France throws spanner in car works
1630: Like some perversion too grotesque to mention nobody actually admits to being a protectionist. They just happen, accidentally almost, to do things that others see as protectionist. Honi soit qui mal y pense. But have the French been caught with their pants down?
The French industry minister, who also happens to be the president's spokesman, has been speaking on French radio. He spoke in glowing terms about the 6bn-euro (£5.6bn) loan to French carmakers and said as a result of the plan:
"Today Renault is going to announce the repatriation of the production of a vehicle that has until now been built abroad, to its factory in Flins," in the Paris suburbs.
Renault sounded pretty cross at this interpretation of their plan to build more cars near Paris.
President Sarkozy, speaking at a news conference after the summit, said that this "does not take away one job from our Slovene friends".
I suppose the big and in the end unanswerable question is whether, without the loan, without a crisis, Renault would have built the new cars and perhaps a new factory in Slovenia.
If you want to hear the commissioner's angry response listen to The World at One.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"President Sarkozy . . . said that this "does not take away one job from our Slovene friends". . ."
Yes, right. Like a car manufacturer is going to take on an enlarged workforce during a global slump in demand. Still you have to hand it to M. Sarkozy. Why shoot yourself in the foot when you pay an industry minister to shoot your foot of for you?
Complain about this comment
Same old French; lecture us on not being communitaire but breaking the rules when it suits them. The word humbug comes to mind.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Plua ca change!
I think we all probably expected this to happen after all the French do have a "bit of previous" in this area.
I imagine things will go as follows.
1) The EU seek urgent clarification.
2) EU President Barroso "thinks there was a misunderstanding".
3) A few weeks pass the EU goes through the motions and the French ignore them.
4) When the press have moved on the French do exactly what they want anyway.
Complain about this comment
Wrote on several previous Blogs: The big4 of the EU will go their own way to suit their own economies because if those 4 don't take individual Nastional measures to recover from the crisis the 21, 22 "littles" will all be vanquished for the next decade.
Primary example: President Sarkozy will say everything required to suit the EU project.
President Sarkozy will then proceed to do exactly what he decides is right for France. He will ignore Barroso, EU regulations, other nations. His only Constituency is France; his only concern is French men, women and children, and, the only job of a France politician is the protection and defence of France's interests.
That Sarkozy's manoeuvring is more clear-cut than some of the others is because as the President well knows, the EU belongs to France, and there will be no policy decisions on any matter that do not suit France. Germany, so long as its manufacturing economy stays in pole position, will coalesce with anything France decides.
Britain and Italy will be able to take their cue from the other 2 and thus the EUrotocracy becomes the redundant symbol until the crisis is over for the big4.
To his credit, Msr Sarkozy's brazen political nouse, is a lot more honest than the rest of the so-called leadership.
When will the pro-EU lobby wake up to the reality of the situation?
Complain about this comment
As a Sceptic, i would say this is Nothing special, since this is for domestic consumption and for people not to protest.
Since this will shift just 500 jobs in total from one country to another, and does not contribute to new job creation, but this is what they have been doing all time long.. just shifting jobs, shifting responsibility and taking credit of other peoples work.. they cannot offer anything better, anything new, they are total jokers and joking with the people..
playing with statistics.. when you have across EU 600.000 a month, 7million a year.. sarkozy will say that i 'created 500 new jobs in France' which is a farce and a sham shame
Complain about this comment
Only France or Germany have the gall to make such a move in the EU without calling it protectionism.
All the other member states are just pussy cats !
Complain about this comment
Mark,
You will have to be careful with Blog Entries like this.
I was almost tempted to suggest that the rest of Europe cannot trust the French, that when they find themselves in adversity the French will just look after themselves and take the view that no other nation or people of Europe matter as much as the French and their superiority over all others!
But, if I were to dare to suggest that, "MeJustNormal" will be on the case defending the French and claiming anyone who dares to denigrate them is talking rubbish!
Need I say more?
Complain about this comment
Let me put it simple and clear.
If institutions/companies do not make payments from profits they make, then they are destined to be a PONZI schemes.
How many of these FAILED companies/institutions that make payments (despite having huge losses) with other peoples money do we have?
If our EU-leaders cannot deliver on their promise to create NEW jobs, then they are destined to be IMPOSTORS.
How many of these FAILED EU leaders that cannot deliver on their promises do we have?
hope pro-EUpayrolls are not infuriated :) because it doesnt help
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am supprised that all these 'Nobel'financial/economic experts, leaders,researchers are doing exactly what is written in the school books of economics and finance, line by line, step by step.. you almost can see the collapse in the end.
But the books are Forged by pseudo experts, with pseudo science.
For ex. EBC decided to cut interest rates.. if FED printed money, ECB has done the same.. they cannot do otherwise.. and now they are only playing games, when everything is clearly visible..of what will happen.
and about the stress test for banks.. i want to say that there is no such MODEL, (*because this fake scientists like models which are based on false relations and opinion polls) which can show or give us the truth except the 'natural selection' model.
where are 'the best of the best' to us get out of this situation? i think the best thing they can do now it is to keep us in this situation as long as..
clearly we have effectively become countries in transition.. but on the down side of it.
Complain about this comment
@ ikamaskeip: so why do you think I live in France?
However, being realistic, I'm still awaiting Renault's version of events.
Also, I think you underestimate Germany's power-base in the EU. They are the economic motor of the EU; Sarkozy is still trying to get back to the Gaullist position where France were the political drivers. He's doomed to fail in this, I think; and I hope he does. The EU needs political leadership but not from a single nation.
Complain about this comment
5. At 4:52pm on 20 Mar 2009, ikamaskeip
the EU belongs to France, and there will be no policy decisions on any matter that do not suit France. Germany, so long as its manufacturing economy stays in pole position, will coalesce with anything France decides.
---
Sorry but have you not heard about the expanded membership? About the democratic votes in the parliament, or the rotating presidency? If you can tell me how the Germans or the French are able to control these democratic factors then i'll be a blue barking dog!
Please, all this is demonstrative of is the fundamental fallout because people like yourself rejected the very need for the constitutional treaty. Well, now you know why we of the 'pro-EU lobby' have been seeking one.
Complain about this comment
Hang on a minute!
". . . this "does not take away one job from our Slovene friends". . . ?"
Of course it doesn't. The jobs are in Slovakia.
Complain about this comment
On this site I read:
"The European Parliament's president has condemned the Conservatives' decision to leave the centre-right EPP group.
Hans-Gert Poettering, a German member of the EPP, called Tory leader David Cameron's decision "a serious mistake".
...
The Conservatives disagree with what they see as a federalist EPP agenda.
The bloc was opposed to the UK having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - something the Conservatives campaigned for - and it wants closer economic integration in Europe, as well as common immigration, defence and foreign policies.
European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has expressed "regret" over the Tory move...."
SB2: It's a shame that neither of them has expressed any regrets over the fact that we were promised a referendum which we are now not going to get. I hope they do not think we are going to forget. I hope they remember that in WWI Czechs in the Austrian Army mutinied and fought against Austria because they wanted to be free of Austria. I hope they remember that more Americans were killed in their Civil War than in WWs I and II together.
' ...Speaking in Brussels, Mr Poettering said he was, however, glad about Prime Minister Gordon Brown's visit to the European Parliament next Tuesday.
He said it was "an expression that the UK feels the EU is important". '
SB2: If he wants to know what we really think , then give us a referendum and read the opinion polls. I could tell him in German in words that even he might understand.
'MEP Graham Watson, leader of the liberal ALDE group, called Mr Cameron's move "isolationism that should have no place in British politics". ...'
SB2: Fascinating! No comment from him either then about the fact that the Liberals promised the British people to support calls for a referendum and then voted against one.
'Earlier this week Mr Cameron said the new grouping would "work closely with the EPP on all sorts of areas where we agree", adding: "We will be happy neighbours rather than unhappy tenants." '
SB2: That sounds like good strategy for the "EU", leave and try to
be good neighbours. Having said that, I suspect it will be difficult to be good neighbours once we have left because the "EU" is so bossy, arrogant and megalomaniac e.g. their treatment of Switzerland.
Complain about this comment
Nothing new under the sun. All Member States, without exception, try to circumvent the competition rules, the bigger ones more brazenly than the others. Sarkozy is both a populist and an economic illiterate. However, as with the previous post, the topic is newsworthy but not of any real significance. A better topic might be the fault lines that have emerged between various groups of Member States and the dilemmas that confront them.
I would identify five groups (i) founder members of the Eurozone (ii) those that have joined since (including most recently Slovenia and Slovakia) (iii) those that wished to join but failed to convince their electorates (Denmark and Sweden)(iv)those in the waiting room with both an entitlement and an obligation to join and (v) the UK, with one foot in Europe and the other in the US.
All are in difficulties of one kind or another but the treatment decided at the European Council varies by reference to each group. Those in group (i) and (ii) are in the most secure position, despite the economic problems confronting them. The reason is simple. Either the Eurozone hangs together or its members will hang separately.
As to group (iii), the respective PMs have made clear their discomfort at their currencies being the target of speculative attacks. Group (iv) has been consigned to the tender mercies of the IMF, with some help from the EU.
And the UK?
Trying to go in two directions at once is a skill that is difficult to master but Brown seems to be making a good fist of it. An example would be to contrast the de Larosiere report with that of that by the FSA (Turner Report) on the causes and possible remedies to the present crisis. There is evidence of a narrowing of differences, not least because the UK no longer has sufficient allies to block adoption of measures in the Financial Services sector, although it can block action in relation to giving a supervisory role to the ECB (Article 105.6 TEC).
The EU, backed by a permanent European public service of high quality, and the combined talents of the public services of 27 democracies, will find a way. The same cannot be said of an increasingly error prone US President or a UK Prime Minister on his way out.
Complain about this comment
The excellent magazine TastItalia (April 2009 p.18) writes:
"ITALY'S FOREIGN FOOD BAN - A STEP TOO FAR?
In a move supported by Silvio Berlusconi's government, the Tuscan city of Lucca has banned any new 'ethnic' food outlets from opening within the city walls. The step is intended to help get Italians eating only Italian products to protect local specialities. A few days after the ruling was adopted in Lucca, Milan adopted the idea. It is being argued that any ethnic restaurants allowed to stay open should be made to use Italian ingredients and include at least one typical regional dish on the menu. There is a debate over what is meant by 'ethnic', many questioning whether Sicilian cuisine will be banned as it is influenced by Arab culture. The centre-left opposition in the government has reportedly classed this move as something akin to culinary ethnic cleansing."
SB2: Will tomatoes be banned as they originally come from S. America?
Complain about this comment
The only surprise is that anyone should be surprised. The French will always look after the French.
Complain about this comment
frenchderek and Comment 12.
".. you underestimate Germany's power-base in EU.." and "..Sarkozy trying to get back to Guallist position.."
Not without reason have I often described Paris-Berlin as the "..axis of ill-intent" towards the UK.
The EU may well be a grand and mildly useful project for most mainland (though not all, re Poland, Ukraine) Europeans: For the United Kingdom it spells the end, which is perfectly feasible political and social reasoning for the 3 minor Nations, but, for England is a cataclysmic disaster. If only the English would wake up and organise to demonstrate and force by Civil Disorder if needed the REFERENDUM.
It may be lost (from my anti-EU stance), however, a final decision must be made by Democratic vote. For G.B. after G.B. Government to deny the UK Citizens this choice is risking a catastrophe of immense proportions. In 1642, Oliver Cromwell was an unheeded rural farmer - within 7 years he was untramelled ruler of Britain - he arose from the denial of liberty as expressed then by the popular Puritan masses (by no means the majority). The UK Citizenship are no more or less sophisticated and the UK constitution no more or less robust in its own defence than it was 300 years ago. I fear something really anti-democratic arising: It is no good the powers-that-be assuming the electorate are dull and uninterested, it is that very unique quality that makes them so alive to insurrection if the right/wrong presssure-points are pushed and coincide with the right/wrong economic dvelopments (i.e. mass loss of property, employment, income and social cohesion).
The UK is not excluded from Revolutiuon simply because it has not been on the political horizon for a century or two: The very longevity of its assumed docility suggests it is the society within which the pressures for radical change are most like ly to find a rancorous and inexact voice.
Complain about this comment
15. At 7:30pm on 20 Mar 2009, SuffolkBoy2
"Hans-Gert Poettering, a German member of the EPP, called Tory leader David Cameron's decision "a serious mistake"."
Sorry but he was right. D.C. has made a major mistake in following through in this move. It isolates us by removing our MEPs from any major coalition- and surely European Christian Democrats are our natural ideological grouping in mainstream German / European politics?
I simply do not understand why the EPP-ED's feralist agenda is in any way incompatable with the UK national interest, all that it is against is the Tories europhobes interest.
Sad, a very sad moment for all europhile Tories in the country.
Complain about this comment
19. At 8:19pm on 20 Mar 2009, ikamaskeip
What are you gibbering on about? Oliver Crommwell, revolution? Get real- the EU is where we do most of our trade internationally (over 30% of all UK exports are to the EU member-states).
As for no referendum, thats simply a matter of how you understand the nature of UK democracy- I for one see the UK as a parliamentry democracy first and foremost, not a Swiss style plebicite styled system (not that there is anything wrong by having the different system, I just prefer the current UK system of parliament being supreme). So a referendum would in my opinion be contrary to the traditions of parliament being supreme in he UK, if you really want to challenge this all- wait till we Tories have a majority in the House of Commons.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory and Comment 13.
Well, if you insist, start barking:
France, the major recipient of the Common Agricukture Policy (in point of fact.. some 31% of funds end up in France).
2007: Joaquin Almunia, EU Finance Rep: "...everyone who took the floor after President Sarkozy reminded him.. EU Budget defecit not irreconcilable.. if France plays its full part.. pays its dues.."
France, the 'mining' and 'raw materials production sites' industrial-manufacturing base still subsidised by the EU some 20 years after EU subsidies were supposedly ended (NB: hence some explanation for PM Thatcher's attitude to no-longer subsidised UK Mining industry).
"..expanded membership..": That would be the East European nations with a combined population less than France-Germany and thus with an MEP representation even more laughably inadequate as a claim to a mandate to speak for the people than the other nations!
"..rotating Presidency..": Ah, the 6 months rota of Capital Cities but not capital Economies; that never changes, it's Germany, then France or UK with Italy 4th. Apparently there's some 20 or so nations that add up to less than 40% of the rest of the EU economy!
"..how.. (France/Germany) control these democratic factors..": Well, I believe it is the usual way; the EUrotocracy pronounces this or that will be the rules and regulations and France and Germany respond, 'excellent, now run along whilst us important Nations get on with the business of running Europe', as in, France or Germany ignore the Budget controls, ignore the trade protocols, ignore the immigration standards, ignore the EU Parliament, ignore the... oh, you get the drift.
When, give one instance, of France or Germany being made to follow EU Regulation when either nation had opposed it? Or, to put it another way, when did an EU initiative get off the ground without France or Germany proposing it in the first place?
And please, we are not talking here of the 'common ills' addressed by decency.. e.g. child abuse, people trafficking, funds for AIDS research; we mean European Union Policy on Economics-Trade-Finance-Judiciary-etc.
France-Germany OWN the EU: It exists to serve France-Germany: The EU is France-Germany: There would be no EU WITHOUT France-Germany.
Imagine for a moment the European Union with France or Germany outside of it!? PREPOSTEROUS!
Now, imagine the EU without ENGLAND as a part of it: Entirely, logically, sensibly, assuredly a very positiver posture for the EU and for ENGLAND.
Complain about this comment
#21 - deanthetory
Oh please! You really think the Tories would change the status quo once in office? There is one thing that parliamentary sovereignty ensures and which no sitting government will abandon. It is after all the first rule of democracy. Government is far too serious a business to be left to the people.
Complain about this comment
Can we all get real here?
What happens is that Renault needs to increase the production of some smaller models (clio and twingo). the factory usually used for it, in Slovenia, is at full capacity.
In order to meet the increase in demand (largely due to state support to sales of ALL cars), Renault is reactivating a production line that use to do Clio a few months back, and therefore is the most suited for a quick start. As the was some work reduction recently put in place, it won't create any new job.
See the whole story (in French)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Granted, the minister who made the declaration was an idiot. But he was contradicted in a few hours by Renault officials, more senior government members, Sarkozy himself, the European Commission and the Slovenian president himself.
I am a bit disappointed at the overhurried reaction of this blogger. I usually like this blog, but now it seems like a Daily Telegraph comment. Or was the author in a hurry to catch a plane home and couldn't wait for more information?
I won't make any comment on the comments themselves, many of them are to laugh out loud. I hope they are not representative of the UK opinion though, otherwise it would be better for all that the UK leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
Of course they have???? Look at whats happening there in France. A prelude to a GENERAL strike. When was the last time we say that phrase - really?? Well, for France only a wink of an eye ago but for the rest of the Planet, well, you do the Maths. Sarksy (not a typo!) is trying to get the FrenchDefence industry (otherweise known as blatent opportunist mercinaries) (whoops, who said that?) back into the mix by rejoning NATO formally and virtually cutting adrift it's 'current' manufacturing industries (which, lets be brutally honest are non-existant) so what? He's a left of centre realist Politician (Sarksy), join the Club, Brown, Merkel and others are in there already. The REAL point is that the French PEOPLE have the GUTS to try to face him OFF in this matter. British and German Workers aquiesced easily, it is up to the FRENCH Workers to play the last card, a la the Miners in the early 80's against Thatcher. READ AND BELIEVE PEOPLE. P.S. This Post Will NEVER appear on this wishy-washy Forum cos it does not have the guts to post any alternative and/or realistic view, only that it DEEMS real and certain, as proscribed by it's masters in the BBC. Oh, by the way, I PAY my License Fee and have for the past 22 years.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory wrote:
"Get real- the EU is where we do most of our trade internationally (over 30% of all UK exports are to the EU member-states). "
When I went to school "most" meant more than 50%, but times change, I guess.
Although, I must say I am intrigued by this implication that states import goods because they are doing favours to their good buddies. I had always thought that people and businesses within states imported goods because they wanted them for selfish reasons, such as making money out of them, and things like that.
You know, I could get the hang of this "we're all in this together" theme. I had Australian beef for dinner, with potatoes from Italy, I think. So that means the Aussies owe me something, and so do the Italians.
And yesterday I bought an american magazine. (economist- intellectual porn) That means Obama basically owes me a favour. And Putin better watch out! If he is not more respectful of my whims, I shall refuse to use any more of his gas. Freezing to death will certainly teach that idiot a lesson he'll not forget.
Now putting aside the EU economics, I don't follow Dean the tory's logic with regard to being able to choose between parliamentary supremacy and the rule of the plebs. (that's us, folks. The dumbo's who work to keep the machine on the road)
You say you prefer parliamentary supremacy, and that is awfully convenient, seeing as what you like is what we have. But then you say:
"if you really want to challenge this all- wait till we Tories have a majority in the House of Commons."
Explain to me how that works. Surely you meant:
"If we tories who belong to the party want to turn this farce to our economic advantage until we get flung from office- wait till we torries have a majority in the house of commons."
You is us, you see. You, dean the tory, are they, the party. We are the plebs, you are the party member.
Please remember that, and do not shame us both by confusing who is who. We both clutch to as much dignity as we can in this horrid life, and I see no need to call decent idiot plebs nasty names.
Complain about this comment
23. At 9:50pm on 20 Mar 2009, threnodio
"Oh please! You really think the Tories would change the status quo once in office?"
Nope, but I'm attempting to emphasis another way to change things without neccessarily the need to risk all in plebicites. I just fear that a plebicite in the UK cannot have reasonable and sensible public arena debate so long as the usual tabloid scare stories about 'EU banana shape regulations bad for Britain' or 'EU abusing UK justice' scare stories are put firmly into the bed of misleading journalism (or anti-journalism as the case may be).
Complain about this comment
That is why the UK is uncomfortable in the EU - we don't like being seen as two faced liars.
But this is essential to getting on with the EU. We either end up looking like whingers because we insist on rules that can genuinely be implemented else we end up implementing nonsense that the rest of the EU pragmatically ignore.
Complain about this comment
My comment @12 - which was moderated - was a slight modification of a well-known (French) quotation of Marshal Pierre Bosquet commenting on the charge of the Light Brigade.
Is the fact that the BBC moderators did not recognise this quotation and thought 'offensive' and probably best to 'moderate' it a reflection on BBC employees or the British education system?
Complain about this comment
On the topic of this blog, it strikes me as curious that Sarko-fantastic is being hauled over the coals for doing his job.
I mean, EU mania and pan euro loves in aside, he was elected by the french. Presumably they want him to think of them now and again. He can't always be polishing his Caddilac and drinking vodka with Putsy baby.
He was elected to represent at least some of the french people. I think. I mean, I presume. So why the outrage from the EU when he puts French interests above the desires of the unelected commission?
Why doesn't the Eu come right out and say what it really means? Why dont they publish newspaper articles that say: YOUR DEMOCRACIES... such as they are... ARE A BLIGHT ON EUROPE. WE HENCEFORTH FORBID ANY DEMCRATIC PRACTICE WHATSOEVER, BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH OUR QUEST FOR TOTAL POWER.
After all, that is what this whole incident comes down to, in plain terms. The french president is concerned because 3 million people got out on the street and told him they were upset, and so he did something to boost french interests. And the EU objects just about as hard as it can.
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize that Europe is not big enough for the Commission AND democracy within nation states. This power sharing thing is just a ruse, something the EU folks have been forced to say such that they were not snuffed out when they were but a twinkle in the eyes of the European royal families.
The ECJ has had the same history. For years it said it would only ever rule on economic matters, and even then only within the strict confines of the EEA treaties. And then, with the swift and deadly precision of a born predator, it made its bid for legal power throughout Europe. It declared itself the supreme law making body in Europe, and claimed that every member state had unconsciously ratified this by allowing it to decide economic matters. It timed its strike well, and declared this truth at a time when every nation in Europe was rued by parties loyal to the EU project, and when it would have been suicide for radical judges to disagree.
It is curious the way power grows like slime on a wet rock, but not unprecedented. Europe is facing a crisis of democracy, and it is hard to see how the matter can end well.
Complain about this comment
Mark
What's the difference between 'fewer than' and 'less than'? When do you use one rather than the other?
Who checks your scripts for grammatical howlers?
cf you report this evening on the Ten.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory and Comment 21.
"...gibbering on about.."
As per usual, the pro-EU lobby, unwilling to participate in genuine debate resorts to crude unpleasantries!
My reference to Oliver Cromwell was an effort to raise the level of debate by reference to the perils, real or imagined, the UK might face if its Governments persist in rejecting/ignoring the apparent (though granted, not proven/decisive) desire of the majority of the UK Citizens to have a voice in deciding the future participation of the UK in the EU.
It is a source of constant amazement to me that people such as yourself constantly refer to the keyword, "Democracy", only in order to dismiss its basic concept.
Democracy, is for the people, by the people, and is the people: You are content to let a constitutional aberration push aside the Citizens' expressed will. The UK constituion is unwritten: There is nothing to prevent/preclude/deny the Right and Responsibility of UK Citizens to express their wishes/aspirations with regard to the EU via a Referendum. Just because you see the present political system as adequate does not mean that other Citizens may not conclude it is denying them their rightful Democratic voice.
Indeed, it is your very attitude of dismissive indifference to the Citizens' will that leads me to conclude that King Charles I ignoring of the Grand Remonstrance and his dismissal of Parliament does not have present day overtones. History is replete with lessons: Only the names and the dates change.
I do not claim the anti-EU sentiments I clearly support will win the argument, but, for so long as your side denies mine the right to a Democratic voice, the issue will remain unresolved and a threat to the security and prosperity of England and the UK.
Complain about this comment
"What's the difference between 'fewer than' and 'less than'? When do you use one rather than the other?"
I kwon! I know!
Ergo: Fewer than one person in one thousand care if less than perfect English grammar is employed, as long as they can understand what is being said.
Do I win a prize?
Complain about this comment
#21 deanthetory
Why do you prefer Parliament to be supreme instead of the people enjoying that position?
Complain about this comment
#29 MaxSceptic
"British education system?"
There is no such thing. There are 4 education systems in the UK - each determined by its own Parliament/Assembly. That the UK Parliament doubles up as the English Parliament, is no reason to assume that your system runs beyond the borders of England.
Anyway, what makes you think that the Beeb uses moderators from the UK?
Complain about this comment
"You are content to let a constitutional aberration push aside the Citizens' expressed will"
I will not myself call the United Kingdom Supremacy of Parliament a constitutional abborration. Indeed the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is not unique to the UK- Israel and New Zealand also are prominent examples of such a system.
All I was saying was that if any decision made by previous parliaments upsets anyone then do not worry as that rulling is not binding upon future parliaments and they can vote to reverse such decisions. This is the case I was making, especially since Cameron is likely to do this if Lisbon is passed before a tory government. Therefore all you have to do is await a tory majority in the house of commons and you will almost definately see this policy reversed, and this is just an example of a single policy.
Here is what is meant by Parliamentry sovereignty (or supremacy as I describe it- its the same concept):
The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:
1. Parliament can make law concerning anything.
2. No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
3. A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is supreme law maker.
I therefore fail to see the need for plebicite if any decisions can be reversed through a majority in the House of Commons. You see it was never a comment on plebs or commoners or anything like that. Merely a different notion about the best method to opperate UK democracy.
Complain about this comment
#32 - ikamaskeip
Your argument will certainly not be enhanced by tarring us all with the same brush. I should be grateful if you would either point me in the direction of a post in which I or many others with opinions different from yours have resorted to 'crude unpleasantries' or refused to engage in debate or desist from making massive generalisations about us. You might also like to reflect on some the 'crude unpleasantries' we have to accept from some of the more strident sceptics before claiming the high ground.
On the substantive point, you actually both correct. Yes there is nothing precluding the public from being invited to participate in a referendum but, as the situation stands, the outcome would not be binding on parliament because that would compromise parliamentary sovereignty. It is one of the reasons I keep banging on about the need for constitutional reform. You should also remember that the situation only pertains in England and Wales but I notice Oldnat is in the moderation queue and is doubtess going to explain that again.
#31 - Stickler100
As I recall 'fewer than' is relative and 'less than' absolute but don't quote me. Nobody else seems to care any more so why should I?
Complain about this comment
Post 22:
"Now, imagine the EU without ENGLAND as a part of it: Entirely, logically, sensibly, assuredly a very positiver posture for the EU and for ENGLANDNow, imagine the EU without ENGLAND as a part of it: Entirely, logically, sensibly, assuredly a very positiver posture for the EU and for ENGLAND"
Please. Please ...tommorrow! hold a referendum!
Cut The European Project off from this tiresome ball and chain!
Complain about this comment
20. At 9:26pm on 20 Mar 2009, deanthetory wrote:
'...
"Hans-Gert Poettering, a German member of the EPP, called Tory leader David Cameron's decision "a serious mistake"."
Sorry but he was right. ...
Sad, a very sad moment for all europhile Tories in the country.'
SB2: I am sure that I agree with you on one point: The issue of the "EU" or Europe or whatever you want to call it is very important.
There should be two Tory parties.
186 Tory MPs supported the proposal for a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
3 Tory MPs voted against - Kenneth Clatrke (Rushcliffe), Jophn Gummer (Suffolk Coastal) and David Curry (Skipton and Ripon).
The latter three should be in a different party.
Now if we had the single transferable vote, they could stay in the same party and we could be given a choice of several Tories to choose from.
I vote UKIP.
To deanthetory: Do you have any regrets about the fact that the British people were not given a referendum on the Lisbon Traty?
Do you accept that the British people have been lied to repeatedly by "EU"-lovers?
Complain about this comment
#37 threnodio
Sorry to let you down! However, happy to make up for it.
ikamaskeip
I've noted many comments from people complaining that only the Irish were "allowed" a referendum. Actually, the only people who "allowed" the Irish citizens a vote were the Irish people who voted to adopt their constitution.
Cromwell is a very bad example for what you want to see. He was simply an early Gordon Brown - using a flawed electoral system to get into power, then using dictatorial powers to force his ideas on other nations as well as his own, through military power.
Much better to codify the English constitution for yourselves in this modern age, and to empower the people rather than the politicians. If you don't want to do that, then stop your incessant whining! In the meantime, we Scots can get on with deciding what we want to do.
Complain about this comment
30. democracythreat
The EU is hardly facing a chrisis of democracy. Nor is it anti-democratic.
What the EU is facing, and this whole Sarkosy senario has brought it out, is the lack of a modern constitutional setup for a now expanded European Community. If Lisbon is too controversial for certain member-states then its quite simple, we begin to write a new constitutional shake up, that is less objectionable- and given the EU history of successfully reaching compromises that are fair, consensus driven and workable it is entirely possible.
I will however note that the MEPs in the parliament have as of this week voted to have a new EU statute enshrined into EU regulations and rights- you can see it on Record Europe. Its a European parliament passed bill on freedom of information. At the moment its being negotiated and worked out in detail so as to prevent any loopholes or failures being abused upon passing. Tell me any Europhobes how this squares with accusations that the EU is not all concerned with open government? And also explain how the parliament is lacking in authority if it can force this into the current EU agenda?
Complain about this comment
#37 threnodio,
You mentioned "Yes there is nothing precluding the public from being invited to participate in a referendum but, as the situation stands, the outcome would not be binding on parliament because that would compromise parliamentary sovereignty."
I am not sure whether a referendum is legally binding or not but if you are right where does that leave the oft quoted referendum that was duly held on 5 June 1975, when the proposition to continue membership was passed with a substantial majority. Were we doubly fooled by the campaign not only being based on a lie about ever closer union, but also being totally irrelevant if it was not binding. It also begs the question as to what would have happened if we had been told the truth and voted against. I was part of the 'for' campaign but I would never have supported the 'ever closer union' stance due to the nature of the Europe and it's dissimilar countries.
Good old Wikipedia says "Although Acts of Parliament may permit referendums to take place, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means any Act of Parliament giving effect to a referendum result could be reversed by a subsequent Act of Parliament. As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a persuasive political effect". How accurate this is I don't know but the key point is that it would take a new act of parliament to reverse a referendum's result. This also presumably could apply to any of the acts that have been introduced for the EU, sounds a bit like pandora's box I think.
As for the latest French trick who is surprised, I guess they are so cock sure about their power now that they don't even try to hide it and just boast about their protectionism. I also suspect Sarko & Renault are now desperately trying to find some way of spinning this in the usual French manner of covering up activities against the EU's rules, whilst they carry on trying to relocate jobs back to France and anything else that springs to mind in order to keep the demonstrators off the streets.
Complain about this comment
The french are in it for themselves and as usual are the first to break ranks to save themselves. We shouldn't be suprised, history repeats itself and history has shown that when the going gets tough the french (apart from a brave minority) fold almost immediately. Then years later when the crisis is over the whole country will claim they were one of the brave few. Protectionalism is a natural defence, we all feel the need to protect our own. Just don't be suprised that the french fell first.
Complain about this comment
Deanthetory
Enoch Powell - a distinguished constitutionalist - said ". . . there is no law or edict which can resist the combined will of the British people to change or abolish it". Powell was also a distinguished parliamentarian and I have always understood him to mean that the British people can 'change or abolish' a law or edict by prevailing on their elected representatives to do so through the mechanism of Parliament. In other words, it was for the people to determine who they sent to Parliament and for Parliament to determine whether to change or abolish a law in accordance with their mandate.
Treaties are, however, different from laws and edicts. It is certainly the case that, in order for a treaty to come into force, it has to enabled and this is generally by Act of Parliament. It is also the case that, under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, acts passed at the behest of one government are not binding on their successors and can be repealed or amended by future parliaments. There is, however, some disagreement amongst constitutionalists as to whether treaties can be so lightly set aside given that they are intended to be binding on future governments unless there is a fundamental change in circumstances such as an act of war. The Charter of the United Nations is a good modern example whereby, hypothetically Parliament could amend or repeal the enabling legislation if it was minded to do so but in practice would not. Another example is the Treaty of Windsor, a treaty of friendship and non-aggression between England (so subsequently the UK) and Portugal. The treaty has been continuously in force 1386 and continues to this day making it the longest standing treaty in recorded history. The central point is that the constitution although codified in many ways by various acts remains essentially based on convention and, in regard to treaties, the convention is that they are binding on future parliaments except in extraordinary circumstances.
This is important in this context because Lisbon is a treaty - not an act or edict - as indeed are Rome, Nice and Maastricht. It can be argued that, while there was no referendum at the time, the people were given an opportunity to endorse it by referendum in 1975 which they duly did. It is also arguably the case that Maastricht had 'passive' endorsement in that it was in that ratification was a manifesto commitment for the Tories at the election of 1992 (although, in practice, no major party was opposed). Arguably, then, Nice is the only treaty so far to have been ratified solely on the authority of Parliament. That is until we get to Lisbon.
Like it or not, Lisbon has been ratified without being a central policy commitment on any political manifesto or being offered directly by way of referendum. Whether or not Parliament was morally right to do this is a matter of judgment. That they had the legal right to do so is beyond question. That is the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. So those who are pressing even now for a referendum on Lisbon are not seeking the right to endorse or reject a piece of proposed legislation. They are asking for a vote on whether or not retrospectively to repudiate a treaty which has already been ratified by parliament. The only saving grace is that, since unanimity amongst the 27 is required and is not currently forthcoming from Ireland, it is not yet in force. Going back on it, while embarrassing, would not be entirely out of the question.
My central point is that the debate has moved on from Lisbon to the whole question of ongoing British membership. Why would we want to indulge in a referendum on a recent and as yet inactive treaty when the outcome would not determine the answer to the underlying question? In order to conduct a referendum, you have to either have to abandon parliamentary sovereignty altogether - which has serious constitutional consequences - or establish a mechanism to 'suspend' sovereignty for the purpose of the vote and somehow bind not just the present government but future administrations to the outcome. This is a major and controversial undertaking and the least we can do is first make sure we will be asking the right question.
Personally, I would see this as an opportunity to address constitutional issues as well as deciding once and for all which way the UK is going to go but that is another issue altogether.
Complain about this comment
#42 - Buzet23
Yes Wiki has got it absolutely right. It all comes down to brinkmanship. Would any government call a referendum and then reject the outcome? Not if they valued their necks (and I cleaned that up). Would a future government reverse the decision? Probably only with a clear mandate. But do they have the power to do so - you bet your life they do.
Regarding 1975, I don't actually know but I suspect there was a gentleman's agreement that parliament would vote whichever way the people directed with the government using a three line whip if necessary.
Complain about this comment
41. At 00:20am on 21 Mar 2009, deanthetory wrote:
" ... The EU is hardly facing a chrisis of democracy. Nor is it anti-democratic. ..."
OH YES IT IS!!!
We were promised a referendum which we have not been allowed. The haughty tyrants who run the "EU" are totally unembarrassed. We have been lied to again and again and again since Ted Heath's days. The "EU" has no right to exist. Its very existence is undemocratic.
How about an answer to the questions I asked you above, #39 ?
Complain about this comment
#46 SuffolkBoy2
Why are you surprised that your opinions are irrelevant?
You live under a system of Parliamentary sovereignty which guarantees that, once you have cast your vote, your opinions are meaningless.
Either vote to change the system or stop your incessant whining.
Complain about this comment
Can we stay on topic and get real here for a minute?
- Renault is facing an increase in sales of small cars. As its main factory specialised in these cars is over capacity, they decide to produce a few in the factory where they last produced it, that happens to be located in France
- A junior minister claims Renault is "relocalising" production
- He is then contradicted by more senior ministers and Sarkozy himself
- Later on, senior EU officials as well as the Slovenian prime minister himself confirm that no job has been moved.
All in all, we have a minister who said something stupid. the whole issue was corrected in about 3 hours.
I don't see the problem here. The post and the related comments have no fact to substantiate them.
Complain about this comment
#48, Matthieu123,
I just read the French version of these reports and it is remarked that the Slovenia plant is one of the most performant Renault plants of all and has production costs three times less than French plants. You may be a France lover but do you expect anyone else to believe the expansion (if that is what it was) in France was anything else than protectionism hidden under a banner of spin, as no company today will incur costs three times elevated unless there is a very very very good reason, and Sarkozy's bail-out seems to fit the bill. What has not been mentioned is the cost of expanding the Slovenia plant to increase production against the cost of re-activating/re-tooling the French plant in Flins, now that would be very interesting and would reveal the truth about this affair, especially since the ongoing production costs would one third of the French ongoing production costs. Economically I would say the Slovenian option was far more cost justifiable than the French option, therefore the decision has to be political!
Finally, I'm wondering what the French are going to do with all those brand new Renault's, Peugeot's, Citroen's that can be seen stockpiled in every car pound in France since the market has collapsed. The four hundred jobs created are actually people on partial unemployment within the Renault organisation since manufacturing of many new cars has (almost) ceased and will have to be relocated to the Flins site. Therefore what we are seeing is not 400 new jobs but the relocation of 400 existing part time workers saving them from possible redundancy which would embarrass Sarko, wherever we look there is spin and deceit and protectionism politics.
Complain about this comment
oldnat and Comment 40.
"...Cromwell..bad example.."
Suggest you read my Comments in full and follow the points I was making: From the ignoring/denying of the majority Citizens' will by the powers of the time emerged a minority led by Cromwell. The dictator, was a result no one had foreseen, and if you properly read my Comments that is the parallel I am drawing on, i.e. that denial of an English Referendum on the issue of EU membership may cause serious civil unrest and no one knows where that might lead given the propensity of determined groups to exploit the masses. Far better for England that the authorities hold a Referendum and the issue is finally resolved one way or another.
Afterall, as things stand the pro and anti EU lobbies could be writing all this stuff 10 years from now! Ridiculous and extremely dangerous for Democracy in the UK and indeed for Europe. Though, unfortunately I fear and I doubt it will take 10 years for the considerable bitterness and ill-feeling amongst that portion of the English electorate who favour withdrawl to express itself in far more robust manner if no Referendum is in sight.
The steady chipping away of morale and respect amongst English Citizens' as they believe (true or not) their Rights and Responsibilities are decided by an organisation for which they hold no good-will is similar to the Constitutional disputes and circumstances of 1603 to 1642 era. No one envisaged a Rump Parliament and Cromwell would be the result of the civil strife.
Brown, Cameron, Clegg are all delusional asses if they think the issue of the EU can simply be dealt with by pretending the English will just have to lump it until they forget Brussels is there. Parliamentary authority is far more at risk of being challenged in the streets because of the 'Democratic defecit' brought about by the EU than by the present Economic collapse.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
My opening remarks were referring to the "..gibbering.." epithet of another contributor.
Other pro-EU have used labels in previous Debates as wide-ranging and crude: Such as "..hysterical.." "..foreign-bashing..", "..little englander.." "..BNP member..", "..mad/blind/stupid/.." the list is seemingly endless.
No, I cannot off-hand point to your Comments being anything other than cogent and thoughTful.
That said, I have no wish to be diverted from the main topic, so, apologies if your feelings are disturbed, but that's it from me on the name-calling.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory and Comment 36.
Well, if your 3 views on Democracy were actually the UK/England Constitutional status quo then there would be no argument.
Unfortunately for you all 3 on your list are nul and void as since PM Thatcher signed Maastricht (Treaty of European Union) a greater/higher power has been placed above the 3 standards you think the UK Citizenship submit to.
The European Union has supreme authority: No Act of Parliament may be passed that does not comply with European Union law and regulation. Parliament Acts were subject to debate and amendment by future Parliaments, but, for 25+ years they have also been altered, amended, repealed by order of the EUrotocracy. As for the decision of Parliament being sacrosanct and above legal challenge! Since PM Blair signed the European Convention on Human Rights all UK Law is subject to a Legal challenge beyond these Isles, e.g. the 'Tariff' on Life Sentences that a Home Secretary must now give to any convicted and sentenced murderer is a direct result of a European Court of Justice ruling that over-rode UK Parliament imposed law. The UK Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, like all the British Cabinet members, are now subject to rulings from an international court and from an international administrative centre in Brussels.
Therefore, your system of 'Democracy' is not working for the genral public of England. A Referendum/Plebescite has been used before and with no binding written 'Constitutional' Statute to forbid it, another on the issue of EU Membership is entirely in order.
Why is it not granted?
I have 3 reasons for you to consider:
1) Downing Street (whichever of the 3 main Parties is in power) fears it may lose the argument and England will vote to withdraw.
2) Downing Street (occupancy as above) enjoys being able to deflect criticism etc. and throw the blame elsewhere and Brussels is such an easy target.
3) Downing Street (as above) may genuinely fear a 'split-decision' (the 70+% of 1975 inc my Yes vote to a Common Market; and it was a decisive choice by the UK Electorate): Whereas, with a 48/49% pro and 49/50% anti (1/2% spoilt papers!); thus a nation divided is even more vulnerable and the interminable arguments go on at an even more heated level.
All the same I do argue that in the interests of these Islands longterm Democratic order a Referendum is the way forward: Let the EU debate be upfront and as emotionally charged as it is likely to be. So what, if some Tabloids presently berate the EU, that does not mean they will at the appointed hour. If the arguments are persuasive 'for' or 'against' then the determining factor will be the Citizens' votes as it should be in any nation laying claim to the term Democracy. The British Electorate is far more sophisticated than most politicians, newspaper editors and so-called opinion-formers believe is the case. This Referendum would not decided by a public that reads only one view of things and then wraps their cod-n-chips in it. Television, Radio, Internet etc. have opened the British Public (particularly the under-35s who have only known an EU-UK) to a far deeper involvement in matters.
I strongly believe the political health and social cohesion of the UK needs this issue resolved once and for all and the way to achieve that is a Referendum.
Complain about this comment
#52 - ikamaskeip
"I strongly believe the political health and social cohesion of the UK needs this issue resolved once and for all and the way to achieve that is a Referendum."
Although I might wish for a different outcome, I completely agree with what you say.
Complain about this comment
Finally the EU's favorite guy resigned, did he?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7956610.stm
He said: "I hope it is this way, that it is only me that is the obstacle, because if so, then I am eliminating this obstacle now.
"I propose that we form a new government under a new prime minister."
----------------------------
If he resigned, how he still can PROPOSE? and how he still can say that WE form a new government? If he understood that he was the obstacle, then why he dont stop being one. Did he really understood, or it is EUarrogance at its best.
This are the guys the EU has supported with plenty of money, incompetent politicos who ruined a country and with it EU? If EU elites were not like this guy, then it would have never choosen and supported him.
Complain about this comment
"oldnat wrote:
#46 SuffolkBoy2
Why are you surprised that your opinions are irrelevant?
You live under a system of Parliamentary sovereignty which guarantees that, once you have cast your vote, your opinions are meaningless.
Either vote to change the system or stop your incessant whining."
How does one vote to change the system, oldnat?
Is not the very essence of the parliamentary system that it denies the public the chance to vote upon any issue except which of the party members the parties choose to represent the people?
I note that more and more people are claiming that a referendum on the EU issue is the only legitimate way forward for the UK. Presumably either the issue is too important to be left to the parliament, or people no longer trust the parliament to place their interests above that of the professional party politicians. Or both.
My question that looms is why any legislative proposal should not be put to the people. We have the technology for direct democracy to work. We have an education system and a media than can distribute information throughout every nook and cranny in society. Why not allow the political system to evolve into a higher form of democracy?
One thing that really strikes me about Switzerland is the participation of the people in public life. Everyone votes on everything, and so it is the norm to be informed. Newspapers deal with public issues constantly, and people read them, and take the issues seriously. Everyone has opinions on issues, and everyone is expected to have opinions on issues. It is almost impossible to imagine how corruption could take a hold.
Furthermore, when the public do decide an issue, everyone accepts it as the will of the people. Issues to not burn and simmer in the background, with huge numbers of people feeling cheated, and losing interest in public political life.
Oldnat, if people COULD vote to change the system, I think they might. But I just do not see the current two party system proposing a change away from concentrating power in the leadership of the two parties. And so I suggest that the only thing any citizen of the UK will ever vote for in their lifetimes will be to select a representative from a shortlist of party members, selected and vetted by the party.
And how is that any more advanced than the democracy of the soviet union?
Complain about this comment
threnodio wrote:
#52 - ikamaskeip
"I strongly believe the political health and social cohesion of the UK needs this issue resolved once and for all and the way to achieve that is a Referendum."
Although I might wish for a different outcome, I completely agree with what you say."
I disagree entirely. The solution is referenda.
Complain about this comment
#54 - karolina001
This is absurd. Gyurcsany Ferenc was not "choosen and supported" by "EU elites", as you put it. He is leader of the MSzP, which is the largest party in the ruling coalition and accordingly he became prime minister by the normal democratic process you would expect in some form anywhere in Europe.
As a senior party figure, he is perfectly entitled to say "I propose that we form a new government under a new prime minister" and he is also entitled to participate in the process. As a senior member of the legislature, he not only is entitled to, he has a duty to do so. Yet again, you are letting your emotions drag you into assumptions which are simply not true. You can argue with honestly held positions but arguing against blind prejudice is an exercise in futility.
#56 - democracythreat
I think you will find that if you reread what ikamaskeip and I posted, that is exactly what we are saying.
Complain about this comment
#55 - democracythreat
The radicals have been squeezed out of the British political machine years ago in favour of conformists and make no mistake, what you propose and I strongly endorse is very radical indeed. It can be achieved but only when and if a generation of radical politicians comes forward with the courage to promote constitutional reform of a sweeping kind and the electorate have the courage to support them in numbers. You need devolved power to England, an English assembly elected by proportional representation, a written constitution, a new Bill of Rights, a transfer of sovereignty from parliament to the people, the dissolution of the Union in favour of confederation, a new accountable structure in Europe and a newly defined relationship between the EU and the rump UK. Then have your referendum. Not asking much is it?
Oh and what does this have to do with France? Well, as someone else has pointed out, it would be a good plan if someone would come forwards with a radical alternative before the British are forced to take to the streets in their millions to make their point.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat and Comment 56, re my Comment 52 and threnodio Comment 53.
Not sure if you bother to read anything before going into print?
My Comments all suggest a UK Referendum on EU membership.
Threnodio also supports a referendum on the same issue.
I want a result that means England withdraw from the EU.
Threnodio wants a result that means England remains in the EU.
What exactly is it you are complaining/commenting about?
Complain about this comment
#54 - karolina001
Following on from my earlier post, if you want a realistic assessment of what might happen next and how the constitutional mechanism works, I recommend Reuter's coverage HERE.
Complain about this comment
I find the frenzied, fake outrage on this blog pretty weak. Most of it is no more than an excuse to spit venom at the French, who for some reason, in the most politically correct UK it seems, are fair game for for racial vilification. Yes, Renault's (and the government's) move is a weak attempt to appease the near civil unrest mounting of the economic crisis and its effects currently here in France. Yes, its sad that leaders resort to such token domestic appeasement whilst risking so much internationally, but please. When the US, Britain, Germany and others make protectionist moves (i.e. all the time) these are criticized on the their merit or lack of it. When the French do it, it is for many, the unmistakeable sign of an intrinsically malignant culture and race. This instinctive behaviour says more about the critic than it does about the French.
Complain about this comment
#59 - ikamaskeip
Precisely so. Very precisely in fact in that you are careful to write England rather than Britain. Can I infer you share my view that the British Union in it's present form is past it's sell by date as well?
Complain about this comment
#55 democracythreat
When I was first able to vote in 1966, there was only one small party advocating significant constitutional change. It couldn't afford to fight every seat, and its vote was pretty derisory. Now it forms the Scottish Government.
You won't achieve change soon, but the longer you delay starting, the longer it will take.
A pretty good rule is never to vote Labour or Tory, and tell them why not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
threnodio #62.
You presume correctly.
The United Kingdom has clearly lost its impetus: Not least because the NuLab policy of Devolution has brought the so-called 'east midlothian question' to the forefront of English politics.
How is it Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland may have devolved powers but the English are denied the same right?
It is why in all my Comments on the EU-UK debates I refer primarily to England. It seems to me from various Polls/Surveys it is the English that appear to be the driving force for withdrawl from the EU. I would not dream of insisting England knew what was right for the Scots, Welsh, Irish electorate. If they want to remain within the EU (as oldnat and some others seem to favour), but outside the United Kingdom, so be it.
They are wrong-headed in my view (how could they imagine a few million will be heard amongst 400,000,000 after complaining their voice was not recognised in a Union of only 60 million!?): Nevertheless, it would be their Democratic choice/voice and certainly the English will benefit from being rid of the constant political carping, drain on taxes etc. and if that could be allied to being free of the EU so much the better for England.
All the trifling complications about UK foreign affairs and defence would be settled by a Constitutional Conference amongst all 4 Union members at which agreements could be made on retaining some aspects of a UK if preferred, but, subject to renegotiation by any one Union member at 10, 15 or 20 year cycles.
Who knows, maybe an independent England will one day have an electorate minded to renegotiate entry to the EU; anything is possible, but, so long as there is no determining Referendum on the EU membership at this stage everything is speculation. My fear is civil disturbance and social breakdown and division on a scale that might see a British PM having to use anti-terrorist laws and France, German police within these Islands in an effort to keep order.
Far-fetched!? Let us hope so, for all our sakes, but, I do detect a weakening of 'Democratic values' which as you and others have alluded ('democratic defecit') to in previous Comments stems from the UK Parliament and its Executive branch at No.10., itself. This move away from valuing the norms of a social democracy has spread to the Citizens who see their views, ideas and wishes thwarted by unresponsive National and International bodies.
Such disrespect for the Rights of Man has in the end to be answered. The socio-political price of that answer becomes higher with every passing year of denial of a Referendum by the UK's main Political Parties.
'Statesman' you would wish for; myopic, political pygmies is all we have in London and in Brussels.
Complain about this comment
#65 - ikamaskeip
Interesting. Although we have entirely different views about Europe, I cannot find a single remark in your last post with which I do not identify. There is something of a debate, albeit in the early stages, about constitutional reform on a blog which I set up for the purpose. Old Nat, Buzet23 and several others have contributed from time to time if you are interested. I cannot post a link due to house rules but try goggling threnodio.
By the way, I have always thought that one mark of a statesman was knowing when to step aside. Perhaps, in the light of today's news, Gyurcsany may qualify.
Complain about this comment
ozglobal and Comment 61.
"...frenzied, fake outrage.. most of it is no more than excuse to spit venom at the French.. fair game (in UK) for racial vilification.."
Have you actually been reading the Comments on this Blog?
Please point out the 'racial' element in the contributions to the debate.
I refer you to this Blog Topic title: France Throws Spanner In Car Works.
From that I would deduce this Blog is inviting Comments on France's policies, attitudes, commitments etc. vis a vis the European Union.
I think you will find that means in order to Comment we need to mention the French President, Government, Laws etc.
E.g. crichton13 and #25, ".. real point is..FRENCH have the GUTS to CONFRONT HIM..": Can't see that as racially motivated.
E.g. #gothlampy #43, ".. the French are in it for themselves..": That's fairly straightforward; the contributor believes France is acting in its own interests and not the EU. Nothing racist about it.
For my part, I have written unequivocally that France uses the EU for its own purposes which is entirely in keeping with the point of the Topic-debate. I have read the other Comments and whilst some, like mine, are clearly aimed at opposing France's policy and question its veracity none of them would seem to be aimed at the personal nature of the French Citizen.
This is your take on Comments: "..when the French do it.. intrinsically malignant culture and race.." and "..says more about the critic than the French.."
I would politely suggest you are either misinterpreting the intention of the content of contributions or you have nothing to say on behalf of France's policy and therefore criticise with unfair labels others to hide your lack of valued debating points.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip wrote:
democracythreat and Comment 56, re my Comment 52 and threnodio Comment 53.
"Not sure if you bother to read anything before going into print?
My Comments all suggest a UK Referendum on EU membership.
Threnodio also supports a referendum on the same issue.
I want a result that means England withdraw from the EU.
Threnodio wants a result that means England remains in the EU.
What exactly is it you are complaining/commenting about?"
I am commenting on the futility of rejecting the party based system of the EU for a party based system of westminster style democracy within the UK.
If the party based system is OK in the UK, why is it not OK for the whole of the EU?
And if a referendum is the correct method of resolving the UK's position with regard to the EU, why not have referenda to decide all legislative issues for the UK?
Now I would agree that the UK system is preferable to the proposed EU system of party rule, but this has more to do with the fact that the UK has a doctrine called the separation of powers, whereas the EU has merely the form of separate powers, with none of the substance. So the EU has the ECJ and the Commission as separate bodies to the EU parliament, but I cannot think of an instance where the ECJ or the Parliament has exercised power to challenge the power of the commission, nor of an instance where the Commission or the Parliament has challenged the power of the ECJ.
But as a matter of principle, one is either for the process of referenda, or against it. You either want the people to be the sovereign power in the land, or you think the party is the best candidate to wield sovereign power.
And if the party is the preferred choice of sovereign, why not simply join the two parties into one party, and have a soviet style democracy? After all, there were different factions within the Duma who argued for different policies to be pursued. How is this any different from the westminster system?
As I have mentioned before, direct democracy works because the people are much harder to corrupt than the party. Direct democracy works because it separates power between the estates of the people, the executive and the courts. I would suggest that party based representative democracy has evolved to frustrate the separation of powers doctrine because the party is able to create successful careers within the judiciary, and further to completely dominate the executive. Parliament no longer acts as a check against the executive, but serves as a rubber stamp for the will of the party leadership (the executive). The judiciary cannot act as a check against the power of the executive, because they must follow the will of parliament when it concurs with the executive.
In short, the party based system turns parliament into an instrument of the executive, and thus destroys the balance of power between the three arms of government.
Direct democracy prevents the parties who rule the executive from controlling the parliament, because the parliament is the people themselves. And so the judiciary is once more free to act as a check against the executive, by enforcing the results of referenda against the will of the party who rules the executive.
Complain about this comment
#61, ozglobal,
You mentioned "but please. When the US, Britain, Germany and others make protectionist moves (i.e. all the time) these are criticized on the their merit or lack of it."
You may have a point about the USA and Germany but get real about the UK, just count the number of strategic industries now foreign owned, often by French company's. If the UK was at all protectionist it would have not allowed Power, Water, Car manufacturing etc to be sold off, the list is very long indeed. The one thing that has always been clear is that it's ok for France or Germany to buy an important UK company, but when it's the other way round the protectionism starts and obstacles appear.
There is little frenzied, fake outrage on this blog about France, we simply know the French style very well, and with myself living close to the border with France, I have more than a few friends either living in France or dealing with the French. The one motto that always springs to the mind of all these friends is that the French are expert at pulling yet another defeat from the jaws of victory and its francophone people who say that to me. The blurting out of the truth about Renault and Slovenia was yet another example of this.
Complain about this comment
So covering up cash for arms deals (in the national interest) is not protectionism? You Franco-phobes make me roll on the floor laughing.
The French have got it together. The British haven't. Well done the French. It takes a willing populace to demonstrate against state excess. The Brits roll over on the floor belly up and are run over alternately by the Conservative Party and the Labour party. Both parties have administered British manufacturing industry out of the country to the far east and most notably China. Both the Conservatives AND the Labour party have been protectionist of industry...China's industry!!!
Complain about this comment
55. At 12:33pm on 21 Mar 2009, democracythreat
Well said.
Complain about this comment
Ozglobal writes:
“…When the French do it, it is for many, the unmistakeable sign of an intrinsically malignant culture and race. This instinctive behaviour says more about the critic than it does about the French.”
Lets look at some choice remarks on this blog from the eurosceptics on this blog about the moral failings of the French people - as opposed to the actions of their government.
“Same old French”
“after all the French do have a "bit of previous"”
“The French will always look after the French.”
“As for the latest French trick”
“spinning this in the usual French manner”
“The french are in it for themselves and as usual are the first to break ranks to save themselves. We shouldn't be suprised, history repeats itself and history has shown that when the going gets tough the french (apart from a brave minority) fold almost immediately.”
AGAIN…no attempt to make a distinction between the actions of the French government and the people. The tired “oooooo we love Europeans but hate the EU” line never sounded so hollow or so false. The EU does have problems in democratic accountability and waste. But as we can see from this blog the dislike of the EU has at its root a fear and dislike of foreigners based on crude stereotypes.
Complain about this comment
39. At 00:13am on 21 Mar 2009, SuffolkBoy2
The latter three should be in a different party.
To deanthetory: Do you have any regrets about the fact that the British people were not given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
Do you accept that the British people have been lied to repeatedly by "EU"-lovers?
---
I have regret yes- as I would love the chance to get out there and have had the debate. It would have been progressive and constructive in helping to define exactly what the UK position is on the EU institutional makeup. As right now, nothing is as definitive in outlining the UK position in this regard as the Plebiscite on the Lisbon Treaty would have been.
But, “EU-lovers” of the three you name above- Super Ken and co were themselves clear that they themselves would not stand on any platform of referenda. So what I’m trying to say is that some Europhiles in the New Labour ranks are definitely guilty of lying about referendum on Lisbon. But by no means all “EU-Lovers”.
Finally, I think believe that the three MPs named are more true to the traditional Tory traditions than any Thatcherite new boy would ever be (I’m referring to all those 30-40 year old MPs that are that woman’s political children). They are merely representing a different brand of Conservativism than, say John Redwood’s europhobes do. Its nothing that warrants their expulsion from the Party- as we are a broad church of different factions and understandings. To expel anyone opposed to the dries new world order is a bad thing, and us wets shall never accept such brutish notions.
Complain about this comment
68 - democracythreat
You write "but this has more to do with the fact that the UK has a doctrine called the separation of powers". Unfortunately, it does not. It has no written constitution and therefore no definition of where these powers begin and end. There has been been a separation by convention but this has been systematically eroded in recent years, especially as a plethora of (mainly pointless) statute law has been passed by Parliament (mainly at the behest of the executive) which have had the accumulative effect of undermining the Common Law and thereby emasculating the judiciary. We now have an overbearing executive exercising far too much power by excessive use of the whips to cajole, blackmail or bully Parliament into performing its will. It does so in spite of repeated instances of governments being returned to power with indecently large majorities notwithstanding that they do not enjoy the majority support of the electorate. For their part, Parliament have enacted the legislation previously referred to in order to introduce mandatory sentencing across a wide range of offences, codify matters which would have been settled under the Common Law on the basis of "that which is fair and reasonable" and generally to undermine the authority of the judiciary. You should also bear in mind that prosecutions are undertaken by the Crown, legislation proposed by Her Majesty's government and, in the unlikely event that everyone goes mad and takes to the streets, the rebellion will be put down by the 'Queen's Armee' who will doubtless point out the errors of our ways and direct us back to the paths of righteousness personified by the C of E of which she is also head. Separation of Powers? What Separation of Powers?
All this perfidy arises as a direct result of the party system and is especially insidious when the power is more or less carved up between two competing factions which you would have to prize apart with a jemmy in order to get a fag paper between them elected by a FPTP system which appears to be almost deliberately designed to produce an unrepresentative outcome. All this is allowed to happen because a large majority of the population are either so complacent that they don't give a damn or have been seduced into believing that, because it has more or less worked for a couple of hundred years, it has to be the best model around and remains fit for purpose in the 21st century. This is now the system you want to see in Europe?
You have said it yourself - "direct democracy works". Yes but not amongst 500 million people. This is why subsidiarity matters. This is why as much decision making should be devolved as possible and there is absolutely no useful purpose served by putting a glass floor under the nation state. If a more relevant and effective measure can be determined at local or regional level, it should be. What does the Agriculture Commissioner know about olive farming in northern Greece? What does the Health Secretary know about the shortcomings of A and E in Mid Staffs? The larger the bodies that make up this planet become, the more important it is that local communities take care of that which directly concerns them. An independent and separate judiciary with the authority to hold both the executive and legislature to account should operate at regional as well as national level including holding the actions of those bodies ultra vires when necessary.
The balance is tipping in the opposite direction in the EU with the ECJ apparently regarding itself as the supreme law making body. In a real democracy, the only supreme law making authority is the people. The judiciary should be their best and ultimate protection against the excesses of the executive and the legislature should be the bridge between the people and the executive seeking to reconcile the will of both but subservient to neither. Both the UK and the EU models are seriously flawed in this respect.
The euroscepics will say they are happy to have mutual defence arrangements and a free trade area but how they run their own countries is their own business. The enthusiasts will say that we have shared values and responsibilities which are best regulated and advanced together. They are both respectable positions and should form the basis of the question that should be put. One thing is certain. The status quo is simply not good enough and, whichever way it goes, there has to be root and branch reform - and soon.
Complain about this comment
"So covering up cash for arms deals (in the national interest) is not protectionism? "
Yes... that particular episode had some elelments of the french media gasping at the sheer brazen hipocrisy of it all. Europhobes would like to paint a picture that political integration with fellow europeans is beyond the pale because european governments are in their opinion corrupt selfish and suspect. This episode shows that the british government is hardly whiter and white. And yet it all gets forgotten so quickly...and still they try and maintain some sort of moral superiority when dealing with other nation states.
Complain about this comment
threnodio,
if everything goes according to the plan, what we have to do is just make a plan and everything will be fine :)
but life is not like this, and of course that he is choosen and supported by the elites.. he was in the plans of the etlites as those others in the Link you show me are, but nothing goes as planned.
do you really think that who will come after him will solve the problems of the people? what the new guy will do is just say 'it wasnt me' who did this mess and confort people..
who can solve the problems are the ones that didnt put us in this mess. who are not proEUpuppets, who are there just because they say 'we like EU', but have done nothing to achieve something that is worth, and if we pretend and close an eye because they are pro-EU, bad for us, but you must know that sceptics are better than someone who is incompetent and lazy but just is EU lover, because EU is the golden mine for his pockets.
Why these EU leaders cannot accept that they are the obstacle to recovery annd the more they stay the more the agony will last.
People are getting fed up, and if the EU payrolls dont go, they will make more damage than good to Europe.
If they love Europe, they must step aside, but they love more their bonusses
Complain about this comment
@buzet23 post 49: you have it absolutely right about the Renault plant. However, the unsold cars you see around France are all either not "green" enough, or are too thirsty. The French Government introduced a bonus/malus scheme last year, offering cash-back payments if you buy a "green" car (by their definition), or an oncost to the price if you buy a "dirty" car. Plus, the spike in fuel prices last year, followed by the economic crisis, has made the French buyers go for smaller cars. There's now a waiting list for some models. Also, most of those smaller models come from Italy and - you've guessed - Slovenia.
A word about "Democracy". We seem to have several ideas about what this means to individuals posting here. Whilst the City State of ancient Athens is held up as the seat of Democracy, let's face it, most of it's citizens were excluded from voting. For Plato democracy meant liberty and freedom of speech, and not much else. But even those "freedoms" were restricted to a select few. That's "democracy".
Complain about this comment
More on democracy/referendum debate. Do have a read of
www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/3/21/71514/3061
how the Czech parliament has got itself into a complicated mess, by trying to link the vote on the Lisbon Treaty to the proposed US radar sites - then trying to untangle themselves from the ensuing mess. Democracy at work?
Complain about this comment
oldnat @35:
Careful now, you wouldn't want to be arrested for xenophobia or whatever....
Complain about this comment
Ford Mondeo and #72 re ozglobal and the supposed "french bashing".
Sorry, but cannot see how we Eurosceptics can refer to an article about a nation some 25 to 45 miles acorss the Channel without use of the significantly keywords - France and French - as it would be fairly impractical to attempt to do so.
Mind you, I suppose, Mr Mardell could have headlined: 'Neighbouring cross-channel nation puts spanner in car works,' or, 'Non-English speaking nation whose capital is Paris puts spanner in car works', or, 'Gallic people's put...'.
Come on now - the examples you gave are taken out of context - there is absolutely nothing racial in tone of suggesting France has "previously" acted in its own interests because how else would the pint be made that this is not the first time France has not kept within EU rules and regulations.
A "...tired line.."? Eurosceptics such as myself do indeed have nothing whatsoever against Europeans and I can assure you it is not a "..hollow" sentiment. In fact I do not 'hate' the EU: I do believe it is undemocratic, corrupt in some aspects, and a danger to the future prosperity and democratic traditions of UK/England.
I have used before and make no apology for doing so now, the term an "..axis of ill-intent.." in Paris-Berlin-Brussels towards UK/England. It is an historical and factual element of relations between these British Isles and mainland Europe. In the case of the EU for so long as a sovereign UK/England remains able to stand alone (as I believe it can and must for it to survive and prosper) it would be a constant thorn in the side of the Federalist EUrotocracy that is determined to retain and enhance its unelected, unaccountable and unattributable powers.
None of that is racist: All of it is practical, commonsense and deeply held beliefs based on my perspective of History.
You are perfectly entitled to hold a contrary view and to try tell me where you think I and other EUrosceptics are mistaken/misled.
However, you really will not win any argument much less the enitre debate if you and other EUro-fans keep resorting to stereotypical labelling of those who oppose your views. To be anti-EU is not to be anti-foreigner, little englander, old colonialist and certainly not racist. To be anti-EU is to be in the forefront of the struggle to maintain these Isles' traditions, customs, heritage that is collectively known as a Cultural entity. How you can think of EUrosceptics from this the immensely colourful and fertile multi-cultural British Isles as being racist is to my mind peculiar in the extreme. Yes, I have no doubt there are racists amongst the UK/English Citizens and some of those poorly educated, wretchedly unbalanced people will be anti-EU, but, I daresay there is a fair few number who, ironically, will be holding the same benighted views and yet proclaiming their EU-fan credentials in the same breath!
Such is the fun and interest of living in a liberal social Democracy like ours. So very different from the one-size-fits-all EU version of what life has in store for these Islanders if we give way to the EU.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip @80 wrote:
"I have used before and make no apology for doing so now, the term an "..axis of ill-intent.." in Paris-Berlin-Brussels towards UK/England. It is an historical and factual element of relations between these British Isles and mainland Europe."
'Axis of Weasel', perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Oldnat @35,
I tried to answer you - but have been censored. Lord knows why......
Complain about this comment
80, ikamaskeip
"the one-size-fits-all EU version of what life has in store for these Islanders if we give way to the EU."
The EU does not demand that the United Kingdom submit to a 'one size fits all solution'. This is why the UK has been granted opt-outs in significant areas of EU policy; such as the Schengen Agreement (which allows for the UK and Rep of Ireland to opt-out of the removal of border controls within the European Community). Or the UK right to opt-out of the monetary union.
The UK and the EU have a very pragmatic relationship, where the EU accepts that one size cannot suit all member-states and therefore grants opt-outs. The existance of these opt-outs represent more than an understanding that one size indeed does not fit all, but also is evidence of the fact that the EU institutions do respect member-states rights as individual states.
Further, the UK also is enjoying the opt-out of the EU 'charter of fundamental rights', originally opting out along with Poland. Again this represents that the EU fully acknowledges the fact that the EU solutions might not suit all member-states and therefore creates the legislative framework that allows for their own state solutions to particular issues to continue as apart of fundamental EU institutional arrangements. There is no attempt to thrust a one-size fits all solution upon member-states.
Complain about this comment
Maxsceptic and Comment 81.
There I am writing how we EUrophobes aren't using nasty words when proper debate is available: There you are ruining all my efforts.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Complain about this comment
Well can we at least stop this French bashing. It serves no useful purpose and they are perfectly pleasant people. OK, they have elected some pretty dodgy administrations over the years and the current one does seem to have a PR set up which makes the Cameron/Blair operation look slick but, hey, you can't hold 65 million people responsible for a few government raspberries. And they do grow exceedingly good grapes. They should pop over to Hungary one day and learn how to turn them into wine.
Complain about this comment
Yes I agree with the sentiments as expressed by threnodio.
But as for popping over to Hungary...don't they have an economic disaster on their hands over there with a rather astounding level of government debt that puts Brown / Darling to shame? (rescued by a 25.1 billion IMF led package and an economy predicted to shrink by 4.5%!)
Also, you can't beat a good Chatauneuf de pas or a Burgundy from a good year.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip @84,
Reasoned debate is good - when with reasonable people.
With some EUrophiles, however, you are wasting your time, as for them the 'European Project' has attained divine status and only when they see that their idol has clay feet will their faith be shaken.
Ridicule helps to remove the gown of respectability that conceals the undemocratic travesty that is the ideology of a 'united' Europe.
Complain about this comment
#86 - deanthetory
I will be inviting moderation on grounds of irrelevance if I go into too much detail here - perhaps Mark will introduce a thread in the light of Gyurcsany's resignation offer? - but it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.
(You may have gathered from previous posts that I live in Hungary).
It is the case that Hungary has had to go to the IMF for a significant package. However, it is worthy of note that the ECB contributed something in the order of 8 billion as well and bear in mind that Hungary is not yet in the Eurozone. I think the ECB injection, which came very quickly is a tacit admission that the Eurozone is in no small measure responsible for the problem. It is also true that the predicted shrinkage is set to be 4.5% but remember that is from a high starting point. Hungary is much more manufacturing oriented than some of the western economies so a comparison with Germany is probably more apt than the UK. It is all well and good making things but what do you do when nobody has the money to buy them? Exactly what is happening to Germany.
At the beginning of this crisis, central Europe looked to be in pretty good shape. Their banks had not been seduced by the lure of the extra percentage point into the sub prime bubble and were not particularly exposed but a large number of investors had been tempted by investments based in other currencies, particularly the Euro and Swiss franc. At the same time and for similar reasons, borrowers had been attracted into loans in the same currencies. When the western banks found themselves up to their necks in the fall out from sub prime and all the rest of the mess that would follow, they started to offer guarantees on deposits which were not offered by Hungarian banks because they were not needed. A massive exodus of investment funds followed the guarantees to the west leaving a huge hole in capital reserves resulting in a run on the forint. This greatly increased the repayments on Euro and Swiss franc based loans leading to late payment and default. So the system was being squeezed from every direction.
Now consider that several big players in the Hungarian system are western banks. K and H came under pressure as a subsidiary of KBC Bank (Belgium) when the faults in the Benelux system were exposed by Fortis and ING. Then came the problem with Citigroup and it has now emerged as to just how serious the problems in the Balkans are for Raiffaisen (Austria) and Unicredit (Italy) which are also big players in central Europe. Now you see the problem. The very people who started all this by buying dodgy investments elsewhere are now the ones who want out of the economies which, a couple of years back, seemed like a licence to print money. In the meantime, the forint continues to take a pounding, GDP is falling and the balance of payments deficit is beginning to look alarming.
This is actually relevant to this thread because a number of posters have found it necessary to point the finger accusingly at central Europe and moan about the cost of the bail out. They need to reflect soberly on where all this started and why. Yes Hungary is in big trouble but if central Europe goes down, it will take much of the western European banking system with it. That - a bit like AIG in the States - would simply be too big to contemplate. So they are just going to have to grin and bear it. And if the western manufacturers think they can simply repatriate manufacturing now the goose is only laying base metal eggs, they have another thought coming.
Complain about this comment
88. threnodio
What you very adeptly describe is why what we face is a global economic crisis, made worse by the incompetence of national governments.
Indeed, this is why we need (as I believe you agree with?) EU constitutional reform.
But also, an acceleration of the implementation of the Eurozone by newer eastern European members. They would have been protected better from the problems you illustrate if they had had the euro ten years ago.
The Euro, being the worlds second reserve currency (and the sterling at best third) surely this is the best time to seek an implementation of it across all member-states? As this is when the security it offers through its tough rules of % national dept on GDP would be most relevant (and vindicated).
Complain about this comment
#87 - MaxSceptic
Thank you for reminding us what a reasonable person is - someone who agrees with you. I shall bear it in mind when deciding when to resort to ridicule as opposed to treating it with the contempt it deserves.
Complain about this comment
recently we have so many info in every media, from everybody from official sources of Gov, ECB, institutions, companies to uninformed analysts. Everybody thinks that this info is true.. and start speculating of how things maybe or will go..
I will say you this, that the situation is so bad that you can never imagine.
But who is that official source of info that will accept the gravity of the situation??? who says that 'i am bad, stupid, dont trust me, i am using you, i'm lying, etc'? who will say a bad thing about himself?
and then you also have the uninformed people who dont have a clue, but specuate on what they read and have the smallest idea of what is the real truth.
if no body beleives me when i say that the ECB is printing money and bailing out countries with printed money, but waits for ECB to say this , is being naive. Hungary ,latvia , ukraine, greece , ireland are getting printed money.. thats why we see prices up in shops everyday, thats why there is inflation in consumer goods, but politicos are concerned about deflation in housing market, etc.
but if you print money to save the fat cats from the deflation which is good thing for people who want to buy house, this will cause inflation in housing market, but super inflation in consumer goods and other daylife products. people are being fired and unemployment is rising and inflation is missing and people purchasing power will decrease not only because a lack of income, but also because what money they have will be worth nothing.
deflation is a good thing, because it increases the purchasing power of the poor people and decreases the purchasing power of the rich.
Complain about this comment
#89 - deanthetory
Not only will the accession countries join the Euro but it is a requirement that they do so. However, they must first meet the convergence criteria. Slovenia and Slovakia did so just in time. The others don't have a snowball's hope in hell until the recession is under control again. In case you were wondering, Sweden has a made use of a loophole in the criteria to delay joining until they are good and ready. Only the UK and Denmark have a negotiated opt out.
Complain about this comment
Whats the Swedish loop hole?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
93 - deanthetory
They deliberately stays out of ERM II (European Exchange Rate Mechanism). By doing so, they cannot possibly meet the convergence criteria. This is because they rejected the Euro in a referendum (yes, another one of those). This leaves the EU between a rock and a hard place. Sweden should join but if Brussels tries to force the issue, they will be being 'undemocratic' so they just put up with it.
Complain about this comment
#89, deanthetory,
You say "What you very adeptly describe is why what we face is a global economic crisis, made worse by the incompetence of national governments.
Indeed, this is why we need (as I believe you agree with?) EU constitutional reform.
But also, an acceleration of the implementation of the Eurozone by newer eastern European members. They would have been protected better from the problems you illustrate if they had had the euro ten years ago."
The only true part of what you've said is that the national governments are incompetent, that we all know to our cost, Brown is the opposite of a prudent canny Scot, Sarko is in French terms a nain, Merkel seems to be not liked so much in Germany and as for the rest, well we use our own judgement. There is no way the membership of the Eurozone was ever going to protect anybody, it works whilst times are good but losing the interest rate mechanism meant all members lost one of the only two mechanisms available to control the economy, other than printing monopoly money like the USA and UK (Gordie McClown) are doing now.
As for EU constitutional reform, that's a real joke, for that the incompetents that are in the EU institutions have to be replaced otherwise attitudes and the trench warfare mentality will never change. There is and never has been an appetite for change, the project is sacrosanct to the establishment, therefore the establishment has to change to reflect alternative wishes.
Threnodio, #74
A very well put comment that I concur totally with. PS, re post #85 I think your comment exemplifies one piece of protectionism and ego that is also failing i.e. "They should pop over to Hungary one day and learn how to turn them into wine". Most of us know that wine is not a French monopoly and that there are many better wines out there, aagh the French will now be spitting blood. Next time I'll give my opinion as to which is the best European cooking, and guess what it's not French or even English and certainly not Scottish.
frenchderek #77,
I think you just identified another reason the French used protectionism in this instance, if the only cars they're selling are 'green' then they want to relocate all 'green' production in France and stuff the rest. I wonder what though they will do with the stockpiles of unsaleable cars. BTW my understanding of bonus malus in Belgium is that it is an Insurance scheme similar to no claims bonus so I'm curious as to how the French have worked that with a cash back scheme as here it is the fisc that give the cash back for green cars.
Complain about this comment
#95 threnodio
Referenda - is that some kind of system where the people themselves get to decide what is appropriate for them?
Sounds like the sort of idea that should appeal to the Tories and Lib-Dems. I wonder why they have rejected that idea for Scotland?
Complain about this comment
The entire incident doesn't surprise me in the least. I have often said that when push comes to shove, the EU will always demonstrate the old truism that there is no honor among thieves.
Complain about this comment
#96 Buzet23
"and certainly not Scottish."
I'm not going to disagree with you on that!
Complain about this comment
The moderators here have zero sense of humour. All I said was that bashing the french was good clean fun, and one of life's joys.
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Complain about this comment
100 democracythreat
Many years ago, we used to do "bashing the English". It seemed fun at the time, then most of us grew up.
Complain about this comment
Did you grow up, or grow old?
vive la difference, oldnat. I couldn't imagine anything worse than if my french friends were unable to make fun of my heritage because they were frightened of offending me.
It is the sentiment behind the banter that counts, and folks who pretend to be hurt by cheerful sentiment are narcissistic bullies, searching for an excuse to dominate others with their politically correct rules.
Complain about this comment
Maxsceptic and #87.
"..EU 'project' attained divine status.." and "..ridicule helps to remove the gown of respectability that conceals the undemocratic travesty that is the ideology of a 'united' Europe.."
Now, that's the sort of debating phraseology and technique I want to see and read.
Agree with every word within it: Just do not ever see the point of calling/labelling individuals (especially those only known on here), any sort of names. Leave that to members of the pro-EU lobby who regularly fall by the wayside when their actual pro-arguments falter and fail.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory and #83 re my Comment 80 on EU 'one-size-fits-all' mentality.
Unfortunately for you the so-called 'Opt-outs/Derogation' that UK presently has are all time-factored; there is a limit to the years each can be used under EU regulation.
I suspect you knew when you gave your examples the EU specifically does not allow for indefinite Opt-out from any part of its legislation/rules/regulation: Afterall, if it actually did that then there would be no argument/debate about membership because of course every Nation could go its own way!
However, if indefinite 'Opt-out/Derogation' was allowed then what would be the purpose of the EU?
However, in case you are unaware, let me set out the following from the EU handbook of 'one-size-fits-all' policy: Quote (from the European Movement english translation of EU Directives).
"..An EU DIRECTIVE - is a Law that takes legal precedence over the laws of individual member states.... Final interpretation is by the European Court of Justice (ECJ)... whose decisions are superior to and binding on National Courts.."
"..Withdrawing unilaterally from a particular EU Policy or refusing to apply an EU Directive would create a major, and probably insuperable, legal problem, as well as other political and economic problems.... The 1972 European Communities Act is the legal basis for the application of all EU Law within the UK.."
"..Derogation (sometimes characterised as an Opt-out) from an EU Directive is not an exemption from carrying out the Law... it is to give member nations time in which to adjust their National laws... National interests... to coincide with full EU requirement.. E.g. (and here I have paraphrased the EU blurb).. Security Workers are allowed to work outside the EU Directive on Working Time schedules.. but Nations and firms must make provision for such employees to have alternative time off equal to that required by the Directive.."
I am reminded of the old conjuror's top-hat: From it they pulled rabbit after rabbit, flowers or paper that turned into a bird... The trick was limitless in what could be pulled from the hat and the deceiving of the ordinary Citizens' eye amazing!
So it is with the EU: As fast as you pull out an example of how democratic and liberal it all is we turn a page to another all-enveloping rule!
Actually, I think my 'one-size-fits-all' categorisation is being generous: Dictatorship from Brussels comes to mind all too easily.
Complain about this comment
"We" can never have "dictatorship", ikamaskeip. It is a grammatical impossibility for "dictatorship is but one participle of an irregularly declining noun.
Thus:
We have "democracy".
You (plural) have "socialist party rule".
They have "dictatorship".
Complain about this comment
Dictatorship noun. 1 a State ruled by a dictator. 2 a) the position, rule, or period of rule of a dictator. b) rule by a dictator. 3 absolute authority in any sphere.
Source: The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Thumb Index Edition) 8th Edition; Published 1990.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @90
You misinterpreted me (deliberately?).
A reasonable person is someone who is open to reason: willing to look at facts and circumstances and as a result, when appropriate, change his/her position accordingly.
Faith (in a deity or an ideology) is the opposite of reason.
Complain about this comment
What's good for France is good for Europe, but not the other way round?
In a crisis its back to traditional etatism dating back to Louis XIV (L'etat c'est moi)- the Sun King and his Minister Colbert.
Complain about this comment
#107 - MaxSceptic
Sorry Max, nothing personal. Actually I believe that to be credible, the EU is in urgent need of sweeping reform. I do believe in 'the project' - call it faith if you will - but not in the direction. So I am, in fact, very open minded about it.
Not so sure about Faith being the opposite of reason. Blind faith maybe but I have heard people put up pretty plausible explanations for articles of faith.
Complain about this comment
108. mikewarsaw
There is historical disagreements if he actually said that...but I like to think that he did.
P.S. he built some lovely palaces.... Versailles puts Balmoral to shame..
Complain about this comment
#108 - mikewarsaw
#110 - deanthetory
Ah, but Louis had divine right to fall back on. Sarky had to marry his divine right - and I hear the left's not bad either. He did build exceedingly good chairs though and he did a mean weather forecast (apres moi le deluge). Didn't Colbert go on to become a Hollywood startlet?
I did not know there was any dispute about the quote Dean. Thought it was well documented.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip, who eez theez Meester Oxford?
Are you french?
Complain about this comment
111. threnodio
Well you know what historians can be like! William of Normandy fuedal oppressor or progressive societal reformer? Henry VIII church modernisor or heretical wife chopper? Its all subjective, but i'll also agree with you the chairs look lovely, but never had the chance to own one (theres one for the list of 'to do's')
As for the quotation (getting back on point..) blame saint simon for the confusion as some historians say he actually made it up to encapsulate the spirit in which he ruled. But I like to think he did say it.
Complain about this comment
Time the UK became a self preservation society as a whole,not as GORDY &
THE GANG.
Complain about this comment
@ 114
What do you mean? Protectionist? Or are you just making an anti-Brown joke without any real intent of purpose?
Complain about this comment
#115 - deanthetory
I think he said 'preservation' not 'protectionist'. You know, like we do with Louis XIV furniture and all beautifully crafted but hopelessly out of date antiques. Wrap them up in dust sheets, stick them in museums and on no account use them.
Sounds perfect for the United Kingdom, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
It sounds rather like the UK constitution, fit for a museum.
But, preserve what? I'm perhaps being slow but what exactly are we meant to preserve?
Complain about this comment
#117 - deanthetory
I think they used to call it national heritage. I have a feeling lottery money used to used for it before they nicked it all to fund after school clubs and all the other stuff that was supposed to be funded out of taxation. You know the kind of thing. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Complain about this comment
104. ikamaskeip
"Unfortunately for you the so-called 'Opt-outs/Derogation' that UK presently has are all time-factored; there is a limit to the years each can be used under EU regulation."
Erm... no ... the EU regulation provides for the UK to 'opt-in' to particular aspects of Schengen at the end of the time limit proviso so as to accomodate our own member-state needs.
So again I ask you, where is the dictatorial EU telling the UK it must agree to the 'one size' regulations? The EU bends over backwards to accomodate the UK and thus we have a very pragmatic but cordial relationship with the EU on all matters. They accomodated our own national desires in 1999 over Schengen and do so with every other regulatory reform, its called negotiation and there is no one size solutions- only consensus and accomodation for all member-states. We in the end actually did make use of the opt-in proceedure at the end of the opt-out time proviso, so even then we had no obligation to agree to all aspects of any 'one size solution'
In 1999, the UK made use of the possibility to opt in, and asked to participate in a number of provisions of the Schengen acquis, and this was granted by the EU Council on 29 May 2000, having effect on 2 June 2000, also in Gibraltar!
Complain about this comment
deanthetory and #119.
Errrm, Yes!
To quote you, "..EU regulations provide for UK to 'opt-in'.."
Errrm, that's not UK can or UK can't: That's UK 'will opt-in' at the end of the time-limit proviso.
Self-evidently a 'dictatorial' EU regulation as the UK must join Schengen (which is not actually all that bad a border/immigration/customs policy) etc. eventually.
I do not understand how you could consider that 'concensus politics'? Laws are being made in Brussels and must be introduced by the UK elected Government in London: Of course UK politicians will have had a voice, but, like the results or not the UK must take part. That is being dictated to by another, higher, majority power and not neccesarily in the interests of the UK.
To put it another way: 27 anglers on a pier discuss where each should cast a line; angler A, rightly or wrongly wants to fish off the pier end, but 14 or more others anglers say no and insist he casts along pier-side with the others; angler A can go his own way but the Angling Club rules state that next time he has no choice in the matter. Angler A's family suggest he considers leaving the Club but he's not listening and thinks things will improve whereas reality is Club rules get stricter. All the pleasurable responsibility of choosing equipment, bait etc. and the right/freedom to choose when and where to fish is gradually removed.
Folksy analogy, I know: Also unpleasantly accurate about the implausability of "..no obligation to agree to all aspects.." of EU Directives.
Complain about this comment
The UK does not have to submit to any aspect of a policy they do not want to- as was the case with Shenegen. You see both the UK and Eire in the end decided to only opt-in to aspects of Shenegen agreement, and not the whole, and guess what the EU agreed because it accepts different member-states have different needs. It therefore accomodates.
As was the case with Shenegen as an example.
Complain about this comment
#119 - deanthetory
Let's be clear about this, the opt in Schengen agreement was in respect of provisions then in place. The UK and Ireland do not have access to the Article 96 data and the UK has been refused access to SIS II (Schengen Information System). The argument, very properly in my view, is that the information in the db is to facilitate open borders, not police regulated ones. There is a trade off between full compliance and full cooperation.
Ikamaskeip is quite right that opt-outs and derogations are time limited. On the other hand, Brussels has no power to enforce extention. In fact, trying to force a country to open it's borders can in certain circumstances constitute an act of war so that is not going to happen. I see he is in the mod queue so no doubt he will make his own points.
In fact, it will be business as usual. Everyone will get very hot under the collar when the time comes, someone will cave in, probably Brussels and, after the shouting has died down, they will simply carry on as though nothing has happened. Anyway, there are loopholes for everything. We discussed Sweden and the Euro a while back. Britain can simply tell Brussels they will comply when it is safe to do so then keep their terrorist threat level set at 'high' indefinitely.
Complain about this comment
38. At 11:28pm on 20 Mar 2009, Ford Mondeo wrote:
'Post 22:
"Now, imagine the EU without ENGLAND ..."
Please. Please ...tommorrow! hold a referendum!
Cut The European Project off from this tiresome ball and chain!'
Ford Mondeo!
Please would you get into gear and get people in your country and your government to understand that the UK does not belong in the "EU" and get your government to stop conspiring with Quislings against the British people?
Complain about this comment
#120 - ikamaskeip
#119 - deanthetory
Having now had the chance to see ikamaskeip's response to your 119, I am bound to say I am with him on this one. His analogy with the angling club is a fair one and my response to that is that, when you join a club, you must be willing to play by the rules. The only difference between us, as he has pointed out elsewhere, is that I favour the advantages of membership over the freedom from rules whereas he want's to 'fish off the end of the pier' even if that means not being in the club.
So let's just extend his analogy and say that the angler has a family membership. Should he as an individual have the right to thumb his nose at the rules and go his own way even if this prejudices the participation of the rest of the clan or do they sit down and work it out as a family?
You see our angler cannot simply rewrite the rule book to suit him so it is not a 'club' issue. It is merely whether Father Brown and his successors in title continue to act as 'head of family' or that they all sit down and work it out. I am for the latter - call a referendum.
Complain about this comment
#120 ikamaskeip
I've actually taken on board a number of the arguments against the current EU setup.
As a Scot in the UK, I'm pretty used to "being dictated to by another, higher, majority power"!
At the same time, I see the advantages of pooling sovereignty in a limited number of areas with a much larger group of countries than just the other members of the UK. I don't mind decisions on such issues being taken democratically at EU level via EU parties submitting their ideas to the population of Europe.
However, the more I've examined the experience of Scotland in the UK, the more struck I am with the experience of England in the EU. (You'll understand that our national experiences are different, since London was our "Brussels").
In 1707, we entered an economic union with England. It had its ups and downs, but economically it was to our advantage, while we were partners in ripping off the rest of the world. As the Commissioners who had agreed the Treaty of Union wished, Scotland ran its own affairs with little interference from London until WWII.
It was the growth of the centralist, interventionist UK state in the second half of the 20th century, that broke that agreement - hence our Scottish Parliament, and I'd like the reserved powers back as well.
Both the EU and the current UK have a common origin in the "central planning" vision of the post war years, and power will always accrue to the centre, unless checked.
Both the EU, and the UK will collapse, unless they can move away from the centralist power structure, and adopt subsidiarity as fundamental. Power should only be ceded as required, and never without the consent of the people. I don't care about the UK, but I'd be sad if the EU could not reform. I suspect (with no evidence at all!) that many people across the EU would opt (if their national governments allowed them to) for a real democratic EU wholly responsible for certain issues, while nations looked after everything else.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be some confusion as to whether the UK labour party represents the interests of the people in the UK, or whether their true duty is towards the people of Europe. I would say that is also true for the french, just now.
That seems to be what this thread is all about. The EU wants governments to look towards the greater good for "the people of europe", and governments are keenly aware that they will face elections within their own states.
So to my way of thinking, the question is whether the government has a mandate towards further European integration under the UK constitution. The government might think it does, but my reading of constitutional law within the UK does not support such a view. There is nothing in the history of UK parliamentary sovereignty that suggests that one parliament may bind another to the rule of an outside power. Indeed, in times past such behaviour would be called treason, and punished with a horrid death at the tower.
But that doesn't mean the that further European integration is wrong, or undesirable. It may mean that parliamentary sovereignty is wrong, and selfishly and destructively nationalistic.
But these must be two separate questions: The former asks whether the parliament has the power under an unwritten constitution to push the UK towards further European integration. The latter, a wholly separate question, is whether further European integration is desirable.
I would suggest that we can all agree something very sensible and rational about the fate of the latter question if the answer to the former question is not dealt with. That is to say, if parliament does not have the lawful constitutional right to submit the people of the UK to increased European rule, and yet it tries to do so anyway, it simply doesn't matter whether further integration is a good thing or a bad thing. The people of the UK will have been betrayed, and treated as the property of an elite political class. their rights to self determination, such as they are, will have been traded away by a bunch of politicians.
nemo dat non quod habet. You cannot give what you do not have.
If this principle of law is ignored, and is seen to be held in contempt by Parliament, I cannot imagine the matter can end well.
And that leads me to suspect a logical flaw in the plans of the EU integrationists. Ergo:
In order to create further integration, the EU must erode the constitutional rights of members of nation states to self rule. Thus, no matter what the perceived or actual benefits to the people of europe, they must surrender political rights of self determination in order to receive the benefits of a more powerful EU.
Now if this process of surrender is not voluntary, and is not completely transparent and imbued with goodwill, I do not imagine it can possibly succeed. In my experience people have very few political rights to self determination, and they give them up like a healthy dog gives up its dinner.
Now my own view is that people should have more rights to self determination, right down to the community level. However, the comments I have made here do not concern that question. I am merely pointing out that, as a matter of logic, those who profess a desire for further integration of the european people, via the parliaments of the member states, must accept that they are asking the people to surrender what scant rights they already possess. Without being asked. In short, they are asking ruling political parties to give up these rights upon behalf of the populace.
Now, is that sensible? Is that a likely prospect? Would you invest in that scheme?
Sooner or later, the people must be asked about giving up their rights to self determination. If it is later, I see no point in discussing the desirability and benefits of further European integration.
Complain about this comment
DetritisTendonitis;
"The moderators here have zero sense of humour."
We are NOT amused :-)
Complain about this comment
#123 SuffolkBoy2
You're confusing England and Britain again (and forgetting about NI).
You must be some form of Quisling against the UK (not that I disapprove of that, you understand).
Complain about this comment
By the way, has anyone else noticed that Mr Mardell is collecting an album full of Sarko-fantastic photographs? We keep getting graced with new angles and expressions of the great man.
My compliments to the photographer for this blog, by the way. Really good work. I especially liked the one where Madame Merkel, Sarko and some nameless EU drone from sector B are peering over a document, looking like they are REALLY concentrating.
Yeah, right. Sell me a war.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
But have the French been caught with their pants down? On this situation, so far, Yes...But, I think the French government has a valid point regarding the protection of its rights over Renault (Car Maker)....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
The French government is intentionally seeking to damage Central European countries during the Great Recession. My comment which called for a general boycott by the Central European population of products and services made in France or made or marketed by business controlled by French capital or by their business partners that substantially rely on French suppliers as well as a generalized boycott of the French culture, media, entertainment and language has been referred for moderation and I assume that, unless censored, it will stay there until this thread will become irrelevant.
Someone who would be paranoid might wonder what, if any, is the involvement of our French friends, who control the EU, in the moderating process on this website. I would consider it inappropriate to suspend the new contribution as it seems to be entirely politically correct. I admit that the fact that France owns nuclear weapons while most other European countries are banned by international law from acquiring them is only remotely (if at all) relevant, to the topic at hand (although it is a fact which illustrates the privileged position of France in the existing world order - please correct me if I am wrong). The hidden reference to certain amphibians was only jocular, had no information value, and risked causing a level of offense which might outweigh its entertainment value.
Complain about this comment
Well, there's been a lively response from a few of us on the Directive issue.
Some find the Angling Club a worthwhile venture and some, like me, an unwelcome intrusion on an activity that's been going on for time immemorial.
How much can the EU enforce its rules on UK/England? My final thoughts on this aspect with regard to my 'one-size-fits-all' viewpoint and others' responses:
#80, 119 & 121 deanthetory
#122 & 124 threnodio
#125 oldnat
is a sort of rhetorical question, "If a Directive is a Directive isn't that a Directive?"
Complain about this comment
#125 - oldnat
"I suspect (with no evidence at all!) that many people across the EU would opt (if their national governments allowed them to) for a real democratic EU wholly responsible for certain issues, while nations looked after everything else".
I suspect you are right - which begs the question of whether Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are nations or merely components of the UK project. As I have said before, Britain is hardly qualified to tell the EU what to do until it has resolved the matter of its internal arrangements.
#126 - democracythreat
"The former asks whether the parliament has the power under an unwritten constitution to push the UK towards further European integration."
Unquestionably yes. Parliament is sovereign - it can do what it likes and, apart from occasional trips into the open uplands of democracy at election time, there is sweet damned all the people can do about it. The answers to your other questions flow from this one fact.
and at #129 -
There is a subplot here gathering evidence that there is at least one pair of ears in Europe bigger than Obama's. Do they work? That's the question. The 'nameless EU drone'is Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, a very effective communicator and fluent anglophone.
#131 - oulematu
There is no malicious intent in the French approach to eastern Europe. They have simply changed gear into pragmatic mode. Perhaps they have been a bit more upfront about their protectionist agenda but they have a domestic political agenda to consider. It will be interesting to see if the Commission has the real power and the determination to contain it. Boycotting French goods and services will only make for confrontation and their market penetration into eastern Europe is not as significant as you might think.
Complain about this comment
I don't think Sakozy's any better or worse than anyone else as regard protectionism. He's just clumsy enough to misunderstand the legal semantics required.
Mark, i've yet to see on the beeb, the just released findings of the EC commission into the war in Ossetia last year, firmly nailing the Georgian president as the culprit. Given there's a lot of news outlets already publishing this info, why not the "European' arm of the Beeb?
Complain about this comment
#132 - ikamaskeip
If the guard catches you having a crafty cigarette on the train, he has three options - issue you with a notice to go to court, chuck you off the train or resort to violence. Since you can't chuck someone off a speeding train, you have to wait for the next convenient stop when I decide whether to go quietly or wait for the guard's cavalry to arrive. While all this is happening, the train isn't going anywhere.
That, broadly speaking, is where we are. Yes, a directive is a directive. What are you going to do about it, start a war? This is what is wrong with the whole system. Everyone is trying to throw their weight about but no one has a mandate.
Complain about this comment
The French agenda includes control over the EU, forcing other countries to approve EU rules defined by France and exercise of the enlarged EU powers in the best interest of - France. If the French EU agenda prevails, that makes the EU not a good sell for anyone else in Europe. I will be happy to see the European Commission order France to fully retrieve the unlawful subsidies paid to the likes of Renault but until that happens I cannot trust the EU and each euro of my money spent on French products or services is one euro too much. The thing is, unlike Russian gas, French businesses do not sell anything that would be difficult to give up. I agree, it would be more reasonable to have a pan-European response to the Great Recession crafted in the best interest of all Europeans, but, hey, until that happens, confrontation is probably not a bad idea.
Complain about this comment
#125 - oldnat
"I suspect (with no evidence at all!) that many people across the EU would opt (if their national governments allowed them to) for a real democratic EU wholly responsible for certain issues, while nations looked after everything else".
I agree, as this is the basis of what i proposed in the previous thread, and if i can agree to it then geez most people will.
A wise man one said about written law "if a man can not remember the laws then he has too many."
"A constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
Complain about this comment
#137 - WhiteEnglishProud
I cannot give you chapter and verse but I believe I am correct in saying that there have been no fewer than 3,500 new offenses put on the statute books since Labour took office. This has to be a deliberate exercise in confusion with the side effect of creating thousands of unnecessary 'jobs for the boys' and the result is the systematic erosion of the very liberties of which you write. For heaven's sake get the UK right. Then you have the moral authority to start on Europe.
Complain about this comment
#136 - oulematu
They cannot control it on their own. They need allies which recently they have found in Spain and the Benelux countries but at the heart of it lies the Paris Berlin axis which is looking decidedly shaky.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ 138
My fault i meant to change the focus of the two quotations onto the UK.
You know i feel the UK is morally bankrupt and unfit for purpose.
Complain about this comment
You know i feel the UK Systems of Government is morally bankrupt and unfit for purpose.
Complain about this comment
*Government are morally *
Complain about this comment
The alternative to stay out of the Union, and UK is actually a member, is to make the inner market work.
It has not been established so far that France actually violates the rules of the inner market but if it does, and I can assure everybody this is a concern of many capitals in Europe, the next question to Europeans in favour of the inner market is, if France will withdraw its measures and if not how the EU can bring the violation to an end.
We have many other questions to the French government, but in the end I'd like to see the inner market function to the benefit of everybody.
Mathiasen, Berlin
Complain about this comment
132. ikamaskeip
Further integration is reguired in order to maintain the European Ideal. And it may also be possible to issue directives at a general EU level, yet still accomodate the requirements of individual EU member-states.
Only through compromise, harmony and consensus building can we possibly hope to hold firm in our belief in a Europe no longer torn apart by protectionism and war.
If the French are a threat upon our EU, then they ought to get reprimanded by an active and involved UK- and allies. The UK and the eastern member-states all realise that the EU despirately needs constitutional reforms, and this should happen at the appropriate pace of change.
Radical change tommorrow only ever leads to Robsperrian logic of "you today, me tommorrow". Erog, avoid anything that might further inflame public anger, maintain the course of reform through consensus, no one must be left behind when we reform the EU institutions. There must be no two tier EU.
Complain about this comment
#126 - democracythreat
"The former asks whether the parliament has the power under an unwritten constitution to push the UK towards further European integration."
Threnodio replied:
"Unquestionably yes. Parliament is sovereign - it can do what it likes and, apart from occasional trips into the open uplands of democracy at election time, there is sweet damned all the people can do about it. The answers to your other questions flow from this one fact."
Well, clearly parliament can't do whatever it likes. For example, if parliament were to pass a law requiring the extermination of all children under four years of age, that wouldn't fly. The courts would declare the law invalid, and the police would refuse to enforce it. You'd hope the army would also refuse, but that body is conditioned to follow order blindly, so maybe they would do as they were told. But if the judiciary and the Queen stepped in, and told the army to stand down, they would not enforce such an edict by parliament.
There is also the principle of logic: one parliament cannot bind future parliaments. Thus, no parliament can make laws that restrict future parliaments from making laws. If they could, parliament could no longer be said to be sovereign.
Now that is the position of the case law, as it stands, in the UK. Yes, the courts have agreed that the UK parliament can pass the Human Rights Act 1998, and whichever other acts it pleases, which incorporate EU law into UK law.
But this does not mean that parliament is proscribed from overturning such laws. If a future parliament were to repeal the HRA 98 and membership of the EU, the courts would uphold its decision.
This is an interesting debate, because I suspect that much of Europe, most especially the people who staff the EU and who clamour for ever greater union, are under the same misconception as you are, threnodio. They, like you, think parliaments of member states can give away powers that they do not in fact possess.
I believe that it is precisely this conflict between understandings of national sovereignty that is being expressed by the current freeze in the EU, and the growing sense of conflict between the people who identify with their nation state, and the EU evangelists.
The EU folks think they can buy off the parliaments of european states, and thereby buy the people. They simply fail to realize that parliaments do not have good title, and cannot effect a legally binding sale of what they do not own.
Complain about this comment
to threnodio, #139
It is hard to say if France can or cannot control the EU. We will best see that from the steps which will or will not be actually taken by the European Commission against France. Ordering France to recover their unlawful subsidies would help reduce the impression that double standards apply in the EU, namely those for ordinary member states and those for France which on the one hand defines EU rules and forces other states to abide by them, but then does not feel bound by them. I suspect this is the main reason why state aid rules are so notoriously vague. They are not really legal in nature, but political, so that powerful member states can easily manipulate them.
In the meantime, the population of Central Europe should try to focus the minds of our French friends by launching a massive boycott of all products and services made by business owned or controlled by France or French capital including their local subsidiaries. Perhaps French politicians will then ask themselves whether these costs are worth the marginal benefits achieved through the creation of 400 jobs in pursuit of the domestic agenda.
PS, I have to be careful here not to say something unruly, or else I might get censored again :-)
Complain about this comment
#142 WhiteEnglishProud
*Government are morally *
Now that HAS to be an oxymoron!
Complain about this comment
#145 democracythreat
You have to separate the constitutional position, and the technical ability for Government to carry it out without provoking a revolution and having the constitution changed violently.
Even in your extreme example, threnodio is absolutely right.
Under the English constitution (which de facto though not de jure extends throughout the UK) Parliament is constitutionally capable of passing such a measure, while simultaneously legislating that all existing laws, treaties and international conventions prohibiting it were null and void.
That it could not enforce its legislation, is entirely another matter.
Complain about this comment
#145 - democracythreat
Obviously I did not mean that a parliament could expect totally irrational and outrageous measures to be enforced. I assumed that was obvious. Clearly not. Neither did I at any point say that a subsequent parliament could not amend or repeal. What I meant by 'do what it likes' is that there is no authority which can dictate what they may or may not enact into law and, yes they can enact anything they like. I am open to correction as the law may have changed over time but I do not think there is anything the courts can do about it. The monarch can, of course, withhold the Royal Assent.
You are right about it being an interesting argument and I am not at all sure that I am under a misapprehension. It has never been tested and with no codified constitution, there is no concrete mechanism. For your part, you seem to set aside the long standing convention of treaties being binding on future parliaments unless there is a significant change of situation which renders them void or voidable. The British relationship with the EU is governed by treaty.
Parliament can certainly repeal the enabling legislation which brings a treaty into effect but that amounts to unilateral repudiation of what is in practice a contractual relationship. In so doing parliament puts the nation in the situation of breach of contract. It seems to me that we are hypothesising about something which in practice would not happen. The EU is not going to raise an army and storm the beaches of Kent in order to enforce a directive and the UK is not going to throw all it's toys out of the pram and drift off sulking into the Atlantic. Whatever is decided will eventually be the subject of negotiation. It may be acrimonious but not confrontational.
So Parliament can indeed do what it likes. The question is whether anyone will take the blindest bit of notice. You write that 'parliaments do not have good title' which may or may not be correct depending on the constitution of the nation it serves but in the British case, if parliament as the supreme law making body does not have title, who does? Ultimately this is the dilemma. If sovereignty was vested in the people, there would be no question but it is not. It is evident to me that the buck starts with Parliament. I would be interested to know where you think it stops.
#146 - oulematu
I don't know about all of central Europe but in Hungary, you see the odd Renault or Peugeot and some of the bottled gas is French. There are decent wines and cheeses locally and the fois gras is better. To be honest, short of banning YSL and Asterix comics, I am not sure what to boycott.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio commented:
"Parliament is sovereign - it can do what it likes and, apart from occasional trips into the open uplands of democracy at election time, there is sweet damned all the people can do about it."
and
democracythreat replied
" clearly parliament can't do whatever it likes."
You spoil your argument, democracythreat, by extending it to the ridiculous and then, quite rightly, demolishing the ridiculous. Now look at what this government has done and is doing by small incremental steps. No single step arouses sufficient ire as to make the people rise up. Acting this way a government can, over time, do anything it damned well pleases.
Complain about this comment
" 129. democracythreat:
My compliments to the photographer for this blog, by the way. Really good work. I especially liked the one where Madame Merkel, Sarko and some nameless EU drone from sector B are peering over a document, looking like they are REALLY concentrating."
Oh dear, your "nameless drone" looks to me very much like Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister who, prior to her appointment was ranked by Forbes Magazine as "the 30th most powerful woman in the world".
I think that you'll find that the lady's achievements far outshine your achievements as they do mine.
Complain about this comment
threnodio and #135.
Excellent line in railway cuttings: Tony Hancock would have enjoyed it. Couldn't fault your logic.
deanthetory and #144.
"...concensus... for the European ideal.."
Whatever 'ideal' the Europeans on the mainland have in mind is entirely upto them; it is for the electorate of Europe to decide whether or not that 'ideal' is their solution to Europe's issues.
However, as the Citizens of UK, especially England, have expressed time and again in surveys/polls over the last 27 years since PM Thatcher signed Maastricht a majority seem very unenthused by that 'European ideal' I do not believe there is any concensus this side of the Channel for a 'Federal EU project' to continue to make any contribution in the British Isles. At least, not until the issue of England's membership has been resolved once and for all.
The present 'protectionist' spat with President Sarkozy is just one small part of the immense reservations any sensible UK Citizen would have about this overmighty, unwieldy, venal, undemocratic organisation. A body you and the pro-EU lobby try to validate and in the same moment admit, "..the EU desperately needs constitutional reforms.." and "..no one must be left behind when we reform the EU institutions.."! Yet, in this same Blog debate you were arguing 'Directives' etc. are not this EU's "..attempt to thrust a one-size-fits-all on member nations.."!
So, the "constitutional reforms" you write of are actually just benign little tweaks of the overall perfect body? They are not further steps towards total fiscal-economic-trade-judicial-social-military integration?
My ideal would be for the UK and England in particular to step back from all that idealistic reformist effort: Let the rest of mainland EU take the noble path to federal nuptials. In the old english, I'd rather we hung around in the bell ropes, afterall, no harm in postponing a wedding if both partners really want to be sure they are doing the right thing, is there!?
oulematu and #146.
It is not hard at all to speak of France's position within the EU.
France with Germany conceived and formed the EU. The EU is Paris-Berlin with occasional blandisments to Rome and the BeNeLux so as to ensure their subservient nature. Without France or without Germany there would be no EU.
Without the UK, or especially England, the EU would go on regardless. England does not need the EU and the EU most certainly would do well to be rid of England.
I wish its (EU) populace well, although I know from history it is a malign invention and an institution that ultimately will always lead in some modern form to le Guillotine and Robespierre. Ghoulish in the extreme? Well, when 350,000,000 (that's minus the English, you understand) Citizens of 27, 28, 29 and above nations find common cause do let me and the other doubters know. The lesson of history is not so much that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past but that the mistakes of the past will always return to haunt and provoke from us unimagined retribution.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot wrote:
"Now look at what this government has done and is doing by small incremental steps. No single step arouses sufficient ire as to make the people rise up. Acting this way a government can, over time, do anything it damned well pleases."
I see your point, but I was not talking about the people rising up. I am deeply skeptical of this notion that people rise up, unless it is to change the TV channel, or get another beer from the fridge.
I was talking about the balance of power between the executive, the judiciary and the parliament. Parliament can't do whatever it wants, because the executive and the judiciary have vested interests to protect.
Sure, I used an extreme example, but it is not without historical precedent. Such laws have been passed in the past. never under the westminster system.
Now maybe the judiciary and the executive will allow britain to be horse traded away by nu-labour, but i strongly doubt it.
I doubt the tory party will survive if it abandons it support from the executive and the judiciary in wider society, and indeed I suspect that this is why the tories have broken with the CDP of continental Europe.
But, anyway, you might be right. You and threnodio both. I suppose it is entirely possible that the UK will watch with merry distraction as their ancient independent culture is slowly enveloped by the EUSSR.
After all, I'm not sure I'd be so proud of the UK that I would rise up to save it. The peerage and scandalous behaviour of the bankers is enough to make anyone wretched, and wish for another Uncle Joe to come along and bring the red terror to the top end of town.
Complain about this comment
By way of an side, does it not strike anyone as ironic that, on just about any political topic you care to mention, the people are crying out for answers. On the one and only subject where they really want a question, no one is prepared to ask it.
On that cynical note, I bid you goodnight.
Complain about this comment
on a "doubleside" note :o), purely symbolically, a kind of a gas related scandal again today. Apparently there was a meeting in Brussels set to discuss gas safety for Europe, and do something ab it. There were 3 sides. EU, Ukraine and Russia, or at least Russia had one such a wrong idea as was invited. But on flying in Rus. delegation discovered they were invited as "peaceful watchers" LOL, were not meant to be part of the discussion. The agenda was "reaching a EU-Ukraine" agreement (has been reached, with two effects. 1./EU will take part in Ukr. gas system fixing and modernisation 2./ Ukraine institutes some unclear to me yet "sovereign consortium as gas supplier."
By all TV looks full of indignation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs published smth in 2 hrs' time, Medvedev with big offended eyes, Putin calling it "unprofessional" approach, we are offended that the EU was kissing and embracing Ukraine as if nothing happened in February. Ukraine was enjoying being kissed and embraced, LOL, saw their President-PM pair giving smiles and nods left and right, and pretending these two are a happy family. Putin said if the new Ukr. "sovereign consortium" in the new "sovereign" manner will increase transit tariffs in breach of the contract we just signed - gas prices for both Ukr. and EU will go up. Nobody here seemingly understands what's this new "sovereign" Ukr. state of "gas distributor" would mean. Puzzled.
I understood 2 things only. A. Could be Ukraine finally put 2 and 2 together and decided it's not going to be US owning and fixing their tubes, but EU. (reasonable. at least - locals)
B. The EU put stakes on Ukraine as future transit tube to Europe - over various N. Stream/South Stream approaches. That's why Putin angry.
Said like, "all eggs into one basket - Ukraine. and was it long back we heard of need of Nabukko explained as need to diversify."
And "when we asked EU a week ago if they'd like to participate in that 5 bln loan that Ukraine asks Russia for - EU said "We have no money for Ukraine". But to invest in their tubes - EU suddenly has.
Overall I didn't get the clear idea of the happening yet, the fact is Rus. delegation left the conference offended, stood up left the hall demonstratively in protest, and the talk here is "well if they discussed their gas security arriving via Ukraine without Russia - we can't forbid them of course." :o)
Complain about this comment
but then of course to be offended by EU kissing and embracing Joushenko, one has to be sure as we are, that he put obstacles into the wheels, in February, and blocked the traffic. Since EU can't figure out seemingly who of us it was, or don't want to know - they don't understand what Russia got so inflamed about.
Complain about this comment
Well alice, tymoshenko has been taking too long to get rid of Joushenko. Maybe she has missed her chance?
If joushenko can get the money flowing in from the EU, he is going to be able to buy support. Meanwhile, russia has to explain how they are Ukraine friendly when they want to send gas via the nord stream. Not so easy.
Poor Ukraine. They have inherited the polish position of being in between europe and russia.
Well, we can only wait and see what happens. Russia is in a bad position, however. It can't hurt the Ukraine economically without hurting itself economically. It needs to sell gas because not enough of the russian economy is developed outside the energy sector.
Complain about this comment
#49, Buzet23
If you jsut bother reading the Economist blog, you will see them exactly confirm my previous post
Unfortunately I can't add the link, otherwise I would get censored.
Complain about this comment
@157 democracythreat, fully agree with your conclusions. Now the comment appeared on BBC
"Key among Ukraine's promised reforms is the independence of the authority in charge of the pipelines from the state-owned energy company Naftogaz, which one Western banker described as a big black box where money just disappears."
Which means Joushenko-president won over Timoshenko, and her Gazprom-Naftogaz contract. Finally concluded in battles in February.
"the independence of the authority in charge of the pipelines"
as elegantly described, must mean a new gas structure to be created in Ukraine, under Joushenko's supervision. And that new company will get
"Ukraine has signed a deal with the EU in Brussels paving the way for $3.4bn (£2.4bn) of Western investment to upgrade Ukraine's gas pipelines." - 3.4 bn, as a start up enterprise.
No wonder we are hysterical then; having just signed a long-term contract with Naftogaz (and Julia behind it) - Russia will soon have to sign a new deal, with the "new authority", and president Joushenko behind it. Surely as EU gives money to finance the new structury, it will appear shortly, claim tube network from the current owner (Naftogaz) - and declare all Naftogaz contracts - void.
Note - the EU own hands' making. (simply that I wouldn't have to explain this again later :o), in the new gas winter to follow.)
Chances that we sign a thing with Joushenko - nil. Well, unless he copies the old conditions, from the Naftogaz-Gazprom deal, onto the new contract draft. Which he most likely won't, but will start negotiating anew.
I think Europe should really be forgetting about Russian gas and hysterically pile up wood stocks or whatever for the next winter.
We, on the other side, should urgently learn to live without 30% of the state budget, and build liquid gas condensation factories like mad, as China and Japan both accept liquid forms and have facilities to "un-liquid" them back into a normal gas.
All sad, but you really can't plan to hold Russia hostage by means of Ukraine. Long-term such planning doomed. We will overcome some day. :o)
Note how non-challantly the Russian concerns are mentioned in the article. "Later, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said the agreement was unilateral and gave it cause for concern."
This does not reflect the level of alarm the new EU-Joushenko created baby caused here. Oh well.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio, # 149:
By way of example, retail customers can focus on the local units of Renault, Peugeot, Michelin and other car companies, cosmetics, magazines, Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, Auchan, Carrefour, Danone, Pernod Ricard, Sanofi, Veolia, France Telecom, GDF, Total, Orco, Sodexho, Accor, Hachette, airlines companies which operate Airbus planes. Please note that they sometimes operate under local names or through local suppliers. Sneaky, isn't it? The good thing is that most people do not really need any of these products, it is not like trying to boycott Microsoft or Gazprom. Refraining from seeing the latest subsidized yawn-inducing film trash and replacing a trip to Cote d'Azur by Balaton can also help.
Of course, all of this is intended only on the best friendly terms, there is no malicious objective, the only goal is to get EU integration back on its track in its response to the Great Recession, which needs to be in the best interest of Europeans as a whole and not only those that are covered by Sarkozy's agenda. Liberte, fraternite, egalite pour tout le monde, nos amis!
Complain about this comment
Well, you can call it Protectionism if you want. French State commitment saved French industry contrary to UK, France still have carmakers.
Complain about this comment
And, technically speaking, Russia will have to negotiate a new gas transfer deal with Ukraine. Ukraine is its own master, can cancel its gas structures and change its presidents like gloves, if it wishes - every other day. And every time - a new organisation to sign a gas deal with. And new people at power to agree with.
Such is the nature of a transfer/buffer country. They are an in-between structure, by nature, standing betweem Russian gas and its end user (Europe). Ukraine is one such, and Belorussia is one such.
Now, there is simply a conflict of interests.
Russia's interest is to eliminate in-between structures, and to sell gas to Europe by direct pipes. A./ Saves money paid for the transit B./ Takes out Ukraine and Belorussia of the Russian hair.
Even in the best shape, so far, of a transfer country (Belorussia) - make no mistake, they milk us for the tube. 4 bln dollars exactly Lukashenko has got by fact "in aid" during the past 3 months. For being "the only reliable tube to Europe", a special status. LOL.
Sure thing we are to expect him in Moscow with a hat in hand next week again. His "the only reliable tube to Europe" status has reached new heights, since yesterday's conference. And will have to be "valued" adequately, no doubt.
Ukraine might vote its President out of power at their next elections, but this really doesn't matter. Whoever will rule them will always want money for gas transfer.
So, it's in Russian interest to go to the consumer straight.
The EU priorities seem to be
1./ Keep Russia at bay. By political and economic means. To have a handle on us, by controlling our income. When you invest in transfer country pipes' network, you demonstrate you wish to be supplied long term via that network.
Practically, EU yesterday showed it choses the supply routes for itself, the preferred ways EU wants to be supplied by Russia. Without taking Russia's interest into consideration, as we were not formally consulted (in the result of which Russian delegation stood up and demonstratively left the hall). It's a bi-lateral deal, EU-Ukraine, Russia has got no say in it.
The attitude is telling, no curties and even face-cover attempts, "Russia you've got nothing to do with it. We will decide for themselves how we want to be supplied by you."
Well, EU is also a sovereign kind of combination, who dotted i-s and crossed t-s yesterday. Morally we are free now of obligations to take EU interests into account as well. I think it's important to mark this at this stage. What goes one way returns another. A buyer doesn't care for supplier interests - supplier won't care for buyer's interests.
"Co-operation" and "good-will" in the gas sphere is emty air shaking from now on.
2./ I still think EU has some "energy security" issues in mind, but these are definitely viewed as a second priority, compared to the importance to control Russia's income.
I am sorry but it is a very fancy idea to stake one's energy supply on the combination Ukraine and Nabukko.
The February gas cut didn't occur because of the bad state of Ukrainian pipes. Otherwise it was very supernaturally cured in 7 hours when the deal Julia-Putin was signed. No amount of fixing Ukrainian tubes will take away sudden Ukr. authorities desire to re-negotiate the deals. Any time they please. That said, fixing the old tubes is never bad of course.
And surely EU sees it "it's better we fix them and own a share than US fixes them and owns a share to say nothing "if Russia fixes them and owns a share". I think the EU viewes its yesterday deal as a kind of victory over US interests, and possibly Russian interests. The last is funny, as we don't desire neither to win nor to fix their tubes; routes via third countries are viewed as past, not worth the candle. This view existed all along but following February gas war it simply flames in capital letters.
Frankly speaking I don't know how to reconcile EU interest to have Ukraine and Belorussia milk Russia, and Russian interest not to be milked by these two.
For certain EU has become a troublesome customer, who has a lot of free hand in Russian affairs. With the clear ability to influence buffer/transit countries both politically, by supporting leaders there it likes, and economically - by supplying money. And thus equipped with ability to influence decisions re gas transfer conditions and prices , taken by these countries.
We depend now on EU not only as a customer, but also as a transfer route, in other words. From the chain customer-transit country-supplier
the EU now controls 2 stages. This is victory for the EU, and loss for Russia, as distribution of weight has changed.
Here again - what goes around comes around, surely Russia feels sovereign not less than the EU, and will take measures to protect own interests and not be controlled by the consumer to such an alarming degree. To re-balance the weight in another direction.
What is fair for one side - protect own interests, is fair for the other - protect own interests. Pity this battle for the weight shift will pass now in no-trust and no good will environment.
Complain about this comment
I think we need a new customer.
Complain about this comment
But who?
This is what the OPEC nations said about the USA after the USA reduced its oil consumption in the 70's, because OPEC held them to ransom. And, not surprisingly, there was no other customer. The USA was the only economy big enough to demand all the oil from OPEC, and so OPEC ruined its revenue by trying to dictate to the market.
No, russia does not need a new customer. Europe must be the market for russian gas, because europe uses the most gas and has the most money to pay for it.
The way forward for russia is very simple in this case. So the Ukraine is in bed with the EU. OK, cool. NO PROBLEM.
So sell the gas to the Ukraine, and have nothing more to do with the matter. Do not pay the Ukraine transit fees, do not give the Ukraine credit. Make the Ukraine pay up front, and full market price, for every little bit of gas that crosses the border from Russia. Do not deliver the gas until payment has been made. Demand payment in GOLD, not in currency.
Consider what must happen as a result.
The EU will then be totally at the mercy of the Ukraine. The Ukraine can't pa for the gas Europe needs, and so the EU will have to give the Ukrainian government the gold to buy the gas, in advance. And then, from that point on, the Ukraine has the EU by the short hairs. And what will the ukraine do, if they have the EU by the short hairs?
They will pull like hell. They will steal gas, they will steal the money, and they will fail to deliver the gas the EU has already paid for. And then what happens?
Then the EU ends up paying huge amounts of money for less gas, because they have decided to jump into bed with a whore. Well, good for them.
Russia must not make the mistake of thinking that governments can dictate to the market. Russia has tried to play politics with the gas market, and it hasn't worked. Russia tried to get into bed with Ukraine and they have been burned. So let the EU get into bed with the Ukraine. Let the EU subsidize the Ukrainian way of life by paying much more for gas than if they were to build the nord stream.
The one thing Russia can rely upon is that the Ukraine will certainly steal from the EU if they possibly can do so. So Russia must demand all money up front, full market price. In gold. From the Ukraine, NOT from the EU. If russia takes the money from the EU, Ukraine can say the russians never delivered. And there is a dispute between Russia and the EU.
So russia has a new customer. It is Ukraine. Europe is in bed with Ukraine now.
Give the nice wedding present, wish them all the happiness in the world.
But get your money before you send the gas. Then everything will take care of itself.
Complain about this comment
wow. in fact, I heard some ideas before of "selling at the borderline". many a clever head got silly here trying to figure out how to un-figure out this, configuration! so to say. I guess what held us before (and still does) is two prices' set - for "Eastern" and "Western". In fact 18 various prices, but largely falling into 2 categories - higher for the West, smaller for the "ex". But as EU joins up in gas matters - not far is the day when a single "European" claim and offer is made to Russia.
Anyway all know absolutely all about each other, not a secret.
From that point on it becomes irrelevant to who to sell, to Ukraine at its border crossing with Russia, or to 18 customers separately, with Ukr. as a transfer place en route to these 18.
So far, must say, the 18 customers (various European gas companies, the buyers) are still kind of far, LOL, from joining rows. You know, all have own considerations, or may play at some price differencies, they are all quite huge entities, with complex ownership structures or where one's tubes start - neighboyrs' end, overlapping. It's also a knot kind of on the receiving end. Easy to say - "sell to Europe". Europe is not exactly "Europe". All countries (and their gas companies) mind own usiness and keep own reservations.
To be honest I don't think any of them were asked now. They seem to be down to business people, never heard of Gazprom having a problem with gas companies, only with politicians of these companies. Because they also lose money when we don't deliver, all kind of tied. Gasprom received a moral support granted, from gas companies of Europe, during the February disaster over Ukraine. Kind of gas people understand each other.
And even Naftogaz director, after all the swirling like an eel on a hot plate caused to him by his politicians - ended up in emergency state ward in hospital, with a heart kind of break. And was in hospital as min as far back as two weeks ago. Naftogaz is somewhat beheaded, this assisted Joushenko targeting it.
But you are right, if EU and Ukraine politicians clasped at each other "as a newly wed at his spouse", LOL - they become unrecognisable where is what, and selling to one is pretty much like selling to the other. Same board.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is conventional to be sniffy about the French attitude, and there is some validity in it - but how much better that is than the British Government who encouraged us to import Poles to keep wages down and export jobs to China to keep product cost down. At the same time they encouraged the banks to sell all their shares in British Companies (including the Banks and Utility companies) to foreign owners. Now we have no basis with which to fight back and are begging off the world for cash. At least the French still own themselves and can put up a fight - I envy them. We cannot do what the Frencn are doing if we wanted to.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS