059 (at the age of 8), following the French system of co-ruling, when the successor to the throne was crowned during the previous monarch's rule. A wise system to ensure that when a king dies - there won't be no quarrel about the throne among the children.
So Philip's daddy, Heinrich I, crowned his som while he was still alive, and then died a year after, in Aug 1960, near New Orleans, and very un-timely so, as he was all in preparations for the war with Wilhelm the Conquerer.
Philip I ruled France 1060-1108, 48 years, and his mummy was Russian and was with him.
She happened to end up in France as her father, Russian tsar Yaroslav Mudry (the Wise) had 3 daughters and very wisely was making friends with European monarchs by having his daughters married here and there. He had 3 and distributed them wisely:
Elizaveta Yaroslavna married Harold of Norway and became Norway's Queen when Harold died (and later on she married 2nd time - and became Denmark's Queen!)
Anastasia Yaroslavna was shipped off to Hungary to marry king of Hungary.
And, finally, Anna Yaroslavna became a French Queen.
Yaroslav's daughters were all young and good-looking, with rich dowry, in high demand.
Anna was 18 when the French expedition came after her to Kiev, to deliver money gifts and presents etc. and pick her off away to France. She married Heinrich I, a Kapeting, new French dynasty. In Rheims, and swore on a Slavic Bible! Which was kind of naughty, as she was supposed to swear allegiance to France and her husband on a Latin Bible, but she was a precautious girl, and brought her own Bible with. He was 40 and kind of fat and not extraordinary good-looking, but still France is France and Anna was happy with him and lived well. Given that he chosed her child and not children of his two previous marriages for the French throne, one might think he also liked her.
Anna wrote home complains to daddy that Paris is grey, small and boring, "a total village!" compared to rich Kiev, but as there are also mentioned cities of Toulouse, Bourdeaux, Lyons, Marceille, Ryan - one would hope France was quite a place enough back then.
Still, she was better learned than her husband, on the marriage contract he put a cross, LOL, while Anna signed. She wrote fluent Greek and Latin, and later on learned French of course, and took catholisism, to be a good French Queen.
Kiev was simply rich at Yaroslav; he built there Golden Gates, Sofia Cathedral, Kievo-Pechyorsky Monastery - still the largest church and monastery of Ukraine. Kept huge library and best teachers for his daughters. Also separated Russian church from Byzantium in 1051, created a separate Patriarchate. Which was kind of naughty as well.
All the previous Russian patriarchs were appointed by Konstantinopol.
Anyway at that time Russia kept active contacts with Europe. Come to think about it, Yaroslav not only sent his daughters off away but his own sister - Maria Vladimirovna - had her married the Polish King Kazimir. The swap was a lot of money from our side, and Kazimir returns Russia 800 Russian captives/soldiers, from the previous war.
And even Yaroslav's granddaughter, Eupraksia, married the German emperor Heinrich the 4th.
Plus Yaroslav sons marrying foreign girls.
In fact, Yaroslav family in a matter of 100 years became related with a lot of meaningful Royal dynasties of Europe.
Everywhere ruled grandchildren of granddad Yaroslav in Kiev, LOL!
Those were the days my friend. :o)
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius and Axel and Jukka_Rohila and Politejoms! You've scared KateOfCalifornia away. With your passoinate clever comments shower combined she'll never be back.
KateOfCalifornia, don't listen to them!
I became completely mad with them all discussing politics and politics. Far more importantly - tell me please - are jabot-s in fashion this spring in California.
Here in St. Petersburg no way to tell, but seemingly some spring blouses have a cascade of frills in front. And even spring coats seems to have weavy kind of wavy collars. ? Hard to tell, European shops in the habit to dump into their Russian branches un-sold last-year designs, and pass them for the newest thing.
Such cascading fronts' shirts are awfully expensive. And do look a bit pre-historical.
But are they in now? Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, 168, you're description of Chamberalin (as usual) is both over-simplified and incorrect. Just try Wiki as a starting point - it explains how he did rearm and more importantly the situation he (and Britain) found themselves in.
Anyway, it's one thing to learn from one's lessons, but quite another to overreact to and use perceived foes as a means of keeping 300 million people artificially scared to the extent that the previous US govt appeared to do.
Complain about this comment
Paulcrossleyiii,
well I started to write a comment in reply to MarcusAurelius's post... but then I thought hmmm it would probably be useless.
All his comment is, I believe, full of incorrect, impious and egocentric statement. It is now obvious the propaganda from the previous US government has worked perfectly. Just hope the US people will open their eyes to the reality again, and soon.
MarcusAuruliusII,
"Europe a lost cause" ?? Ok, but can you explain at least why, thanks.
"There can be no denying that Europe is on a course straight to the bottom of the Oceans"... hum, weak argumentation, don't you think ?
A war between Greece and Turkey over Kosovo ? How over pessimistic you are concerning 2 countries which are now normalising their partnership after decades and decades of tension.
Ah, one last thing : "Britain", ok, but if you knew just the basics of geopolitics "the UK" would even fit better.
Complain about this comment
Webalice
Little miss Muffet
Sat on her tuffet
Eating her curds and whey
Along came a spider (that's me)
And sat down beside her
And frightened Kate of California away
Californians don't frighten easily, even by spiders. I know, I lived there for almost 5 years. In 1978 shortly after I moved there, Californians desperate to pass property tax relief because those taxes were so high it was bankrupting homeowners passed proposition 13. The state had at least a 15 billion dollar surplus in its coffers which it tried to hide. It spent money on everything imaginable. Every little rinky dink town had its own community college with a beautiful campus and off campus courses for those who couldn't get to the campus. A course cost about 5 dollars (hundreds in most other states.) My friend who worked in the Mountainview welfare department told me that an illegal alien could cross the Mexican border into California at 8 am and if he knew how to work the system could be on welfare by noon the same day. Prop 13 cut property taxes for anyone who had bought their home before a certain date. The state started to spend 2 billion dollars more than it took it every year, year in and year out. Were Californians scared? Nosireee, not one bit. Now the have a 40 billion dollar debt instead of a 15 billion dollar surplus, their housing market is in the toilet, unemployment is rising, energy shortages especially in southern California where planned rolling blackouts of electricity are expected and are they frightened? They ought to be. If this doesn't frighten them, I don't know what will. Their Herr Governator hasn't saved them. They still think they can continue spending far more than they take in. They are so spoiled they won't give up anything....just like Europeans. Perhaps they are just too stupid to be scared. I'd be scared if I still lived there.
Complain about this comment
Why do I say Europe on a course straight to the bottom? So many reasons. BTW, Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks said the same thing and got Peter Mandelson so angry he lost his temper and used some "sailor language" about Shultz after a few drinks at a cocktail party as reported on BBC's "The World Today." (Starbucks which made its fortune on selling overpriced coffee made from burnt coffee beans and frothed with milk is headed the same way but who cares?)
A demographic time bomb for one. Many of its coutries have aging indigenous populations. Like Italy. Meanwhile, it will depend to an increasing degree on immigrants from alien cultures like the Moslem world which it detests, will not assimilate, will not treat equitably, and which consequently has become a large and dangerous alien and alienated presence in its midst.
It cannot compete. It remains under a massive delusion that its recovery after WWII was the result of its own ingenuity and efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth. It wasn't just the Marshall Plan that saved Western Europe, that was just for openers to keep it from starving to death. The real boost came from the American government's tax incentives to American corporatioins to invest heavily in Europe to create jobs and wealth. To this end, Western Europe was allowed to have unfettered access to the enormous American market for its products while keeping its own protectionist tarriff structure. This allowed it high wages and a lavish social safety net. This was to keep these coutries out of the Soviet orbit during the cold War (WWIII.) That's all gone now. Europe must stand on its own and compete on a level playing field which it can't. It is at a competitive disadvantage in every market in the world. It's prices are high because its labor is expensive and its taxes are high. It's EU regulations are a nightmare. It's technology is far inferior not only to America's but to Japan's. What money it makes comes from investments outside such as in China which is now falling. It's small farm agriculture is primitive compared to American agribusiness. If it becomes protectionist it will be retaliated against by the rest of the world. If it doesn't it will be swamped by outside competition even at home. It has no hope of catching up.
To make matters even worse for Western Europe, in order to boost its already overinflated ego, it tried to create a geopolitical entity to compete with the US but by doing so, it took on the onus of smashed economies of the former Soviet empire, an economic drain that will drag it down even faster.
And of course like the rest of the financial world, it is bankrupt. It also depends on outside unreliable sources of energy and other resources. Russia can shut it down at any time it feels the urge and has no reason not to.
But worst of all, and overriding everything else, it is unprincipled and self delusional. It will NOT fight the war on terror. It will NOT cooperate with the United States. It lies to the world but even more importantly it lies to itself on every issue. For example, it said it would reduce carbon emissions meeting its signed committments under Kyoto. It hardly made a dent and will fail miserably. Tony Blair said he'd make Europe the best place in the world to do business. It's become one of the worst. The list just goes on and on. The leaders of France, Germany, and the UK are a joke. Even if you hated our last president who kept 9-11 from happening again to the US (a great accomplishment if he did nothing else) our shiny new one is infinitely smarter and more astute then his European counterparts. He's giving Europe one last chance to avoid burning its bridge to the US irreparably. My bet is that rather than put the fire out, when push comes to shove they'll just throw more gasoline on it.
Glug glug! glug Glug!
Complain about this comment
MarcusAuruliusII,
Wouah ! I have rarely read a comment as navel-gazing as yours. Amazing, truly.
So, according to you : the US has saved the world, do everything better than everybody else in the World, and also made a generous gift to Europe after WWII. Of course the US never had any benefit in return of Marshall plan and they have never make money by exporting products to Europe because of this unfair EU protectionism. How lucky you are because in the 60's and 70's, here in Europe, we would have loved so much enjoying chewing gums, jeans, hollywood movies, coca cola, mcdonalds fast food and any other American products. But everyone knows that : we didn't. Oh I understand now ! This is probably the reason why, I suppose, we are now that ignorant and do not understand anything at all of the world we are living in.
Well stop joking. It is not enough to say "our president is smarter than his European counterparts". Why ? How do you know that after only 2 months ? Only History will tell, sorry. And what burning bridge between the US and EU are you talking about ? Because we do not cooperate on the war on terror you wrote ? I hope you are kidding me. Really. Would the US have only one reliable partner in the world, that could only be the EU, and mainly Germany, the UK and France. But fair enough, this is only my point of view.
Even worst, your argumentation is just a serie of assertions... with, somewhere, a reference to who ? Howard Schultz ? Never heard about this guy, sorry. Ah, you wrote if he is CEO of Starbucks. I understand now, if he said so, then you must be right : it will necessarily happened because he always say the truth. He is American after all.
My God. I have a huge respect for your country, so I have never criticized the American people (apart from your ex President and the cons) and the US. But I am disappointed.
I thought the Iraq war, the credit crunch and the following crisis, the global warming have made you more humble. I thought you have realised the US is no more no less weak (or strong if you prefer) than the EU or China. And I also thought that was one of the reasons why Obama was elected. I was very optimistc... but it seems I was wrong. Unless only few American people share your views.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Axel3175, the thing to remember is that Marcus' posts are inevitably based on the following misconceptions:
1. US is somehow superior to all other countries in all respects
2. Europe is inherently 'flawed'
3. Facts and history are unnecessary trifles that get in the way of a good rant.
What makes him laughable (or just a bit sad), is that:
1. Most other US contributors disagree with him
2. All his 'real world', 'in my experience' examples seem to come from the 1970s. It seems at some point in that decade he went to a bull fight in Spain and a supermarket in France, making him a Euro expert. He also seems to have stopped taking in any new information/views around this time.
3. He appears genuinely jealous of social care in Europe (which will be our downfall, we're all doomed)
4. He's currently praising his new President despite a being of the opinion a few months back that neither presidential candidate was capable of organising a drinking session in a brewery.
Once you get past the above, he can be a good laugh.
Complain about this comment
Axel3175
An honest answer to you will break BBC's rules. Don't complain to me. Complain to the censorship board that runs this asylum. They just didn't like the answer. Your loss. Petition for breakup and privitization of this monopoly. Perhaps Britain will arrive at freedom of speech. 230 years behind America but better late than never.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes
1. Not somehow, everyhow.
2. Not a shadow of a doubt and in every conceivable way.
3. What history says depends on who wrote it. Europe has rewritten history to hide its shame. But there's far to much of it to sweep under all the rugs of the world.
1. Most other US contributors are left wing wusses.
2. Once you see into the core of it, why go back for another bad experience? Veni, vidi, vici. I experienced it first hand and I have a fairly good grasp of it. The part that does not change that is.
3. Europe's prosperity such as it was, was bought on the backs of American taxpayers, consumers, and workers. Time's up. Earn what you spend like every other place in the world.
4. Our new President is doing the best he can playing a losing hand. But nobody else has a better one. Some problems can't be solved. The good news is he's not quite what people concluded he was during the campaign. Many will be angry at the real Barack Obama.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
the good news is that I found at least one point where we do agree... in the very last statement of your very last post. Some reasons to remain optimistic then :)
Complain about this comment
Marcus, at least you're being consistent for a change.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes #184
Do you know the definition of the world "oxymoron?"
Complain about this comment
MAII, #185, I certainly do know the meaning of that word. I also understand the same word less it's first three letters (largely thanks to idiotic comments from posters on these blogs)
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, now look at your last two postings and think about the definition of the word irony.
You have a penchant for digging a hole with yourself at the bottom of it and making it deeper and deeper. I think it is already too late for you to climb out. Why not just hope someone doesn't come along and "fill you in."
Complain about this comment
Marcy, I suggest I think you think about the irony of a blunt, barbaric, ill informed American, lecturing a British person on the definition of the word irony. You guys really don't get it.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS