It's grim up north
Why bother to vote if you think it doesn't change anything, and politicians are all a bunch of liars? That seems to be the conclusion, depressing for politicians at least, of a survey of European countries ahead of the elections to the European Parliament.
The German-based Foundation for Future Studies (curiously funded by British American Tobacco) has come up with an interesting opinion poll after speaking to 10,000 people in eight of the EU countries.
Asked why the turnout in elections was going down, 60% of those questioned said people thought election promises were not kept (63% in the UK), 49% that numbers bothering to vote had decreased because people felt their vote didn't influence anything (54% UK) and 57% because of general dissatisfaction with politicians and political parties (63% UK).
The interviews were conducted in March, so the greater than average British cynicism cannot be laid at the door of the duck house (MPs' expenses). The question is a little odd, asking people to second-guess the reasoning of others. They were asked their view of why turnout has gone down, rather than their own reasons for voting or not voting. In theory one could be part of the 60% while firmly believing all politicians kept all their election promises.
Still, it's interesting to note that in Spain and Italy, where turnout is higher, there appears to be greater faith in the system and in politicians. There's least in Poland and Finland. Chuck in the UK and it may say more about a characteristic of north European pessimism, rather than southern probity or effectiveness.
And hands up who loves liberty? Ah yes, it goes with equality and fraternity doesn't it? Three-quarters of French agree "the freedom of the individual citizen must be maintained under all circumstances - so long as this does not have a negative effect on any other citizen". Only a third of Brits agreed with this heavily qualified assertion that freedom is, on the whole, a good thing.
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~27~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
If all seventy odd MEP's from the UK were returned UKIP MEp's (I know this can never happen) what would it change? Nothing the UKIP would still have no power to leave the E.U as they would not control domestic policy. I would send a strong message but it wouldn't directly change anything.
I do not believe that the E.U can be dramatically influenced by the election of MEP's. If you want to change the E.U you have to vote for a national party at general election time who wants to reform the E.U.
However the problem with this is that other issues may have higher priority at the time. For example the next UK election will be about the economy and UK Political reform the E.U will be a side show again.
Complain about this comment
In or out of the EU is a national decision for MPs in the House of Commons. But if we are in the EU, then it is MEPs in the European Parliament who determine our laws in those matters where we have common rules for the common market (such as consumer protection laws, trade policy) and on the environment. About ten percent of our laws are decided at European level, so the European Parliament is not as important as the House of Commons, but does matter for those subjects.
The choice in the European elections is between parties who want the common market to have fair rules to protect the vulnerable, safeguard the environment, promote fair trade and protect consumers and those that want to leave it all to market forces with the common market a free-for-all for big companies.
Complain about this comment
I think you might be right, Mark. Countries like Sweden and Finland probably expect more of the EU system than more southerly countries, as concerns transparency, a comprehensible political process, not employing one's relatives as one's assistants etc. Also, there is a feeling that we, as small and peripheral newcomers, can't really influence anything, and that the European project really, deep down, is someone else's project which we have just latched on to. Still, public opinion in Sweden is steadily becoming more pro-European. Most people have now accepted that our membership does more good than harm, or, at any rate, that leaving the EU would do more harm than good. But this doesn't mean that we feel that the EU is functioning well as a democracy.
Complain about this comment
#1
"I do not believe that the E.U can be dramatically influenced by the election of MEP's. If you want to change the E.U you have to vote for a national party at general election time who wants to reform the E.U."
Rubbish, to change the EU you need a strong political base within the EU, the problem is - and this is what sticks in the gullet of those with an anti EU agenda - no single group will ever achieve enough support to make changes on their own and as there are no other anti EU groups...
Complain about this comment
I suspect Mr Mardell you have tried, in the interests of BBC even-handedness of course, to sugar the pill a bit with this Article.
Having read the full Poll article and results they are even more alarming for the EU and 'pro-EU' lobby than you present.
The Poll was of 12,000 Europeans and is a spectacular expose of the unpopularity of the EU and of the collapse in European Citizens' trust in the Political leadership that has brought the EU this far.
Now, Pres Barroso etc. will undoubtedly try to smother the facts in hyperbole about how a more responsive EU is on the agenda and the pro-EU lobbyists will ramble on about UK Local Government elections etc. as if that had anything to do with the reality of this Survey's results.
An honest EU response would be:
1) Did the European Citizens want an EU Constitution? No: So, why have the EU ignored the Referenda of Citizens and introduced mark II, the Lisbon Treaty?
2) Did the Eire Citizens in a Referendum stop ratification of the Lisbon Treaty? Yes: So, why have the EU ignored the Referenda of Citizens and continued to implement Lisbon whilst ensuring a 2nd referendum is held?
3) Did the European Citizens with their voter turnout of under 50% in 1999 and 2004 European Parliament Elections refuse to give MEPs a Mandate to take any legislative action? Yes: So, why did those 2 Parliaments ignore the Citizens and proceed with new Laws and continue with a 'Federalist' agenda of policy initiatives?
4) Did any Electorate of any EU member nation express a clear desire at any ballot box for a European Defence Force, EU Foreign Minister? No: So, why did the EU develop at great cost these twin initiatives without consulting European Citizens?
Of course the list of EU duplicity and undemocratic actions could go on and on and on...
It would be more appropriate if the EU and its 'pro-EU' supporters came clean, acknowledged the above and stated in relation to the Survey results, "So, that is why 'for three-fifths (60%) of EU Citizens, the assumption they are being lied to in election promises'.." and, "..disatisfaction with current policies is running across the social stratum.."
The EU lies to and ignores the Citizens: No surprise at all the Citizens resent the lies and ignore the EU.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated
The point i was trying to make is that voting for the UKIP in an EU election is pointless because "no single group will ever achieve enough support to make changes on their own and as there are no other anti EU groups..."
So we agree
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell: I very seriously doubt that the confidence in politicians is greater in for instance Italy than in northern Europe. It appears to me to be quite a superficial conclusion that would not stand a chance in a scientific survey.
It is somewhat depressing to read the debate here. I believe British media, which all in all are supporting the EU scepticism in the UK, would do better if they concentrated on telling the British audience, why many regions in the EU are benefiting from the cooperation, and why GB is participating in the first place. For the international audience of BBC, this reader included, the question is why leading British politicians at home have been reluctant, hostile or inefficient in explaining the character of the cooperation and their understanding of British interests.
You probably heard the speech by Tony Blair in the European parliament. He earned a roaring somewhat contemptuous laughter when he declared himself a big European in favour of this cooperation. Did he also make this declaration in the UK?
Are there British contributions to the cooperation that the population in the UK doesnt know about (that were hidden), because British governments felt it unprofitable to mention them?
Complain about this comment
#5
"The Poll was of 12,000 Europeans and is a spectacular expose of the unpopularity of the EU and of the collapse in European Citizens' trust in the Political leadership that has brought the EU this far."
Total rubbish, what it's actually showing is the undemocratic nature of the anti EU faction - carry on telling people lies and those lies eventually become 'the truth'...
The anti EU parties don't actually want to be elected or there to be a high turn-out, for either of those things to happen rather proves that democracy works in the EU - it's in their interests to persuade the electorate not to vote.
"1) Did the European Citizens want an EU Constitution? No: So, why have the EU ignored the Referenda of Citizens and introduced mark II, the Lisbon Treaty?"
Err the last time I looked the EU Constitution was dead, replaced by the Treaty of Lisbon - rather proves that they have listened!
"2) Did the Eire Citizens in a Referendum stop ratification of the Lisbon Treaty? Yes: So, why have the EU ignored the Referenda of Citizens and continued to implement Lisbon whilst ensuring a 2nd referendum is held?
Because the EU will survive Ireland's exit from the EU, as for Ireland realising that they are better off inside the EU than out...
3) Did the European Citizens with their voter turnout of under 50% in 1999 and 2004 European Parliament Elections refuse to give MEPs a Mandate to take any legislative action? Yes: So, why did those 2 Parliaments ignore the Citizens and proceed with new Laws and continue with a 'Federalist' agenda of policy initiatives?
On that rational most if not all UK parliaments have been illegitimate (if not illegal) since the 1600s, or is it one rant for the EU and another for UK political system?...
"4) Did any Electorate of any EU member nation express a clear desire at any ballot box for a European Defence Force, EU Foreign Minister? No: So, why did the EU develop at great cost these twin initiatives without consulting European Citizens?
More people in the UK voted against nuclear weapons during the 1980s than for, so why did Thatcher carry on with the deployment of Cruse etc? Again, is it one rant for the EU and another for UK political system?...
Complain about this comment
Mark
Any news yet on a Election Manifesto from Libitas? Or are they still expecting us to vote blind?
Complain about this comment
#6
"So we agree"
No we don't because you don't seem to understand how the EU parliament works, it's not a FPTP 'winner take all' system (like the UK parliament), it's far more democratic - no one party can force any legislation through!
Complain about this comment
#7
"It is somewhat depressing to read the debate here. I believe British media, which all in all are supporting the EU scepticism in the UK, would do better if they concentrated on telling the British audience, why many regions in the EU are benefiting from the cooperation, and why GB is participating in the first place. For the international audience of BBC, this reader included, the question is why leading British politicians at home have been reluctant, hostile or inefficient in explaining the character of the cooperation and their understanding of British interests."
You answered your own question in your second sentence, when the majority and most popular UK newspaper titles are owned by euro-sceptic non UK citizens you start to realise why British politicians are reluctant to show any real interest in the EU - to do so might just result in a loss of support in the press. In the 1980s the 'Sun' newspaper ran a post-election headline after Thatcher was returned to power that proclaimed "It was the Sun that won it", few doubted the truth of the statement...
Complain about this comment
10#
As I understand it no party can even propose legislation they can only amend and debate legistation that comes from the council of ministers.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell: That is not a heavily qualified assertion. There is a difference between complete freedom (which is anarchy) and liberty. If the law allowed you complete freedom to do whatever you want (including things that have a negative effect on others) then you would no longer have liberty, because all your fellow-citizens would have the same power.
The French probably attach greater value to this because the French republic was founded on this belief, which is number 4 in the 1789 "Declaration of the Rights of Man" (just behind "all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation"). Today's political class has forgotten the very essentials of liberal democracy, or preferred to subordinate them to a personal quest for power and perks.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
Complain about this comment
#9
"Any news yet on a Election Manifesto from Libitas? Or are they still expecting us to vote blind?"
http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies
Took all of 60 seconds to find on the internet...
Complain about this comment
#12
"As I understand it no party can even propose legislation they can only amend and debate legistation that comes from the council of ministers."
I don't think that is entirely correct, but even if it's true how is that any different to the UK system, how many UK back-bench MPs get beyond a first reading (outlining a proposal to be brought before parliament formally)?
Complain about this comment
#8, Boilerplated,
So -
###
"1) Did the European Citizens want an EU Constitution? No: So, why have the EU ignored the Referenda of Citizens and introduced mark II, the Lisbon Treaty?"
Err the last time I looked the EU Constitution was dead, replaced by the Treaty of Lisbon - rather proves that they have listened!
####
You are a politicians dream, you listen to what they say and swallow it hook line and sinker, if you think the Lisbon means they listened you are really deluded, even some of the politicians you support so verbally have admitted it was simply a repackaged constitution.
E.G. The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has been changed to avoid referendums.
Valéry Giscard dEstaing
Or to quote from Jens-Peter Bond of Danmark, assertion that the leaders did not know what they had signed up for and had not read it "How can we be sure that none of them had read what they signed? Very easily. The text is quite simply unreadable! In the French version there are 329 A4 pages of different and unconnected amendments to the 17 existing basic treaties. The amendments can only be read and understood if they are inserted at the appropriate places in the 2800 pages of relevant treaties.
That is the only way in which to see what is amended and how. It is only
after a comparison has been made that it is possible to understand the amendments and start to think about the consequences of implementing them. It does not take days but weeks to grasp the whole context, even for specialists."
So if you think they listened, lol.
Likewise your last statement "More people in the UK voted against nuclear weapons during the 1980s than for", perhaps you can remind me just when I voted in a referendum for such a topic as it has to be a referendum since elections are never single issue but a party manifesto.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated
Thanks at #14 i was wondering if Mark would like to comment, as Libitas have been the subject of previous postings.
@15
No-one said that the UK Parliment was perfect or even very good. Hence the need for massive electoral and Political reform here in the UK.
I would admit that the way in which M.E.P's are elected is more democratic than the FPTP system. And @ #11 you say that the media has an anti E.U bias, I would agree with this also. The main reason that the European Paliment appears undemocratic is the massive under reporting of what happens there. The you get a story from Brussels is if some new directive is mis-interpreted and appears foolish or if the P.M of the day is made a fool of by MEP's. (Dan Hannan respect.)
Whether your asertion that "it's far more democratic - no one party can force any legislation through!" is true, is harder to judge. It could be the compromise that suits the Politicians of different Policitical Groupings is so badly watered down it doesn't do the job properly or is unacceptable to everyone outside the halls of power. (aka Lisbon Treaty) For Fedralists it doesnt go far enough
For Euro-sceptics it goes to far
For reformers it cenralises more power without sufficently answering questions about democratic legitimacy.
Its an abortion of a treaty that suits no-body.
Complain about this comment
re #14 and the Libertas site, I just had a look and so far there are few, if any, policy details out there as to what they would do, but I did spot one interesting snip bit which if true shows how Barroso works :-
Call this democracy? Not one vote taken in Barrosos Commission in five years
The unelected President of the European Commission, José-Manuel Barroso, has unlike his predecessors not allowed for one single vote to be taken in the group of 27 European Commissioners.
Mr. Barroso, who has spent much of his current term seeking re-appointment, has imposed his sole authority and agenda on the cabinet of commissioners. From 2004 2009, no vote has been taken on any of the legislation discussed.
All of the Commissioners meetings take place behind closed doors. While the minutes are published, the meeting reports show no record of any discussions held.
Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley said Mr. Barroso is clearly afraid of democracy - both within his Commission and from the people throughout Europe. That he has spent much of his energy campaigning for his backroom reappointment shows that he knows his Presidential future would be short lived if it had to be voted on. Libertas calls for all discussions at Commission meetings to be made fully public, as well as public access to all documents related to the meetings
Complain about this comment
#16
"You are a politicians dream, you listen to what they say and swallow it hook line and sinker"
Err no, I listen to both side, read up on the subject and then make my own mind up - unlike so many who do swallow what UKIP (or worst still the BNP) say, hook line and sinker with their tempting bait attached, as I've asked before - try asking UKIP the "What then?" question - just what will the UK's position in the world be once it leaves the EU, how can you (they) be so sure that the 'Commonwealth' will want to trade with us, how do you (they) know that the EU willl want to trade with us when many companies who currently have factories in the UK will be free to move them east within the EU, how will you (they) know that the UK will not just become reliant on the USA (perhaps that is what those behind UKIP and Libertas really want)?...
There are no easy solutions, pulling out of the EU will not cause some magic solution, even with the so claimed (by UKIP) £40m per-day savings.
Complain about this comment
Bolierplated (19): It is not necessary to be in the EU to have free trade with Europe. Mexico for example has a free trade agreement with the EU / EEA while also being part of NAFTA. It therefore has free trade with north America AND Europe while remaining a democracy not subject to imposed law from Brussels in ever more policy areas. Canada is negotiating the same, and the UK could too.
Complain about this comment
#19, Boilerplated,
For once you are saying something right and I agree, we are entitled to ask the "what then" question and should, but qualified with that is that all the parties involved can give us is a best guess, no one can accurately estimate what could or would happen since there are too many variables involved. Unfortunately that means we can't rely on any of the claims being made from either side. I think that if it ever came to the UK seriously considering withdrawal, one pre-requisite is that talks are engaged with both the EU and various other possible trading partners BEFORE the referendum is held. Hopefully that would remove the 'fear' aspect from the equation and then the population can vote fairly and freely on the merits of the EU. By the way I voted Yes in 1975 and was an active campaigner for a Yes vote in that referendum, but I did not want a Federal EU but rather a Confederate EU where central power was limited to where absolutely necessary and that rests my opinion.
Likewise with Ireland, I detest the fact that the 'fear' factor of the unknown is being heavily used to get a vote of YES in the undemocratic second vote. If the best defence of the Lisbon treaty is fear of the unknown it is not worthy of confirmation.
Complain about this comment
#20
"It is not necessary to be in the EU to have free trade with Europe."
True, but that assumes EU will want to trade with us, and who says that the EU will even allow us to be part of the EEA (even more so should Ireland also go down an exit route)... That is why the "What then?" question is so important (and probably why parties like UKIP don't actually want to give answers), at this moment in time - and until any negotiation are complete - no one can make sweeping assumptions.
Whilst the EU has problems, in my opinion (because so much is unanswered about any exit strategy), the UK is better in than out - but that won't stop someone convincing me otherwise if they come up with proper answers and not just worthless promises or suggestions.
Complain about this comment
"1. At 09:17am on 27 May 2009, WhiteEnglishProud wrote:
If all seventy odd MEP's from the UK were returned UKIP MEp's (I know this can never happen) what would it change? Nothing the UKIP would still have no power to leave the E.U as they would not control domestic policy. I would send a strong message but it wouldn't directly change anything."
The British voting system plays psychological games with the voters. You might think "I want to vote UKIP" but then think "but under the first past the post system they probably haven't got a chance so I will vote for some other party." People from the other major parties will tell you that a vote for Party X is a wasted vote because they haven't got a chance. If UKIP do very well at the "EU" elections they will improve their chances at the national elections. The Tories might also deselect those of their MPs who voted against us having the referendum we were promised and to which we are entitled.
I also think that your comments are an arguemt for the Single Transferable Vote System.
Complain about this comment
That perfidious British press/media must be getting everywhere in the EU with their 'anti' views or how else can I consider the rationale for Mr Mardell and the Survey's results that "..least faith.. in system and in politicians.. amongst Poles and Finns.."?
Curse that Sun, Express and Mail! Exporting all those English distortions about the EU to the innocent, susceptible Citizens of 2 nations that have only been in the EU for a decade or so!
Still, I am quite sure President Barroso, the Commission and Parliament will score resounding democratic victories in the upcoming European Elections with anything up to 40% Citizen participation, thus exposing the deceiful British news organs.
Oh hang on, errr, 40% in Nations that have their own Media that from all accounts are very much pro-EU.
No, hang on, I'll just consult with Barroso: I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable EU take on this which will ignore the facts and ensure the EU goes forward claiming it has full support of European Citizenry.
What do you mean, there is more chance of Finland's 66,000 lakes drying up!?
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated (): Since the volume of exports coming into the Uk from the EU26 exceeds the volume of exports we send the other way it is logical that Continental countries would not want to inhibit trade that is to their net benefit. If we always start from the position that the UK cannot govern itself for fear that this may upset some people in other countries then it becomes a self-fulfilling mindset. Better that we work out what we see as our position in the world, what the world should look like, then go about achieving it. In my opinion we need a world of democratic nations-states, that co-operate by the classical intergovernmental method (as used by all governments outside the EU) and with a world common market administered by the WTO to replace the European single market.
Complain about this comment
I feel so bad: Woe, woe, thrice woe!
Woe: Everything is a "..rant.." or "..rubbish.." or "..total rubbish.." or "..people telling lies.." and all because, miserable sinners that we are, our views on the EU do not coincide with those of Citizens who favour the EU. Especially when our views do coincide with the Survey results!
Woe: The Survey of 12,000 is "..superficial.." and not "..scientific.." whereas, in best EU style of a 'No' means 'Yes', it would have been if the Results had shown European Citizens supported the EU.
Woe: The Survey of European Citizens' views on the EU is apparently a reflection of "..so many who do swallow what UKIP (or worse still the BNP) say, hook, line and sinker.." because those nasty fringe groups have so much influence across the British Isles plus north and south Europe and of course unlike the clever, resourceful 'pro-EU' Citizens anyone who was negative in the survey about the EU is not able to discern the trickery behind their "..tempting bait.."
Truly there are "..no easy solutions.." but a perspective that holds only one side has all the logic, reason, intelligence and vision for the future is exactly why the EU is in such deep crisis with its Citizens.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2
perceptive my favorite PR system is the Single Transferable Vote System because the result of this system means that in large constituencies represented by multiple M.Ps, Voters are likely to get at least one MP from a party they support, and therefore someone who can truly represent them to parliament. There are no list systems where certain members would be guaranteed seats as you get with other forms of PR. Potential M.P's from every party would have to compete again each other as well as those from other Parties. Thus the elected M.P would also have greater clout with the Party, than the selected M.P's have at present.
Complain about this comment
#21
"I think that if it ever came to the UK seriously considering withdrawal, one pre-requisite is that talks are engaged with both the EU and various other possible trading partners BEFORE the referendum is held"
The problem there is, those calling for the UK's exit from the EU are not suggesting that any referendum be held - for example: "The UK Independence Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union" [from a UKIP policy document] - the referendum would in effect be the general election were they either obtain power or hold a balance of power, that is why they need to and should answer these questions before they ask for anyone's votes.
As UKIP actually have MEPs I would be expecting them to be asking some very detailed questions of the EU as to what the EU's position would be (given that it's very unlikely that the EU's policy will change greatly in this respect) should the UK wish to leave, what would the EU's position be on maintaining trade, the UK's membership of the EEA, what would the policy be about border and customs be (in trading terms, would we see the return of the 'TIR' plates on lorries) for example. UKIP should be able to give chapter and verse on all this but all they do is give very vague suggestions about trading with who ever the UK likes - when we all know that trade is a two way process, both parties need to want and be able to trade.
"Likewise with Ireland, I detest the fact that the 'fear' factor of the unknown is being heavily used to get a vote of YES in the undemocratic second vote."
But it was OK to do just that to obtain the 'No' vote?...
One could argue that the first referendum was illegal and void due to the 'fear' factor and irrelevances that were cited as a reason to reject.
Complain about this comment
#25
"Since the volume of exports coming into the Uk from the EU26 exceeds the volume of exports we send the other way it is logical that Continental countries would not want to inhibit trade that is to their net benefit."
Thanks for confirming that the UK has no manufacturing base, so exactly what will the UK trade if outside the EU? Thanks for confirming why membership of the EU is so important... Doh!
Complain about this comment
WHY BOTHER/
I have cast my postal vote in respect of the European Election,for the Party I have supported all my life. But not, I may say, with a great deal of enthusiasm It's not that I don't feel any enthusiasm for the 'European project', or because of the so-called 'scandal of MP's Expenses. No, it's because I feel so remote from the whole thing. Very rarely do I hear or read anything about the work of the European Parliament. The only thing that has filtered through lately concerns the 'Expenses' of European MP's.
I know we are not talking about really big money in comparison to the amounts we will have to fork out for the likes of Sir Fred Goodwin. I suppose it's just the prevailing atmosphere of cynicism, corruption, and hypocrisy combined with a sense that we have arrived at the end of an era. I am sufficiently Hegelian to believe that the dialectic process is already operating to take us beyond this stage of neoliberalism.
So, I think to myself, why do I bother'? Maybe I am becoming cynical... seeing things as they are rather than what they should be.
Complain about this comment
Has it not struck anyone that the more EUsceptic attitudes you report in north west Europe have a striking correlation with contributing nations and those which benefit substantially?
Complain about this comment
threnodio
Yeah it's funny how people object to British money being used to pay for new roads in Spain whilst we have some of the worst roads in Europe. I'm sure people in other countries must feel the same.
Complain about this comment
#30
"No, it's because I feel so remote from the whole thing. Very rarely do I hear or read anything about the work of the European Parliament."
I really don't get that, if this was a real life (person to person) discussion in a cafe or bar then it might be, but this is the internet, how much effort would it take to go and find information about what's happening within the EU - a few mouse 'clicks' - so why don't people do so?...
Complain about this comment
Bolierplated: Different countries specialise in different things. The UK happens to be strongest in financial services, pharmaceuticals, and oil/gas which are not as easily traded as the manufactured goods that Germany, Japan or China specialise in. Therefore these countries look good on measures of international trade. But do not forget that we are richer than all of them so must be specializing in more productive areas even if they are not areas that dominate trade statistics.
Switzerland has a similar economy to that of the UK dominated by banking and drugs companies. And it does very well outside the EU while remaining one of the most democratic countries on Earth. There is no reason why the UK cannot be at least as successful as Switzerland outside the EU.
The biggest obstacle to the future success of the UK is a defeatist mentality that we are perennial losers incapable of nothing except outsourcing our governance to the EU.
Complain about this comment
#32 - WhiteEnglishProud
Exactly. What is your opinion of a club which it cost you a fortune to belong to and what is your opinion of a club which gives you lots of money?
I am not complaining about this or seeking to score points but it is absurd to ask the question across the board and then be surprised if answers vary.
Complain about this comment
#32
"it's funny how people object to British money being used to pay for new roads in Spain whilst we have some of the worst roads in Europe."
But that is not a EU problem (there have been transport links funded or part funded by the EU inn the UK), it's because most of Europe still have a 'can do, will do' attitude to such infrastructure, even in countries that are very eco-aware, the UK always just gets bogged down in the reasons not to do something! Spain (for example) decides that it needs a new road between 'A' and 'B', it not only plans it but builds it before the UK has even made a decision to fund a working group to research if a new road should be built in the UK never mind were it should be built...
Complain about this comment
#28, Boilerplated,
It would indeed be an interesting point if we knew what the reaction of the EU mandarins would be should the UK want to leave, but I wonder whether the answer will be the same before such a vote as after such a vote. I suspect that there would be a lot of huffing and puffing before the vote as no empire accepts the loss of a substantial part of itself, afterwards business and money clicks in and those mandarins would be happy to sell their overpriced, over regulated goods into a market of 60 million. After all they have to replace the loss of the UK's net contribution from somewhere.
#31, threnodio,
You're quite right about correlation in that the more the net contribution status of a country begins to hurt the ordinary tax payer the more they become Eurosceptic. That's the inherent problem of the Socialist dream of redistribution of wealth so that everyone becomes equally miserable, and it's one reason why the current EU model is becoming so unpopular throughout the peoples of the EU and why our leaders are afraid to follow public opinion, they believe in the redistribution of wealth come what may, and we don't since we are more and more struggling ourselves.
PS. Boilerplated, #29, "no manufacturing base" that is exactly the reason why a UK outside the EU has a better chance, it simply needs suppliers rather than having to rely on a market for its goods. Imagine a Germany outside the EU and having to keep its market, that may be difficult, but the UK is a different scenario because it has a small manufacturing base and is not a major exporter.
Complain about this comment
@ #25
You said: "In my opinion we need a world of democratic nations-states, that co-operate by the classical intergovernmental method (as used by all governments outside the EU) and with a world common market administered by the WTO to replace the European single market."
In an ideal world, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, however, we do not live in an ideal world. No European country is big enough (by any measure) to guarantee that its interests are protected on the world stage. Russia, China, the US, and arguably Brazil and India would dominate due to their sheer size alone. And do you believe that they would reciprocate in good faith with Great Britain? I don't. Even the "Special Relationship" with the US doesn't mean anything. I mean look at the Boeing vs. Airbus case at the WTO. The US doesn't give a fig about British jobs (rightfully so). Britain alone carries less clout in the WTO than all 27 EU nations do. Similarly, look at the case of Jonathan Wigley (RIP) a Royal Marine accidentally killed in Afghanistan by American friendly fire. The US has refused to have its pilots give testimony at the inquest. Doesn't matter that the two are allies fighting the same war. Again, look at the problem the UK had in getting the source code for the JSF project from the US (even though BAE is ivolved in deigning it!). I could go on and on.
I'm not using the US as an example to simply bash on it, but because the US is recognized to be the UK's closest ally. Now can you imagine how even more cutthroat dealings with China or Russia, who aren't considered "close allies" of the UK are, and would be?
The EU isn't a perfect institution by any means, but the EU is needed if Europe is to compete successfully on the world stage. Europe wouldn't have an Airbus, Eurofighter, Galileo, etc., which incidentally provide thousands of jobs for Britain, as these companies simply couldn't exist, or be as successful in the world if initiated and backed by one single European country. The EU is needed to ensure that European businesses are successful on the world stage and the EU helps provide a solid front to the world. Otherwise you would simply see a divide and conquer approach by the rest of the world towards Europe (e.g. Rumsfeld's "Old Europe vs. New Europe" for one). The very simple fact of the matter is that a Frenchman or a German actually has more at stake than a Russian, Chinese, or even American does in seeing Britain succeed, and vice-verse.
Complain about this comment
It's grim up north
An application from Iceland for membership of the EU can be a case for the Swedish PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt, when Sweden from the first July is leading the EU. However the tempo can be slowed down, not because of the Swedes, but because major member states have said, they will not accept new members of the EU before the Lisbon treaty has been adopted.
Iceland is together with Norway and Liechtenstein a member of the so-called EES community, which has adjusted most of its legislation to EU. (I wonder if this is attractive for EU sceptics in the UK. Before anybody runs ones of their records with the usual stuff I will ask them to consider how UK can ignore trade and manufacture standards in the EU.)
Since Iceland has already adjusted its legislation Reinfeldt thinks the application process can be ended relatively fast. He is apparently an optimistic man!
Complain about this comment
Mark, I like it how you look criticqally at this poll. I would like to add something. The poll is not necessarily a bad poll, although I agree with you that the question is odd, and in fact invites the respondents to voice their own idea of what is wrong rather than others'.
With a poll like this the questions are, however, always: what are we measuring and to what extent could bias be involved in this research?
These are the European Elections, not the British House of Commons elections, that that makes a huge difference for how respondents SHOULD logically answer. In responding they should formally only take in mind what British MEPs have promised, the influence British MEPs have, and of the general attitude to the British political parties for their European Elections programs. Of course the reality is different and 99% of all respondents does not make that difference between British and European Parliament politics.
In this case, I'm willing to place a bet that the MEPs of the three mainstream British political parties actually did keep the promises they made on prospective European Parliament decisions, do have a reasonable degree of influence.
The frustration of the respondents likely reflects their frustration over how BRITISH politics deals with the topic of European integration, which has formally nothing to do with the European Parliament elections, since the EP has no formal say over the direction of integration: that is the responsibility of the governments of the Member States.
Which begs the questions: did the British government keep its promises, does it have any influence in the EU and how well does it perform in British Westminster politics in general?
The discussion here has often focussed on the promised referendum that wasn't held afteral. The UK took under Tony Blair a fairly central role in the EU. Under Gordon Brown it tends to take a role that is less in the centre of EU decision making and as such likely less influential, although we should not discount the economic influence Brown exerts behind the scenes. Thirdly, the MP's finances schandal is not good for the current British government or any of the other parties in the lower house.
Against that background, it is hardly surprising that respondents responded the way they did. It has been said many times before, but European Elections are not so much European elections, but rather an official nation-wide opinion poll on national politics, of which the national governments European agenda forms one part.
It would be good if voters would actually make the difference between national and European Parliament politics, but I'm afraid that in the current system, this will be false hope.
Complain about this comment
#36 - Boilerplated
You need to make up your mind about this. I have been very critical about all sorts of aspects of governance in the UK but one thing I will not knock is the public consultation process when it comes to major infrastructure projects. It is tedious and long winded sometimes and you will not always arrive at the desired result but it has to be better than sending in the bulldozers and to hell with who or what gets in the way.
Of course you can build a motorway quickly providing you don't care about the people affected.
Complain about this comment
to Mark and 41,
''Information about the research
Countries surveyed: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland
Size of sample: A total of 12,100 persons over 14 years of age
Method: Representative face-to-face survey
Survey period: March 2009''
this intresting opinion poll doesnt show how many did not want to partecipate even in this opinion poll.. does it?
therefore in this EU elections we will have just less than 20% partecipation.. anyway i congratulate them for this poll.
EU is collapsing under its own arrogance, keep it up EUpayrolls,)
Complain about this comment
To summarise: Now that unlimited increases in wealth are coming to an end, states are giving up acting as the providers and distributors for everyone. This has far-reaching political consequences: the state will become less powerful and the bond between citizens and the state will weaken. Politics will once again happen more from the grass roots upwards. This shift in the balance of power will go hand in hand with a loss of importance of parties and politicians. Democracy will become a mutual guarantee society and a movement with a sense of civic-mindedness.
Politics will once again happen more from the grass roots upwards.
----------------------------------------
people are fed up with Politics and politicans..
enough is enough..
we need services, doctors, jobs, investment, knowledge and education, inovation, different skills.. politicans are those who dont want to work, those who try to escape the hard work and want easy money and extravagant livestiles without taking responisbility and not being accountable for their mistakes..
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated wrote: 'Total rubbish'
---------------------------
keep it up, everything against EU is total rubbish.. and what pro-EU payrolls is?
ignoring citiziens opinion is EU elites best sport this days
Complain about this comment
No we don't because you don't seem to understand how the EU parliament works, it's not a FPTP 'winner take all' system (like the UK parliament), it's far more democratic - no one party can force any legislation through!
-------------------
it is the commission
Complain about this comment
#38 - EthanThorn
This is absolutely correct.
It saddens me when reading some of the comments from opponents of the EU that if all the intellectual effort put into rubbishing the EU were directed instead at reforming it, demanding more democratic accountability and transparency and used in a positive and constructive way, it has the potential to be the most enlightened, progressive and dynamic society on the planet.
Complain about this comment
I don't know what so may people are complaining about, it seems to me that the EU is quintessentially European in every possible way. It is antidemocratic, deceitful, was created for a malevolent true purpose, is absurd in its clumsiness and in how poorly its construct was thought out, megalomaniacal, nationalistic in its own strange sense, authoritarian, and forced on those it swallowed up. What more could any European want? Like all other such schemes to unite the impossibly diverse and contrary elements that comprise Europe, it was doomed from the start. But that's half the fun, pretending that somehow it works and will continue to work until it is perfect. One day when it collapses they will start all over again with an entirely new and equally insane scheme. Great entertainment from my side of the pond.
Complain about this comment
dadideks @ 2 Countries like Sweden and Finland probably expect more of the EU system than more southerly countries, as concerns transparency, a comprehensible political process, not employing one's relatives as one's assistants etc.
Hardly: Spain's biggest current political scandal concerns whether a regional grandee paid for his own suits (or got them gifted by an entrepreneur under investigation). At least Spaniards do hold their politicians to quite high standards (whether they remotely fulfill them is an entirely different matter...)
Complain about this comment
EthanThorn(38): The economy of the UK is larger than that of most of the countries that you mention (Russia, Brazil, India) so if they are able to defend their interests then why not us?
The idea that the UK can defend its economic interests in the WTO via the EU has been shown to be meaningless in practice. During the recent WTO trade round we even had a British EU trade commissioner that was not only unable to secure anything in the British interest but actually ended up negotiating in favour of a protectionist agricultural lobby from the Continent to block a WTO trade deal that would have benefitted British exporters of services to countries. Therefore we see that this idea that the EU can better protect British interests in the WTO has no pratical meaning in the real world. It would be have been more effective if a British trade commissioner had participated directly in the WTO negotiations and argued there (perhaps as part of the cairns group) against the protectionist EU farm lobby.
In any case i do not believe that the economic interests of any nation can be advanced by applying tariffs or quotas on the trade of other nations. A single open global market offers the maximum scale and degree of specialisation, which translates into maximum productivity. Therefore we should aim for a global free trade area where tariffs and quotas on trade are prohibited with the WTO arbitrating any disputes. With such a level playing field, all nations large and small, can achieve the same high degree of productivity and wealth without sacrificing their democracy to the supra-nationalism of Brussels.
Mathiasen(39): EU standards are increasingly irrelevant in a global world where global markets need a single world standard. The EU institutions lack the skills to specify how high technology products should work together anyway. Would you buy a video camera designed by Barosso? That is why we increasingly see global standards set by cross-industry fora on a worldwide basis with the role of institutions like the EU reduced to health and safety standards.
Complain about this comment
#42 - karolina001
"Information about the research
Countries surveyed: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland . . . "
Russia and Switzerland? In the EU? Now I KNOW you are taking the mickey.
Complain about this comment
karolina001
I apologise unreservedly.
Having checked the web site, you are absolutely correct but it probably makes the research as reliable as it is useful.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (49)
According to the IMF and World Bank, Russia and India have a larger economy than the UK (GDP PPP), and Brazil isn't too far behind. Additionally, Russia has an abundance of natural resources as well as a greater population than Great Britain. India and Brazil also dwarf Great Britain when it comes to their populations. All three economies have a greater potential than what Britain can hope to achieve simply based on their sheer size advantage (both in terms of population and natural resources). As such they are in a better position to defend their interests in the not too distant future.
I agree with you that the EU has failed when it comes to CAP, and other policies, but there is at least some hope that they're starting to learn from their mistakes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8067527.stm
I've never stated that the EU is perfect, far from it, vast amounts of reform in various areas need to be implemented (i.e. democratic deficit, CAP, Fisheries policy, etc.) But I don't think you can deny that, for example, British aerospace industry would be where it is today if it weren't for the fact that the EU helped foster corporations and projects such as Airbus, and defended as well as promoted them on the world stage. Britain has benefited greatly in terms of technological know-how as well as economically from this, just like Spain, Germany, France, etc all have.
Please don't think I'm advocating tariffs or quotas, since I'm a free-trade man myself. However, I'm realistic enough (as I'm sure you are as well) to realize that countries seldom follow their own rhetoric if it turns out that their economy will suffer from it. Free-trade is a noble ideal, but in a world full of countries with vying interests, it rarely works in practice (at least in its true form).
To summarize, I agree with you that the EU has numerous faults that are sometimes harmful to its individual members. Often though, this is due to the shortsightedness of its own members (I'm not singling Britain out, France comes to mind as well in this matter, especially with CAP). On the whole, though, I believe that the EU is a positive force for its members, and like threnodio stated, simply in need of reform. I also think it is pertinent to keep in mind that the EU in it's present arrangement dates from 1999 with the Amsterdam Treaty, certainly no earlier than 1993's Maastricht. This coupled with the fact that the EU is a unique institution, in both form and scope, means that there are bound to many problems. This is to be expected. But this shouldn't mean the dissolution and abandonment of the EU, instead such problems should be overcome, since I believe the EU is something worth pursuing and ultimately good for the EU nations and their people.
Complain about this comment
Caspar--Heetman and #40.
Always best to Comment when you have read the whole Article.
E.g. "..likely reflects their frustration how British politics deals European integration dealt with.."
The Survey dealt with 8 EU members Nations inc. the UK: In his summation of findings Dr Reinhard is quoted as stating, 'Approximately two-thirds (68%) of Finns and Poles agree with the view they cannot improve anything (in Europe) by voting.."
That from 2 more recent EU members. The UK figures were lower.
E.g. ".. these are European elections.. not British.. should make difference to how they logically vote.."
However, Dr Reinhard conclusions were, '.. A feeling of indifference and resingation isbecoming widespread and confused, and the European Elections (across the 8 Nations of the EU) are regarded as being of no significance..'.
E.g. "..thirdly, the MPs finances scandal.."
The Survey was done before the MPs Expenses claims became news in the UK.
It would seem the anti-EU malaise that so many pro-EU attribute to the UK/England is infact pan-European and the EU has no more support among other European Citizens than it does in the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
#53 - ikamaskeip
". . . and the EU has no more support among other European Citizens than it does in the United Kingdom".
I am sure that is correct. I would also accept that, even if the research had been done after the UK expenses scandal had broken, it ought to have no relevance (although one might see an element of 'all politicians are the same' attitude).
I am not especially enamored of the current structure of the EU and I absolutely agree with those who post that Lisbon was a dishonest way of circumventing accountability. But I also think that no one EU country has the economic, diplomatic or military capability to 'go it alone'. Would it not be better to build a better, more accountable system than to abondon the project entirely?
Complain about this comment
#42
"therefore in this EU elections we will have just less than 20% partecipation.."
Wow, yet another mind reader...
Complain about this comment
Consider if it is not also true that the consequence of very low turnouts lets the heads of state run the EU. It enhanced their power and massages their vanity. Haven't they done well! Virtually no-one votes just as they want so this lets them continue running the place unchecked.
The downside that this committee whose power only comes from their own nations is that there is no check on silly and just plain bad decisions. The committee of heads of state have been too successful for their, and our, own good.
What ever happened to subsidiarity - a silly word - but a good idea that decisions should be made at the appropriate level. We in the UK can't even get it worked out on our island and have to come up with the famous West-Lothian question! Lest us hope that our present parliamentary turmoil produce a sensible legislative structure with national parliaments for each nation in the UK that come together to decide of British issues and then further that the nation states of the EU can achieve a similar settlement call it a constitution if you want, I don't care, so long as the result is efficient, rational and adheres to the ideals of subsidiarity.
Complain about this comment
John fron Hendon (56): subdisarity is a concept that applies only to federal nation states which has no meaning in the EU. The assumption behind subsidairty is that the central authority is the real owner of power and has the right to delegate as much of that powe as possible to local authority. But this is not the case in the EU context where the nation-states of Europe are already the legitimate owners of their own power. A more appropriate rule in the EU context would be that our nation states confer as little power on the EU as possible.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23, @ 37
"finding markets to see"
I think this is correct, esp. now in what is often termed by separate voices as "a classic crisis of over-production". Classic or not, but markets to sell to are going to be deficit to find.
For how long, don't know. Rus. minister of Finance, Kudrin, have recently explained to all of us LOL that "we won't see the condiions favourable as they were during the past decade for fifty years more .
So now all newspapers in Russia are busy to play back LOL the Fin.minister honest revelation. But not very successfully, as every expert they try to question type "Say that Kudrin was wrong! He has always been a strong-fisted narrow-minded boring quiet type finacial guy! How come he dared to speak up at all? Nobody never heard a word from him in public, for a decade! What can he know?" but all the interviewed for the past 3 weeks mumble smth "well, to be perfectly honest.. in fact.. there is something in what he says... well, may be ? 49! years!"
So even our Medvedev seemingly got angry (with failing media attempts to play down Kudrin's forecast) and said smth like "Those who have so poor faith in Russian economy should not work for the Russian economy!" etc. Poor Kudrin. Indeed he never says much, so all wondered when he actually opened his mouth and uttered a quiet phrase. He quietly stuffed up the Russian purse, the security fund, during the fat years, held the strings to it, and bulldoggy held at them, protecting from all in-raids "why won't we spend 10% just on this, only once, this time?"
I don't know how good he is a forecaster, or finacier but as a purse ? eh stuffer he was very good. The expression on his face when Kremlin put their hand into his "security fund" being built "to send of 8 bln to ... freindly country ... 4 bln to ... freindly country " etc. - was - plain un-depictable! Sincere grief and silent suffering of a deeply tortured man. LOL. But he never said a thing, fought kind of under-carpet quietly, for his idea of a fat purse stocking, for a rainy day.
Now there is a rainy day, and must be his stoic indeed reserve expired, seeing how all grab and spend foolishly what he managed to put aside. oateince
Complain about this comment
EthanThorn, @38, wrote that a Frenchman and a German would worry more if something happens to Britain, than, kind of, let's face it, Russia, China, India, Brazil etc. And that only inside the EU Britain can compete sucessfully in the world, backed up by the EU voice.
threnodio @ 46 "this is absolutely correct"
Brasil no idea; India you'd know better again no idea; China won't wink an eye, at anything beyond the wall that does not concern China, in general. Britain just no exception.
Russia would def. sympathise with British people but not British political exerting , how to say, circles. LOL
who have a very powerful say in European external affairs (you're forgetting ab the weight of the British opinion in formulating the, what's "en vogue". when listing Britain's strong sides) and are persistantly and aggressively contra-indicated to Russia's interests. by some twist of the lay-out.
to people we have sympathy for 2ndWW (which factor still counts in our quarters), then language and literature - like everybody else I suppose.
On the European unity, and ability to actually stand for each other, Russians have doubts. Heavily biased doubts, of course, namely - bombing of Serbs. They are inside your Europe. You allowed an outside party to fly over and bomb a European country. Moreover, some took part itself.
For the whatever reasons - that's no go (by Russian mind-set).
When you group and others become "our own" - you don't allow outsiders bomb inside. Wrongly, correctly, democratically, from best intentions - does not matter. At any point someone inside the EU may be suddenly found "undemocratic". What if somebody tells you that XX country is all wrong? And then, what? another blast?
I know that's heavily Russian understanding, may be maximalistic, on the other end of the range, protecting "ours" at all costs - whether they are right or wrong.
But this Serbian affair had diverted Rus. public from the EU ideas very significantly, a big scare. A. (of course) "EU bombs Serbs read slavs read Russians" B. They'd let outsiders punish own folk.
So I think there is a point, that the EU might consider "working on".
Complain about this comment
28. At 1:44pm on 27 May 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
"...
As UKIP actually have MEPs I would be expecting them to be asking some very detailed questions of the EU as to what the EU's position would be (given that it's very unlikely that the EU's policy will change greatly in this respect) should the UK wish to leave, what would the EU's position be on maintaining trade, the UK's membership of the EEA, what would the policy be about border and customs be ..."
I believe that there is no point in asking this question as the "EU" will giver an answer designed to scare.
I accept that the period around our withdrawal could be difficult, but it will be worth it.
My preferred option is to trade with them on the basis of WTO rules and then think about whether to join NAFTA or agree a deal with the "EU" or whatever.
Do they buy oil from us?
I believe that we need a change in our tax system and that that would phenomenal benefits.
Complain about this comment
# 49 Freeborn-John
You wrote: EU standards are increasingly irrelevant in a global world where global markets need a single world standard.
The world is of course not a single market but for your project this is just a detail.
Your problem is the British population and its governments. The UK has since 1973 been a member of the EU and it predecessors, and in this period British voters have elected governments, which have maintained the membership. Your country even pays to the arrangement.
Your job is to explain why this politics has been wrong, and why the voters should vote for other parties than Labour and the Tories. In this process the same people will probably also want to discuss some of the issues mentioned by EthanThorn in #38 and why the UK position in the periphery of the EU is unsufficient for your plans.
You will also have to explain why the definition and the management of British interest by the governments and its advisors in the period since 1973 has been wrong, and why parts of the British press, and I understand this is just a minor part of the press, as well as other parts of the British society, not least in the productive sector, have made the same error.
Then you just have to convince them that your analysis of the future development is better than that of the two major parties and youre ready to leave the EU.
Complain about this comment
61. At 00:27am on 28 May 2009, Mathiasen wrote:
"# 49 Freeborn-John
You wrote: EU standards are increasingly irrelevant in a global world where global markets need a single world standard.
...
Your problem is the British population and its governments. The UK has since 1973 been a member of the EU and it predecessors, and in this period British voters have elected governments, which have maintained the membership. Your country even pays to the arrangement.
Your job is to explain why this politics has been wrong, and why the voters should vote for other parties than Labour and the Tories. ..."
This has been done at incredible length by all sorts of people here and elsewhere. Read the postings of the last few years and you will find it.
We don't have to persuade you.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice
"(you're forgetting ab the weight of the British opinion in formulating the, what's "en vogue". when listing Britain's strong sides)"
True. ricin is "out" of fashion, polonium is "in." Only trouble with polonium was that it left a trail a mile wide back through Germany all the way to Russia. Perhaps Putin's KGB buddies were afraid the west had found an antidote for ricin. It sure took the Brits forever to figure out it was polonium and the French never figured out what killed Arafat. So much for their superior medicine.
" You allowed an outside party to fly over and bomb a European country."
That's not what happend at all. They didn't allow America to bomb Serbia, they BEGGED America to bomb Serbia. The Republicans didn't want any part of it, they said it was not America's problem, not America's fight, it was Europe's. Clinton was approached on bended knee like an anxious bachelor pleading for the woman of his dreams to tie the knot. Only long afterwards does he realize what a fateful mistake he'd made at that moment when it was when it's far too late.
"What if somebody tells you that XX country is all wrong? And then, what? another blast?
I know that's heavily Russian understanding, may be maximalistic, on the other end of the range, protecting "ours" at all costs"
That's not the way it went either. Tens of thousands of Kosovars, Bosnians, Croats and other ethnic minorities had been murderd in a war of genocide to "ethnically cleanse" the area that the Serbs wanted to incorporate in the "Greater Serbia" they were creating. One million Kosovars were driven out of their homes into the snow to try to make their way to refugee camps in Albania. Your Serbian friends were no better than the Nazis. Europe was helpless to do anything about it itself just as it always is. That is why it called on America for help just as it always does. Just once I'd like the White House to pick up the phone and say "Sorry, 1-800-USA-HELP has been disconnected and there is no forwarding number. The last straw came when video of the Kosovar refugees being forced on the trains was shown on TV all over Europe and the world. It took Europe back to the nightmare of sitting by helplessly as the Jews, gypsies, and other untermenchen were being deported to the concentration camps also on trais to be murdered by the Nazis, something it had been trying desperately to forget for over 60 years. That is why it was impossible for Clinton to say no. That and the fact that Greece and Turkey looked like they might be headed towards war with each other over it.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"Mr. Mardell: I very seriously doubt that the confidence in politicians is greater in for instance Italy than in northern Europe. It appears to me to be quite a superficial conclusion that would not stand a chance in a scientific survey."
I don't doubt it in the least. Several remarkable things happens when you cross the italian border, and I am told Spain is similar. Firstly, nobody uses their indicator anymore when changing lanes. Secondly, the dominant racial characteristics of the people change, with less blonde hair and the skin is darker. Thirdly, racism towards people with very dark skin increases in ferocity and frequency. Fourthly, the catholic church is taken seriously by far more people.
Now it is the last observation that leads me to suspect the results of this survey are quite reasonable. It is a fact that when you cross the potato-tomato fault line (olive oil-butter fault if you prefer) people have a far greater tolerance towards complete fantasy and garbage emanating from institutions designed to tax heavily and spend the money for the welfare of priestly figures.
It may suit you own prejudices to imagine that all of Europe is equal, and that southern Europe is every bit as advanced, culturally and scientifically, as northern Europe. Indeed, I suspect that this desire to equate southern Europe with northern Europe is a big part of the hidden attraction of the EU in the south.
However this piece of political sophism denies the history and the reality of Europe, and you should not take issue with the scientific basis of this survey simply because you do not like the results. Put simply, that attitude is wholly unscientific (you make no effort to gather evidence yourself, you just preach that the result is bad) and based in faith.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated, do you think you could preach from just a little further down the mountain?
From your very great height, and with your skills of oration, it is difficult for mere mortals to understand your many fine points.
I gather that everyone who objects to or criticizes the institutions of the EU is a liar and an idiot, and I am wary of missing out on more on your wisdom through inattention. Please post more often, and with even greater social abandon.
Complain about this comment
People don't vote in the UK because we live under an oligrachy. What can you do to change things? Stand as a independant perhaps? But if you did you would never have any real power or even the ability to get things discussed in the commons.
So join a party and change things that way? Well unless you are rich and are willing to lubricate a party members campaign you can forget about that too.
So whats the point? They are all in it together greasing there own pockets creating laws to boost there own business interests and selling ministerial time and commons debate to the highest bidder from the business world. Look what John Major and Tony Blair do for a living now.
There is no point voting, there is no democrasy.
Complain about this comment
#60. SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
"My preferred option is to trade with them on the basis of WTO rules and then think about whether to join NAFTA or agree a deal with the "EU" or whatever."
I don't think you live in Suffolk at all - not even on this planet for that matter!
Your preferred options have the British people in the same position as an impoverished dependent Latin American state - you are prepare to injure your fellow countrymen for generations, if indeed you are British and live in the UK, which I doubt.
A more foolish and stupid and ill-judged and unreasoned set of proposals I have never seen and I am astonished, even from you! Your proposal are a recipe for national suicide!
Complain about this comment
#62. SuffolkBoy2
You wrote: We don't have to persuade you.
Fortunately that is correct. A program of nationalism and market radicalism would never have a chance with me. I suppose you (the so-called sceptics) have more in the bag of the things people with such opinions usually carry around. Taking the house rules of the BBC into consideration I am surprised that anybody under the cover of white English proud is allowed to write here.
The BBC has actually been a model for broadcast companies in northern Europe, and since most people have English as their first foreign language, in many cases as their only foreign language, this blog had the potential of being a place where a European conversation concerning issues of common interest could take place, but it does not work for a number of reasons, and among these is the most important that few Europeans can connect to an agenda of British nationalist issues.
I hardly reveal anything new by saying, I do not expect you to have any noteworthy success with your social experiment: This blog should in general to deal less with these notions. In any case I am confident that it will take some time before the vast majority in the UK and their political representatives change their EU membership in the direction further distance. If it ever happens.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice...
It was NATO, not only US, therefore Russia is not in NATO and Europe, so to say russia has less of a say about European affairs..
When a side wants all democracy for itself, by denying it to others, then they must get their lesson that freedom is for all people in Europe not just serbs. it was a right thing to do, and stop protecting a genocidal ally of russia.. when you are wrong you must not say i am right but accept what is wrong and fix it.
EU is wrong, so it must be fix.. but not by Russians, for sure..
i have said it before that Russia is not a European country..
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb
You right with the Party list system in the E.U elections and Party Selected candidates in the FPTP system in the UK we do live under a Selected oligarchy. Which is given some small legitimacy in that they are rubber stamped at election time by voters. The answer is the Single Transferable Vote system (post #27) of PR with open selection of party candidates (open to everyone in the constituency that wants to get involved.)
Complain about this comment
Ireland has one of the highest turnouts and is unanimously pro EU.
Yet rejected Nice and Lisbon and were forced to vote again 'til we got it right.
This deserves a lot more analysis. Nobody every stops to think that maybe the documents themselves were just rubbish? That the fundamentals of the EU, the texts it runs off, its foundations, were built on blackmail pure and simple. We understand the potential, and achievements and the force for good the EU is. That there is a difference between eurosceptic/anti europe, and anti-*insert name of treaty*. The EU and its parliament desperately needs an opposition for its own sake. There is no democracy without dissent. They should not be swatted away and slandered as if people's opinions, contributions and criticisms do not matter. Even the UKIP MEPs are elected representatives.
EU constitution vetoed by France and Holland. They boasted how Lisbon was designed to be illegible. It was voted down by the ONLY country that gets a vote on it. Shamefully forcing it upon us once again.
Why are they ever puzzled turnout isn't higher? They should be so thankful it is as high as it is.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen: You seem to believe that if British membership of the EEC had advantages in the 1970s then it automatically implies there are advantages to being in a European political union in the future. That ignores the major changes that have occurred both to the EEC/EU and in the world around it since the 1970.
The two major trends undermining the EU are (i) the emergence of a low-tariff global market and (ii) the unmasking of the undemocratic nature of multi-national federalism as it is applied more widely.
The first trend undermines the EU because, although we have not yet reached the nirvana of global free trade, we are not so far from it. The EUs common external tariff is now 0% for services, ~1.9% for manufactured goods and ~10.9% for agricultural products, all down very significantly from the 20-30% levels of the 1970s such that the advantages of being inside the EU customs union have faded. Changes to the structure of the economy reinforce this because the tariff-free services sector now accounts for 80% of UK GDP with agriculture (the only sector where a market distorting EU tariff remains) now employing less than 1% of Britons. We can therefore talk of the emergence of a genuine global common market in which all nations large and small can prosper equally. And this is being achieved without the WTO sacrificing the rule of unanimity that preserves democratic legitimacy at the international level, and without any 'integration by stealth' subplot to build overarching European political institutions.
The second trend that is undermining the EU is the more widespread use of an inherently undemocratic form of governance. The history of the EU since 1992 has largely been to take the institutions and decision-making rules (the 'community-method') designed for minor matters of common market regulation (where democratic legitimacy is not a major concern) and apply them increasingly to politically sensitive areas that have nothing to do with the common market and where democratic legitimacy is essential.
The EU is therefore being undermined by two trends the development of a global market that is causing the earlier benefits of being inside the EU customs union to evaporate like an autumn mist, and excessive interference by the EU in politically sensitive areas that can only be decided within the nation-state because it remains (by virtue of its 'demos') the only arena within which democratic politics is possible. In my opinion the tipping point (when the disadvantages of being in the EU started to exceed the benefits) was reached more than a decade ago but the two key trends i mention are still in play today.
The appropriate response to these trends is to embrace a global common market in which disputes are arbitrated by the WTO, democratic politics within the nation-state, and inter-governmental (not supra-national) co-operation between those states. With Brussels shorn of any economic role the EU project can simply be abandoned as a historical error.
Complain about this comment
A couple of possible solutions to voter apathy and low turnout .....
1) to be valid an election should reach a certain pre-determined level of public participation (like a quoram at a meeting). To enable this politicians would have to be more open, honest, accessible and relevent.
If this percentage of voter turnout is not reached the election is invalid.
2) go with the Australian method - make voting mandatory...
In both cases allow polling over several days from 6am to midnight, and include a "none of the above" on the ballot. (If "none of the above" wins then there is a problem!
Living in a democracy requires participation to merit "rights".
Complain about this comment
66 bigsammy
You are right in that party lists constitute a "jobs for the boys/girls" oligarchy.
I believe that party lists should be abolished. In each constituency any party member should be able to run for selection (like the US primaries) with certain funding limitations. The local party members would then decide who should stand to represent them.
This would also see an increase in local party affiliation as peole would see that their participation actually was valid.
Radical, eh. Sounds almost democratic..... so it'll never happen.
Complain about this comment
64 democracy
Interesting post.
Having lived in Italy for the past 9 years, it never ceases to amaze me that their politics is so messed up, yet they show one of the highest voter turnouts in the world. (it has been explained to me that ithin living memory there was only one person to vote for - a similar argument can be maded for Spain).
Also I am constantly astounded by the increasng level of supprot for Mr Berlusconi, despite his frequent gaffes, dubious business interests, control of the media, marital issues (yes they might be nominally catholic, but they are obviously impressed by a 73 year olf who gets jiggy with models), appointment of inexperienced yet good looking women to his EU party lists etc etc etc.
If Arthur C Clarke were still making programs a whole series would be devoted to the "mysterious world" of Italian politics and Silvio Berlusconi.
Livng south of the potato/tomato line I have noticed that people here expect their politicians to be cheating, coniving charlatans .... and are happy to accept this, as long as they are left alone to their own small scale fiddles.
The hoo-ha over expenses going on at Westminster must be causing a fit of the giggles in the Italian parliament.
Check out this fun story from Rome a few months ago ... it seems alot of Italian MPs were simply leaning across from their own seat to push the electronic voting button of absent colleagues ... even those from other parties...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7919235.stm
Bear in mind that this story did not make the main news in Italy!
Complain about this comment
The problem is that there is insufficient discussion in Europe as it is the Commision that is running the show not the MEPs. Europe is costing us too much. They need us more than we need Europe- we could do a lot better by spending the money here in the UK and not let Eurpoe fritter it away elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen
"Taking the house rules of the BBC into consideration I am surprised that anybody under the cover of white English proud is allowed to write here."
Really you think that my user name in some way breaks the house rules?
Again and again the whole point of my user name comes the fore, the original reason was the fact that on official documents in the UK there is no English box for Nationality. You can be Scottish or Welsh but not English.
There is no Racist or even Nationalist intent, its a matter of self-determination and anger at the fact that being White and English in England is not recognised in official documents however, if I were a White Scot or a British Asian then there is a provision for me.
Its about having my Englishness denied to me.
If I had happened to be a Black person will feelings of pride in the Country I was born in and had called my self BlackEnglishProud this issue would never have arisen for fear of the commentator bringing it up appearing racist.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius and Karolina001,
you do realise that I've never seen one Serb alive? Neither did anyone in Russia; they are a handful of people, far away from us tucked some place in the middle of Europe, a row of countries in between.
But they stood for us in the 2ndWW - and we are going to stand for them.
Damn, doesn't anybody in Europe know what is friendship, and frontline comraderie? They were about the only European country who didn't lie belly up. No "provisional governments", no "government under occupation", and I believe even in Poland there was an arrangement of some kind. They practically sabotaged all goods transit via them, were blowing up all trucks' convoys, whole nation became partisans in the mountains, and they perished in thousands for that. Whereas it would have been far more convenient for them to put all the four paws up and live under the occuptation government to mind curfews, pretend they behave themselves, report on acquained Jewish, collaborate and other beauties of living under occuptation. They did nothing of the kind - they practically helped, us destroying wat transport rows through them. Every truck convoy they sent down off the cliff on the mountain road - was a truck convoy of gun loads less to kill Russians. They helped us, in absolute self-denying manner, during the whole war, throughout, and we owe them.
You could count on Serbs in a hard hour; this matters; the rest is foam.
What they did to Albanians in Serbia Russians have no idea. In 1998 and the previous years Russia had hands full of own troubles and we hardly noticed any thing else in the world. Missed even the 1991 USA in Iraq, as I explained Mavrelius, to say nothing of how Serbs and Albanians suddenly go together. Because before they went together fine? Something happened? Why the war at home?
NATO attack on Serbia was a total surprise here. Then and only then we came back to senses and rushed to help, one Russian batallion even broke through don't remember particulars, in the middle of NATO troops. And also had extreme fun, with no water for 2 weeks, they nearly all died, as NATO blocked them all the ways out, and access to a single water well or a tube. But it was too late, and as karolina001 rightly says Russia has no say in the EU affairs, a foreign block.
(karolina001 don't worry, LOL, we are not going "to fix the EU", never heard even a thought in that direction. all we are interested in is how to communicate with it, in the matters that concern either the EU countries, or Russia, say - both sides. Plus - surely the matters of the in-between countries.)
Now, what Serbs did to Albanians and as I strongly suspect - Albanians to Serbs as well - the picture was formulated by one side only - British and the EU and the USA side. We had no say, and Serbs themselves I suspect had no say either, pressed by the invading peace-keeping troops down to the plinth. It's a game into one gates, and how Western media can create a picture fitting its current interest - I am not to explain you. You can justify anything if you need to, any invasion, any war, and get public consent on that. Mavrelius second time writes me of the "million people" walking away in snow, "if you have seen that, you would have remembered the guilt of Jewish being loaded to trains in the 2ndWW." We have no such guilt. And what million people in snow? which snow there in the deep South at all? I don't know. What I heard is that the trigger for the NATO attack was a common grave of 35 Albanians discovered in Kosovo, where there was a mass killing of Albanians by the Serbs.
And, what, no similar graves, of Albanians killimg Serbs? Highly improbable.
I don't know MAII how exactly the Britain pleaded US to attack. The beauty of this your NATO is that the responsibility for wars is blurred, "everyone tied in", and everyone will protect each other, all who are tied into an enterprise. That "your favourite Serbs were no better than Nazi-s" - may be they weren't. But were you any better? Belgrade bombed by Hitler on Easter, 2,000 dead in 1 day.
Belgrade bombed by USA on Easter, 2,000 dead in 1 day.
The pieces of "presents" NATO shelled on Belgrade were in soldier scribbles : "Do you still want to be a Serb?" You don't think it's, LOL, a little bit, how to say, a racial attitude, for the fighters for democracy?
That Serbia planned for "the greater Serbia" - b-t, MAII. Where would they plan to expand? It's all like a patchwork blanket in those quarters, every half an hour - another country. Far more likely it's Albania planned for "the greater Albania", because by fact you've now got 2 Albania-s in 1 Europe - Kosovo Albania and Albania Albania.
Find "10 differences in the picture", as they say.
The reason that "otherwise Turkey and Greece" would go into war, over Serbia-Kosovo-Albania - does not stand any scrutiny. Nobody in Europe after the 1stWW would go to war for intra-Balcanian conflicts, one would think enough is enough. If USA didn't fly over - nobody exactly would have. I actually think USA was simply checking the EU "for fleas" - would they allow an outsider to bomb within Europe; how is that, in the new EU formation, what is the material the new conglomerate is made of.
Complain about this comment
#73
"1) to be valid an election should reach a certain pre-determined level of public participation (like a quoram at a meeting). To enable this politicians would have to be more open, honest, accessible and relevent.
If this percentage of voter turnout is not reached the election is invalid.
2) go with the Australian method - make voting mandatory...
In both cases allow polling over several days from 6am to midnight..."
The problem with 1) is that someone needs to be elected, even if it's a minority vote, otherwise the resultant vacuum would would be even more undemocratic as non-elected employees of either state or EU would have to run the country/institution until a result was achieved, which could be weeks, months or even years - how long did the Belgium civil service have to run the country due to that countries electoral impasse?!...
re point 2), a valid point, but then voters do have the option to 'spoil' their ballot paper(s), as for voting periods, coupled with postal and proxy votes there really only needs to be a 24hr polling period - midnight to midnight.
Complain about this comment
#76
"The problem is that there is insufficient discussion in Europe as it is the Commision that is running the show not the MEPs."
You will welcome the Lisbon treaty then!... :-)
The problem is that the political procedures have not kept up with the growth and changing EU, this fact has been accepted by the commission and is why they have stated that they would prefer no new members will be accepted into the EU until the political procedures (the Lisbon treaty) has come into force.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice, you are badly misinformed. Your government controls what you see and hear, even more back then than it does now. Even today, your televion, your radio, your newspapers are controlled by the Russian government. And even when it doesn't, you hear mostly what you want to hear and don't consider the other side. But don't feel too alone. It isn't just China, Burma, North Korea and Cuba where the same happens, it's all over Europe too. Only the BBC is a much more insidious, subtle, and dangerous tool which runs itself and it out of control of even the British government. It's voice is louder than all of the rest of the media voices in Britain combined. It would like to do the same in the USA but American except for British ex-pats don't pay BBC spit when it comes to believing one word it says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
"But they stood for us in the 2ndWW - and we are going to stand for them.
Damn, doesn't anybody in Europe know what is friendship, and frontline comraderie?"
America stood with the USSR in WWII. America sent it nearly a billion dollars worth of food, arms, equipment of every type and never got paid back one cent. Insteaad, as soon as the war was over, Stalin occupied all of Eastern Europe and would not leave, it's armies there for nearly fifty years threatening to take over the rest of Europe until the USSR was too bankrupt to keep them there (which is why it collapsed) and to this day, Russia has ten thousand nuclear weapons targeted at America. So much for comraderie. But don't feel alone, our so called European allies don't treat us much better. We have a saying in America; No good deed goes unpunished. It seems to prove true most times.
Complain about this comment
On the possible new England Electoral process I read about this in the past a number of times, but am not sure what it is actually called:
On Polling day the Voters have 2 Forms to put their 'X' on.
1) As per present situation a FPTP Voter system to elect 1 (one) specific Named Candidate from however many stand for election in a Constituency.
2) A List of Political Parties (again that have qualified/registered etc.) and the Voters select the 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference in a Transferable Vote - - after transfer have been done each leading Party then selecting from its own List of Candidates.
The Citizens therefore Elect an MP whose Identity and Party are specific to their Constituency, and, an MP Nominated from the Political Party of choice as well.
Of course, for England this would mean reducing from 650 to I assume somewhere around 275 to 300 Constituencies (maybe 10 to 15 for Wales if they stay in a union with England): Total 550 to 600 MPs, seems about right for 25,000,000+ possible voters.
Have I got this idea mixed up with some other Pro-Rep version or in my dim and distant memory bank is it a plausible way forward?
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
as i see we can agree fast, you said Russia protects its allies and knows about what friendship is, and i am saying US protects its allies as well.
basically, Russia let its ally Serbia kill and drive out of Kosovo all Albanians. That's Russian friendship towards allies.
US or NATO today have stoped all sides killing eachother, especially Albanians from taking revenge or joining Albania. That's another way of frienship.
Which friendship do you want?
Maybe we dont know the politics in the backgroung there, but we all know what happened there and the facts, and trying to make the black white is senseless.
One thing is sure, that:
Freedom and democracy are more important than a rotten friendships.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #68.
re: "..surprised under cover of white english proud... allowed.."
Fortunately, for those of us with broader minds, a high tolerance of others and a good deal more commonsense than yourself in this small matter the usually over-sensitive, politically correct BBC, has shown a degree of understanding and comprehension of what is really important and what is just superficially so.
Climb down from the high moral horse and realise that what you may imagine is implied is actually just a nom de plume and nothing more!
Complain about this comment
#70 WhiteEnglishProud
STV is already in use in the UK for European Elections. That's the system used in Northern Ireland.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice: 'actually think USA was simply checking the EU "for fleas" - would they allow an outsider to bomb within Europe; how is that, in the new EU formation, what is the material the new conglomerate is made of. '
Maybe they were testing the material the new conglomerate namely Russia is made of? and will russia allow an 'outsider' bomb within a historical frienship (russia+serbia)? answer is yes
and Russia still today feels humiliated.. it's nothing important, except a humiliation. thats why they resent.. and will not reset the button.
Complain about this comment
#82 ikamaskeip
That is how the Scottish Parliament is elected. A system imposed by Labour to try to secure a permanent Lab/Lib administration. Didn't work, as the Scots voted differently.
Have a look north if you want to see different voting systems - we have now 4 different systems!
The best is STV in multi-member constituencies that we use for local council elections.
Complain about this comment
karolina001, this as well, granted. As min. we definitely here took it as a personal offence. There were many hot heads here, like, let's go into war with NATO (end of the world, basically, and rather soon), others, saying, come on, not again, because of the Balkans we stepped on the rakes already once. Basically apart from WW3 we couldn't help Serbia much, that's why were annoyed.
Complain about this comment
MAvrelius, if you weren't our side in the 2ndWW, chances are the 3rd one would have taken place long ago. You do understand the amount of sub bumps and other un-announced occasions, when only some vague trust-s and old memories held the hand.
Complain about this comment
#82 - ikamaskeip
I am a bit confused about it myself. Wikipededia is quite a useful simple guide though. You will find it HERE
Complain about this comment
oldnat
"That's the system used in Northern Ireland."
Your right i missed that, however its use in NI only strengthens the case for a wider adoption within the U.K.
Complain about this comment
threnodio
I finally lost my posting power :(
Complain about this comment
#68 - Mathiasen
Political correctness has a lot to answer for.
When someone signs themselves white, English and proud, it may or not be a political statement but there is a pretty damned good chance that it is true.
Credit where it is due.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Karolina, skipped your @83.
"Freedom and democracy are more important that a rotten friendship"
???
for freedom and democracy you'll be waiting till the Doom's day, while friendship works these two milleniums.
And what's rotten? Serbs still count on us. We failed them but they understand Russia in 1998 was not Russia format 1988, instead weakened and blasted out. They don't doubt our desire to help.
Russia "talking" to the EU and NATO, to "convince them" in 1998, to take military out of Serbia, we could as well to the Doom's day. We aren't fond of talking to create the impression we are concenred, so simply skipped this.
The only way to get NATO out was military, for which we didn't go. Serbia important but not worth 3rdWW; they know, and didn't ask us for it.
Russian fault we skipped it brewing, otherwise granted would have armed them or had own troops in during the air raid. We are learning, to move faster.
US/EU "friendship" and benefactor deeds towards Serbs I think you have over-inflated. LOL. "US and NATO stopped, especially Albanians, from taking revenge". The only thing Albanians exercised in the following 10 years post 1998 is exactly were "taking revenge". Because the troops in there view Serbs as guilty and the Western media depicts them exclusively as monsters. And will continue picking at them, because you will forever need to justify the invasion.
I understand my media is all wrong, as Mavrelius wrongly points out; you have no respect for Russian sources of news - check the Westerner, Carla del Ponte's, records. They tell that during the "peace-keeping" time Albanians grabbed Serbs in hundreds and traded in them, like slaves. Selling to int'l mafia, to be killed and various body parts used, kidneys etc.
What a great service; true sign of "friendship".
Anyway you don't need a distant Russian, I am sure Serbs are quite able to speak for themselves. Except they live 11 years already under occupation therefore not heard. I think their society is getting split by now, into collaborationists and normal. They are trapped within your EU on all sides, no way can join Russia, and life of nearly soon one new generation is passing under siege. I am sure some of them would think that they are doomed to spend all their lives like that, and would start to collaborate with the invaders. Future will show.
Mavrelius, worried about 1 bln dollars, un-returned and un-wisely spent. Russia spent 44 bln dollars on the armament and army, yours was only 1. And I think you spent it wisely, because money is paper and lives and blood is lives and blood. Cheap nagging IMO, about that money, very low. Normal words you don't understand; I'll explain you in your economic parameters. From the moment you declared war to Germany - either you would have had to spend your soldier lives to get done with Hitler, or us. You "preferred" Russians to fight, and your in-put into Eastern front would be money.
Where is it that you need help currently, with the radical Islam?
We can hop you over 1 bln, in 10 minutes, and deal with Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan or whatever as you please later on.
I am sure several European countries would also find that monetary part-taking in the war a piece of cake.
We hop Belorussia 4 bln in a quarter of a year, really pea-nuts. From what I understand that 1 bln , during the 2ndWW, was also not the last coin in your pocket, no? You didn't tear it from your heart, cutting yourself in food and consumption other? I rather think it was to you back then what it is to Russia now.
Complain about this comment
#92 - WhiteEnglishProud
Condolences - still I was fun while it lasted :-)
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
''The only way to get NATO out was military, for which we didn't go. Serbia important but not worth 3rdWW; they know, and didn't ask us for it. ''
--------------------------
So, US and NATO decided the Albanians were worth WW3. So, are you saying that? Anyway this just proves what kind of friendship.. now the only country to be tested and humiliated here is Russia, not Europe.
Why did Russia go to Georgia? to regain lost pride? but you can only gain your lost pride where you lost it.
If you look at this like a poker game, Russia as a beginner in the game just tried to bluff, but blincked. So, they never play poker again.
Maybe Russia is good at chess, but poker is not for Russia :) do you agree?
''I understand my media is all wrong, as Mavrelius wrongly points out; you have no respect for Russian sources of news''
------------------------
why should we trust russian sources? do your ally trust russia anymore?
Complain about this comment
Web Alice
"They tell that during the "peace-keeping" time Albanians grabbed Serbs in hundreds and traded in them, like slaves. Selling to int'l mafia, to be killed and various body parts used, kidneys etc."
Actually Russians are selling Russians, not for body parts but as sex slaves in other countries. All over Russia and other parts of the former USSR, young women are lured by the promise of a good job in another country. Not only are they turned into prostitutes while they are illegally in other countries, but they are bought and sold like merchandise among the mafias who run these operations.
One billion dollars was a lot of money in the early 1940s...especially when it was sent to an enemy of the US. It was supposed to be a loan. It's like many tens of billions would be today. Russian submarines, planes and other military played "chicken" with their NATO counterparts. Very foolish and dangerous game. Except for numbers, Soviet military hardware and war fighting capabilities without nuclear weapons was grossly inferior to NATO's. In a conventional war, NATO would have pulverized the Soviet forces unless they were taken by surprise which is not likely. The Soviet strategy was one of very large numbers of centrally commanded forces. That was why taking out Iraq's command and control system styled on the Soviet model at the beginning of the war in 1991 left it virtually defenseless. One area NATO in general and the US in particular has an advantage over everyone is EW, electronic warfare. These are the most sophisticated systems which gives say one pilot unbeatable advantages over another in an identical plane but without advanced EW capabilities. American pilots habitually trained and still train fighting mock combat missions including dogfights against skilled instructors who fly in the same methods used by Russians pilots, often actually flying advanced model MIGs.
White English Proud, sorry you lost your posting power. Have you consulted a physician about it or tried Viagara? :o)
Complain about this comment
The Conservative Leaflet says:
"Tell Labour you want the referendum they promised. Vote Conservative in 4th June."
Is that not a very carefully thought out misleading statement?
Is it not the case that the Conservative policy is to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ONLY if it has not been ratified by the other countries when they come into power. If all countries have ratified than the promise dies and they recognise it knowing that 82% of the British people want that referendum regardless of whether all others have signed or not.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Surely, if the Treaty is bad for the UK it is still bad when it has been ratified by Ireland and Germany and anybody else?
It also says:
"Conservative MEPs will continue to fight for change in Europe ... Voting against a 'European Armed Force.' "
NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
How about a guarantee that a Tory government would refuse to contribute to such a force and would refuse to allow it to operate on British territory?
Complain about this comment
68. At 10:02am on 28 May 2009, Mathiasen wrote:
"#62. SuffolkBoy2
You wrote: We don't have to persuade you.
Fortunately that is correct. A program of nationalism and market radicalism would never have a chance with me."
I do not consider myself to be a nationalist. I want to be outside the "EU". I suspect that I would prefer to be Swiss or Canadian but have not tried it yet and am probably too old to do so. I consider the "EU" to be very nationalistic. It is trying to forge a European Nation against the will of many of the people. Hence its desire to have its own passports, army, gendarmes, national anthem etc.
Further:
"I suppose you (the so-called sceptics) have more in the bag of the things people with such opinions usually carry around."
I don't call myself a sceptic. I am an "EU"-phobe or an "EU"-hater. This and the nationalism thing are things that have been gone over before.
"Taking the house rules of the BBC into consideration I am surprised that anybody under the cover of white English proud is allowed to write here."
I sort of had my doubts about that. I am "white" but I am not racist and want to be friendly with everybody. I wish that lovely black lady would dance with me again.
The German site FOCUS-online refused to let me use the user name LoveEuropeHateTheEU. They went too far in the other direction.
Further:
"The BBC has actually been a model for broadcast companies in northern Europe, and since most people have English as their first foreign language, in many cases as their only foreign language, this blog had the potential of being a place where a European conversation concerning issues of common interest could take place, but it does not work for a number of reasons, and among these is the most important that few Europeans can connect to an agenda of British nationalist issues."
I doubt if you have any statistics on that. If you have, then please publish them here.
The concerns are not solely British ones. Not wanting constant interference from Brussels is a major theme in Austria where they hate the "EU" as much as the Brits do. People from other countries have posted here top say that we Brits are not alone. I thank them.
The idea that it is mainly or only the Brits who hate and despise the "EU" and do not want the Lisbon Treaty is a constantly exposed "EU"-lovers fantasy.
Further:
"I hardly reveal anything new by saying, I do not expect you to have any noteworthy success with your social experiment:..."
What the hell are you on about?
"This blog should in general to deal less with these notions. In any case I am confident that it will take some time before the vast majority in the UK and their political representatives change their EU membership in the direction further distance. If it ever"
What was the name of the bull you got this from?
Complain about this comment
Still no Labour Traitors leaflet.
Still no LibDem Traitors leaflet.
Complain about this comment
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/05/28/some_conspiracy_theories_are_true__and_the_worst_of_them_all_is_the_european_union
Have a gander at this:
"Whatever you know about the European Union, its worse than you think. One reason for our surprising ignorance on so important an issue is that we find it so ineffably boring that no one, apart from those involved in the furtherance of the project, can be bothered to read the small print. Mainly, though, its because secrecy, disinformation and mendacity have been built into the project from the very start.
"The key thing to understand about the EU is that was it always meant to be an all-embracing political union never just an economic one. But what its inventors notably, the former cognac salesman Jean Monnet realised early on was that no rational electorate would allow its countrys sovereignty to be abandoned for the sake of some pie-in-the-sky pan-European ideal. The whole process of ever-deeper integration, they realised, would have to be conducted by stealth. (Or as project insiders knowingly call it engrenage- which means gearing ie ratcheting up little by little). ..." etc.
Complain about this comment
Ferrero-Waldner has been nominated for the post of head of UNESCO.
If she gets the job it will be a reason to leave UNESCO.
Complain about this comment
Just a day or two before a responder to one my postings in this thread yesterday used a French expression the moderators send me a friendly email, telling me that I (in another thread) had been breaking the house rules and thus one of my messages had been censured: I had used expressions that were not English. In fact I had quoted one (1) sentence from the German constitution.
It is not difficult to guess what the difference is. English is rather close to French and the well-educated moderators on this blog read French but not German. They cannot tell the difference between a subversive message and a sentence in the German constitution J.
Within the EU many languages are spoken and the peoples of the EU have difficulties in understanding each other. The problem is biggest in large countries and smallest in border regions between the countries: Frenchmen seldom speak anything else but French, though in Alsace for instance they can change to German if necessary. The invasion of British tourists in Krakow is so comprehensive that in a certain sense makes Krakow a border region. In Krakow they not only speak English they also serve English breakfast, and the restaurants continue to do so on the long motorway to the German border, which I assume the many British car drivers appreciate.
Dutch art historians are discussing if Van Gogh should be understood as a Dutch or a French painter, and it is clear that in areas like European art and science national borders have been much less important than in politics. I shall not go into any further analysis of these patterns from the past many centuries, but they are of course active in the present development of the EU and on the blog of BBC!
In some aspects EU is an original experiment. It has led to a historic long period of peace in Germany and has overcome the hostility with France. There are reasons to be in favour of this experiment.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I thought you were already en route to Washington DC.
Nevertheless, I will join the discussion which promises to be very hot, if not trivial.
Your warding *Why bother to vote if you think it doesn't change anything, and politicians are all a bunch of liars?* seems to be a little bit primitive if we forget what Winston Churchill said about democracy several decades ago (Its a bad thing but there is not a better thing).
I guess for the Eastern Europeans the right question should be like this,
*Why our politicians are all a bunch of liars?* or
*What is to be done in order to prevent all those would be liars to come to power?* or
*What is to be done to improve that bad think called democracy? and,
the vicious circle will be closed.
Complain about this comment
BBC is now reporting: On Friday EU industry ministers meet in Brussels to discuss GM Europe. The meeting was called after some EU nations with GM plants said Germany was having too much say over the future of GM Europe, which owns Vauxhall and Opel. If Vauxhall were to close Ellesmere Port would be a ghost town, BBC also writes.
The German minister of economics, zu Guttenberg, on the other hand believes that GM America is just trying to lay its hands on German taxpayers money. If the British government wishes to it is free to invest British taxpayers money in GM Europe, however it is hardly interested.
I suppose the German government guarantee under negotiation will include the plant in Ellesmere Port. All in all a pretty revealing story.
Complain about this comment
#98
"Is it not the case that the Conservative policy is to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ONLY if it has not been ratified by the other countries when they come into power. If all countries have ratified than the promise dies and they recognise it knowing that 82% of the British people want that referendum regardless of whether all others have signed or not."
It's recognition that once all countries have ratified the Lisbon treaty it will have come into force, it's then pointless having a referendum on ratification! After Lisbon has come into force any referendum would have to be - like 1975 - a choice of "In" or "Out". Even the Tories know that the UK is better off inside the EU than out in the wilderness of no one to trade with, hence why they wish to change the EU rather than dump it, never mind I suppose the UK could make a pact with Zimbabwe - two Commonwealth failed states standing together in adversary...
"..."Conservative MEPs will continue to fight for change in Europe ... Voting against a 'European Armed Force.' "
NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
How about a guarantee that a Tory government would refuse to contribute to such a force and would refuse to allow it to operate on British territory?"
You are free to take your xenophobic vote to the BNP... Funny how it's OK for NATO or even the USAF to have bases and carry out military exercises on this crowded isle but dare anyone suggest that our european neighbours (and lets not even think about German forces) to do like wise.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
#148 on the blog space *Cameron shuns thorny EU* democracythreat wrote:
*The only really odd thing is that people believe the party based representatives when these folks tell them they represent the democratic will of the common folks.*
This is exactly what I had in mind when I joined this discussion. Even if we adopt the procedures of the direct vote system, the result in Eastern Europe will be the same, i.e. poor activity during the national elections, and even poorer activity during the cast for a European parliament.
It will take time before we come to the evident truth that many party leaders & activists in the East share a logic like this one *I have to make some moral compromises in order to become millionaire, say in 4 years, and consequently, I can not be very requiring towards any of my candidates for MP, provided he can eventually help me to turn my dream into reality*.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"In some aspects EU is an original experiment. It has led to a historic long period of peace in Germany and has overcome the hostility with France. There are reasons to be in favour of this experiment."
There are indeed reasons to be in favour of a peaceful europe. However, "this experiment" is not the only possible manifestation of a peaceful Europe. I despise the implication that it is. I despise the way those who defend the current institutions of the EU equate these institutions with a peaceful Europe, so that if you want the latter, you are expected to desire the former.
Now Mathiasen, you claim here that the EU has led to a historic period of peace.
With respect, that is fantasy. You cannot expect grown people to accept that Soviet forces in Eastern Europe and US forces in Germany and western Europe have been incidental to keeping the peace. Indeed, Serbia shows that the EU cannot keep the peace in Europe, and that the Russian and Americans will deicide the matter.
My own grave concern regarding the current EU is that it seeks to give overwhelming political and economic power to the same bloodlines who created world wars one and two. The current EU is very much a creation of aristocrats for the sake of furthering these aristocrats ideals about the greatness of their family traditions.
But their family traditions are war, slavery and brutality. Death and suffering for the lower classes of subhumans they preside over is the acceptable price of their personal wealth. That is precisely how these people think, and their history is drenched in blood.
We ought not look too hard at Europe and wonder why there has been peace. It is obvious, even to a child. There has been peace in Europe because no european state has a military force capable of war, and because the soviet union and the USA decided to refrain from war. The EU had absolutely nothing to do with peace in Europe.
I suggest that Europe cannot afford this current manifestation of unity, and that it will ultimately lead to more war. Europe has been united under super rich family empires before, and the result was always bloody and brutal for everyone who was on the receiving end of the wars that resulted.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, @97
"Actually Russians are selling Russians".
Irina K. replied to the newspaper ad advertising dish-washing job at a restaurant in Western Europe "for young and beautiful girls."
Imagine her indignation when on arrival they really made her to wash the dishes!
Seriously, yes was a rampant disease post our earth-quake (perestroyka) when all moved gasterbeiting in all forms around the globe. Poverty and collapsed country, what do you want. Still, keep in mind that once abroad - whole USSR still presents oneselves as "Russian". A brand!
These days it's more of a joke, and the mafia had to turn to child sex trade. Which reminds me, Russian police has traced up, say, a "USSR-ian" in the United States, who was arranging sex rendezvous for Americans with children. You flat refused to give him out to us and decided to run through the court and sentence yourself. He pleaded guilty, got equipped with heaps of expensive lawyers, and as the matters stand for today faces only 5 years in the prizon in the US. After 10 years of trade.
Complain about this comment
#109 democracythreat wrote:
Your wording *The EU had absolutely nothing to do with peace in Europe.*
Sorry to interfere. If I have correctly interpreted your saying, even the spiritual constructors of the EU like Jean Monnet and Conrad Adenauer did assume the feasibility of an eventual war in Europe between the future partners of the Roman Treaty.
I think one of the main reasons for the mere existence of the EU is the application of some new kind of intergovernmental convention which would exclude any possibility of a military conflict between the member states.
Complain about this comment
ironfranco wrote:
"I think one of the main reasons for the mere existence of the EU is the application of some new kind of intergovernmental convention which would exclude any possibility of a military conflict between the member states."
That sounds great, but it doesn't make practical common sense. It presumes that European states are capable of making war. But they are not. I am not talking about theoretical niceties. I am talking about divisions of armour, ready to roll.
Europe was divided between the US and soviet military spheres after the second world war, and so it has remained until the current day.
I object to the rationalization and justification of the current EU structure because it theoretically brings peace. It is sheer conjecture. It is just as reasonable to suppose that the European Union will ultimately result in war, not peace. In fact, if history is any guide, the current structure of the EU will certainly result in war.
I remind you that on the eve of the first world war, every nation which would take part in that conflict had royal families who were related by blood. At the end of that war, only one nation had withdrawn, and only one nation had rid itself of the royal family related to the heads of other states. That nation was Russia. And after the first world war finished in Western Europe, the military powers of europe united and attacked Russia. Now note that ALL the royal families of ALL the western European powers kept their title and lands. ALL.
I object to the idea that the aristocracy of Europe abhor war between european states. That is so contrary to historical reality that it seems a cynical joke. Those who own the means of production and who see the populace as units of production to be allocated to whichsoever project takes their private fancy.... these people will always make money from war.
Europe has been a war farm for more than a thousand years. If you read the history of Switzerland and central germany, you will find that the sale of mercenaries and the practice of war for personal profit is the dominant theme over the past 1000 years.
You claim the foxes are running the chicken house very well, and protecting the chickens. I put it to you that the fox has been castrated by the cold war, and that this is the only thing which has prevented the superior classes of europeans using the lower classes as their playthings, and as a means for profit through the consumption of surplus in war.
Complain about this comment
threat to democracy;
I think your analysis is in the right direction but does not go nearly far enough. It seems to me that the ancient royalty no longer rules Europe exclusively but instead is part of what has become a pan European oligarchy that seeks to protect itself from the dangerous infection of American democracy. It is a mistake to lump all so called "Western" countries together as has usually been done just because there was a defensive military alliance between the US and much of Western Europe against the USSR out of necessity for 45 years after WWII ended. It is clear to me from having lived in Europe, reading what Europeans say, the clear and successful efforts to instill and intensify anti-American feelings in Europe that this deliberate program has as its goal the protection of Europe's privileged class from real democracy. Instead what has been constructed are sham democracies which at its core is every bit as despotic as it ever was. The EU is the mechanism it has chosen for its ultimate defense. It is not important whether or not national transfers of wealth or other mechanisms as a lure to hook more European countries are successful in raising the standard of living of the poorest members, what is important is to wrest local control over all affairs public and private away from those directly affected to a centralized secretive unaccountable and uncontrollable body which appears to be the EU Commission. The EU Constitution under any guise merely legally codifies what is already existant and operative. So far only the most superficial trivial aspects of American culture have infected European consciousness, popular culture in myriad forms but the underlying mentality of America which has always been antithetical to the European power construct and has therefore always been seen by it as a direct threat and therefore the subject of ridicule, unwarranted criticism and confrontation is still alien and unknown to virtually all Europeans. This has been demonstrated to me many times at both the mass level by ordinary people with comments on blog sites like this and in meeting ordinary Europeans but also at the highest level such as in interviews with notables like Sir Christopher Meyers, the former UK ambassador to the US. Nor does living in the US even for an extended time change the European perception of how the world should be organized as societies because there is no mechanism or program of forced re-education. Few people coming to America actually want to study American history and even obtaining citizenship only requires the most superficial knowledge of what the USA is about. I find it extremely disturbing that we have now allowed people who obtain American citizenship to have dual citizenship retaining loyalty to other nations and governments. The oath used to require renouncing all such outside loyalties. The attempt to seperate by distinction the American government and American populace as Europeans do is absurd because nowhere does a government represent the collective will or wisdom of is people more closely than in the United States. But that is after all hardly surprising because the United States for all its flaws is after all a true democracy, perhaps the world's only real one.
Complain about this comment
#112 democracythreat
1)Your wording *Europe was divided between the US and soviet military spheres after the second world war, and so it has remained until the current day.*
If you say that some of the former soviet republics like Armenia, Byelorussia and a portion of Moldova are still under Russian control that certainly does not mean that the remaining part of Eastern Europe (including Serbia) is still a sphere of the soviet military (i.e. of Russia).
2)Your wording *I remind you that on the eve of the first world war, every nation which would take part in that conflict had royal families who were related by blood*
How about France?
3)Your wording *And after the first world war finished in Western Europe, the military powers of Europe united and attacked Russia. Now note that ALL the royal families of ALL the western European powers kept their title and lands. ALL.*
After the end of WW2 four big Empires disintegrated: Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The war put a definite end of the absolute monarchs, at least in Europe. The remaining kingdoms, including Bulgaria (my country) were gradually transformed into constitutional monarchies. The aristocracies were to obey more or less the parliaments. The role of the royal families in the social life, and that of the constitutional monarchs in the ruling of the country is more likely to be a formality than a decisive political intervention in order to *make money from war*.
If the West supported the intervention in Soviet Russia in 1918-1922, the reasons were not linked to the fact that Russia had withdrawn from the big European aristocratic family. The West feared (with good reason) the proliferation of the Bolshevism.
Your wording *Europe has been a war farm for more than a thousand years. If you read the history of*
All that is true. Bulgaria took an active part in all European wars ever since 1885. We lost more than 250000 lives out 6 mln. (In the old days they would call us the Prussians of the Balkans). We know, just like the Russians and the Germans (our teachers in the warfare) what the bloody price of each conflict was.
It is enough.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen and #103.
You were censored!
Tiresome and rather dull-witted of the BBC Moderators: Whilst disagreeing fundamentally with almost everything you have to say on the EU I am absolutely in favour of your right and responsibility to express your very valid and often illuminationg opinions.
Perhaps I was the other commentator to whom you referred using French? If so, I can at least explain it is not the similarity between English and French, but that English has quite literally adopted many expressions which are now colloquial English-isms!
E.g. Nom de plume, laissez-faire etc.
One wonders where English would be without its kamikazi use of foreign words to effect a pukka rapprochement over a glass of sangria, some satay followed by delicious sapadilla in tasteful hellenistic bowls at our bungalow until carousing obbligato style into the next day!?
(10 languages in there + English)
Like you, I assume a certain level of intellectual awareness amongst the moderators, but, sometimes they do err too far on the side of caution as in your case.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote:
" It seems to me that the ancient royalty no longer rules Europe exclusively but instead is part of what has become a pan European oligarchy that seeks to protect itself from the dangerous infection of American democracy. "
I think that is fair enough, however I think the word "oligarchy" is wrong. Europe most definitively has an aristocracy. The system of titles and social class that exists in Europe to this day has not matured into an oligarchy. It is astoundingly primitive. The USA and Russia, these states have oligarchies.
You also wrote:
"But that is after all hardly surprising because the United States for all its flaws is after all a true democracy, perhaps the world's only real one."
Well, as much as I admire the USA (I do, in fact. One of the reasons I am so critical of the USA is because I admire it. I want it to be the best it can be.), I take issue with this idea that it has a true democracy.
That is just flag waving and waffle. Now I have been reading of the initiative process in California. That is close to true democracy, and certainly in the past the USA has had a very real form of democracy, both in the government and in the minds of the people.
But now the USA has party based representative democracy. Arguably it has had this party system rather than true democracy since the creation of the federal reserve.
If you want true democracy, visit Switzerland or at least read about the system they use.
Democracy is when the demos vote on issues. That is my definition, but I stick to it because it works. Once you start talking about representative democracy, you end up having the dickens of a time explaining why Stalin wasn't democratically elected every year. And you end up spending far too much time speaking with folks who really think you are an idiot because your grandfather didn't have a title.
Complain about this comment
threat to democracy;
If the US is not a democracy, how do you explain the fact that someone as incompetent as Barack Obama could be elected President? Where else in the world would something like that have been allowed to happen?
Complain about this comment
Web Alice
"Irina K. replied to the newspaper ad advertising dish-washing job at a restaurant in Western Europe "for young and beautiful girls."
Imagine her indignation when on arrival they really made her to wash the dishes!"
So you are saying they knew they would be turned into prostitutes? It seems to me that people who are looking to illegally enter a foreign country to make money are taking a grave risk. Often bad things happen to them as a result. Don't your media, schools, government, newspapers tell you that? Or are they hoping to sell them and get some money sent home as remittences the way Mexicans in the US send money to their families back home. What a horrible way to make a living.
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, "don't your media, schools, government and newspapers" (tell all that).
Media, schools, government and newspapers nobody listens to.
Well, schools yes, while children are children they are influence-able.
Anyway USSR collapse was end of the world time, which fact you still can't comprehend, because you aren't seemingly very perceptive to suffering of others. Accordingly - who the hell cared what anybody said if it is your own responsibility to survive, governments pan-USSR stepped back on all obligations to citizens - namely police protection from criminal world, paying pensions, providing medical care of anything substantial, or even making employers to pay salaries. Nobody in his right mind would listen to "what the government says" which freely allows you to lie out in the street and die; whether you are a pensioner with 3 years pension un-paid, or a worker paid in products of your enterprise instead of money, or a young mum with a child on hands un-employed and with 3 dollars a month state subsidy. What "newspapers"? Newspapers are for rich people.
"It is dangerous in a foreign country illigally". three ha ha. As if it was safe in ex-USSR at home in 1991.
Anyway all your fault who would doubt LOL.
First you play first hand in your main competitor desintegration then make round eyes and wonder "oh why do they run to us to work in the pubs in the streets whenerever? Don't they read newspapers?" Don't play such an (moderators)
I am not an expert in why there is prostitution in the world (at least something LOL) but I would roughly think it existed before perestroyka and without Russia. You sure have only Mexican and ex-USSR prostitutes in the USA?
Well I've got a surprise for you then; Russian communist party leftovers strongly doubt. They campaigned hard to prohibit a certain American movie in the circulation in Russia, bringing to the State Duma statistics (don't ask me how they came with it LOL) that this type of "occuptation" in immigration to the USA has increased sharply exactly after the movie became so popular in Russia. As it gives good ex-USSR girls, traditionally perceptive to the power of art :o)))) way too wrong ideas.
Wonder what was that?
Pretty woman, walking down the street.
(Well, she didn't look very Russian or Mexican to me.)
I'll pass over your regards to the Communist Party block in St. Pete; explain you share their indignation at how the morals fell in the area post the communism collapse.
Complain about this comment
79 boilerplated - in general it seems we are in agreement, but a few comments if I may....
from your response to my post 73
"The problem with 1) is that someone needs to be elected, even if it's a minority vote, otherwise the resultant vacuum would would be even more undemocratic"
I'm aware of that ... and it is really an idea aimed at making politicians become relevent to the voters and engage them with genuine ideas .... if one party took that on board, then all would have to follow.
And
"re point 2), a valid point, but then voters do have the option to 'spoil' their ballot paper(s), as for voting periods, coupled with postal and proxy votes there really only needs to be a 24hr polling period - midnight to midnight."
Of course you are right, but I believe a genuine shake up is necessary if we are to be a genuinely participative democracy (and I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is what politicians want). A radical shift would be mandatory voting, with a "noneof the above" box and an extended voting period.
If we want people to vote, it must be made as easy as possible.
Complain about this comment
Karolina, @96. About poker. LOL. Yes, that is I mean, no, no idea.
Men play, but overall - not rampant. I don't even know the rules, or never saw anyone playing poker.
"are you going to say that?" (US and NATO found Albania worthy 3rdWW).
We don't understand US and NATO, what moves them to war.
Hopefully, no, they wouldn't find "Albania, worthy". But see what fun even you are having here, "lost pride; where have you lost your pride" etc. I would think both the USA and NATO also have fun in provoking Russia. Attack on Serbia was a military provocation, tempting Russia into the conflict. Dangerous games played by dangerous folk.
"Playing on nerves", like on strings, as we say. Knowing Russia's attitude to Serbia, and Jugoslavia region in general, was clear we would "mind" to put it softly any bombing there.
FYI in 2ndWW times we didn't differentiate Serbs and whoever it is there into "muslims", "orthodox", in fact I am still not sure which religions the region is comprised of. As you understand war was not the time to wonder "oh what religion is that partisan in the mountains that we have heard, that the news have reached us somehow later on, between the own fights, that sent down a cargo off the cliff." No such idiocy. Whole Jugoslavia helped us, they are all for us still heroes, without looking into particulars who exactly did what.
If some did er wrong things - we extend credit to all. Because the others who helped - did it so self-denyingly - that covered up all of them.
They were all so fighty, and became trained in fights, that instilled quite a respect for their fighting abilities here post war.
BTW, even Stalin chickened out to move troops into Jugoslavia post war at some time (while nobody refrained from doing this in Prague and Budapest) when Joseph Broz Tito I think it was, at some time quarreled with Stalin announced he'd act independently from Kremlin, and, like, basically, USSR go to hell. Stalin decided it's a total no-go to fight Jugoslavians, wasn't fond of the prospect at all. For some reason LOL. Some would say was grateful to them for the support during the war, others say - simply chickened out. A combination of both, rarther.
On these historical grounds, bombing any part of Jugoslavia Russia would object to. Granted a provokation nothing else. I think it was Primakov then, our Prime inister, peacefully-quietly flying to the USA, to conclude some US-Russia agreement or whatever. The news that Jugoslavia is bombed caught him in the air, one hour away from Boston. He turned the airplane 180 degrees over Atlantic and returned home.
And good that he did, short of fuel as they were.
But in the prospect of a 3rdWW to begin, it is better to fall down to the Atlantic then to have a PM in the perspective enemy country.
Complain about this comment
And yes, Mavrelius, it is confusing, when your two ex allies attack your third one. But you surely won't bother with such considerations, because Russia has defintely extended credit not to the small ones post war only.
Complain about this comment
117. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"If the US is not a democracy, how do you explain the fact that someone as incompetent as Barack Obama could be elected President?"
Without getting into an argument over Obama's competence (I already know your position), it seems that enough Americans were just fed up with what had happened to their proud country under 8 years of Bush.
Complain about this comment
ikamaskeip and #115
It was not a big thing to me. I think I can guess what BBC's problem is, and where should it stop? Must they also read Danish and Hungarian?
Apart from home-made words English like other languages do of course have loan words and foreign words. For the blog moderators it works so: If they spontaneously categorize loan words and foreign words as English they will be accepted in the blog.
A friend of mine, who only speaks German, one day said to me with a smile that he would choose German as the common language in the EU! In that matter he is like the majority in France: a great deal of them would also propose their native language, and in both cases the peoples of the British isles would of course protest.
It is not without irony that English to most people is now the preferred foreign language in the EU, but the preferred foreign language is still not the preferred language.
There are a couple of very disparate, in some cases plain unmusical, exceptions from the rule but most people would like to keep their mother-tongue as their first language and English as their first foreign language. It ought to improve the sleep of sceptics since it put strains on the unification within the EU.
It is not without irony that English to most people is now the preferred foreign language in the EU, but the preferred foreign language is still not the preferred language.
There are a couple of very disparate, in some cases plain unmusical, exceptions from the rule but most people would like to keep their mother-tongue as their first language and English as their first foreign language. It ought to improve the sleep of sceptics since it put strains on the unification within the EU.
Complain about this comment
Things are grim in Grimsby...and a lot of other places too.
Web Alice;
"Anyway all your fault who would doubt LOL"
I keep saying that but the Europeans insist it was Pope Paul II, Gorbachev, anything but the US. They won't admit ever that the US was right to fight the cold war and win and that they were wrong. Fifty years of American military spending, resolve, tens of thousands of troops, trillions of dollars, this huge Navy and Air Force, all those missiles and hydrogen bombs had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR...and they will never forgive us for it.
Roman Stew, if you think the Bush years were bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Obama will make the world wish for the good old days of President Bush. How much longer do you think it will be before Pakistan's government approaches the CIA and begs it for lessons on successfully using the technique of waterboarding Islamic terrorists? At the rate the terrorists are attacking civilians and the infrastructure of Pakistan, I'd say not more than a few more weeks. How long before they beg for American drone planes to attack Taleban targets?
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, LOL, so eager for praise!
BTW, "fifty years of American military spending" - and how is it, with the success? do you feel we are less dangerous for you now? :o))))
Just an idea.
No, certainly, plus-minus 10,000 nuclear warheads, great difference I mean, and all. All new people in Kremlin; Russians, thankful for perestroyka, finally able to cross over the fence and make an own opinion of Western "democracy" now admire Americans far more than those legendary Americans they were in the USSR times (at the distance) :o))))))))))))
I have greatly changed no doubt for example :o)))))))
And the new generation, whose youthful years began in the 7 fat Putin years - oh those are totally self-denying, pro-Western mama mia :o)))))
Anyway this is all nevermind; having read your several posts where with much respect and regret you mention the infamous 1 bln - Mavrelius!
What for was all the Cold War! So much ado about nothing! (Shakespeare)
"Why to break out a whole kitchen garden about one cucumber" (Russian)
??!! When you simply miss the money - there is an un-paid debt oustanding! Instead of simply saying "USSR! Return us the cash!" - a million accusations, in the lack of democracy, what not! Mind boggling to the whole world, cold wars, "50 years of military spending" - while you simply miss the dough!
Complain about this comment
Web Alice
Is the world safer than it was? Yes. It is far from completely safe but it is safer than it was. The world walked a tightrope between Soviet domination and enslavement on one hand and nuclear war that would end all human life on earth on the other, the threat of it the only effective deterrent. (Unfortunately, that deterrent doesn't seem to work against al Qaeda, the Taleban, Iran, or North Korea the first three not caring who lives or dies, the fourth being too stupid to realize that they will not survive war against America.) The threat of Soviet domination is completely gone, the only possibility of WWIII between them is technical fault or a miscalculation due to technical error. This nearly happened in 1995 when Russia under Yeltsin mistook a missile fired by Norway at the North Pole for scientific purposes as a possible American nuclear attack. Fortuntely, it did not result in war. There is actually no longer any cause for the US and Russia to aim nuclear weapons at each other except that the peculiar logic of these weapons makes it impossible for either side to stand down and trust that the other won't attack for no logical reason.
There are still many dangers facing the survival of the world. Russia's unsecured weapons and unreliable detection systems which could lead to a technical failure or acquisition of Russian nuclear weapons or materials by terrorists is one danger. The American reaction to a nuclear terrorist attack is another. Wars between Isreal and Iran, Pakistan and India, North Korea and South Korea or NK and Japan or NK and the US others. Also the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists from NK or the Taleban taking over the government of Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal are more.
No, the world is not safe from nuclear war. And global warming continues showing its effects even faster than anyone feared. I am not optimistic about the future. Better get those condolence cards for your friends ready. BTW, in case you have forgotten, the world also happens to be financially bankrupt, the result of an economic doomsday bomb the US inadvertently set off. Nobody knows when or even if the world will recover from that.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote:
threat to democracy;
"If the US is not a democracy, how do you explain the fact that someone as incompetent as Barack Obama could be elected President?"
If the USSR was not a democracy, how do you explain the fact that someone as incompetent as Gorbachev could be elected President?
"Where else in the world would something like that have been allowed to happen?"
What an odd question. Um.... Kenya? South Africa? Anywhere in Africa? I mean, I presume that you are referring to his race.
Surely you are not seriously suggesting that the USA is the only society where the people have the "freedom" to choose the darling of a left wing party?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Web Alice
Is the world safer than it was? Yes. It is far from completely safe but it is safer than it was. The world walked a tightrope between Soviet domination and enslavement on one hand and nuclear war that would end all human life on earth on the other, the threat of it the only effective deterrent."
"Soviet domination and enslavement" is a delightful term. It conjures up the most incredible images. Russians in big fur coats marching through the jungles of south east asia and central america, and so on.
Marcus, have you ever heard the term "sloganeer"? One who trades in slogans? It is a profession, and sometimes a hobby, a habit acquired by people who love the simplicity of snappy one liners.
Marx became a sloganeer. He went from being someone who wrote books that analysed economics (badly, in my view) to being someone who traded slogans on the street, selling them for a profit in little pamphlets. Marx sold slogans like "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!", and "All history is the story of class war.", and stuff like that.
Lenin was also a sloganeer. He also sold little pamphlets with his slogans in them. For profit. Lenin would say things like "All power to the proletariat!", "The main enemy is at home!" and "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war."
The thing about folks who sell slogans is that they are in a very old profession. Priests have been doing it for years and years. And the thing about slogans and their sale is that they are always sold to folks who are generally perceived as rather dull and stupid. Marx, for example, acutely regretted his decent into sloganeering. Or at least, he did at first. He was an academic. Slogans were beneath him. They were lowbrow. But his buddy Engels convinced him that people are stupid, and that slogans SELL. Stupid people like slogans. They get behind them, because they can understand them.
If you have read Animal Farm, you'll remember the slogans that were painted on the wall of the barn. "Two legs good, four legs bad.", "All animals are equal." and so on.
OK, so now you know what a slogan is, and also what kind of person sells them, and also what kind of person like to buy them.
Now please tell me again about the "Soviet domination and enslavement".
Complain about this comment
About slogans.
"Pay up the taxes and sleep well!" (and go to bed, have undisturbed by conscience, peaceful night sleep)(Rus. street posters)
- Hungry?!!
________
I guess I should lighten up the scene a bit.
:o)
NK successfuly conducted trials of their nuclear bomb. According to the opinion of Russian experts - a handful more of such trials - and South Korea will become an island.
N.K. year 2049:
"Daddy, daddy, see what an ugly dog ran by! She has only one head, tail without a sting and just four paws. She's a mutant, right?"
News of the planetary scale: Socialistic North Korea threatens capitalistic South Korea with war for destroyal! If South Koreans won't take North Koreans to them.
According to the new reconnaissance data, explosions in N. Korea were not trials of the new rockets, but simply at attempt of North Korean engineers to break through to the nearest Chinese shop.
North Koreans solved the problem of hunger, having blown up a nuclear bomb in own territory. Now, instead of two yields of rice per year, they'll be gathering five, at that, every rice-inka will be size of a cucumber.
Power of the engine of NK rocket equals 10,000 horse powers. This is approximately one half of all the North Korean horses.
What a scare: NK is threatening South Korea, Japan and the world with a nuclear war!
- Now I don't know... May be we'd be able to buy ourselves out with dogs?
:o))))
Complain about this comment
:o)
If you want your husband to have lots of money, don't take them away from him.
It is scientifically proven that the brain of a woman is 1.5 times more beautiful than the brain of a man.
- Daddy, daddy, I'm pregnant!
- Zina! Zinochka! Come here, quickly! Our daughter began talking!
If you bought a dog and it is gnawing trees like there is no tomorrow, possibly, you were lucky to buy the new kind: beavermann.
Judging by Eurovision, in Europe there are only two types of sexual orientation: non-traditional and atypical. :o)))))))
Government meeting; Kudrin (Fin.min.): "Crisis continues; we've got to do something finally about it! I know, let's... ? borrow money from IMF!
- But IMF doesn't have money.
- And we'll give them...
Sporty greetings of the New Russians: Jeep Jeep Hurray!
In the pharmacy:
- For me, please, 1,000 cans of Red Bull.
- ????
- Half a gramm of cocaine then, if that's easier for you.
- Have you heard? Russian Baltic fleet ship has shelled the sea-side dacha village by mistake!
- By mistake? Don't be such a baby; the captain simply had his potato spot in the dacha un-digged.
Either it's oil price is rising... or the dollar is falling...
We are all with impatience awaiting the government announcement that Russia has exited out of the crisis.
Because ourselves we'll hardly know the difference.
Jusus Christ, grant me patience and reserve to survive all this.
And, damn it, quickly!
Complain about this comment
Alice, you do not understand. North Korea is VERY DANGEROUS. You cannot make jokes about this backwards little country next to china. We are all supposed to be very, very afraid.
North Korea is even more dangerous than Iraq was. Than as Iraq was supposed to have been, I mean.
North Korea could kill all the English speaking babies in the world within 45 minutes. They have a special kind of nuclear bomb that explodes in china but kills YOUR baby. Then the evil north koreans sneak into your house, steal the babies body, and eat it!!
Because, you see, everyone who is born in that geographical location is EVIL. God did this. It is part of his good works and grand plan. Back in the 50's, god drew a big line between north and south korea and then he tapped his magic god wand and POW! Everyone living in North Korea became a horrible, evil, threatening, dangerous person. At the same time, all the people in the south magically became wonderful folks. So wonderful, they are almost as wonderful as gods' most perfect creation, Americans. That is why these wonderful, wonderful people in the south need to be protected from the evil baby eaters from the north.
Now god needs America to protect the good people in the south from the evil people in the north, because as I explained earlier, God is very much interested in geography. He like to put good people in one place, and bad people in other places. He is always doing this, but he saved the very best people of all for the USA.
And when god wants to enforce his will on earth, he gets the Americans to do it for him. I am not sure why he doesn't tap his magic wand on the earth and change people himself, like when he made north koreans evil and south koreans good back in the 50's. I guess if I was a better person, maybe an american, god might explain that to me. But he hasn't, yet.
But anyway, the point is that we need to be extremely frightened of all the very very bad people in North Korea. It is no joke.
Because China has been Pakistans' dominant strategic partner for the past 20 years, and if they keep selling weapons to the Pashtuns, so that they can secure long term access to their deep water oil port at Garda, on the mouth of the Persian gulf, then God might have to kick things off on the korean peninsula, just to show china that ....
Well, you know. That god drives a Humvee. THAT is the point.
Complain about this comment
#131 webalice wrote:
*By mistake? Don't be such a baby; the captain simply had his potato spot in the dacha un-digged*
What a wonderful fire control!
Complain about this comment
threat to democracy;
The United States is a democracy. That is why a incompetent like Obama can get elected. He won a popularity contest. He became popular through his likable personality and having gotten lots of money by knowing how to exploit the power of the internet. His opponents were not much smarter than he is but they had more experience. Nevertheless, what in effect was a highly effective public relations ad campaign and being in the right place at the right time (party other than the one people were tired of, great meaningless slogans like he was for change...who isn't, yes we can...who would admit he couldn't) won him the election. Democracy means the people get to pick their leader no matter how awful he looks like he will be, no matter whom he is or isn't beholden to to get where he is or how he got there....just like this one does.
The USSR was a totalitarian military dictatorship. Gorbachev worked his way up through the ranks of the only political party allowed by following the rules of that system, the Communist party. There were no alternatives. When he took power, he seemed safe to those who pulled the strings in the KGB and the Party, a loyal Communist. Actually he was the best they had, the most intelligent, a man who could actually think independently for himself. But he was playing a losing hand and his mind was constrained by a lifetime of indoctrination into an impossibly failed idea. He didn't have a prayer in the world of saving Communism. First of all, he was a believer in the meatball economics theories of the Marxist Leninist doctrine, the only one allowed to be taught as valid in his world, the one the society lied to the world and to itself about for seventy years. The worst thing a con man can do is believe his own scam which was the USSR to a tee. China can call its Capitalist/quasi fascist system Communism or whatever else it likes but it has little resemblance to communism anymore.
What enslavement was the USSR about? Don't you read history? When the USSR took over a country, it installed a military dictatorship under the Communist party that ultimately took its orders from the Politburo in Moscow. Internal resistance of individuals was dealt with in Gulags. If a government resisted, the Soviet tanks rolled in the way they did in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The rebellious government was taken out and replaced with one that understood the realities of what it meant to be a Soviet slave state. The former leaders who resisted were shot as an example to other would be rebels reminding them who was the master and who was the slave.
What types of people follow sloganeers like Marx, Lenin, Charlemaigne, Patrick Henry, Hitler, King George III, and all others of their ilk? Armies of them, armed and ready to fight crusades, revolutions, wars of conquest and subjugation, world wars, set up and run gulags and concentration camps. That is why one of my cardinal slogans in life is "neither a follower or a leader be." I fight and risk my life for no one's battles but my own. No matter what your cause, you get none of my time or my money, in fact you don't get the time of day from me. I don't care what your cause is, how just or worthy it seems to you, how ardent or excited about it your are, how many agree with you, count me out unless the enemy is a direct threat to me. Find another sucker. If everyone were as smart about it as me, sloganeers would all remain an army of one and there would be no wars, no nations, no religions. Nobody can put a label on me that will stick so that I then have an enemy to fight. But when there is an enemy like al Qaeda, I say show them no mercy. Hunt the dogs down and kill them to the last one until they are all dead. I learned that when I learned chess, the ultimate game of war. You win wars by killing off the enemy, not by winning hearts and minds or sending messages (empty threats.) I learned that when I was six years old and never forgot it. Too bad the US Government doesn't understand it too.
Complain about this comment
#132 democracythreat wrote:
*Now god needs America to protect the good people in the south from the evil people in the north, because as I explained earlier, God is very much interested in geography. He likes to put good people in one place and bad people in other places. He is always doing this, but he saved the very best people of all for the USA.*
You better try to publish the third party of the Holy bible. It promises to be a best seller!
Alice, what a pity you are not American! I am about to cry
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I am not arguing that the USA has no system of representative democracy.
I am simply pointing out that so did the soviet union.
You claim that the soviet union was a totalitarian military dictatorship. Well, that is not how they described it. Sure, some did. But then some americans described America as a robber barony with negro slaves working in sweat shops.
In truth, I think both systems were more or less the same. They were what you call representative democracies, and what I call representation through the party system.
Look at the way you describe Gorbachev:
"Gorbachev worked his way up through the ranks of the only political party allowed by following the rules of that system, the Communist party. There were no alternatives. When he took power, he seemed safe to those who pulled the strings in the KGB and the Party, a loyal Communist. "
Now consider:
Obama worked his way up through the ranks of the only political party system allowed by following the rules of that system, set out by the two dominant parties. There were no alternatives. When he took power, he seemed safe to those who pulled the strings in the Pentagon and the democrat Party, a loyal party member.
I am not trying to argue that there were NO differences. Clearly there were. But there were huge similarities, as well, and I suggest that these similarities are getting more and more each year, as the corporate-party nexus tightens its stranglehold on the march of congress.
America today is not the same as America 100 years ago. You have the reserve bank, and massively corporatized media. You have political parties that are every bit as complex and opaque as the communist duma in soviet russia. You have a military industrial complex that generates careers, prestige and profits for an established class within a supposedly classless society.
This is how America has changed, and this is how America has come to resemble the soviet union.
I am not trying to argue that the soviet system was good. Far from it. I would have been crushed by such a system before most folks, i guess. (either that or i would have done very well)
All I am saying is that the America you (and I) love and the America you live in are probably one hundred years apart, and drifting further apart each day. And I don't understand your patriotism. It wants to defend America today from criticism and change, and by doing so you resemble a soviet era apparatchik far more than a free American with his rifle in his hand, telling the gubment man to stay off his land and out of his bed.
Anyway, such is the fever of nationalism. It corrodes individual thought and individual values. Maybe it is an irony of the world that great nations are brought low by pride in their greatness, by nationalism.
The Swiss are always telling me I am more Swiss than them, and that their country sucks, and why. In detail. At length. You have never met a bunch of folks who are so down on their own country and system as the swiss.
I love them for it.
Complain about this comment
threat to democracy, don't they teach you anything is school in Europe? What do you think DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT means? It means dictatorship, they make no bones about it. As soon as the Russian revolution was over, the Bolsheviks killed all of their opponents, the last being the Mencheviks, the Trotskyites. It was a crushing dictatorship. It is obvious you never read the Gulag Archipellago. I strongly suggest you read it. After Stalin's death, the system never really changed. It merely was obedient to a slightly larger circle of people. The USSR was a government of the Communist Party, by the Communist Party, and for the Communist Party. It's one overriding rule and goal was to maintain itself in power forever and extend that power all over the world. To enslave everyone. That is what the cold war was about, the defiance of that power mostly by the US, Europeans having no will to resist on their own. That's what the nuclear arms race was about. America made it clear to the government of the USSR that before it would allow it to rule the world, all human life on earth would be extinguished. It wasn't going to be allowed to happen. That most Americans believed in god and an afterlife made this palatable. In that one way, they weren't much different in some respects than al Qaeda. That is why Americans understand now just how dangerous al Qaeda and sympathetic Islamic militancy really is. Europesns don't get it. They never did. They probably never will. For that reason alone, Europe will also always be at war with America.
Complain about this comment
Yes, democracythreat, we know we ought to be scared by NK but we can't.
Izvestia has published a correction on the 2nd day, change to the "20 kilotons" that was news all over the world, when the first underground blast was recorded. Namely, that on seismologists' record (Earth shuddering kind of earthquake) in the epicentre there was a double-impulse, 2-stage shake-over. The first one slight, the one that followed - 4.5 on Richter scale.
Having put seismo and military brains together the experts concluded that the nuclear, first, blast was "1-3 kilotons with uncertaintly about 50% which makes 0.5 - 5 kilotons" which initiated the throw off of tectonic energy accumulated in the spot (normal earthquake, provoked) and overall had resulted in far higher shudder that the nuclear bomb itself would have caused. The second tectonic blast blurred the picture, which does not allow to tell exactly - 0.5 kilotons or 5 kilotons.
But in no way 20. May I remind all that the Rus. seismo station (and records' other station) is located within 300 km from the epicentre of the nuclear blow-up. We are very close and can measure very accurately. Every day on TV last week the news start from that station showing Geiger radioactivity parameters on the readers and all. Vladivostok lives door to door with NK basically, and they are all out measuring radiation in the area round o'clock.
It is a strong belief here that Kim's "methods of delivery" (rockets) are far better developed than his nuclear abilities. And that he is artificially driving up own engineers to act quicker and do more trials, of un-ready and un-developed stuff. This nuclear trial was not successful, and it's only Kim's luck that they hit in the tectonic zone, creating far bigger impression than it really was. He's got to provide for his power pass-over to Kim Chen Yn, his junior son. The chap has just joined their State Defence Committee, their top government body, consisting of only 13 men.
We are far more puzzled by the China's behaviour, who NK warned in advance but China displayed really an Eastern self-reserve and didn't hurry up to tell the others, of the alarm-to-be. Could be decided to support NK silently.
NK actions, on the other hand, seem to be timed with Iran's,
a synchronised reply to Washington to its threats to both countries.
Iran sets off mid-range rockets, class earth-earth, in several days' NK blasts its bomb undeground. Within the next week NK displayed all it had - all types of rockets, anti-ship, anti-air, whole range of distances, it seems a military show of NK possibilities in air, ground and sea.
Of course, nothing lovely, we are concerned as Russian Far East all population borders the zone of non-stop rocket fire and blasts for a week already. Still two hopes for an optimism: a./ NK nuclear abilities still defective b./ Kim is pea-nuts compared to terrorists interested in grabatising nuclear arms from Pakistan one way or another. In Pakistan it's far far better and nastier the loads, not those funny 103 kilotons, and individual terrorists don't care for the return strike whatsoever. Overall philosophical about going to the other world, plus no country behind. Kim, to the opposite, displays some signs of being interested in normal human pleasures, not exactly diverted from the idea of these worl' pleasure. Is strongly reputed to value female beauty, collects good films and movies (doesn't get out of private movie-room) (American films included, LOL), buys expensive old French wines, and disputes various years passionately - in other words has got something (a lot) to lose.
Complain about this comment
Besides, we have so many Koreans in Russia. Northern or Southern - no idea. Must be, "ordinary" ones, who walked over before they got split.
Russian Far East consists of them a lot.
All Far East is Ukrainians and Koreans, I lived there a year. These are two leading nationalities in Vladivostok far outweighing any "Chinese". Koreans have always been there, and Ukrainians relocated in mass numbers (themselves. don't tell me "vicious USSR made them") after empty lands at some time ago forgot when. These two accents in Khabarovsk, places, granted. If you aren't a Korean Russian you are a Ukrainian Russian.
In my observation Koreans are normal people except their sad affection to dogs. I don't know how to re-educate them on this maddening approach, you can have a perfectly normal Korean 2 generations after in Russia but then you still better keep away your dog from one :o)))))
On the positive side they cook sour cabbage well, with carrots and pepper and garlic and oil and I don't know what, very tasty. Always buy in my supermarket, a Korean stall in evety Russian supermarket. We like marinated vegetables various pickled things, to go with, er, well, you know, so Korean pickled things a neverdying success and sure source of income; in this they have found an agreement and a cross-over with the Russian culture. :o))))
Complain about this comment
@138 correction. 1-3, not "103 kilotons". 103 isn't funny.
@133 ironfranco "what a wonderful fire control!" LOL. What a lousy self-control, rather! They have over-played; at first the sea-side village enjoyed a dashing sea-fight and found it "interesting", then the villagers changed their opinion rapidly. :o) Saw them on TV yest all angry as a bee-hive, showing 5 cm pieces of shell-splinters stuck in their roofs, children ran around collecting artefacts and all; great luck it's dacha, all were in the city day time, not many people happened to be in the village during the sea-fight. One ship was firing rockets the other one intercepting them in air, and intercepted very, very well! except that the last was "intercepted" across the land!
Complain about this comment
Mavrelius, I agree that there is no point at Russia and the USA to keep 10,000 or whatever rockets aimed at each other.
Don't know what your worries about us are.
Ours seem to be that you take yourselves too seriously, how to say, like the navel of the world. Either the world with Anmerica or no world at all. I can imagine world without Russia but on your side you somehow find your existance paramount to the world's survival.
Nothing wrong with this base much, except that in order to take no second chances with the USA well-being you can make very many stupid things. I don't know if I voiced my concerns well.
Plus all your mind-boggling religious sects; scientology being the official and the main LOL religion it seems by now. I think these religions blooming affect people's brains. And you can again make many silly things.
In other words it's not exactly that I worry you'll er harm us on purpose, but rather likely from ignorance.
Complain about this comment
#140 WebAlice
Thanks for the academic comment. Send my best regards to the fellow adviser who is in charge of the warfare topics
Complain about this comment
Alice
I hope that your dacha isn't in Pesochnoye.
A most unfortunate affair.
Complain about this comment
ironfranco :o))))...
___________________
No, no advisors this time, common access knowledge. Normally of course I don't walk around stuffing my head with this stuff :o) in this you are right. Simply noticed that all worry, BBC's Have Your Say full of messages, so took a glance to read an article on NK in particular.
Any way SK borders them as well as Russia does, same piece of mainland; before I wrote I glanced of course at BBC and marked BBC had also mentioned a double blast, simply, didn't expand on it.
Military matters and discussions in detail are more common in Russian media; I guess, still of interest to public, after Soviet decades of saying as nothing as possible.
But, judging by Have Your Say, any military matters attract Western audiences attention as well. When have your say asks a "peaceful" question - well, it depends; but when anything about war - 2-3 thousand posts at once, with moderation cueue hanging at around 8-9 hundred posts. All are suddenly experts in North Korea! LOL.
I'm not; apart that we border them, common neighbour kind of awareness,
plus what newspapers say - know nil. And Rus. media in that matter I think would take a consolation angle, simply to not scare extra whole Vladivostok and Ussurijsk.
greypoliglot, no, luckily dacha not in Pesochnoye; besides the state my dacha is in - LOL - hardly any shelling would harm it :o))) Just got back having painted a piece of a house side in green oil paint. Allocated 2 hrs for it LOL but it clean escaped me that first 'd need to scratch off the old paint. As the previous go seem to have been my granfather's in? may be 1970-s...
Complain about this comment
I know a vietnamese lawyer, a very funny and extremely bright guy. Super super bright. He taught himself english, and then got a scholarship to do a Phd in law. Anyway, we were visiting my father, and my father had, at the time, a large black dog. Now we were discussing something fairly highbrow, I forget what, and all of a sudden my father turned to my vietnamese friend and asked "So which sort of dogs taste best?"
Without missing a beat, and in a perfectly judicial tone, my friend replied: "The black ones."
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, LOL! you know, it's not funny :o)))
I ate a piece of dog once!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
exactly courtesy of Koreans, exactly in the Far East, Ussurijsk. unforgettable.
thought "what a strange veal". and asked "What a strange veal?"
and they explained "what a strange veal it is" !!!! You can imagine.
Disaster.
So it's no jokes; all I say is based on hard data :o)))) and un-forgettable ex-perience. Awful. LOL. They tried to explain me the attachment; that dogs are extraordinary good for lungs, bronchitis, you know. Uncroyable. sorry for my French.
Complain about this comment
#144 WebAlice
Your judgment over the common interest in military affairs seems to be right, thought it has little to do with the discussed topic.
What I noticed lately is something quite strange: each time when a forthcoming interesting and important event is to be discussed, some fellow bloggers *launch* other themes. In this particular case the discussion over the European Parliamentary Elections scheduled for June 7th , i.e. in less than a week, seems to step back and give birth to other discussions which hardly would be useful, for us European citizens, to come to some acceptable and mostly convincible common opinion which would help us all to develop and strengthen our union.
I know that what Sarkozy and Markell solemnly declared yesterday is very, very important to all member states, to all people inhabiting the old continent. They simply said that the enlargement of the EU is over. Which means, that there is no chance for countries such Turkey and Ukraine to join us? In my opinion, this declaration is the most important event for the last five years (I mean after the last two enlargements when 12 countries entered the union).
Nobody among the BBC stuff seems to launch a discussion on the eave the elections on June 7th. Instead, we chat with the fellow bloggers over such event as the Pesotchnoye shelling (plenty of sand over there, no need to be afraid), the colour of your cottage painting, and say, the new interpretation of the holy bible according to MAII # 134.
Nevertheless, I take my pleasure in chatting with, provided we do not deviate much from the main topic. If we come to some agreement to chat using the skype channels you are welcome to my address. Just say *go*.
Complain about this comment
ironfranco, what if I refer you to the moderators?
I've copied BBC House Rules onto Word and keep it on the side - to check fellow bloggers for violations.
Your suggestion to discuss "Turkey and Ukraine" and offer to chat with Alice via Skype - have nothing in common with the topic of this thread. Please focus on why there is dissatisfaction re the outcome of the coming elections, "fewer and fewer people are voting", discuss the results of the opinion poll held in March in the 8 EU countries (plus Russia and Switzerland).
Acc. to the House Rules, your post can be qualified "off-topic for the particular message board". I think it won't be bad if, before posting, you'd make a short list of themes actually mentioned by Mark Mardell in the thread, and therefore authorised for discussion. Then you might wish to cross-check your sentences against the bullet-points, whether they are compatible and/or contain the key words set above, ex. "freedom", "opinion poll", "cynicism", "duck", "British American Tobacco." Remember since a couple of disciplined people joined these blogs - this is the new style. Watch out where you step and think for a day or two before replying.
I am going to do exactly that, thinking how the 30 posts on identity cards are compatible with the Cameron's speech and Conservatives's "firm promise" to give referendum. I feel a strong desire to refer whole 30 to the moderators. Simply shocking what trifles people are interested in instead of thinking whether there is a genuine change of policy with the Conservatives'.
And, no, I would not like to chat with you.
Complain about this comment
#148
Dearest Alice, I thank you for the exhaustive lecture. I certainly will not follow, 'cause I do not think that I compete with the other bloggers. I just post what I think and what I deem be in harmony with myself.
However, I appreciate all your posts I have read ever since last Christmas (when I was maybe the only person who could easily decipher all your texts). I quickly understood that you were a sensitive Russian, and that as many as half of your comments had come directly from the Russian poetry and songs, and, I thought I was privileged to understand you better than the other bloggers, no matter how well-intended they were when they addressed you.
Of course you are free to chat with anybody you like. For my part, I should be thankful to M.M. that thanks to his blog I could chat with you. You are too different compared to all of us. And that matters!
Complain about this comment
ironfranco, that's quite disarming.
I hesitate to post from now on.
1. If you aren't around - how will I make myself understood?
Without a Bulgarian interpretor, how will anyone know what a Russian has got to say?
2. How alarming that you revealed the secret, that 1/2 of what I say is hidden "songs and poetry". Matters in low esteem in European quarters overall; even less so in a logical exchange; ranked zero in a meaningful discussion keeping in mind that they are not only "songs and poetry" but worse than that - Russian songs and poetry.
I seriously intend to skip every second thing I want to post to half the amount of crap.
3. Don't know if No 2 would help - as I am hard "to decipher" anyway and "too different" compared to all the rest. In other words - have a snowball chance in hell to be understood. Even when I post in un-rhymed English.
Miracle and mistake to be corrected, that I was able to get answers in these blogs before.
Complain about this comment
Ironfranco forgive me I was very rude and very cruel.
And you are right, only songs in head, I remembered what you said immediately, tonight and feel very ashamed.
I passed a street (subway) musician 2 hrs ago, then heard the tune, pricked my ears, and returned back. We had it once... then I tried to ask for a record... then he began stumbling and said he forgets the words because of my silly looks.. Then of course he sang it the third time, again. Midnight subway - excellent acoustics, never knew. high marble halls, no people, and he is an old man, but opera voice.
Beautiful in opera voice. I remembered you in about the third line and felt awfully ashamed. Forgive me.
It's qu-iet in pi-er in
eve-ning hour... :o)
She is the on-ly one who knows....
When the ti-red sub-marine
from the depth shall
re-turn home
Oh when the ti-red
sub-marine
from the depth shall
re-turn home
Complain about this comment
AliceInWonderLand #150 & 151
Dearest Alice, you are always forgiven, at least by the people who are able to understand correctly your wordings.
How can you think that what you have written so far *ranked zero in a meaningful discussion keeping in mind that they are not only "songs and poetry" but worse than that - Russian songs and poetry*. All civilized people around the globe admire the Russian culture. I travelled much in my youth and I noticed that even in the Far East countries like Sri Lanka or India there are many people who are interested in Russian literature and poetry. I deliberately do not mention countries like France, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Cyprus, Bulgaria, etc., where it is quite normal to see Russian libraries (on many street corners) exhibiting all of your classics works, and of course the latest notorious authors of the detective novels such as Neznakomoff, Marinina, Shkodreva, Youdenitsh, etc. In a word, if according to the general opinion in the West, ever since Peter the Great, Russia has been depicted as a horrible animal (the bear), this symbol does not correspond at all to the other symbol of the artistic Russia the birch. Hence, the double standards by which many people in Europe consider Russia. They fear the Russian imperial behaviour, and, at the same time, they admire the Russian culture (respect & admiration).
Being a sensitive and intelligent Slavic orthodox, you should be proud of your Russian origin.
I shall be glad if some fellow blogger will join me in this chat. Being Bulgarian, maybe I am mistaken in my judgement (for the crushing majority of my people Russia is still considered as a very close friend and liberator from the Ottoman yoke).
Complain about this comment
ironfranco:
"I know that what Sarkozy and Markell solemnly declared yesterday is very, very important to all member states, to all people inhabiting the old continent. They simply said that the enlargement of the EU is over."
I did not know this. Thank you for the information!
I agree with you: this is a very important development. But why do you think this has happened?
Is it because France and Germany have lost a feeling of control over the EU economy? Maybe they fear their exposure to the east of Europe? Maybe they cannot get what they want in Eastern Europe, and they think that if the EU expands they will lose even more control?
I have noticed a lot of eastern Europeans (I am married to a Lithuanian) have recently said a lot of nice things about russia to me. the term "Mother russia" has even been used. There is a feeling that eastern Europe has been badly treated by the west, and that the corrupt politics and money problems have come to eastern europe from the west. There is a feeling that russia will treat the eastern europeans better, because they are "the same people", they speak similar languages.
And now that Russia is not communist, I think people are starting to give up this idea that russia is to blame for the whole soviet experience, and must be punished with hatred. Even if the soviet experience was Russia's fault, who cares? Tomorrow is tomorrow. Russia has the gas, but Europe wants to make money from the eat by banking.
That seems to be the feeling, anyway.
Maybe Ukraine will be the key test of EU russian relations. If the economic disaster there gets much worse, the country could break up. So much is russian, thinks of itself as russian, that there is a possibility of break up.
And if Ukraine does break up, would western europe go to war to protect the lines on the map? We saw what happens in Georgia. NATO walks around and speaks strong language, and they are best friends with their man, and they support him in the press. But the end result...... Georgia is an even smaller country than before, and Putin has the last word: "You will never get Ossetia back." And now Georgia is hated, and treated hard in trade by a huge neighbour. Not so great for the georgians, and they are not happy.
So maybe NATO lost a lot of influence after the Georgian war last year. Robert Gates was clear: we are NOT sending troops to that part of the world. I think maybe this was the only clear message to come out of this war.
But anyway, we will see how the economy goes in the east of europe. There is so much debt..... and you know what debt is like. It is very hard to get rid of debt. You have to save money to pay the debts, but you have no money to save, because always you are paying interest on the debts. When the debt is too big, you become a dead economy, you cannot pay for teachers and roads and police. Then you become a failed state.
This is the problem with the Ukraine, for the west. There is already so much debt, and the west needs to put even more money into the Ukraine if they want to keep the friends they have. But i do not think the west wants to put the money into the Ukraine. They have got the money to spare, and maybe it is throwing good money after bad money?
I still think we have not seen an honest account of how much the EU expansion project has cost the western european states, most of all germany and france. I think it is this balance sheet which is forcing Sarko and Merkel to say "No more expansion."
But the next question is...... what about contraction? You know what happens when you have debts that hurt you. You have to sell some things to get money to reduce the problem of your debt. You must "downsize".
So this fairy tale of free markets and the glory of capitalism is running out of steam, in the east. I don;t think anybody knows what europe will look like in 20 years.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS