Cameron shuns thorny EU
ROSSENDALE, Lancashire, UK:
"Ideal for parties," says the banner outside the venue for the launch of the Conservatives' European election campaign. The atmosphere in these elections is anything but ideal for the big Westminster parties, mired in the mud of what in my days on the parliamentary beat we used to call sleaze. David Cameron tells the audience that "trust in politicians is shot".
The gimmick is that the candidates all have to get up and dutifully sign the pledge. Not a promise to give up the demon drink, but a promise to publish their expenses online. They sign up under the watchful eye of Mr Cameron, who gives off the air of a subaltern hoping the grizzled old guard will do the decent thing.
I take it the reason Mr Cameron has come to St Mary's Chambers (also ideal for weddings and celebrations, according to other banners) is because the North-West of England is a really important battleground, with the British National Party (BNP) possibly poised to take their first ever seat in a national election, slugging it out with not only the big three but UKIP and the Greens as well.
The European bit of the European launch is decidedly muted. His call for a general election, ten times more necessary than before, he says, will get the headlines and there's little or nothing new in the manifesto.
The Conservatives, like most of the other parties, don't particularly want to talk about Europe in these European elections. Some think this is because "Europe" reminds voters of the Tory civil war that raged from Mrs Thatcher's Bruges speech to the defeat of John Major at the polls, when the pro-Europeans finally lost their positions of power in the party.
Maybe it's a consideration. But I think it's mainly because of the risk of getting bogged down in complex "what if?" questions about their policy, whereas calling for an election is easy. Which is a shame, because the Conservatives' ideas on Europe, even if not new, are worthy of attention.
Above Mr Cameron's head, as he enters the building, flutter the Union Jack, the Stars and Stripes and the flags of Canada and Japan. His ideas for linking up with different countries in the parliament are not that radical, but they would make a splash.
Other policies would also feel pretty dramatic if Mr Cameron was in Downing Street, at least to those sitting in other European capitals. A referendum on Lisbon if the treaty is not fully ratified. A promise not to let matters rest if it is. A promise to negotiate a looser relationship with the EU. A promise that there'll be a law ensuring no new powers go to the EU level without a referendum. (Would this include, say, the treaty to allow Croatia to join?)
But there's also a fair amount of hot air. Take the promise in the manifesto that Conservative MEPs will force a vote to do away with the second parliament in Strasbourg. If Mr Cameron doesn't know, someone should tell him that the decision is nothing to do with the parliament itself. It is up to national leaders.
If Mr Cameron became prime minister the ball would be in his court, not that of the MEPs. He is the one who could force the issue onto the agenda and try to undo the agreement signed up to by John Major all those years ago in Edinburgh. Will Mr Cameron sign a pledge to raise the question of the Strasbourg seat as his first priority at his first European Council? If so, I pledge Mr Sarkozy's face will be a treat.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Scrapping the European Parliament is the right thing for Mr Cameron - and the others - to do. Since none of the major parties have even mentioned the European Elections on 4 June, they should be cancelled on the grounds that European Democracy has failed. Mr Cameron himself used the whole of his European Election TV broadcast to talk about Westminster MPs expenses - not even MEP expenses - now there's another ticking bomb if ever there was one. It is disgaceful that the British people - like the French people, are being deliberately not informed that 60% of legislation that affects their lives now emanates from the EU Parliament whose members are not really accountable to anyone - not even their own sponsoring parties.
Complain about this comment
I find the analogy of the EU-Euroskeptic relation with the Civil War a bit funny. I think the Luddite protests would be much more appropriate. The Luddites had a couple of points on their credit, mostly about about the ills of the industrial revolution, but they were unable to comprehend how the world was moving and too attached to a past that was ceasing to exist.
The message Cameron sends, by chasing Euroskeptic votes rings very similar.
Complain about this comment
Why do you write "Bruges", as far as I know there is a Flemish town in Belgium named Brugge (the plural of bridges in Flemish). The French call it Bruges. Why do the English prefer the French spelling to the original Flemish name? I would expect the opposite for hardened Euroskeptics.
Complain about this comment
Apart from saying that he will make the Conservative MEPs sign a pledge and talking about joining a non existent Euro party and avoiding a direct quote of a referendum; what else has he said?
I think David Cameron has got this right. Say nothing and you can't be attacked on concrete policies that you haven't given.
Complain about this comment
Mr Cameron seems to share the same ignorance as some people on this blog about what the Parliament can do and what the Council can do. The difference is that most people on this blog, not being professional politicians, have an excuse. He hasn't.
Complain about this comment
I indeed share the evaluation of IanTownhill in #5.
Not that I think it will help much but it should at least be said once: No less than 4 different assemblies are responsible for the legislation within the Union.
They are: The commission, the council [of ministers, that is the governments of the member states], the European parliament, and the parliaments of the member states.
To anybody with just the slightest insight in this system it is clear that the governments of the member states have considerably powers in the system, and also that the voters are represented on different levels in the system.
Complain about this comment
As someone who lives in the EU, voted for UK entry in the then EEC and has watched the EU develop as the economic and social counterpart of NATO leading the peacefully and progressively integrating Europe of various "nation states" (is the UK a nation?), I listen to the arguments within the UK with bemusement.
The "little Englander" approach of the europhobes, among them the Conservative Party, are in complete opposition to the same party's strategic direction since the time Winston Churchill was the leader. What a pity. I get the very nasty impression that the alternative scenarios have not been really thought through to their logical conclusions. Does the anti-EU lobby really want a return to the divisions of and within Europe of the 1945-89 period? As to the Tories' continental political allies, I think the former would be shocked as to who they are planning to tie the knot with!
Complain about this comment
I watched David Cameron yesterday making his promise, scoutlike, to Rupert Murdoch accepting to do all that he commands. Honesty, thought and integrity were the last things I saw just a desire for power and delusions of adequacy. So all bodes well for us when we get this shadow of a party leader as PM. Just one new law I would like the EU to bring in before that " David Cameron should wear a hardhat when jumping on to any bandwagons"
Complain about this comment
lacerniagigante wrote:
"I find the analogy of the EU-Euroskeptic relation with the Civil War a bit funny. I think the Luddite protests would be much more appropriate. The Luddites had a couple of points on their credit, mostly about about the ills of the industrial revolution, but they were unable to comprehend how the world was moving and too attached to a past that was ceasing to exist."
That is a curious analogy. I am fascinated by the luddites. They are they great losers of history, every technological wonder of the modern day is an Epic Fail rating for their creed. But they are exactly the sort of political reform movement I would be interested in joining, had I been a young person living in those times. "Blame the machines" has a great ring to it. Much easier than class war. Easy to understand, too. Smash up all the machines, and things will stay as they were.
That is the really curious thing about the luddites; they were a labour movement who wanted things to stay as they had been. That is fundamentally odd, if you think about it. Labour ought to want to make life easier for those who labour. But it doesn't. Traditionally, from the luddites through the proto-commies and all the way to the modern socialists in parliament, labour "representatives" have favoured the past, and stable structures of economic production that allow labour representatives to live in peace and tranquility, while the grunts at the coal face grunt away at the coal face.
In fact, I think a good earnest look at the reality of labour representation throughout modern history is required if one really wants to understand the practical outcomes that inevitably result after the use of the political word "representation".
It is important to understand that the cow is represented by the farmer. All the way from the branding crush to the knackers yard.
Complain about this comment
#5 - Iantownhill
It is not ignorance of the institution. As I posted yesterday, Mr. Cameron has stuck himself between a rock and a hard place. At the very time when he could have used anti-government sentiment to bury that party for a decade or more, he has blown it on the one issue where sure footedness is so lacking.
They probably will do quite well in the EU election but for all the wrong reasons and if he does not find the new fiends he needs in Strasbourg/Brussels, the Tories will be a voice crying in the wilderness. Ironic, is it not that the probable next UK government has created a credibility gap in the EU so wide as to be almost unbridgeable.
My one hope is that, north of the border, you guys will flock en masse to the SNP and that, down south, people will realise that EU and Local Elctions raise separate issues and go for the smaller parties in droves. Yes there is a risk of one or two BNP members but they will find a small space in the facist sandpit. UKIP may gain ground. But the big winners hopefully will be the LibDems and the Greens. It may not suit too many in terms of domestic agendas but the EP, it would be a better result.
Complain about this comment
Nevermind Cameron shunning the EU, the whole EU will soon be shunning the UK after the BNP are elected as an MEP. Thanks to Westminster these elections should be cancelled until it can be a vote about the EU, and not a rejection of greedy MPs (although MEPs are just as bad, if not worse). No matter what the results the EU will ignore the UK result as a reaction of National policy and not a rejection of them.
Complain about this comment
Of course the thread is about David Cameron. As a younger man, he has the most powerful political ally of all on his side; time. As long as he manages to avoid stepping in too many fresh steaming piles of public opinion, he can sit back and wait for time to destroy his political rivals.
Gordon Brown has failed, and that is about as much as history will do for him as an epitaph, i think. He has become Blairs' fall guy: he got left holding a massive can of debt after Blair raped the kingdom and run oft to live with the Pope in Rome. But it was probably a better future than he deserved.
And neither Sarko nor Merkel are cutting a very big figure in Europe. Sarko is clearly a bit mad, and Merkel is one of those german women who everybody says is rather nice, but who seems also to keep fairly sinister company, and not say very much.
So i think Cameron's time may yet come to him, and sweep him to the top of the slimy heap. He has extremely poor competition, in terms of basic human quality, and the corporations will no doubt find that he is diligent in representing their best interests in the proper forums. And because he seems such a nice chap, I am sure he will represent the citizens of europe in the forums that are proper for that purpose. Such as on TV, from time to time.
Complain about this comment
Erratum?
In 10 above, I wrote ". . . if he does not find the new fiends he needs in Strasbourg/Brussels".
At the time, I think I meant friends but come to think of it . . .
Complain about this comment
Having read Mr Mardell's summation of the Conservative Party EU Election launch unusually for me I have little to say as the Tories as per usual have nothing new to contribute.
Thus, as Neilson says in the comedy film and appropriately for Dave 'what's my policy today?' Cameron I end with, "Move along, move along, there's nothing to see here!"
Meanwhile the entire screen and in this case UK/England and Europe is filled with mayhem!
Talk about missed political-leadership opportunities!
Complain about this comment
The location of the EU Parliament is an insignificant issue compared to reducing the power that it and other EU institutions have over us. Only someone trying to divert the Conservatives from the central task would suggest that David Cameron should treat that as a priority.
It seems to me that the ambiguity in the Tory position is what they mean by a 'looser relationship'. William Hague was interviewed this week on the BBC and it is clear that he intends to negotiate the return of social and employment law to national control. The Conservatives negotiated an opt-out from the Maastricht treaty in this area that was surrendered by Tony Blair, so this is perhaps a logical starting point at which to begin. It is also clear that William Hague supports the single market on one hand and not the Lisbon treaty on the other, but there are a large number of policy areas that were ceded to Brussels control by the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice about which he has said nothing. The Conservatives need to re-negotiate the return of everything ceded by the treaties on European Union by the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice and use all means necessary in negotiations to achieve that goal.
It would be far better for the smooth progress of these negotiations of the Lisbon Treaty were not in effect. That would create the basis of a bargain whereby the UK could allow other countries to sign a Lisbon-like treaty that they desire, in return for the restoration of powers to the Westminster parliament. Federalists will be hoping to get Lisbon ratified before Cameron comes to power such that they can then shrug their shoulders and say that everything is set in stone, but that will just introduce a need for hard-ball negotiations. I think it is not unreasonable that Hague holds off revealing what the Conservatives will do in the eventuality that they come to power with Lisbon ratified, but as the election approaches more detail will be required, including on the definition of looser arrangement and the extent to which the Conservatives are prepared to wield the handbag. Failing that Cameron and Hague will not secure the support of voters like me who have not voted for the party of Maastricht, since Maastricht.
Complain about this comment
Re 9. At 11:09am on 19 May 2009, democracythreat wrote:
We agree on something :-) I find the Luddites are greatly underestimated in forging part of the British underclass political psyche (except for fringe groups which usually try to take advantage of that where "mainstream" parties don't need to).
What's really fascinating is that the Tories, at least the Cameronians, are now jibing towards a neo-Luddite type of message.
After all cycling to work, instead of using an SUV does appeal to a neo-Luddite in 2009. As long as the public doesn't know that your shoes and bag travel in the mandated car... and that you have enough dough to replace the stolen bikes (but maybe that's lawful to claim on your MEP's sheet).
Re 5: David Cameron is not an ignorant. He knows a lot. One of things he knows best is that most of his electorate prefers to ignore reality. His apparent ignorance is what appeals to his voters. The chap plays his part well: look at the polls. You can't blame him for that.
Complain about this comment
There's none so blind as those who will not see. Unless bigjohnnym is living outside the UK (and outside the rest of the EU) he can't be reading his post. I have so far had EU parliament leaflets from Labour, the Greens, BNP and Lib Dems. All address EU issues to some extent. The Lib Dems go into a lot of detail, eg about the EU parliament's huge role (as bigjohnnym rightly says) in a range of different policy areas that affect our daily lives, and the BNP are clear they want the UK out of the EU. You don't have to agree with what any of them say, or even believe it, but it's there to be argued with. And you don't have to take the parties' word for it: you can look up the record in great detail, on independent websites, of the way every single MEP has voted on every issue in the EU parliament, and read the detailed documents relating to any and every issue, so you can use the net to inform yourself before you use it to sound off.
A major problem with this EU election, and the local elections that have been called by the government on the same day (anti-democratically in my opinion), is that the Tories are refusing to discuss the issues we will be voting on. In my county, which like almost all counties, is run by the Tories, one big issue, among many, is that the road surfaces have been dangerously breaking up, while the Tory administration has spent the £750k that it would cost to fix them on yet another management reshuffle in county hall. Or, on Europe, for example, while they are talking sense about the need to centralise the parliament to Brussels, they spout uninformed nonsense about how this could be achieved (by negotiation in fact, which would be totally undermined by their senseless proposal to remove almost all future Tory influence in the EU Parliament, as they have said they will leave the main conservative group after the election and try to form a new political grouping of eurosceptic convenience, joining with some very doubtful characters most of whose policies they abhor [for example on racism]).
So, to avoid discussing the issues that these elections ARE about, Mr Cameron is urging the electorate to vote on the one thing the elections are NOT about - the record of the current UK government and the need the Tories claim for an immediate general election. Whatever the merits of that claim, this all serves as a very convenient smokescreen to avoid scrutiny and debate of their political record of government at local level, and of their highly questionable EU policies. By these tactics, in relation to OUR election of OUR councillors and OUR MEPS, Mr Cameron shows his disdain of US, the electors. It's same old, same old, and it utterly dismays me.
Complain about this comment
#15 - Freeborn-John
"I think it is not unreasonable that Hague holds off revealing what the Conservatives will do in the eventuality that they come to power with Lisbon ratified . . "
Although it is a hypothetical question, I think it would be appropriate to address it now. If the present government does drag the agony on until the last breath, the chances are that Lisbon will be on the statue book by then (unless the Irish spoil the party again). If next months results are so catastrophic that Labour has to go, that leaves precious little time for the Tories to firm up their policy.
I see the logic of your point but isn't it a bit rash - maybe even dishonest - to tell people to vote for you now and you will tell them what your policy is in due course?
Complain about this comment
There's none so blind as those who will not see. Unless bigjohnnym is living outside the UK (and outside the rest of the EU) he can't be reading his mail. I have so far had EU parliament leaflets from Labour, BNP, the Greens and Lib Dems. All address EU issues to some extent. The Lib Dems, alone, go into a lot of detail about the EU parliament's huge role (as bigjohnnym rightly says) in a range of different policy areas that affect our daily lives. You don't have to agree with what they say, or even believe it, but it's there to be argued with. And you don't have to take the parties' word for it: you can look up the record in great detail, on independent websites, of the way every single MEP has voted on every issue in the EU parliament, and read the detailed documents relating to any and every issue, so you can use the net to inform yourself before you use it to sound off.
A major problem with this EU election, and the local elections that have been called by the government on the same day (anti-democratically in my opinion), is that the Tories are refusing to discuss the issues we will be voting on. In my county, which like almost all is run by the Tories, one big issue among many, is for example, is that the road surfaces have been dangerously breaking up, while the Tory administration has spent the £750k that it would cost to fix them on yet another management reshuffle in county hall. Or, on Europe, for example, while they are talking sense about the need to centralise the parliament to Brussels, they spout uninformed nonsense about how this could be achieved (by negotiation in fact, in which they would be totally undermined by their senseless proposal to remove almost all future Tory influence in the EU Parliament, since have announced they will leave the main conservative group after the election and try to form a new political grouping of convenience, joining with some very doubtful 'eurosceptic' characters whose other policies they abhor [for example on racism]).
So, to avoid discussing the issues that these elections ARE about, Mr Cameron is urging the electorate to vote on the one thing the elections are NOT about - the record of the current UK government and the need the Tories claim for an immediate general election. Whatever the merits of that claim, this all serves as a very convenient smokescreen to avoid scrutiny and debate of their political record of government at local level, and of their questionable EU policies. By these tactics, in relation to OUR election of OUR councillors and OUR MEPS, Mr Cameron shows his disdain of US, the electors. It's same old, same old, and it utterly dismays me.
Complain about this comment
"I see the logic of your point but isn't it a bit rash - maybe even dishonest - to tell people to vote for you now and you will tell them what your policy is in due course?"
Are you being funny?
I mean, you are aware of the people to whom these comments refer?
In all adult seriousness, what do you expect the man to say? He is a professional politician. He is the darling of party gatherings. The party has huge financial sponsors. It depends upon them for its life. At gatherings, lots of people talk to lots of people.
So what do you expect him to say?
"Hello Britain. I represent a collective that analyses your behaviour and seeks to raise revenue by taxing it. I then spend that money where I see fit. Sometimes I borrow a bit more, on your behalf, to give to bankers and whatnot. Furthermore, in order to win the power to spend all your money, I, that is "we in the party", need to take huge payments from corporate sponsors. This pays for the hoo hah needed to gather enough votes to get full control of the public purse, so you can imagine it is quite an expensive undertaking. So we need money from sponsors to win the power, and when we spend the public money, well of course we can't turn our backs on our sponsors. Now all this is called representative democracy, and we love it very much. It is the only alternative to communist dictatorship and baby eating, so we all need to stop talking and get behind the idea. Thank you for listening, and don;t forget to vote!"
Complain about this comment
I wonder how the Pro-European Britons hope to tighten the relationship between the UK and the other member states if on the façade the Conservative Party HQ, beside the Union Jack, are fixed only the banners of America, Canada and Japan? No EU flag, no visible sign of the UK membership to what many Britons before 1975 considered as the natural and most profitable economic sphere to be joined.
Besides, all other promises of Mr Cameron (provided he win the national elections and enters Downing Street) are likely to place him on the opposite coast of the EU (no matter that the Euro tunnel has already changed both the geographical and the political meaning of the British Isles).
There is of course some good news: No more enlargements without referendum. I wonder how the Ankara people will assess this declaration
Complain about this comment
#20 - democracythreat
Yes - pretty much. Or "vote for me because I need the money" or "vote for me 'cos my Aunt Dolly is really cute". In fact just about anything that does not involve articulating policy - in Cameron's case, having one would be a start - or starting an informed debate.
The British public are in no mood to address the real issues because most of them have either bought the sceptic line or are far too interested in giving the political establishment a good kicking to even think about Europe. So you have the Tories, now so sure that the gunshot wounds in Labour's foot are terminal that they see no advantage in promoting a coherent strategy and Labour, who are too desperate to staunch the bleeding to be bothered with such policies as they do have.
The EU elections in the UK are degenerating into a sick joke. Whatever the outcome, the UK will be no further forward. If anything, the waters will be so muddied they will be in danger of becoming dry land. A cynic might even think that the timing of the domestic crisis was a bit too convenient to be coincidental. I would like to be proved wrong but I will only be convinced if the electorate desert the mainstream parties in droves. If they don't, I will be forced to conclude that the broad mass of the British people don't give a flying ferret about Europe, never have and never will. Widespread abstention will simply underline that perception.
Complain about this comment
@ Freeborn John
"It is also clear that William Hague supports the single market on one hand and not the Lisbon treaty on the other"
Methinks you don't know what you are talking about.
All this loose talk about the 'single market' and 'freedom of movement' by most British politicians, media and anti-EU bloggers reflect the simple fact that 99.9% of these people haven't got a clue what the EU's single market really means, and this leads me to bring up again your petty hate, SchengAn (sic) as you say, or the European border union (European because it is wider than the EU, including non-EU countries as well, including the mythically independent countries of Switzerland, Norway and Iceland), aka Schengen.
What has this got to do with the single market? FYI, this:
[Art. 3.2, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union]
"The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured "
So, to translate this legalese into plain English:
1. The EU's single market is meant to be an area *without internal frontiers*, i.e. your petty hate of SchengAn again.
2. Freedom of movement within the EU's single market applies to PERSONS, i.e. human beings irrespective of the flag on their passport: Your petty hate of SchengAn showing up again.
3. Freedom of movement within the EU's single market is not necessarily the same as freedom to live or work in other EU country, e.g. when you pop into your local Tesco, nobody can legally ask you for your passport at the door or stop you from entering it because you cannot show the *right* passport, but that doesn't mean that you are allowed to work in there or to sleep in the back office. Exactly the same applies to the EU's single market and precisely for that reason the UK is not fully part of it.
Got it now? Of course the UK has opted out the *real* EU's single market but that doesn't take away the fact that this is what the EU's single market is. No wonder the main UK political parties do not want to talk about Europe in the European election campaign. They would struggle to make any sense of their policies, let alone explain them to their electors.
"The Conservatives need to re-negotiate the return of everything ceded by the treaties on European Union by the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice and use all means necessary in negotiations to achieve that goal."
Why do you want to make it so complicated (and nigh on impossible to happen in practice)? It seems to me (and to any reasonable soul IMO) that it would be far easier to negotiate the UK's EXIT from the EU and then negotiate with the EU what bits and pieces the UK wants to be part of. Good luck to that negotiator is my well wish.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 and #23.
Unfortunately it is you that has completely misunderstood Schengen!
There is no right of 'free movement' of 'immigrants/migrants' from outside the EU to within the EU, plus there is no automatic right of entry by EU Citizens into any of the 27 member nations (and that incidentally applies to those non-EU signatories to Schengen - - try persuading Switzerland's Government and people that any Tom, Francoise, Rosheen or Erkki can just stroll in to the country - - because even the nonsensical EU recognises Asians, Africans and Americans simply walking in to take jobs, homes etc. is a non-starter).
The fact that UK/England in view of it being Islands has correctly taken the additional measure of opting out of Schengen seems to curiously worry some pro-EU like yourself, though others have understood and accepted the exceptional geographical location, as a just reason for it.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1: You have been told many times that 'free movement of people' is one of the original 'four freedoms' of the original EEC treaty of 1957 and therefore obviously is something different from Schengan that has only existed since the 1990s. You appear to find this extremely difficult to comprehend, so please keep reading this post until you understand the difference.
'Free movement of people' is an automatic right to residence for workers of one member state in another member state of the single market. (This terminology is perhaps what is confusing you). It has existed since the 1957 Treaty of Rome (indeed you quote the text from the 1957 treaty) so clearly is different from Schengan that dates from the 1990s.
Schengan is a passportless zone such that you can cross from one state to another without being subject to a passport check. (Passport checks are not really necessary in Continental countries anyway because the police can, unlike in the UK, demand to see your ID any place and any time and not just at a border).
You persistently confuse the 'automatic right to residence' with 'no passport checks' but they are totally different things. If the free movement of people in the 1957 treaty meant no passport checks then no-one would have written the Schengan treaty 30+ years later would they? If a Japanese citizen arrives in your country via another Schengan state he will not be subject to another passport check but do you believe he has then has the right to residence in your country?
All major parties in the UK are in favour of both (a) the 'four freedoms' of the 1957 Treaty of Rome (including the right to residence) and (b) retaining passport checks for all those (including British nationals) arriving in the UK. The great benefit of this is that once you have passed immigration control at Heathrow you can put your passport and enjoy the real freedom of being able to go about our business without being subject to the demand for "Ausweiss bitte" that those in Schenganland may hear at any moment.
The consequence of the UK position is that that nationals of an EEA or EU state have an automatic right of residence in the UK but are subject to a 30-second passport check on arrival in the UK (as are Britons) to confirm they are who they say they are. I fail to see your problem with this.
Since the UK already has an opt-out from Schengan it is clearly not one of the priority areas for a future Conservative government to re-negotiate.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 wrote:
" It seems to me (and to any reasonable soul IMO) that it would be far easier to negotiate the UK's EXIT from the EU and then negotiate with the EU what bits and pieces the UK wants to be part of. Good luck to that negotiator is my well wish."
I would take that job. hypothetically, I mean. I think it would be an interesting task, but there are strategies for success, given the right approach.
The tools I would need to devise a European policy for an independent UK would be Russia, the US, Switzerland and Poland. If an arrangement could be made with those countries to establish a bloc that curtailed EU trade policy, I believe and equilibrium could be maintained on the continent that would be to the advantage of the UK.
Now that is not going to happen unless the US abandons, or is abandoned by, its traditional allies on the continent. Not because the UK lacks the inclination to team up with mother russia, but rather simply because the US haven't set Europe free yet, and Russia is not quite persona gratia with them just yet.
the EU is hardly some gigantic strategic beast, is my point. It has no oil, no military, and most significantly no naval capability.
Complain about this comment
Whoever you vote for government wins or at least government pays
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 illustrates a common difference between supporters and critics of the EU. He is more concerned about forcing people in other countries to do as he wishs than he is about his own freedom. If he were really motivated by a dislike for ID checks (such as those applied at ports of entry into the UK) then one would expect his first priority to be to oppose ID checks in his own country where the police may demand "Ausweiss Bitte!" of him at any time and place. Yet he never mentions these checks at all focussing only on similar checks that are asked of him on the (presumably rare) occasions he enters the UK.
To read the posts of JorgeG1 you would think that he was a god-given right to say what the EU is and everyone else has the limited choice of accepting his definition of it or leaving.
The great majority of mankind prefers maximising control over their own lives to maximising their control over other peoples lives. Unfortunately the profession of politics seems to attract the minority that likes control over the lives of others, explaining in part why the majority of politicians seem still to support an EU that is increasingly rejected by the majority of their voters.
Complain about this comment
How remarkable that a man like David Cameron bursts onto Britain's political scene just when he did in time to divert attention away from his party's own woes over their abuse of expenses footed by taxpayers. Had he been around the scene for a long time, one would wonder why he chose to come forward with this just now and where he'd be been all that time keeping it to himself for years and years. But that would just be cynical wouldn't it?
Complain about this comment
#28. Freeborn-John
After nearly 40 years British membership of the cooperation, now known as the EU, I hope there has been a rational argument and it therefore has been clear to British voters and parties, the British parliament and the British government, and finally to British media why the country has participated in this arrangement. The opposite possibility is pretty scary.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen (30): I am not sure what you mean by rational, but a rational argument for the EU is not the same thing as a good argument for it. The only rational (logically coherent) argument for the EU that has ever been put forward on these pages is from Jukka Rohila. Unfortunately his logic is that of the fascist who is prepared to subordinate democracy to a collective quest for world power, which is not nearly good enough for me.
If you think you have a good argument for European political union (as opposed to the common market) I will be happy to point out what is wrong with it. But please do not call the imposition of EU law by QMV that we have voted against 'co-operation' and please do not pretend that the UK does not co-operate with countries outside the EU.
Complain about this comment
#31 Freeborn-John
The answer was in fact not an answer.
For anybody in the UK arguing seriously for another relationship between the UK and the EU the first task would be to identify this argument and tell why it is wrong.
It is obvious that not only Labour but also the Tories have been in favour of the membership, and since you cannot mention a rational, that is a meaningful, in common sense rooted, argument for why the majority of the British people and its representatives for the last almost 40 years de facto has supported the British membership, I will have to look elsewhere to see what this argument is.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @25
No ID checks within this country? You have got to be joking haven't you? It is now impossible in this country to open a bank account borrow money, buy investments, instruct an accountant or solicitor without first submitting to full ID checks, which are required by law (on pain of the imprisonment for the members of staff concerned if they fail to insist on this). Most employers also now require to see a passport when recruiting staff in order to ascertain that the candidate has the right to work in the UK (understandable: an employer can be prosecuted for employing staff who have no right to work here).
Carrying a passport or driving licence has now become routine for many people for these reasons.
I have also had members of staff required to identify themselves to British Transport Police at railway stations and have been required to produce ID to police patrolmen whilst walking on foot in an English seaside town, simply because I was photgraphing fishing boats in a harbour.
If Freeborn-John still thinks we live in Dixon of Dock Green Lnad, he should try getting out more.
As for the 30 second passport check we are currently subjected to (unlike JorgeG1 I have never had a real issue with this), we are about to be required to give HMG 24 hours notice of all travel outside of the UK (including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) and possibly - and outrageously - to Northern Ireland as well. Our passports may say "Citizen of Great Britain AND Northeren Ireland", but clearly HMG have not read the last bit, and the "United Kingdom" will effectively be broken up by imposition of an internal border by the very leaders (Gordon Brown, and maybe David Cameron, if he does not reverse this policy) who profess to want to save it
The advance notice requirement will apply even to travel by train and ferry as well as in private yachts and aircraft. Permission to travel may be denied on all kinds of spurious grounds like unpaid fines, and the possibilty of mistaken identity does not bear thinking about.
This is definitely not within the understanding that most of us have of freedom of movement within the EU or indeed freedom generally (You may have been freeborn, John, but you may not be a free man for much longer).
This will almost certainly be illegal under European law, so we may have the peverse situation of having to rely on that "bunch of foreigners" at the European Court of Justice to protect us from the tyranny of our own Government.
As for the main thread, David Cameron has made the job of deciding who to vote for in the EU elections much easier. There is no way that I will vote for a party that intends to sit on the fringe of the European Parliament, with a bunch of racists and xenophobes.
Complain about this comment
Mathisen: As with JorgeG1 you illustrate another typical characetristic to the EU supporter, namely assuming there is a good argument for the Brussels system but not actually being able to remember what it is.
You are also assuming that a majority of Britons are in favour of European political union (as opposed to the common market).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7949104.stm
The alternative to the EU is the classical method of intergovernmentalism that is used everywhere else in the democratic world and which allows the UK to co-operate perfectly well with non EU states such as Canada, the USA, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, etc. (and these countries to co-operate with each other).
The great advantage of inter-governmentalism over suprnationalism (as used in the EU) is that it does not allow one government to lock its Opposition (and future generations of voters) into policies that cannot be changed following the next election. If we stay in the EU then we will continue to see that every new EU law replaces not just national law but (by virtue of the supremacy of EU law) actually prevents national parliaments from legislating in that area ever again in any way that conflcist with the EU law. Since the EU legislative machinary is never going to stop creating new EU laws the arena within which democratic national parliaments operate is continually shrinking towards vanishing point (in all except a handful of areas). If we stay in the EU a point will inevitably be reached when our national parliaments cannot legislate at all, at which point our elections will have been reduced to deciding which party send a representative to the EU Cuncil of Minsiters to be outvoted and explain to us why we must live under law that we never wanted in the first place but cannot change again through the democratic process. This is the inevitable and to me unacceptable cost of not leaving the EU. So i ask you to explain to me why you think this cost is worth paying.
Complain about this comment
Reading Ikamaskeip and FBJ @ 24 and 25 makes me realise why any understanding between the Anti-EU brigade and those of us that are more amenable to the cause of European integration (whatever shape or form that may take) is nigh on impossible. We just seem to speak a different language.
@ 24, "Unfortunately it is you that has completely misunderstood Schengen! There is no right of 'free movement' of 'immigrants/migrants' from outside the EU to within the EU,..."
Well, not sure what Schengen you are talking about but it seems a different one to the one I am talking about.
What applies to "'immigrants/migrants' [coming] from outside the EU to within the EU" has nothing to do with Schengen because Schengen applies once you are inside the EU or in the wider Schengen area. Any Schengen country applies border controls to ANYBODY coming from outside the Schengen area but to NOBODY coming from INSIDE the Schengen area. Does that answer your first question?
" plus there is no automatic right of entry by EU Citizens into any of the 27 member nations"
This definitely comes as news to me and probably to the rest of our blogging confraternity. Could you please clarify this and the source of this new EU directive? Or are you talking about HMG banning certain people like this Dutch MP who HMG considers to be a preacher of hate? Whether one agrees with banning people for 'thought crimes' or not (I don't) this is a different situation. If this Dutch MP wanted to pop into France or Germany I would like to know how the French or German governments would notice his presence in the first place, unless some informer told them about it, because he ain't going to be stopped at the French-German border for the simple reason that it doesn't exist: There are no picket fences and nobody to stop you to ask for your passport.
@ FBJ, what happened in 1957 is history now. The EEC that existed in the first few decades after the Treaty of Rome is no more. What exists now is the EU and whether you like it or not the border union is an essential part of that. But you and the UK are entirely free to leave the EU and I will be the first to rejoice. And exactly what part of the CURRENT EU's single market setup you do not understand, whatever the UK thinks or doesn't think about it:
"The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured "
Plus you don't need to explain to me the difference between 'automatic right to residence' and 'no passport checks'. I did say in my previous post that they are totally different things if you had cared to read it properly. I said, in other words, that the CURRENT EU has two dimensions:
1. As far as the *single market* is concerned, freedom of movement INSIDE THE EU applies to PERSONS (e.g. your Japanese chap) and there are no INTRA-EU border controls to because they are literally pointless once you grant freedom of movement to PERSONS (i.e. human beings irrespective of whether they are white or black, good or bad, EU nationals or not) but your Japanese friend has no right to live or work in any EU country other than his/her country of residence, if he/she is an EU resident. If he/she is a visitor, with the Schengen visa he/she will be able to travel undisturbed to any or all of 25 Schengen countries. If he wants to pop into the UK, supposedly part of the EU's single market, he/she will need two separate visas, so he/she will have all the incentive in the world to avoid the UK like the plague, unless his mum lives here or something similar, of course.
2. As far as EU citizens are concerned, freedom of movement means freedom to travel, to live and to work in any EU country, like your compatriots who are enjoying a healthy retirement in Spain.
This is what is in place now, 1957 is long gone.
Finally, your superiority complex about how free you are in the UK once you cross its picket fences is nothing short of pathetic. Free under the close surveillance of the largest CCTV network created by mankind? Plus have you heard of stop and search? Probably not, because I understand that it is mainly ethnic minorities who are at the receiving end, and I would bet my house that you belong to the white English ethnic group.
Complain about this comment
There is a time when burning down the institutions of the state or superstate is appealing to the people - however if we send home all the MPs from Westminster (or withdraw from the EU) there has to be something in its place to exercise control on the bureaucrats for the people.
David Cameron (like his bed fellows and fellow travellers UKIP etc.) is being entirely disingenuous when he and his party advocate radical disengagement - he knows he can't do it, just as he knows and every politician knows that the MPs in Westminster need to be there too. There is as much chance of EU withdrawal from David Cameron as Gordon Brown. But both parties have individuals within them that would want such as process - luckily the majority does not, and will not, if history is anything to go by.
Just as Westminster needs reform so does the EU and for many of the same reasons - by reform not taking back our ball in a huff! All withdrawal would do is to allow the bureaucrats to continued unchecked. The bureaucrats win if they can get rid of elected representatives with a mandate to check on what they are up to and that must never happen.
We must engage fully as a Nation in the World, and that means in the EU as well - there is no alternative as all other options however superficially attractive will lead us still subject to the whims of the same bureaucrats, but without the slightest influence on them at all.
Complain about this comment
In case anyone feels that I am exaggerating in my post @33, I recommend this piece from The Guardian:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/01/travel-surveillance-idcards
When will the Euroscepitcs wake up to the fact that it is not the EU that threatens our liberty. The threat is much closer to home.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#3, lacerniagigante,
Good point but why do most Language fanatics insist on renaming a town into their language, other than Charleroi I can't recall another Southern Belgium (French)large town that the Flemish haven't renamed into Dutch. I also think that calling London by any other name is incorrect, likewise Koln, Praha etc.
Complain about this comment
On a completely different subject, does anyone have any idea why the BBC web site has shrunk to the size of a postage stamp in Firefox but still appears to be perfectly normal in other browsers?
Complain about this comment
#40,
I also use Firefox but don't have that problem, maybe one of their updates has screwed something.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR: You will not find anyone more opposed to the illberal ID card scheme than me. If the Beast of Brussels did not have to be slain first I would probably be taking up the cudgels on that issue instead. I would however say two things to you:
(i) The Conservative policy of scrapping the introduction of ID cards is one example of a clear policy difference between the two main parties.
(ii) As I pointed in the last thread, it is Labour that has been sitting in the EU Parliament with a former member of the IRA, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and the Polish Self-Defense of the Republic party whose leader is a member of an anti-Semitic organization. I hope you would also not want to vote for Labour MEPs that have been sitting with people and parties like that either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrzej_Lepper
There are alternatives to Labour (and not just UKIP, e.g. the Greens). Please ask yourself anyway if Labour should be rewarded with your vote this year when they lied to get elected in 2005 by ratifying a Lisbon Treaty that really means the progressive weakening of your vote in future. A vote for Labour or the LidDems is actually a vote to weaken your vote in future.
JorgeG1: I am afraid you are making it up as you go along. You are deliberately confusing yourself that "freedom of movement" implies a passport free zone and that it applies to all human beings rather than workers who are citizens of an EU member state.
Below you will find article 48 of the original 1957 Treaty of Rome defining 'freedom of movement' and below that the equivalent article (number 39) in the currently in force consolidated version of the Treaty of Nice. The wording in both the 1957 and current text in very similar and clearly refers to the freedom for "workers" to move about freely "within" the territory of Member States (and not "between" the territory of member states).
Your much heralded 'freedom of movement of persons' is defined as follows (not in a treaty): "All Union citizens have the right to enter another Member State by virtue of having an identity card or valid passport". This right only applies for stays of up to 3 months.
I hope we have heard the last bone-headed denial from you on this non-issue. But in any case Schengan is as dead an issue in the UK as the Euro is. If there is a change of government next year the agenda will be all about reversing EU integration. Therefore what we need for the Conservatives in the next year is more concrete details of what they will seek in the future negotiations and some idea of what measures they will take if France, Germany etc. try to obstruct, e.g. filllibustering of EU business, withholding of UK budget contributions, etc.
-------------------------------------------
Article 48 of Treaty of Rome (1957)
1. The free movement of workers shall be ensured within the Community not later than at the date of the expiry of the transitional period.
2. This shall involve the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States, as regards employment, remuneration and other working conditions.
3. It shall include the right, subject to limitations justified by reasons of public order, public safety and public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move about freely for this purpose within the territory of Member States;
(c) to stay in any Member State in order to carry on an employment in conformity with the legislative and administrative provisions governing the employment of the workers of that State; and
(d) to live, on conditions which shall be the subject of implementing regulations to be laid down by the Commission, in the territory of a Member State after having been employed there.
Article 39 of Treaty of Nice (currently in force):
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
Complain about this comment
The case of the Euro sceptics on this blog is falling apart. They are not even able to state what the reason has been for almost 40 years UK participation in the European integration, as we call it here. Amazing.
Another thing: In the more than six years I have lived in Berlin I have never been asked by a policeman on the street to show my identification (Ausweis). The same goes by the way for Denmark. The police have better things to do.
I have crossed borders all over in the Union in the last 8-9 years plus Switzerland very recently, but I can't recall I have ever been asked to show my passport.
However from time to time the member states reinstate the passport control at the border, meaning we are temporarily back in the times before Schengen.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland, I have just read on the BBC that Medvedev is thinking of having an 'official' history of Russia and if this is deviated from could lead the offender to a jail term of up to five years. You had better be careful if that happens. Let's hope that the new law, if it comes into effect, will not be retrospective. Then you will be in trouble.
Complain about this comment
#40. threnodio wrote:
"BBC web site has shrunk to the size of a postage stamp in Firefox"
Just a thought, try typing Ctrl 0 (hold control key down and press zero) This should fix the problem. Reasoning - Firefox remembers web pages and size changes so when you next come to the same (?) page it remembers the shrinkage or expansion ... see "view menu" "zoom item" etc!
Complain about this comment
#45 - John_from_Hendon
Brilliant - thank you!
I shall probably lie awake all night wondering how I did it in the first place. And I am supposed to know all about web sites:-)
Complain about this comment
"The great benefit of this is that once you have passed immigration control at Heathrow you can put your passport and enjoy the real freedom of being able to go about our business without being subject to the demand for "Ausweiss bitte" that those in Schenganland may hear at any moment."
Freeborn-John, have you actually set foot on continental Europe ?! Cause that's were I have been living for about forty year, and nobody there keeps there ID on them ! Damn, in forty years, no cop has ever ask for my ID, ever ! So please, travel before making the dumbest comments !
Complain about this comment
gedguy2 @44 thank you for warning. "5 yrs without right of correspondence" still a live expression. though last applied approx. 1953. all the more reason for me to use the time at max! :o))
Peculiar. Every, say, "change" to Yeltsin laws is explained by alligning Russians laws with "the democratic Western countries".
You can't make an effort, show a better example? :o)
Until today Head of Constitutional Court was elected by that court judges. And that's our top legal authority in the country, the next stage - only Strasbourg court. Now to be appointed by either the President or the PM, forgot who.
Several examples were given where else it is likewise.
Until last autumn we were chosing in elections an individual. Now that's individual from a party and that party can later on re-place that individual by any other party member.
Until 2 yrs ago I think we had a line in the ballots "against all candidates". Then the option became "don't come at all" or "pick one from the list". Explained by forgot which countries, a plenty.
There is always someone you can pick up er... anyway - from! The world is big!
The "official history" is from the same opera. Were told in the US school text-books are standard, be it Alaska or California. MAII?
Today 32 text-books (history 20th century) are in operation in Russia in parallel, all 32 "recommended" by the Academie of Science". By different members, LOL.
Differ as earth and sky, one'd say "Stalin effective mngr, utilised FOC Gulag labour in industrialisation" the other one "flush down the toilet and plague to both of their houses."
Every teacher in any state run school today choses which idea is more appealing to him/her, and tells the class to buy that text-book. Plus a teacher today can combine, a chapter from this book, a chapter from that (parents' budgets permitting to buy several books for every study year).
Nobody cared but now we took some "Bolognese" education model or smth.
From you! somewhere.
We are the 2nd year in it so far. It had higher education split into 2 stages (masters and bachelors I think) (instead of 5-6 years of "higher" education un-dividable. either in full or no degree.)
Entrance exams to the universities are cancelled. Instead kids do a pan-Russia standard tests in various disciplines, while still at school.
These tests' results are later simply sent to many universities at once, in the hope that at least one of them will find the scores acceptable.
Now, the history exam ended with a bang last year, because the people who composed it didn't keep in mind the existence of 32 various views on history in the country. Their test was Version No 33 I think LOL. Some parents went to law when their kids failed saying "excuse moi have a look at my kid's history text-book; it says the opposite".
Anyway that's just an explanation you know you can explain anything if you wish to.
This universal test is hated by schools and universities alike, because it's tick up an answer in the box or fill those squares, un-imaginative approach, and schools now don't teach, only as they say "train kids to pass the test and think in terms of those flat shallow answers."
Universities hate it because it decreases the quality of the in-take, all brought to the common denominator and they wish to be able to ask tricky questions on their main area, on entry, instead of accepting abstract scores that mean nil.
The key universities - Moscow's and St. Pete so far negotiated the right to neglect the school scores but ask again, in the old entry exams format. But these will also be bended though both rectors say "only stepping over my dead body." Well then it looks it will be their dead bodies.
Overall we don't know what will happen to our history, nothing as un-predictable as the past, you know. But whatever it is we are kind of best trained in the world to keep 2 stories running in the head in parallel (if not 32). The damage was already done, LOL, with 32 history text-books since 1989, you can imagine. And that was school, in the higher educ. establishments - simply no limits. Lectures and snippets from here and there.
Would be awful sad to lose this loose and rich field; I haven't figures out yet who will "official history" be for.
Overall I don't know what's better every time - Bolognese system or old Russian, "has to elect someone " or can write "I hate them all" but the general feeling is all kind of combines together, the general direction. May be they are right those people who say democracy is when leg-chains are not very pressing LOL.
Complain about this comment
22. At 1:00pm on 19 May 2009, threnodio wrote:
"...
The British public are in no mood to address the real issues ..."
The British public have addressed the real issues. They have heard forty years of argument and forty years of lies. At least oldies like me have. Anybody old enough to vote had witnessed the most obvious of the lies, distortion and manipulation i.e. the "EU"-lovers Amazon of bullproduct in defence of the Lisbon rubbish.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"The case of the Euro sceptics on this blog is falling apart. They are not even able to state what the reason has been for almost 40 years UK participation in the European integration, as we call it here. Amazing."
What is amazing is the implication you make: that if those who object to the current manifestation of a unified europe do not continue to shout out their reasons, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, then the EU is legitimate.
But that implication is correct. The way the EU is being sold, one cannot argue based upon reason and facts. It is a shouting match, from start to finish. Nobody is listening to each other, it is just a mad scramble for media space and shouting rights.
Why?
Is it possibly because the people who desire the EU in its current form desperately do not wish to discuss why they want it as it is? Is the reason we shout about it simply because those who are pushing it forward fully intend to roll over the objectors, and to smother their objections in fanfare, slogans and shouting?
You ask the reason for the UK's 40 year involvement in the EU. OK: agricultural subsidies.
That is the reason for every nations membership. Agricultural subsidies make up over half of all EU spending.
So why do all these representative democracies want to join up to a club that take vast sums of taxpayers money, give it to the EU which then gives this money to farmers?
That is a fantastic question, if you think about it. Why? Why not simply just give the money straight to the farmers? Why go through all the weirdness of the EU, simply to gift a vast sum of money to farmers? Why not take it straight from the taxpayer and give it to the land owner?
I do not pretend to have a monopoly on that answer, but I am suspicious in the extreme. The EU seems to me to be a mechanism of circumventing what little democratic accountability exists within member states. Parties inside member states can lose power, and they can be interrogated by the press for their spending decisions. Thus, pushing money through the EU is a way of getting it to the sponsors of the party without those sponsors risking scrutiny.
The whole issue of giving the landed gentry money is weird. Totally weird and strange and illogical. These people, the poor struggling farmers..... they own the land. They quite literally own the land. And yet.... they are poor. They struggle. They need money. They need more than half of the 113 billion pounds given to the EU every year.
But the landed gentry are not so poor that they cannot sponsor major political parties. Nor are they so poor they need to give up their seats in the upper houses. Or, indeed, their crowns.
Do any of you english folks know that the prince of wales traditionally has 130,000 acres of land in England to serve as the means for his personal income?
So how much EU money is Prince Charlie getting?
And that is on top of the vast sums of money his family is being gifted by the Brown government, to save them from losing money when their bank went bust. (the royal family owned coutts bank, which then merged with RBS, which then received vast sums of tax payers money so that the shareholders retained their wealth and income from mortgages.)
Lots of people understand that the UK is serfdom dressed up as democracy, and lots of people lament this farce just as much as they lament the lack of human rights law in the UK. Just so, the EU is NOT a step in the right direction. If anything, it is Europe moving in the direction of the UK, where certain members of society are born better than others, with more political rights and more legal rights.
People ought to be clear about what they support, when they shout about how great the EU is for europeans. Sure, it is great for the land owning aristocracy of europe. It gives them unfettered access to tax revenue, such that they can retain their vast family fortunes without exposing themselves to the terrors of the market.
In other words, the EU is a feudal structure, designed to circumvent the market and the rule of law (which requires folks to be equal before the law.
Complain about this comment
47. At 01:00am on 20 May 2009, Cracklite wrote:
"
Freeborn-John, have you actually set foot on continental Europe ?! Cause that's were I have been living for about forty year, and nobody there keeps there ID on them ! Damn, in forty years, no cop has ever ask for my ID, ever ! So please, travel before making the dumbest comments !"
You must live in a cave near the top of Mont Blanc!
When I lived in Germany, everybody carried their ID (Ausweiss) with them ALL THE TIME! I was with an Irishman who was trying to donate blood. Initially they refused to take it because he didn't have ID but then relented when he threatened to leave.*
I was on a train crossing from Germany into Holland. A Dutch policeman checked EVERYBODY'S ID. One woman didn't have an ID with her and he threatened to send her back next time. I questioned him. I put it to him that all this passport stuff was supposed to have stopped. He said that in the Schengen area any policeman could check anybody's ID any time to check that they were entitled to be there.
So Cracklite, take some more and chill man but don't post no more rubbish please!
* The after-donation grub was much better than in the UK. And you got some nice piece of jewellery after donating ten times or something.
Complain about this comment
Has David Cameron deselected the three Tory Westminster MPs who voted against us having a referendum on the Lisbon Treachory? I think not.
Only one Tory MEP (Daniel Hannan) was thrown out of Poettering's integrationist group in the parliament of the "EU"-dictatorship.
A Tory vote is a wasted vote.
Complain about this comment
I am amazed how you manage to be so unprofessional by spreading your anti-Strasbourg views, hidden behind sheer untruth.
You write:
"Take the promise in the manifesto that Conservative MEPs will force a vote to do away with the second parliament in Strasbourg."
You know very well that there is NO "second parliament" in Strasbourg. The one and only official seat of the European Parliament is in Strasbourg. If any, the only "second parliament" is in Brussels, where it has based most of it activities despite treaty provisions to the contrary!
But you prefer to ignore (voluntarily) the legal situation and pretend that Strasbourg is an abnormality, as if a fact-creating policy could be a substitute for political vision and courage.
Complain about this comment
# 48 WebAliceinwonderland
Do gulags have the internet nowadays? ;-)
Complain about this comment
#22 Threnodio
Your wrote: *A cynic might even think that the timing of the domestic crisis was a bit too convenient to be coincidental. I would like to be proved wrong but I will only be convinced if the electorate desert the mainstream parties in droves. If they don't, I will be forced to conclude that the broad mass of the British people don't give a flying ferret about Europe, never have and never will. Widespread abstention will simply underline that perception.*
Threnodio, I certainly can not understand where is the difference between a *widespread abstention* and a *desertion by the electorate of the mainstream parties*? Logically, if the Britons abstain that means they are Pro Europeans, if they *desert the mainstream parties* they are Pro Europeans also.
Complain about this comment
#47, Cracklite,
Your comment about never having been controlled in forty years somewhat surprises me and if people don't carry their Id then that surprises me even more. I know Belgium very well and I get asked for my Id whenever doing anything in the commune or dealing with certain other tasks, even concerning shops. As for the police, if you are stopped for whatever reason you will be obliged to show your Id and car documents, if you can't you will get a fine, and cars are being controlled very frequently at night in the anti-drinking campaigns.
Complain about this comment
#55, ironfranco,
Not voting can be interpreted in two ways, you are totally happy with the current scenario, or you are so unhappy with the current scenario and candidates offered to you that you either refuse to vote or spoil the paper. "if they *desert the mainstream parties* they are Pro Europeans also", I'm afraid that depends on which party they chose, if it's the greens then you're right, if it's UKIP or one of the other EU-Sceptic party's then it's a very valid message that people don't like either the EU or the EU in it's current and proposed Lisbon form..
Complain about this comment
#57 Buzet23
I see the point, though it looks strange to abstain if one accepts the current scenario.
Complain about this comment
#53, EuroManu,
You are correct in that Strasbourg is regarded as the official seat of the European Parliament and Brussels an extra seat for plenary sessions, but it is the right of the EP to decide on where it sits without commission interference as has been said in some written responses to questions in the EP and the Commission. If the EP decides it would rather sit solely in Brussels it has the legal right to do so and the original accord of the Franco-Germanic axis that it would be in Strasbourg will be irrelevant, you might recall that the primary published justification for Strasbourg was that it was a symbol of reconciliation after two world wars.
The monthly trek to Strasbourg is seen by most as being symptomatic of the excesses of the EU and the money that is being blown on them. Therefore, "political vision and courage" will come from those prepared to confront the 'sacred cows' like Strasbourg and decide to end the monthly farce and sit solely in Brussels, where, after all, the Commission also sits.
Complain about this comment
#50 democracythreat
Thank you for your answer. It is the first meaningful answer I have received on my question.
You wrote about the agricultural subsidies: That is the reason for every nations membership, which cannot be the whole explanation since some nations are paying more than they receive.
The first reason for the agricultural subsidies is that the countries wanted to secure the supplies of food to its populations. The second, which is the essential reason why a country like Germany accept to put so much money in the EU, is the complex I have mentioned earlier: It began as security politics, then it became a market, and now the political dimension is developing.
The agricultural market was crucial when Eire, Great Britain and Denmark joined in 1973. It is obvious that the subsidising was the same to Greece, Spain and Portugal, but in all three cases the membership has at the same time supported the development of a democracy in these countries former known as military dictatorships. You can go on with the new east European member
Now, there are many political issues in the agricultural subsidies: support of structural weak regions, surplus production, subsidies to meaningless production, fraud, a horrific policy in relation to developing countries etc.
There is a lot of room for criticism, but did you know that the responsible Danish commissioner for agriculture (she is a liberal) is trying to reduce the subsidies to the benefit of the market forces? Did you know that the Lisbon treaty will give the European parliament more influence on the agriculture policy (= it will be a normal subject to representative democracy), which means that your MEP can bring your viewpoints on agricultural subsidies to the EP? And did you realise that there are other citizens and parties (not least the green parties), which are indeed not satisfied with the agricultural policy of the EU?
Complain about this comment
#49 - SuffolkBoy2
For once, I was not trying to score points in the EU debate. My point is that many who do vote in the EU elections will not be voting on EU issues. That does your cause no more favours than it does mine and it will tell you precisely nothing about the British perception of the EU. That is why we need your referendum. For once, I am on your side.
Complain about this comment
#55 - ironfranco.
The difference is a stark one. Defections to minor parties would at least indicate that the electorate are interested in something, even if it were for all the wrong reasons. Mass abstentions mean that they do not vote at all. That is the worse possible situation because both sides would seize on it to justify their argument that the British are not interested but we will have learned nothing new.
Complain about this comment
Re Freeborn-John, #15 -
'The Conservatives need to re-negotiate the return of everything ceded by the treaties on European Union by the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice and use all means necessary in negotiations to achieve that goal.'
But the interesting thing is that the UK already has an opt-out from most of the major developments in the last 3 treaties, and Lisbon - monetary union, Schengen, immigration and asylum, and (if Lisbon is ratified) policing and criminal law. Also there is an opt-out from EU foreign policy ready to be used already in the Treaties, although nobody has used it (yet).
So one scenario is that a Tory government just decides to continue using the opt-outs the UK is already applying, and to use more frequently those opt-outs and other opt-outs which are already available. In that scenario the only Treaty amendment they would need is an opt-out from social and employment law, which they have committed themselves to seeking.
The interesting question is exactly how they would go about demanding that opt-out, assuming that Lisbon is in force. If it is not in force, then of course Lisbon is itself the leverage. Without that leverage, realistically the UK either has to offer to give up something else (whatever that may be) in order to get the social policy opt-out, or to try to block EU measures in order to force others to negotiate. The former strategy will not endear itself to hard-core Eurosceptics. The latter strategy would, but then this strategy would spend all of the UK's political capital very quickly indeed.
Complain about this comment
#61, threnodio,
I think you're right about the need for a referendum, our political masters seem to think they are a dangerous part of democracy that is to be avoided at all costs. They instead love to hold public consultations which they load with tame lapdogs and ignore the words of those who say the wrong thing. When such important things as a Federal or Confederate EU, or a Constitution come up then that needs the approval of the voters, and it is not sufficient to say that because we voted the MEP's in they then have carte blanche to do anything they see fit, even if it was loosely in their manifesto's.
It is a bit like me here, I don't like any of the Lists in the EU election but will probably end up voting for the most Social centre group even though there is much I don't support. On such an issue as Lisbon I would like a direct vote so that can be no doubt that either the population want it or they don't, and any attempt as in Ireland to claim the vote was invalid because the voters either didn't know what they were voting for or voted no in protest should be ignored. Or in other words 'YES' and 'NO' mean just that with no prevarication or slithering attempts to introduce a defeated proposal by the back door.
Complain about this comment
I find the "head in the sand" or diversionary attitudes of the main UK political parties towards EU elections insulting. (They seem to have a similar contempt for the electorate in local elections).
The EU elections ARE important, they affect us all. Concentrating on the Westminster agenda is NOT doing anybody, regardless of their position on Europe, any favours. This is a EUROPEAN election, and should be fought as such.
Oh, and the media aren't much use on this issue either!
Complain about this comment
stevepeers: Opt-outs are not good enough, because they can (like the Maastricht opt-outs) be negotiated at significant expense only to be surrendered by the next Labour government. We need treaty changes to lock in the result of these negotiations, and ideally a written UK constitution that would prevent future Labour governments giving away powers without the consent of the British people.
I have no dounbt that negotiations will be tough but the consequences of not entering them (see post 34) are unacceptable. Fundamentally the UK is in a strong position. We import more from the Continent than we export, and 'freedom of movement' is largely a one-way benefit that Continentals use to seek better paying job in English-speaking countries. And without the UK the rest of Europe would fear the hegemony of France and Germany. We will certainly have to make clear that we are prepared to walk away if we do not get what we want. We need a clear vision of what we want to achieve and the polticial will power to get it and should seek to get the peoples of Europe on our side against their own governments.
I would suggest that we push for a general change to EU treaties that would mean that EU law is binding only on the government that signs it (and not in perpetuity on their state as at present). It would be hard for Continental government to argue against this without their own people then realising that the consequence of only granting this to the UK would be the progressive elimination of their ability over time to elect governments able to change the law they live under.
Complain about this comment
#63, stevepeers,
In your last paragraph you touched on what is most probably the root cause of the malaise that is within the EU, namely the need to give up something to get something. The unsavoury horse trading that goes on totally ignores the fundamental reason for doing something, is it beneficial or not, and concentrates rather on one country's or groupings hobby horses in order to pass another groupings hobby horse. This may be how politics and democracy currently work but that is not a justification as it can mean that bad directives have been passed because of this horse trading.
If the UK (or any other country) has to suck up to another grouping in order to get something it considers of National importance then there is plainly something very wrong, not only in the inference that Sovereignty has been completely subjugated.
Complain about this comment
#@62 Threnodio
The abstention means also a negative vote. If the *mainstream parties* in GB are believed to be Euro sceptical, and, if at normal periods of time they win more than 80% of the cast, one can assume that the majority of the Brits, if they abstain to vote, are Pro Europeans.
This deduction, if it comes to be true, differs somehow from your assumption that a widespread abstention will underline the perception that a *broad mass of the British people don't give a flying ferret about Europe, never have and never will*.
Of course, we shall wait and see.
Complain about this comment
#64 - Buzet23
Yes but, on the other hand, would you not first need people in power who understood the meaning of the word 'No'?
Complain about this comment
#69 threnodio,
I quite agree, to most if not all of our political elite the word 'No' simply means an inconvenient delay to their grand project or hobby horse, and the immediate research by their tame civil servants into ways the 'No' can be circumvented and the project re-introduced by stealth and spun as something different.
Um, that sounds re-markedly like the constitution/treaty dispute and I'm waiting for evidence that the current expenses scandal in the UK has taught at least some of the UK's politicians the meaning of 'No'. All we maybe need now is for the European Parliament expenses to be leaked as I recall they voted to keep them secret, now that will make interesting reading.
Complain about this comment
@ FBJ
"JorgeG1: I am afraid you are making it up as you go along. You are deliberately confusing yourself that "freedom of movement" implies a passport free zone and that it applies to all human beings rather than workers who are citizens of an EU member state."
"Below you will find article 48 of the original 1957 Treaty of Rome defining 'freedom of movement' and below that the equivalent article (number 39) in the currently in force consolidated version of the Treaty of Nice. The wording in both the 1957 and current text in very similar and clearly refers to the freedom for "workers" to move about freely "within" the territory of Member States (and not "between" the territory of member states)."
Silly, idiot, bone headed me! I got these articles below from the bible thinking that they were part of the EU legislation:
[Art. 3.2, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union]
"The internal market shall comprise an area *without internal frontiers* in which the free movement of goods, *persons*, services and capital is ensured "
[Art. 26.2, Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]
" The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice *without internal frontiers*, in which the free movement of *persons* is ensured "
[Article 61, Lisbon Treaty]
" 1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.
2. It shall ensure the *absence of internal border controls for persons*..."
You are the one who is lamentably confusing the British opt-outs and the reality of the EU legislation (see above) that applies in the whole EU and EEA except the UK and ROI. SchengAn is just a red herring, a name that obscures the issue, which is that the EU of today, not what was created in 1957, is a territory *WITHOUT INTERNAL FRONTIERS* i.e. no picket fences for passport control.
My question to you (and your Tory friends) is why you so desperately want to remain INSIDE the EU but opting out of everything except some diluted free trading area. Stevepeers at 63, makes a very relevant point in this respect:
"But the interesting thing is that the UK already has an opt-out from most of the major developments in the last 3 treaties, and Lisbon - monetary union, Schengen, immigration and asylum, and (if Lisbon is ratified) policing and criminal law. Also there is an opt-out from EU foreign policy ready to be used already in the Treaties, although nobody has used it (yet)."
Complain about this comment
#70 - Buzet23
Nobody comes out of the Westminster crisis with anything resembling credit but, if nothing else, politicians there have finally learned that a culture of secrecy simply does not cut the mustard. Let's hope it is not a lesson that is lost on the EU.
We can argue about the technical, emotional, constitutional and political issues until we are blue in the face but we are never going to find out whether MEPs have their noses in the trough until the facts are published, we are never going to know whether there is another way of doing things in Europe unless someone tries and we are never going to find out whether Ironfranco's, Mathaisen's and my vision of Europe or Freeborn John's, Suffolk Boy's and WEP's version is what the people actually want until someone asks them - and not just in the UK.
I am on the EU enthusiast wing but I have reached the point where I almost hope the Irish say 'No' because - 1. The powers that be cannot pretend they don't understand the meaning of the word twice and 2. Because the EU will be forced to think again. The crisis at Westminster may yet be the straw which breaks the camel's back as far as the British Union is concerned. All we need now is for the EU to fall apart for the same reasons.
Complain about this comment
# 67 Buzet23
'In your last paragraph you touched on what is most probably the root cause of the malaise that is within the EU, namely the need to give up something to get something. The unsavoury horse trading that goes on totally ignores the fundamental reason for doing something, is it beneficial or not, and concentrates rather on one country's or groupings hobby horses in order to pass another groupings hobby horse. This may be how politics and democracy currently work but that is not a justification as it can mean that bad directives have been passed because of this horse trading.'
I thought that the whole idea of our democracy was 'horse trading'. Anything else smacks of dictatorship. When you have several nations coming together for the greater good then an element of horse trading is beneficial. That way a consensus is eventually reached which is suitable for the converging nations. Fair enough, no individual nation gets its own way all the time (dictatorship) but that can only be a good thing. Who is to say that the UK are right all the time or the French, Germans etc. I would much rather have a system where we listen to each other and then come to some deal for the greater good of whatever alliance is proposed, instead of sticking our heels in the ground and refusing to budge an inch until we have our own way. There is much in the EU that I don't like but I'm willing to accept that some things have to be sacrificed for us to get along with each other in an amicable way. Whether we like it or not, the world is developing into trading blocs and if we are not part of a substantial trading bloc then, which ever country it is, it will be left behind.
Complain about this comment
#73 - gedguy2
That's what comes of first past the post. Winner takes all, everyone else goes away and sulks for five years. Give them a few years of PR and forming coalitions. They will soon get the hang of horse trading.
Complain about this comment
#73, gedguy2,
It largely depends on what has to be sacrificed for us to get along in an amicable way, that is why opt-outs were a feasible alternative. However the political elite don't like that and are permanently trying to diminish or remove the opt-outs and likewise the UK's rebate, on the excuse that 'one size fits all'. In all consensuses it sometimes has to be agreed that we can't all agree which is where opt outs come in, any other more forceful approach is akin to dictatorship in that you are forcing something on an unwilling partner. As for the greater good, exactly what is that, your definition of it, or my definition, or the definition of a self serving political elite, as there are many differing opinions of the greater good, mine would be for a substantial trading block but without a Federal EU.
Complain about this comment
" #50. democracythreat:
Agricultural subsidies make up over half of all EU spending."
Wrong again.
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm#
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm#start
Complain about this comment
# 74 threnodio
Agreed, which is why I think Scotland's government is doing well considering it's a minority government.
# 75 Buzet23
I agree with you. Personally I would prefer a confederate system but better a Federalist than us killing each other as we've done for centuries.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John - re nos. 66 and 34
In no. 66 you write -
[stevepeers: Opt-outs are not good enough, because they can (like the Maastricht opt-outs) be negotiated at significant expense only to be surrendered by the next Labour government. We need treaty changes to lock in the result of these negotiations, and ideally a written UK constitution that would prevent future Labour governments giving away powers without the consent of the British people....]
[I would suggest that we push for a general change to EU treaties that would mean that EU law is binding only on the government that signs it (and not in perpetuity on their state as at present). It would be hard for Continental government to argue against this without their own people then realising that the consequence of only granting this to the UK would be the progressive elimination of their ability over time to elect governments able to change the law they live under.]
This argument does not understand the nature of public international law, never mind EU law. If a state ratifies a treaty, it binds the STATE, never the government. If a state becomes dissatisfied with its treaty commitment, the remedy is to denounce the treaty - possibly after a change of government in that state, response to public objections to the treaty in question. The logic of the Treaty is that it is a package deal, so an ability to opt in and out of individual measures at will would render it meaningless. The more honest argument would be to call for the UK to leave the EU entirely.
In any event, the Labour government was elected expressly promising to abrogate the UK's social policy opt-out.
[The great advantage of inter-governmentalism over suprnationalism (as used in the EU) is that it does not allow one government to lock its Opposition (and future generations of voters) into policies that cannot be changed following the next election. If we stay in the EU then we will continue to see that every new EU law replaces not just national law but (by virtue of the supremacy of EU law) actually prevents national parliaments from legislating in that area ever again in any way that conflcist with the EU law. Since the EU legislative machinary is never going to stop creating new EU laws the arena within which democratic national parliaments operate is continually shrinking towards vanishing point (in all except a handful of areas). If we stay in the EU a point will inevitably be reached when our national parliaments cannot legislate at all, at which point our elections will have been reduced to deciding which party send a representative to the EU Cuncil of Minsiters to be outvoted and explain to us why we must live under law that we never wanted in the first place but cannot change again through the democratic process. This is the inevitable and to me unacceptable cost of not leaving the EU. So i ask you to explain to me why you think this cost is worth paying.]
But this argument simply ignores a) the limits on the EU's powers to legislate in certain areas and b) the limits on the willingness of EU governments, and even (to a lesser extent) MEPs and the Commission, to legislate national powers out of existence; never mind the remaining cases in which there must be unanimous voting. It confuses the quasi-federal system (not state) which the EU is, with the idea of a unitary state, which the EU is not. Plus it overlooks the fact that there are rarely negative votes in the Council anyway - you give the impression that the UK, at least, is constantly being outvoted.
[I have no dounbt that negotiations will be tough but the consequences of not entering them (see post 34) are unacceptable. Fundamentally the UK is in a strong position. We import more from the Continent than we export, and 'freedom of movement' is largely a one-way benefit that Continentals use to seek better paying job in English-speaking countries. And without the UK the rest of Europe would fear the hegemony of France and Germany. We will certainly have to make clear that we are prepared to walk away if we do not get what we want. We need a clear vision of what we want to achieve and the polticial will power to get it and should seek to get the peoples of Europe on our side against their own governments.]
I have already examined the 'unacceptable' consequences that you posit in post 34. I think the calculation for other Member States depends on the UK's strategy. If our argument is that we don't want to participate any longer in the CAP or the fisheries policy, then giving in to us on these points would in any event mean that many other Member States lose much of the net benefit that they gain from UK membership. If our argument is also that we should be able to control the free movement of EU citizens into the UK more, then the same consideration applies. If we were to demand a pick-and-choose method like you suggest, then other Member States would just assume that we would pick only those laws that we believe that we benefit from and ignore the rest. So they would soon enough lose all the net benefit which they derive from UK membership, and have only a net cost. Plus by your logic, at least France and Germany would welcome the UK leaving, so they can exercise their hegemony!
You would obviously be happy if the result were for the UK to leave the EU, but that is not the Conservative party policy. Unless a government actually wants or is willing to leave the EU, it is a foolish thing to threaten - so I don't see how a Conservative government could negotiate on that basis, unless they are lying about their real policy.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"There is a lot of room for criticism, but did you know that the responsible Danish commissioner for agriculture (she is a liberal) is trying to reduce the subsidies to the benefit of the market forces? Did you know that the Lisbon treaty will give the European parliament more influence on the agriculture policy (= it will be a normal subject to representative democracy), which means that your MEP can bring your viewpoints on agricultural subsidies to the EP? And did you realise that there are other citizens and parties (not least the green parties), which are indeed not satisfied with the agricultural policy of the EU?"
Yes, I am aware of the discussions of agricultural policy in the EP. I find them depressing in the extreme. One would like to uncover a conspiracy, full of evil people doing bad things. Instead, the reality of agricultural policy is that one is dealing with a highly organized political lobby. Government ministers, and european parliamentarians, are faced with a multitude of highly organized lobby groups, all of them well funded and all of them well integrated with the party system (in other words they donate to campaigns, and attend shin digs and so on).
So there is no secret conspiracy. It is just the minister being beset by groups of folks who explain to him the economic horror and chaos that would result if the market were to operate without government intervention.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody is making the case that nobody in society has the right to private fortunes that are maintained by state intervention in the market. It is not the situation that this case is being subverted, it is simply that nobody is making the case at all. Even if a minister or elected official thinks this way themselves, the pressure and constant dialogue with farmers lobby groups and the farmers press hounds reduces any meaningful opportunity to discuss alternative social models.
And make no mistake, this business whereby tax revenue is forwarded to brussels so that it can be opaquely forwarded to the land owners of europe, this is very much social policy. It is not simply "trade regulation". Yes, it is trade regulation. But that is not all it is. It is also the creation of a super class, a group of private individuals belonging to families that cannot lose their social rank, no matter how badly or selfishly they manage their wealth.
That is what happens when government gift tax revenue to a given class in society. That class can make mistake after mistake, and pursue ruinous policies with their private empires, and the working people will pay for these mistakes ad infinitum.
That is what the EU is, if we are to be serious and to speak frankly about what it does, and why it was set up.
But an ever closure europe does not have to be like that. It could be a federation of highly distinct local governments, each sovereign over trade and tax in its region, each subject to the pressures of direct democracy.
It seems folly to discuss the merits of European market policy before one is assured of European political policy. After all, it takes little imagination to wonder how people living inside the soviet system, or in feudal times, discussed economic matters. If you have accepted that the way you live, politically, is the world must be, then you just get on with business inside that system, as best you can. Thus, within the soviet system you could witness serious discussions about efficiency in production, and fair market behaviour between geographical regions.
That is what you get, when you discuss economics before you discuss political rights. That is what the MEP is all about. Discussing how best to make do, inside a Europe made for and by the largest political parties.
I reject the right of these parties to establish special classes of human beings in a rigid economic order. Any self respecting person must reject the existence of such a right. Parties must never be allowed to establish special classes of human beings, born to rule over lower orders of human beings. This must be considered an axiomatic breach of human rights, for it can only end in appalling slavery and the degradation of the human spirit.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 and #35.
No, sorry, but you have misunderstood Schengen.
Yes, there is free cross-border movement within the 27 States, but, I can assure you Switzerland is not part of it, or, why was I showing my Passport at Geneve Airport about 14 months ago? Switzerland doesn't even let Swiss leave their nation without checking Passports!
Schengen allows ease of access to Citizens of Member States of the EU travelling around it, but, and if this is news to others too I can't help that, it does not allow the right to live and work in another member State, although it conveniently allows some EU members to pass on unwanted groups who nearly always end up heading for G.B.
If your "only applies to those coming from INSIDE" were the case, why do I need the Finnish Registration known as a 'Henkilotunnus'? Why for Social Insurance of course! So, the 'free movement' you write of is illusory for I have to provide proof of residence, employment (if any) and I complete the Finn Tax Office forms - - that's a curious sort of 'free movement'. Incidentally, the UK Work and Pensions office telephone me each March to ascertain I am alive to collect my Pensions and recently my Finn wife had to complete forms for the Finnish and UK authorities including an official Notary Stamp to prove she was still breathing.
Thus, your Schengen ostensibly allows me to drive from Calais to Helsinki uninterrupted (inc. ferry journeys) by Passport Controls - - except of course it does not - - I have been stopped at the Danish - German border 3 times in the last 2 years and everytime at the Swedish or Finnish Port border-post and each time alongside my Tickets they have asked for my Passport (naturally, when leaving Dover the French Customs check my Passsport and on leaving Calais for Dover the British do the same)!
I am not making any of this up!
Schengen is a con-trick like so much of the EU legislation: It is applied piecemeal by nations that find it suits them at particular times, and, one of the most convenient applications of Schengen is to allow the 'free movement' of new arrival immigrants down the chain to the channel ports and airports for an onward journey to the UK - - that my friend, is the reality - - and some other nations have begun to realise how it is being abused, notably Italy and Spain who are beginning to see the logical reasoning behind the UK opt-out from it as their own immigration numbers rise annually.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 (71): You are quoting new text (article 61) from a treaty that is not in force, about the co-called Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) from which the UK has an opt-out. Give it up.
Complain about this comment
Stevepeers (78): I was not suggesting that EU treaties (which are just international treaties) only be binding on the government of the day, but rather that these treaties be modified such that the secondary EU law agreed under these treaties only be binding on the governments that agreed to them (i.e. vote for them in the Council of Minsisters). Countries that vote against secondary EU law should not be obliged to implement it, and we should be able to elect future national governments that can disown secondary EU legislation that previous governments agreed to. Indeed this is the only way that EU law can maintain democratic legitimacy.
I am afraid it is your rebuttal is flawed on multiuple points. You claim my argument ignores:
a) the limits on the EU's powers to legislate in certain areas
b) the limits on the willingness of EU governments, and even (to a lesser extent) MEPs and the Commission, to legislate national powers out of existence;
c) the remaining cases in which there must be unanimous voting.
Let's look at what the Lisbon Treaty says on these points. First of all lets examine the community method and how it allows EU law without democratic legitimacy to be created. Under the community method the Commission holds the monopoly on legislative initiative and its proposals become binding law superior to national law if they are accepted by a qualified majority in the EU Council of Ministers. (If co-decision is used then a vote of the EU Parliament is also required). The community method therefore allows binding EU law to be imposed on member states following only a proposal from the Commission that is accepted by a qualified majority in the EU Council of Ministers (and under co-decision a vote in the EU Parliament) in which a state may be outvoted and then required to live in perpetuity (no matter how its citizens vote in future elections) under Brussels law that the government of that state, and the majority of its citizens never agreed to. This allows EU law to come into force in countries that do not want it where it then lacks democratic legitimacy from day 1. However even in states whose governments vote for a given EU law, it is possible that the law is opposed by the Opposition who are not able (by virtue of the supremacy of European law) to repeal it when they come to power at a later date. So it is also possible for EU law that had a democratic legtimacy to lose it following national elections. This for example has been the case with the CAP which remains in force long after the Heath government has gone.
The Lisbon Treaty makes the community method the default in future (so much for you point c) by declaring that "The ordinary legislative procedure shall consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission". The Commission's monopoly on legislative initiative has always been a key part of the one-way ratchet to a super-state with the Commission only ever making legislative proposals that increase the power of EU institutions. There has only been one example in the 50-year history of the Commission of it ever proposing that a power previously acquired by Brussels be returned to the democratic arena of the nation-state (and that concerning the trivial issue of maximum curvature of cucumbers). The relentless "more Europe" agenda from the Commission (and EU Parliament and ECJ) show no limit to their willingness to legislate the power of national parliaments out of existence. So much for your point b.
The Lisbon Treaty would not only make the 'community method' the default decision-making mode, but allows it to be used in an open-ended list of policy areas. Article 4 TFEU has been worded very carefully such that the EU has 'shared competence' in the OPEN ENDED list of policy areas that are not explicitly listed in either article 6 or article 3 (exclusive powers of the EU).
Article 2 TFEU defines 'shared competence' by saying that "When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the member states, member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence". So we see that under Lisbon powers in an open-ended list of policy areas are only shared in time! This wording means that unless a policy area is one of the 7 listed in article 6 TFEU, the EU has the power to legislate at any time in the future and once it has done so our elected governments may not legislate in the area ever again! So the limits you claim in point (a) on the EU's powers to legislate in certain areas is very small indeed under Lisbon.
It is clear that this wording in the Lisbon treaty would lead to an ever expanding body of EU law that will progressively shut down national parliaments in all except the handful of policy areas listed in article 6. One can debate how long this may take to happen, but not that it would happen under Lisbon given only sufficient time. And that is simply unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
In post 78 Steve Peers said "If we were to demand a pick-and-choose method like you suggest, then other Member States would just assume that we would pick only those laws that we believe that we benefit from and ignore the rest. So they would soon enough lose all the net benefit which they derive from UK membership".
This rather suggests that the benefit that other countries see to the UK being an EU member is to force us to live under laws and policies that are contrary to our interest. What then is the benefit to the UK of being party to a zero-sum game that we are only welcome in as long as we are losing?
The EU needs to be far more flexible such that in areas beyond the original common market (where free trade is a win-win for all parties) no country is obliged to accept a single EU solution that benefits others at its expense. Governments (not states) need to be able to agree to disagree on a law-by-law basis with only those governments agreeing on an EU measure being required to implement it, and only for the lifetime of their adminstration. This would mean that we could elect new governments able to disown (or sign up to) pre-existing EU measures that earlier governments had voted for (or against) which would continually refresh the democratic legitimacy of EU law in force in each country at their general elections.
Naturally such flexibility would be a major change to the nature of the existing EU legal system, but I make no apologies for that because without such change we will continue to see a swelling body of EU law binding on the state in perpetuity that loses legitimacy following every change in government. In post 63 you suggest a scenario whereby the Conservatives when in power make maximum use of whatever opt-outs Labour allows them. But that does not address the illegitimacy of EU law they inherit which they were against in Opposition but cannot change when in power. What you propose would be a deeply asymmetric political system whereby Labour could unilaterally sign the UK up to EU decision-making that the Conservatives oppose (e.g. social chapter, etc.), which Conservatives governments could only reverse with the support of a great majority (typically all) of the 26 other EU governments.
In a previous post you have said my argument ignores the limits on the willingness of other EU governments to see the powers of national parliaments pre-empted by a ever rising volume of EU law, but you are ignoring that it only requires a one-time agreement from a qualified majority of those other governments to pre-empt Westminster power after which it requires unanimity from 26 other governments to re-write EU treaties to get it back. The long-term consequence of such an asymmetric system would be what we do see in practce; a one-way ratchet to an EU state in all but name.
Complain about this comment
#77 - gedguy2
I don't know if you watch the Daily Politics but Charles Kennedy had some less than kind things to say about Holyrood today. This surprised me slightly. Given the state of Westminster in recent times, I would have thought Edinburgh had performed spectacularly well by comparison. It remains to be seen how serious they are down south about what 'oldnat' would refer to as Westmidden but, given the disasters that are befalling the UK system currently, it ill behooves our domestic politicians not to draw lessons and for our European friends not to take note before they fall down the same hole.
Complain about this comment
#80
Switzerland is a member of the Schengen cooperation.
I visited the country less than 2 ago weeks and was greeted at the border in Basel by an officer. I did not have to show my passport.
In spite of Switzerland not being a member of the EU, Basel is moreover practically integrated in the Euro zone, and you can pay all over the city with the single currency.
Complain about this comment
Hey, I'm wishing I hadn't started this! It seems a lot of people have a lot of free time on their hands, writing massive missives!
Perhaps Westminster can pass a law repealing all previous European laws and fobidding any EU intervention to prevent such a law. And if the EU or EU parliament doesn't like it, what are they going to do? Send EU tanks through the Eurotunnel? Nah!
Complain about this comment
" #80. ikamaskeip:
you have misunderstood Schengen.
Yes, there is free cross-border movement within the 27 States,"
No, you have misunderstood Schengen as you choose to misunderstand everything about the EU. Not all Member States have signed up to Schengen. Therefore there is not, yet, "free cross-border movement within the 27 States".
"I can assure you Switzerland is not part of it, or, why was I showing my Passport at Geneve Airport about 14 months ago?"
Because Switzerland has only recently acceded to Schengen. I know that you won't believe me so just ring your nearest Swiss Embassy and ask them. But the last I heard was that they had not yet sorted out their Customs control only their Immigration control.
"Schengen allows ease of access to Citizens of Member States of the EU travelling around it, but, and if this is news to others too I can't help that, it does not allow the right to live and work in another member State,"
Correct, but other legislation does. That is how and why so many British have been able to move to France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, etc. to buy property and settle. Oh yes, and the pensioners continue to get their pensions and any increases just as if they were still in the UK. Wicked EU allowing such freedom!
"why do I need the Finnish Registration known as a 'Henkilotunnus'? Why for Social Insurance of course! So, the 'free movement' you write of is illusory for I have to provide proof of residence, employment (if any) and I complete the Finn Tax Office forms - - that's a curious sort of 'free movement'."
Oh, so now you want to be exempt from tax?
"Incidentally, the UK Work and Pensions office telephone me each March to ascertain I am alive to collect my Pensions and recently my Finn wife had to complete forms for the Finnish and UK authorities including an official Notary Stamp to prove she was still breathing."
What's wrong with that? Do you want the money to be paid out to people who might have died?
You enjoy the freedoms negotiated by the EU, the right to live in Finland and draw a UK pension there and then criticize it non-stop. Hypocrite!
"naturally, when leaving Dover the French Customs check my Passsport and on leaving Calais for Dover the British do the same)!
I am not making any of this up!"
Yes you are. Passport controls at Dover and Calais are performed by British Immigration officials and French police, each operating on the other's territory, because the UK wanted to check passports before anyone got on a boat headed for the UK and the French, who weren't really that bothered insisted on reciprocity on principle. Don't believe me. Ring your local British Embassy and ask them. This is a bilateral agreement between UK and France and has nothing to do with the EU.
Complain about this comment
#87 - greypolyglot
To which I would add that, if you have unexpectedly to get carted off to hospital for five days because you are dangerously ill, it is quite handy to have a card entitling you to full state health care. That was not imposing freedom of movement restrictions, it was a sensible precaution which, in my case quite possibly saved my life.
Complain about this comment
# 84 threnodio
I haven't seen it but I'll check it out and get back to you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#72 Threnodio
Referring to what you wrote *The crisis at Westminster may yet be the straw which breaks the camel's back as far as the British Union is concerned. All we need now is for the EU to fall apart for the same reasons*, one would ask himself : what are all those collective efforts and sacrifices for?
Ever since WW2, intellectuals from both sides of the iron curtain have been dreaming of a new civilized, prosperous and free Europe. Ever since 1957, many of us have welcomed the Rome treaty, the Common market, and the EU as incarnation of this dream. Ever since 1989, the crushing majority of all Eastern Europeans have seen the dream turning into reality.
May you please comment my wording in the light of your belief that both UK and the EU are on the verge of ruin. Or maybe, I am wrong when interpreting your assessment. (I certainly can not imagine a stable EU without a stable British Union).
Complain about this comment
ironfranco wrote:
"Ever since WW2, intellectuals from both sides of the iron curtain have been dreaming of a new civilized, prosperous and free Europe."
I doubt that claim severely. I have met quite a few intellectuals from both sides of the iron curtain, and they all seem fixated with obtaining better paid jobs. In my experience, the social fabric of the free west has been made up of people who seek larger personal profits for the sake of hedonistic leisure time. Indeed, this was a large part of the appeal to the eastern intellectuals.
But the idea that the feeling was one of general goodwill towards every class of europeans is farfetched. It isn't real, insofar as folks simply didn't talk or act like that in practice, and it doesn't make sense of the practical effects of the European treaties. The European Union was created to regulated trade for the benefit of a minority of capital asset owners who secure their profits from the exploitation of natural resources such as farming land and factories. The only reason the common people were even given free movement was because the liquid labour market would further benefit the owners of factories and farms.
"Ever since 1957, many of us have welcomed the Rome treaty, the Common market, and the EU as incarnation of this dream."
I would say a very high proportion of land owners and party officials would agree. The EU is indeed a dream. It allows vast sums of tax revenue to be handed around without so much as a sniff of concern from national legislatures.
However, "many of us" have been watching from the sidelines as the EU does its thing, working its magic on the law of our countries by influencing elected party bosses directly, and without reference to the will of the people who elected those party bosses.
"Ever since 1989, the crushing majority of all Eastern Europeans have seen the dream turning into reality."
I would agree with that. They crushing majority of Eastern europeans are now facing crippling debts to western banks, of such nightmarish proportion that the provision of basic services like policemen and teachers is going to represent a major accomplishment for a high taxing government. Good luck to eastern europe developing under those conditions.
Eastern Europe has been largely colonized by the west. It should look forward to the colonial experience.
Complain about this comment
@ FBJ, 81, "JorgeG1 (71): You are quoting new text (article 61) from a treaty that is not in force, about the co-called Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) from which the UK has an opt-out. Give it up."
Give what up? This article from the LT that I am quoting is what ALREADY is in place in the whole of the EU and EEA (except the UK and ROI and also except a small handful of countries which are de jure members, but pending implementation, i.e. Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus).
What is it you want me to give up? To solemnly declare that the *absence of internal border controls for persons* in most of the the EU/EAA + Switzerland* is a con trick (as Ikamaskeip says), despite all evidence to the contrary, or that the UK has got over its "paranoia about frontiers", in the words of one of your own friends:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a395ccd4-9fb1-11dc-8031-0000779fd2ac.html
"It is high time this British paranoia about frontiers had a common-sense revolution and we worked with our neighbours towards a large secure area of freedom rather than a big brother-controlled internment island."
(I know how you hate your friends being off message thats why I rub this in...!)
*Note to Ikamaskeip. Switzerland joined Schengen not even six months ago, that is why you were asked for your passport 14 months ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7778022.stm
...but you may be stopped at the border to check for any illegal
goods in your vehicle because it did not join the European Customs Union.
Complain about this comment
#72 threnodio
In additive to my last post #91: I appreciate your style and I share both your indignation (about the corruption practices in the UK/EU) and concern (about the future of all of us). What makes me feel sad is the evident lack of light in the tunnel
Complain about this comment
#91 - ironfranco
I have tried now four times to post a reasoned answer to your post but someone has technical issues somewhere because it has not been posting and I do have the trivial issue of trying to earn a living but I have not forgotten you. Bear with me.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot and #87.
It is not that I do "..not believe" you, but, that you so often select those bits which best suit your argument (as if I would do such a thing!); come on now, we do not agree and that leads to debate, or are you one of those ardent pro-EU who really does believe the word 'No' actually means 'yes'!?
As I am also one those currently residing in another EU nation I thought it was a good perspective to give others and to recount my experiences at border-crossings.
So, apart from confirming everything I wrote except filling in some details I was unaware of, e.g. Swiss only joined Schengen recently, your actual content was to have a go at my stating what happened in my personal experience travelling from Britain through 6 nations to Finland (everyone a member of the EU) and vice versa.
No, as you well understood, but chose to be rude, my wife and I aren't trying to avoid 'taxes'; I was pointing out there was no such thing as 'free movement' for people from 'inside' the EU. Citizens are presented with all sorts of short, medium and longterm obstacles to their visiting, travelling through or settling in another EU nation.
Personally, driving from Calais as far as Puttgarden or Helsingor without a Passport check is a good thing, but, I am old enough to recall stopping at each border and that wasn't so arduous either: I do not object to the ease of transporting myself etc. but, I do worry for the unpleasant side-effects on other things (as I have written in previous Blogs), e.g. People trafficking, forced labourers, drug and weapon smuggling, international crime gangs etc. True, all existed before but the ease with which they now operate has an expensive social-policing-judicial price for all EU Citizens.
I cannot help but think some of the joys of the majority are at terrible cost to an exploited minority. This is one of the downsides of the EU its supporters, Commission and MEPs prefer not to dwell on: Instead they proudly announce new initiaitives to combat pan-European disorder/crime (created by the so-called 'free movement'), e.g. cross-border police agreements which of course need even more funds!
I did not complain about the UK Works and Pensions checking up on us being alive: Again, I was illustrating this idea of people moving freely from nation to nation simply is a myth. I actually wrote, "..National Insurance..", or, was that another bit of factual reality that somehow escaped your notice?
Nothing hypocritical about my comments, however, typically of the 'pro-EU lobbyist' and in your case it is regrettably very much not for the first time... the name-calling rapidly comes into play as you struggle for logic and reason! Sad.
PS: I am not sure why you wrote about the Dover - Calais Passport checks as that was pretty much the same as I had written except you said it was 'french police' well fine, somebody, is checking my Passport!
PPS: Schengen may be a useful idea but in its present form it is not serving the EU Citizens effectively and people such as yourself are investing in it degrees of advantage that do not measure up to what is its actual purpose.
Complain about this comment
" #96. ikamaskeip:"
same old same old.
yawn
Complain about this comment
greyployglot and #97.
I entirely agree.
The sooner you can come up with even the semblance of a logical reason for the UK/England to remain in the EU please let us all know.
Meanwhile, I am afraid we are all doomed to read ever and again how wonderful the EU is, how we 'antis' are tiresome by asking the same (never answered) questions about its 'Federalist' direction and of course that challenge to the holy of holies for the 'pro-EU lobbyists', why there is a European Parliament when it has never even achieved 50% Electoral support?
You "yawn" if you must: We, who know the 'value' and the 'cost' of an individual Citizen's free-will, rights and responsibilities, will continue posing the questions, seeking the answers and illustrating the shortcomings of this dangerously undemocratic institution.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (82)
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of international law. UK to the best of my knowledge is member of WTO, UN and the Council of Europe. Interestingly the legislation of these organizations is superior to the British legislation. Once rules of WTO for example are accepted, UK can not adopt national legislation contrary to them. Even if the Opposition, is against them once in power it has two options: to renegotiate them in the framework of WTO (good luck with this one) or leave WTO. Otherwise it will have to follow these rules (like them or not). Note: Yes I know who negotiates on behalf of UK in WTO, but the point is valid.
I find it ironic that if one substitutes EU with UK and UK with Scotland (or Wales) in your post it becomes quite an interesting reading. What about if Scotland decides to choose-and-pick from the UK legislation, or your local council? After all I see no good reason in your framework of thinking why British legislation should have supremacy over the local one.
In your previous posts you seem to believe that lack of IDs in UK is a great achievement for freedom. Well I have been stopped in Germany only twice in 9 years and asked for my ID. Admittedly on both occasions I was riding my bicycle drunk. On the other hand London is CCTV capital of the world, many of them operated by private entities. It is impossible to scratch your back in London without being recorded. It was already pointed to you that you have to inform the authorities if you plan to travel to Northern Ireland (sic). To be honest I would rather have an ID in my pocket, than being filmed without my knowledge all the time, requested to provide information about movements and arrested during a dawn anti-terror raid only to be released 48 hours later.
Complain about this comment
I would be greatly surprised if there were any major changes in the UK membership in any recognisable time, not least because the sceptics dont seem to understand anything of the rationale behind the British membership. I cannot believe however that political parties in the UK indulge in that kind of political amateurism.
The rationale behind the transfer of sovereignty is as the interview with Topolanek here in this blog also showed to achieve results, which cannot be achieved by national means. It is for instance written in the political ABC for international politics that small nations defend their sovereignty by having big nations to sign treaties on international law and justice. In the more advanced classes we learn that small European nations have had a number of problems in the trade with the USA and Russia and they use the EU to defend their interests.
It is apparently an overwhelmingly if not insoluble task for a number of people to understand this. Politicians and media have here a job to explain as far as it is possible what the process is all about.
The member states of the EU have decided to transfer sovereignty to a certain extent from national parliaments into the EU. This takes place in a complicated system, divided into different areas with different rules for each area. Not surprisingly the demagogic account of the decision-making simplifies this fact as pure loss of sovereignty, and people dont know what to believe since only few can explain exactly what the transfer has been. Also it is unknown that the member states in the whole process of treaty writing have been quite reluctant to transfer sovereignty.
Complain about this comment
#97 - greypolyglot
#98 - ikamaskeip
Is this not all getting a bit dull and tedious? Choosing to take up residence in another EU country is entirely different from freely moving between them as well you know. Of course, if you relocate, the host country is entitled to ask you to register for tax, have a note of where you live and so on. If I crash my car in Hungary, are you seriously suggesting the authorities should pop round to my house in Hampshire to validate my driving license, call the Department of Health to make sure I have paid contributions before patching me up? The whole idea is absurd. It also has nothing to do with Schengen. Schengen is about the freedom of movement, not the freedom to relocate. The freedom to relocate (with the notable but temporary exceptions of Romania and Bulgaria) are enshrined in law but not to the extent that you can simply pack your bags and move where you please.
It does, however, astonish me and offend me that I can traipse all the way from Hungary to the Channel coast without having to stop, produce papers and all the other nonsense only to have to jump through hoops to enter the country of which I am supposed to be a citizen. I flatly refuse to believe there is a good reason for that beyond thinking that the UK is either totally paranoid, deliberately obstructive on incapable of running a decent security service. If I can hop across the river to Slovakia for a bite to eat when I am in Estergom or go and do a bit of shopping in Vienna when the mood takes me, I really do not see why it should be such a big deal crossing the Channel.
Equally, it is perfectly sensible that the authorities should know that I live here, be allowed to require a tax return and expect me to contribute to the health service I might need at any time. This is not a matter of principle. It is plain common sense.
Complain about this comment
3 #98. ikamaskeip wrote:
greyployglot and #97.
The sooner you can come up with even the semblance of a logical reason for the UK/England to remain in the EU please let us all know."
Hey. If you hadn't noticed - we're in. Our democratically elected government took us in and we democratically voted to stay in. Remember? If you voted against and were outvoted - tough that's what "democracy" means. If you voted for and failed to work out the consequences - tough, try reading the small print next time. By the way, the Lisbon Treaty provides an exit mechanism.
"Meanwhile, I am afraid we are all doomed to read ever and again how wonderful the EU is,"
Not from me. I try stick to proving the inaccuracy of so many "anti" statements e.g. my #76. (OK sometimes I do get really fed up with re-hashed non-arguments or FBJ-style denigration and choose to ridicule someone)
" how we 'antis' are tiresome by asking the same (never answered) questions about its 'Federalist' direction"
When you (the antis) are given answers you dismiss them or ignore them and move on to another topic. Your accusation of "Federalist" direction has been denied at the highest levels but you ignore that.
" and of course that challenge to the holy of holies for the 'pro-EU lobbyists', why there is a European Parliament when it has never even achieved 50% Electoral support?"
I'm lost! Am I to take it that you don't want a Parliament elected by universal suffrage with proportional representation so that even UKIP, with insufficient support to get an MP elected to Westminster, nonetheless gets MEPs elected? If people fail to go out and vote they deserve what they get as a result.
"We, who know the 'value' and the 'cost' of an individual Citizen's free-will, rights and responsibilities, will continue posing the questions, seeking the answers and illustrating the shortcomings of this dangerously undemocratic institution."
Which is MORE democratic than Westminster. Now let's try a little exercise, you read Protocol I of the Lisbon Treaty and come back here and explain to us what you find undemocratic about it.
Complain about this comment
Hang on threnodio!
If you read my #80 and #95 you will find I am not complaining or bothered about 'tax' forms, 'health insurance,' 'pensions' etc. I merely pointed out, tedious though you may find it, that the idea of 'free movement' as implied by polyglot is just not the case.
Nothing I wrote implied Schengen affected the above personal 'relocation' issues only that the 'free movement' polyglot seems to think of as panacea for Citizens and an outstanding initiative by the EU is nothing of the sort.
As you must be aware there are 'reciprocal' Health Insurance arrangements by which the EU nations promise to pay for Citizens treatment and general care elsewhere: As I alluded to the requisite form-filling/enquiry details, I fail to see why you imply I misplaced my commonsense!?
I also wrote pointing out that Schengen is abused/misused by some nations as a way to 'pass down the chain' unwanted 'new arrivals' (lets call them migrants) to end up at the Channel 'Ports and Airports' awaiting passage to the British Isles. If you are saying that is not the case then we clearly differ on the impact of Schengen.
Unlike you, I am not offended in the least that as I chose to leave my birth nation to live in another EU nation I am expected to show my proof of Identity whenever I return: On the contrary, it just reinforces my opinion that the UK Governments are at least aware of the hazards of mass immigration to those finite Islands. Perhaps because I had done so much travelling in my earlier lives I am more resigned to these petty regs whereas you feel sleighted.
Frankly, it is typical of the pro-EU lobbyist technique that whatever we 'antis' say we have either misunderstood, were not clever enough or we are prevaricating: To all 3 I definitely plead not guilty. There is no "hypocrisy" in my contention the EU offer of these blanket solutions to pan-European (in the form of Directives and Brussels-led pacts like Schengen) are actually illiberal in their ultimate objectives.
It is not my fault if greypolyglot et al cannot come up with logical, pertinent and commonsense grounds for the UK/England to remain a part of the EU and instead spout about bits of EU policy (e.g. Schengen) as if it is a miraculous contribution to the evolution of pan-European development when it is patently a business-led contrivance to allow transfer of cheap labour around Europe as UK, Spain, Italy etc. have found to the cost of their own workforces.
You, I, greypolyglot doubtless may view it as "perfectly sensible" that "authorities" know where we are at in general terms: However, I would wish they spent a good deal more of their time and resources on locating and relocating the millions who should not be "inside" the UK/England/EU, and, on locating and assisting the thousands of exploited 'migrants' by systems such as Schengen which also work against the interests of the indigenous Citizens of all 27 States.
Complain about this comment
" #101. threnodio:
I really do not see why it should be such a big deal crossing the Channel."
I completely agree with you and I found it particularly objectionable to be asked by a British Immigration Officer in Dover (before they relocated) why I was travelling to the continent!
I'm also getting fed up with having my car searched on the way out of both Dover and Calais (only ever some miserable British official - on the other hand the French, even the police, are perfectly charming). I must point out that I have no convictions and no extremist or subversive connections - unless someone now counts being pro-EU as falling into those categories!?
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot and #104.
re: "..pro-EU.. extremist.. subversive.. categories?" No!
Inexplicable and Perverse, yes!
Only teasing.
Complain about this comment
NikolayTzvetkov (99): I am well aware of the nature of international law, but I am not sure you are aware of what is required for its democratic legitimacy.
Secondary EU legislation (i.e. not the treaties on European Union, but the law created under those treaties) is not quite the same thing as international law. If the treaties on European Union (which are international law) were modified to state that each piece of secondary EU legislation created under those treaties was only binding on the governments that voted for it in the EU Council of Ministers for the lifetime of their administrations then it would go a long way to fixing the EU legitimacy problem.
This would open up the possibility that at each national election political parties could state in their manifestos what pre-existing EU law they intended to opt-out of or sign up to (if the previous government had opted-out) and be given a certain period (perhaps 100 days) to make these changes after coming to power before being bound by the changes. This would automatically ensure (on a rolling basis) that whatever EU law was in force in each country enjoys what is absolutely necessary for it to have democratic legitimacy in that country, i.e. the support of the majority in its parliament.
Complain about this comment
#106 - Freeborn-John
"... the support of the majority in its parliament".
Even if the system is so skewed that parliament does not enjoy the support of the electorate?
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (106)
The system you suggest is absurd to put it mildly. The EU secondary legislation consists of thousands to tens of thousands of acts. If you assume 27 member states, and average period between the elections 4 years this means change a change every 54 days or so. Do you really think such secondary legislation will have any value at all?
Reading your comment I assume you believe that European Parliament and Courts should be abolished. And by the way what is the point of existence of European Union? In your system the interested governments can just get together sign treaties, conventions or what ever they want. Once a new government comes to power it can always leave the agreement. Usually in international law six months notice is required.
Such system might be democratically legitimate, but for sure it will be useless.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (107): Please do not reply to my posts in future. Your comments are always diversionary, designed with the mentality 'please move along now, nothing to see here'. I would like serious posters, like Steve Peers for example, to reply to 106 or earlier, on the serious issue of the democratic legitimacy of international and EU law and what they see as wrong in my proposal (106) for a much more flexible EU in which national elections are used to either refresh the legitimacy of the secondary EU legislation they inhereit, or to disown it in that country.
Complain about this comment
NikolayTzvetkov (108): What I propose would not change the body of EU secondary legislation in any way, nor the institutions that decide it. It would simply allow parts of the body of EU secondary law to come in or out of force in different countries following their elections such that it enjoys majority consent on an ongoing basis in all those countries where it remains in force.
If you are against this you are in favour of entire nations living under EU law that they do not like but cannot change.
Indeed this proposal would also provide the flexibility for a subset of nations to integrate further if they wished without being held back by those who do not.
Complain about this comment
#109 - Freeborn-John
I will respond whenever and to whomsoever I please.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John (110)
Entire nations live under UK law and can not change it. At least not much easier than changing the EU law. Does this bother you?
Complain about this comment
NikolayTzvetkov wrote:
"Freeborn-John (110)
Entire nations live under UK law and can not change it. At least not much easier than changing the EU law. Does this bother you?"
This question is dishonest. What are you asking? Whether freeborn John is bothered by systems of law that do not respond to the popular will, or whether he is bothered by the fact that the EU is no more responsive than the UK system of law?
What you try to do by confusing these question is to force a choice between "bad" and "just as bad", and therefore prove that freeborn john has no viable position, because he choose "bad".
That is intellectually dishonest. You are trying to manifest yourself as correct by proving your partner in dialogue is wrong. If he is wrong, I must be right. That is the logic, and it is phoney.
It is phoney logic because freeborn John is being set up to be wrong on a separate issue to that which he was discussing. You can prove him wrong, but not on the original terms of the debate. And you yourself are only correct according to the very narrow confines of your own new terms: You are correct to suggest that both the UK and the EU are not responsive to the will of the populace, or in other words that they are sham democracies.
What you have not proven, and where you have not proven Freeborn John is wrong, is whether it is desirable to simply accept the current model of the EU, or whether it is rather desirable to improve the model on offer, and to make it more responsive to the will of the people. THAT is the issue he was talking about, and it is worth discussing. It is not worth discussing whether the UK and the EU are equally useless in terms of manifesting democratic practice.
Now earlier you did discuss the legitimacy of pursuing a democratic system for its own sake. You said:
"Such system might be democratically legitimate, but for sure it will be useless."
This is curious. It shows that you do not value the democratic process, as such. You do not see the practice of democracy as a legitimate end in itself. You want for their to be a higher "use" for government.
I guess this is where a person has to decide how they understand government, and how much they trust official power in the hands of government officials. If you are somebody who believes that everyone is in grave danger, all the time, and that only a wonderful and powerful government can save the children.... then I guess it makes sense to spurn democratic practice, and to seek a "useful" (I think you mean "powerful") government structure.
If, however, you believe that power corrupts, and that politicians are windbags who spend the superfluous wealth of society by gifting government contracts to their friends and extended mattress relations... then in this case you want democratic practice for its own sake, so that there is some way of getting rid of politicians who are very very bad, and some practical way of limiting the power of rogue governments.
In the end, the question is whether you trust your government, or whether you trust your people. I have a swiss friend who recently had to deal with the UK consulate in Bern. He was treated more or less the same way as the English are treated by their government officials. So after three hours of being lied to, patronized, insulted and moved from one place to another so nobody had to do their job, he came to me and said:
"In Switzerland, the people do not trust the government. In the UK, the government do not trust the people."
That is the choice we have to make, and that is what Freeborn John is trying to promote. More controls over government power. Less remote centralization of the law.
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat (113)
I think my question is entirely honest. I read your whole post and got your point, but I think you got me wrong. Freeborn-John obviously has his own position, but if we have to argue if EU is democratically legitimate or not I need to know before hand where John stand. There are many options, and they require different arguments.
Here are some possibilities:
1. John is not against relatively undemocratic and non-representive political systems (UK being a very obvious example), where premium is paid for efficiency (stable government, even if it represents only 25% of the people that voted). He is against such system being implemented on EU level, because (for example):
A. He does not like EU
B. He likes EU, but he thinks that EU not being a state requires different set up than UK
C. Some other reason
2. John generally prefers direct democracy systems like the one in Switzerland.
As I can not read minds I cant argue with John why Lisbon treaty is a good idea, before I know where exactly he stands.
Complain about this comment
I personally really like the EU just the way it is. Living in a nation tht competes with it in all manner of trade, culture, diplomacy, and other activities, being a monolithic thoroughly corrupt dictatorship, its relatively stronger members are brought down by its weaker ones. This makes the entire laughable ediface as clumsy, irrational, and unresponsive as it can be just like the USSR was. It was conceived with the same basic mentality, one of tyrannical central rule by an all knowing elite who plan and control evrything even though in fact they know nothing about anything. These are the easiest adversaries to defeat as their own inherent contradictions eventually cause them to facture, widen into gigantic fissures, and collapse of their own dead weight. That's what happened to the USSR and it will happen to the EU. The longer it takes, the more the havoc it will leave in its wake. And unlike Russia, it has no natural resources like oil and gas to sell the world for income when its industrial base collapses. It should be something to for Europeans to think about but they never will, the fact that like the USSR, their technology is being eclipsed by America, Japan, Israel, and others to the point where their products for the most part are never the most desired on the world market. Just like the USSR's manufactured products were and Russia's still are. Once you fall behind in this area, it is nearly impossible to catch up. The leaders are not going to wait around for you, they continue to accelerate already far ahead of where you are.
Complain about this comment
Aha. Mavrelius, keep in mind a correction. Not that it changes much in the pic. Russia never made and doesn't make consumable goods. (A few Soviet refigerators and galosha-s we won't count.) Comfort in living has never been in the agenda here.
In tsar time individual craftsmen made wooden barrels for pickled cucumbers.
In Soviet times 1920-1950 it was one war and trouble all over no time for buying a table spoon.
Later on we bought all made by and in the Eastern-Central-Warsaw block what's the PC name for these countries these days.
Since 1992 market opened up and we export all Western made consumables.
The only product Russia makes is armament, spacecrafts, nuclear power stations and other bulky infrustructural things, ballet, and art gymnastics and ice hockey chaps. C'est tout. Ah. Songs as well but you don't understand them, aren't for re-export.
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII (115):
Oh my god! You are so right! The exchange rate of Euro just increased against US dollar, it is now approx. 1 Euro per 1.4 US dollars. We are so going to collapse! Help! Help! Bankcrupcy ahead! Our currency is going up! The end is near!
Complain about this comment
:o)
- US dollar has fallen?
- No. It sat down, before the jump.
Complain about this comment
Forgot one more thing. :o)))
Bird flu, piggy flu, fish flu... For us would be scary only one kind - vodka flu.
In Moldova's Parliament opposition boycotted presidential elections and Moldova stayed without a president.
Then the opposition boycotted the prime minister elections, and Moldova stayed without a government.
Now the country is ruled by the General Secretary of the Communist Party.
"Those fairy-tales... Those fairy-tale tellers..." was mumbling to himself Norwegian Prime Minister looking through his budget 2010.
Year 2013. War btw Russia and the United States.
In full gear, 4th week in a row, a unit of American paratroopers is walking through Siberia.
- Corporal, it's the fourth week we walk this Siberia, right?
- Yep.
- And we haven't met a single person, have we?
- No.
- So, may be we can by now take off Coca-Cola ads from our helmets?
:o)))
US Senate has borrowed from China 700 bln dollars. And now they don't know - either to spend the money supporting good-for-nothings in the stock market or hop over one more time to the Moon.
:o)))
In the recruitment agency:
- I am one of the best US experts on economics and
- Next one, please.
- How many people are there in the commission on the fight of history falsification?
- 28.
- That's alright then. The main thing is that their quantity wouldn't diminish to 3.
Right, for the denial of Holocaust - you should judge those by the Haague Tribunal! And for the denial that in Holocaust perished more Russians than the Jewish - by the Nurenberg court.
Mikhail Saakashvili is a democratically and legally elected President of Georgia who overthrew the democratically and legally elected President Edward Shevardnadze who overthrew the democratically and legally elected President Zviad Gamsakhurdia.
It has happened! Corruption in Russia is now labelled un-decent behaviour! Now, one ought to:
at a theft/bribe up to 1 mln dollars - apologise to the people
at a theft/bribe up to 100 mln dollars - plead people for forgivance
at a theft/bribe up to 1 bln dollars - publicly fall down to the knees and moan asking for forgivance
at a theft/bribe over 1 bln dollars - moan and ask for British citizenship
Complain about this comment
#92 democracythreat
You wrote: * In my experience, the social fabric of the free west has been made up of people who seek larger personal profits for the sake of hedonistic leisure time. Indeed, this was a large part of the appeal to the eastern intellectuals.*
I think you refer to the day to day life of all intellectuals in Europe. I agree with this argument. However, what I had in mind was quite different: Europeans were horrified and tired of all those wars, totalitarian regimes, holocaust and useless confrontation based on different ideologies. In my youth I was an eyewitness of all those military and technical preparations for a plausible conflict with the West. Notorious scientists like Julio Curie, artists like Picasso, writers like Pasternak and Soljenitsine were among those who influenced the public opinion in favour of another reality in Europe. They certainly were not politicians, but they enjoyed the sincere admiration and sympathy of all of us, no matter on which side of the Berlin wall we lived.
You wrote: *The European Union was created to regulated trade for the benefit of a minority of capital asset owners who secure their profits from the exploitation of natural resources such as farming land and factories. The only reason the common people were even given free movement was because the liquid labour market would further benefit the owners of factories and farms.* In a way your argument is right, but we should not forget that Jean Monnet, Konrad-Adenauer and the others spiritual constructors of to-days Europe were convinced that a stable peace in Europe required another type of intergovernmental cooperation that excluded any possibility of military conflict. The treaty of Rome was the first act of that kind in human history.
Your third argument: *They crushing majority of Eastern Europeans are now facing crippling debts to western banks, of such nightmarish proportion that the provision of basic services like policemen and teachers is going to represent a major accomplishment for a high taxing government.* Quite true! The Poles are no more welcomed in Britain, like the Romanians in Italy and the Bulgarians in Spain. What we face now is a real challenge for all our beliefs, hopes and efforts. We just counted too much on the Western help. We certainly were mistaken. The real danger for our democracies comes from our own inability to fight the corruption and the organized crime. Which is one of the main reasons why I am forced to avow that *Eastern Europe has been largely colonized by the west*.
Complain about this comment
Being of the mind that a united Europe is the only way forward I have a dilemma - a tory by instinct how can I vote for a party that really does have luddite tendencies towards the EU?
Am I alone in this? Surely the UK needs to be at the centre of Europe not a peripheral finger wagger.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat and ironfranco I'll comment later - I think there will be people desirous to answer HugoRight above, throughout the day today, on his party intentions understanding concerns:
(a brief note at the mom. fr me is that anyone who takes Solzhenitsyn critics of Russia seriously, no, seriously of course. Anyone, who deduces from it that Solzhenitsyn thought the USA or West or whatever was better or more worthy or more morally right than the USSR with its Gulags - is a baby cheaply bought. For Solzhenitsyn Russia - in all of her states and displays of conditions was always "uber alles". Unattainable heights. To put it straight - he wouldn't trade 2 Soviet Gulags for 2 US states any time of the day. You simply don't understand Rus. literary tradition and its place in the society. This isn't belle letre this is acting political force. Very demanding. You ought to be full of bile and sarcastic and biting as much as possible. A happy content philosophical ab things intellectual does not exist in Russia. He is then Western intellectual. Not intelligencia - consiousness of the society. The key masterpiece on this fabric of society unusual Russian arrangement is Alexandre Griboedov play "Grief from Brains" (trouble in being too brainy). That basically tells it all in the title, :o)
anyway is the programme masterpiece, programming and setting straight where is what in Russia - for centuries ahead.
Unknown in the West nil, but it's all explained there.
I know I didn't explain well. Sorry.
Let's leave it for the day time to better practical things on the theme and practical questions HugoRight asked above:
Complain about this comment
#121 Hugoright
Nobody has answered your post, which is probably an answer in itself. Yes, it is difficult for a non-Eurosceptic Tory to know how to vote, and the EPP, which represents moderate centre-right thinking parties across most of the EU, could probably do with a UK based member now that the Tories are walking away. A gap in the market for any new UK party ...or Independant.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice, we know that Solzhenitsyn was a monarchist who would have preferred Russia to reinstate the Tsars. It's no secret he was preoccupied with Russia and only Russia throughout his life. His value was that he chronicled the Gulag Archipellago better than anyone else could have, maybe better than the KGB could have itself. I never did read The First Circle. The Soviets would have published it at one point if he had withdrawn the Gulag but I think the manuscript had been smuggled out to the west and it was too late. So they exiled him and took away his Soviet Citizenship. He went to the US via Switzerland.
Complain about this comment
Mavrenty, I am glad the USA finds Putin's word as good as gold because there doesn't seem to be much of evidence other :o))))))
We are always pleased to be taken seriously and all.
Still, judging even by the BBC article, VVP separes intentions and deeds. For you it's enough to act, go to war, based on ill intentions towards you only. (If Russia acted based on ill intentions towards us only we wouldn't have a minute to rest LOL. However you simply neglect and all).
Anyway enlighten me please, wasn't there something before your invasion of Iraq following 9/11? I mean, didn't you do something nasty in those Gulf quarters previously, that you could have become un-popular there? If so, in that case you don't need FSB data to figure out they are plotting in those quarters against you. Not a Newton's binom.
I am absolutely sure Russia was against your invasion to Iraq from minute 1, as saw Bagdad on screen in a kind of a transparent air, view from afar, and only lights of explosions here and there, the ? rocket attack? or what was it? on Bagdad, and even that Rus. TV did comment - now they hit this, now they hit that - saying you aim at "business related" say, targets, not focused on living quarters - the main comment of the 1st Russian TV channel was Jesus Christ! What they think they are doing! oh god. we shall all regret this deeply. "East - is a fine matter" (that quote from "The White Sun of the Desert" old movie, that I tried to explain you a while ago) To trample like that! and all.
_________
On Solzhenitsyn, it's tradition un-interrupted. We have them inheriting, picking up from each other, you can always tell , of writers and poets here, who is continueing and heir to who, down into the centuries. Very rarely someone jumps out. and then it's an upstart crow. no confidence in, because un-rooted. you can't fall to Russia from the skies and say something to be heard. has to be a natural :o), themes traced up, to be trusted.
(LOL. that is why all outside propaganda towards us is doomed before it starts. if anyone willing - first get born here before, proceed and seep through yourself the local crazy mind trembling trends :o) get saturated in this sea salt, and get oneself a row of similar-minded company, going deep into the history, so that associative rows work and ring the bell)
Likewise Mavrelius darling No 2 I'd say it's desirable if you wish to carry your idea to my unreceptive mind :o))))) make an effort to get it all rhymed. we aren't very perceptive to blank verse :o)))))
Even better - if you sing it out then the result guaranteed :o)))
Black humour is also in the national tradition. (May be that's why I like reading your posts).?
And look at BBC articles - lost on me :o)))) How can I process info which is neither humourous nor rhymed? No go.
Complain about this comment
Having said that, of course we're able to process simple written text like all the others. Un-imaginative, boring, yawning and disgusting simple text. :o)
Russian TV news' presenters also rarely rhyme up :o))) their news' broadcasts. USA and ? Hurray LOL never heard.
But that's just info, for the record, background noise.
To obtain mind-posessing qualities it has to be rhymed.
Poetry we take as instruction for direct action.
? ah. I quoted Joseph Brodsky a day ago, "though they say that all local governors are vultures; still a thifie I like better than a blood-sucking vampire."
You think it's a figure of speech? Nope.
That's the justification for the Russian corruption. Type "...and any court will acquit me!"
local small governor's power is opposed here to the central "empire" blood-thirstiness tendencies, to those who bend people, rule them, think they have the moral right to manage others' future. conclusion: of two evils it's more excusable to rob your audiences than to rule them.
C'est tout, as simple as that. Rhymed, mind it. Mind-posessing.
Pity Brodsky didn't suggest a third option. Possibly, as non-existant variant of power exercising.
Peculiar Pushkin unknown in the West, being the only "Westerner" in the whole Rus. literary tradition. Must be because you like our traditionalists better, who bask in depicting Rus. doom and gloom, as it meets the Western market demand :o))) for "reliable source of news ab Russia, from inside the country."
Accordingly, zero demand for sunshine Pushkin, whose even very name sounds (to the Russian ear) as happy. "A jolly name - Pushkin!"
It's not that he was bad on the tragedies' frontline :o))) Or doom and gloom. Boris Godunov, for example. ugh. shivers. a total thriller.
Ivan the Terrible, other happy characters.
But Pushkin, well. not exactly as American "happy end". .. :o) No exactly happy ends in Pushkin's verse... he is a true man, wouldn't brazenly lie to us... But still..there is something in the air.
Even his tragedies - he thought about it... and re-named them
"The small tragedies".
LOL.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice, pentrating Iraqi military activities or Iran's for that matter and getting reliable information was impossible. The penalty for being a spy in Iraq was torture and death. Saddam Hussein killed about 50,000 people a year for 20 years. His greatest hero was Stalin. (Sorry you couldn't see that documentary on PBS called WWII, behind closed doors. The actors who played Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill were very convincing, very well researched.)
The US had been attacked by surprise on September 11, 2001. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers was mind numbing. I'd been there hundreds of times, I might have been there that day but for luck. At one time I lived only about 2 miles away. The simultaneous attack on the Pentagon and the thwarted attack that was headed for the White House or Congress put the nation in a state of shock, anger, and a mood of war. It was all the federal government could do to prevent ordinary Americans from killing anyone suspected of being a Moslem. A month later the US was attacked again with anthrax spores. Some were found in Trenton New Jersey at the main post office building only about four or five miles from where I passed going to work every day. That turned out to be a domestic terrorist not related to the Middle East but the government was worried because it knew Saddam Hussein had anthrax weapons at his disposal (the US probably sold it to him along with nerve gas to use on Iran in his war with them.) The US was not only convinced that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons but was very worried that it would give them to al Qaeda to use to attack the US again. Did you see the video of Osama Bin Laden in his cave gloating over the collapse of the World Trade Center? You have no idea how big those buildings were. Each was about a quarter of a mile tall. I watched them being built from across the Hudson River at school in the 1960s. At another time of day, 50,000 people could have been killed in them instead of 3000. There was a great deal of evidence that Iraq had these WMDs. One was the so called "dodgy dossier" invented by British Intelligence MI5 which was "sexed up" to persuade Tony Blair to attack Iraq. Americans knew or strongly suspected that Russia, China, France, and Germany were making profits illegally selling arms and other materials to Saddam Hussein's government violating the UN sanctions. That was the real reason they opposed the war plus they really didn't care if the US was attacked again. I think some of them especially in France were actually hoping for it along with many people in Europe. That is why I hate them so much.
Which US military attack did you see on TV, the one in 1991 I think on the night of January 26 with video transmitted live by CNN at the al Rashid hotel in Baghdad? What you saw in the distance were explosions of cruise missiles and bombs dropped by F117 Stealth fighters. They are invisible to radar and can see in the dark. When the US attacks, it owns the night. It first takes out command and control systems, radar systems, and communications networks. Then it owns the skies. Then it bombs the hell out of the enemy. After 6 weeks of bombing the Iraqis, I think close to 100,000 sorties in 1991, the troops moved in for the kill. It only took four days on the ground before Saddam Hussein's soldiers were pushed out of Kuwait and President Bush Senior called a halt to the attacks after the Iraqi government asked for a truce. Before he did, the US killed or captured I think about 250,000 Iraqi troops. The coalition lost about 100 troops. The Iraqis were so frightened, some even surrendered to news reporters near the battle scene. The road from Kuwait to Baghdad was called the road of death. The A10s and the helicoptors chopped them to ribbons as they retreated., They were defenseless sitting ducks. The US troops could easily have marched right into Baghdad at that time if they'd wanted to.
If you saw the shock and awe in 2003, those were the smart bombs that were said to be so accurate, they could find their way down an air conditioning shaft opening on a roof and destroy only the part of a building that was the target leaving the rest of the building intact. The targets were communications facilities, other government buildings, military installations, and other high value targets. The march from Kuwait to Baghdad only took the US led coalition about 3 weeks at which point all organized Iraqi resistance collapsed. BBC was the only major news network not to show scenes of the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled over by ordinary Iraqi citizens with some help from a US tank.
here's an old photo of the F117
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/iraq/57173.stm
this one has some photos of the B2. It's also invisible to radar.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/kosovo2/304015.stm
This is now all old technology. Still scary though. Still ready for action along with newer even more deadly weapons.
Not much poetry in any of this. We have plenty of poems about war. For a country that's only a little over 200 years old, America has had more than its fair share of them. I afraid there are more to come before much longer. Looks like there is no way out of it. It always looks that way at the start of one.
Complain about this comment
" #115. MarcusHorribilis:
I personally really like the EU just the way it is...a monolithic thoroughly corrupt dictatorship, its relatively stronger members are brought down by its weaker ones."
So, logically, you should be telling us how wonderful it is and urging all Europeans to support it. Or is that Machiavellian approach too subtle for you to get head round?
Complain about this comment
greypolywog
It is not for me to tell Europeans what to do. I merely obsever Europe's absurdities, point them out, and laugh at them. I honestly have no idea what Europe should do. I see it as being doomed no matter what it does. I think it has painted itself into a corner from which there is no escape. But for the first time in my life, I don't think the rest of humanity will survive all that much longer either. There are a lot of different man made factors working against it. Global warming is one of them. Notice it hasn't gotten nearly the press it once did now that China is the number 1 producer of GHGs, the EU's top people were revealed to drive the highest GHG lowest economy vehicles, German auto makers were up in arms about new restrictions proposed by the EU on emissions and George Bush is no longer President of the US. But the manifestations of GHG emissions continue to increase. Looking at photos, we've probably already passed the tipping point. Barack Obama said himself early in his campaign, Europe faces a ticking demographic time bomb. It's still ticking. And then there is the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states of North Korea, Iran, and eventually al Qaeda. Europe and the world merely express verbal concern without doing anything to prevent the inevitable disaster when it happens. So Europe's end is coming and so is everyone else's. I'm not alone in my view. In discussing this with friends of about my own age and finding them in agreement with me, we take some satisfaction that our lives occurred during the most interesting, comfortable, and advanced period of human civilization. Had we been born earlier, our lives would have been poorer, born later and they would have been shorter. What SHOULD Europe do? I don't know and I don't care. Whatever it is though, history and circumstances suggest that it will not have a happy outcome. What it does get will surely be well deserved.
Complain about this comment
129 MarcusHorribilis
Speaking of demographic time bombs - how's your Spanish?
Complain about this comment
" #127. MarcusAureliusII:
The coalition lost about 100 troops."
I think it's a shame that US forces killed more British troops than the Iraqis.
Complain about this comment
MAII I am so tired now can't think. Wait, don't blow up the world, while I eat something.
Complain about this comment
greypolywog
"I think it's a shame that US forces killed more British troops than the Iraqis."
And the American troops weren't even trying. I think British troops should be trained not to try to hit an incoming errant artillery shell with a cricket bat. You can't just turn it around and send it back that way.
Complain about this comment
" #133. MarcusHorribilis:
GP "I think it's a shame that US forces killed more British troops than the Iraqis."
MA. And the American troops weren't even trying."
That's probably why 24% of US deaths were caused by US troops. Our troops have this old-fashioned tendency to focus on the enemy. Do your guys just shoot at anything that moves - even if it's in a US uniform?
Complain about this comment
Yes MA, all sad. Tooth hurts, or may be ear, and not even a chocolate in the house. May be in the morning? will be better? No?
No.
What I am thinking is - what is your business thinking? There must be a third force somewhere. Even demoralised now.
Like politejoms wrote once, "the business of America is business".
He still remembers. the legends. of ancient Greeks. :o)
Surely this bang bang oops bang bang harms the business? .
OK, one stream "the business of America is war", the other stream - say, became unresponsive :o) but the business kind of business old focus folk, what, have no say? nothing left, not even plankton, or office plankton only?
US is so much into war thinking, power solutions that , I don't have to point you at the figures. so much in the red.
Looks it is one or the other - "when you chase 2 rabbits - you won't catch a single one"
Shall we all nostalgically remember "and they were so good at making money; that was their horse. but then they changed it.
Will be thinking this sad thought while walking the dog. Ciao temporarily.
Complain about this comment
Must be I am making a mistake.
We had such clever heads, lots of examples.
It's called typial mistake of Russian intelligencia, that they think "hold on, it is enough to explain them." One of poets, forgot who, was beating about all quarters in 1941, "let me go! I will explain those German soldiers! they simply don't understand what they are doing; they don't know they're wrong! let me go, to the front line, to cross over to them - I will talk to them, explain them!"
In 1943 his friend remembered him that, asked, like "ho ho. do you still think you could "explain" them?
- No; these chaps understand only one language.
Not that I am linking USA to Germans in Russia 1941. because you aren't in Russia. that's why. and even your Patton - wanted to. but did not. "intentions".
:o) must be, on going out of the pub one late night :o)))) decided "to go all the way to Moscow" :o)))) Wonder how many people were holding him :o))))
I am thinking ab myself, "to explain".
Bright example of this our disease was Mandelshtam, with his famous poem on Stalin & Co. The poem was such that even KGB questioning ab "how only this could come to your sick mind?" were afraid to stay with it on paper in the room alone. And called evidence, to accompany each other, to prove that they have not read what's written about Stalin there.
How did that get to the KGB hands? One would think somebody reported on Mandeshtam - but no. KGB archives show that nobody did. Nobody even dared to report on such a thing! to be suspected in knowing and listening to it! everyone ran away from the poet with his stalin's lively depiction masterpiece as from plague!
He simply advertised it so much himself on all the coreners that at the end it became simply in-decent for KGB to continue to neglect.
Why? Bec
Mandeshtam wanted to talk to Kremlin. He was acting, how to say, from the "position of power." He though approx. "this is my country; I owe it; they do with it hell knows what - I ought to explain THEM that THEY are wrong." He wanted a dialogue, LOL, with a totalitarian power, had the illusion that you can change a totalitarian power "from within" ! That he will "explain", THEY ought to listen.
Same old Russian intelligencia mistake.
You know what Mandelshtam was doing, judging by the latest KGB old reports' opening up archives? He had a guy attached to him, to supervise him as suspicious, politically; well he was calling him, checking how things are, with Mandelshtam, from time to time.
At each call Mandelshtam insisted that he listens to his latest poems.
The KGB guy was saying "no no no, thanks, I got the general angle, excuse me :o)
To which Mandelshtam was saying "No! It's your job! Wait a sec - I'll bring the latest production from the kitchen, on this vicious power - it is your job! You HAVE to listen to that! "
Those souls-saving efforts, to engage a totalitarian regime in a dialogue, ended, clear how. Common grave by one of the Gulag doors; date - unclear; place - unclear, "during the year ... ".
I'd say it's important to know the borderline. Between "you can talk" and " forget about it".
Complain about this comment
greypolywog
" Do your guys just shoot at anything that moves - even if it's in a US uniform?"
It doesn't matter if it's in any uniform or not and it doesn't have to move either. We have a saying; "shoot first and ask questions later." If it's any consolation, Americans don't discriminate when it comes to killing soldiers due to what we call "friendly fire." We don't just kill Brits by accident but Canadians, anyone. I even met an artillery gunner who accidentally shot his own men in the Korean War. Wonder if there will be another Korean war soon. You signing up to go?
WebAlice
The business of America is Business was said long before anyone here said it. I think it was first said in the 19th century or early in the 20th century by one of the candidates for President. For some reason Harrison sticks in my mind but it might have been Coolidge, I'd have to Google it.
Too bad you don't have any chocolate. What is a house without chocolate? Sometimes I feel I must have chocolate or I will surely die hahahahahaha. I think the US is the number one manufacturer of arms. But who US manufacturers are allowed to sell to and what products can be sold to them are carefully controlled by the government. America will not sell dangerous weapons to unfriendly dictators, just friendly dictators. For this reason, Russians had to send a lot of spies to the US to find out what they were up to, to steal plans for weapons. The Rosenbergs were executed for selling secrets of the atom bomb to the USSR. Funny how the most constructive country is also the most destructive one. When it comes to blowing things up, America has no equals or betters except for this;
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
It was the biggest fireworks display anywhere ever.
Complain about this comment
A Federal Republic of Europe that can successfully challenge the domination of the English-speaking World : is the real goal of the EU from the days EEC was formed. In that objective, it is no different from the USSR. We all know what happened to artificial federal republics like the USSR and Yugoslavia. How the UK has become party to this primary objective is really unbelievable. It is the most stupid of suicidal struggles that history has seen. Napoleon/France challenged us in 1814 and lost. Hitler/Germany challenged us in 1945 and lost. The two combined to create the EU to turn the tide against 300 years of Planet English. And UK is party to this new USSR - when we successfully finished off Lenin/USSR in 1989. Let us not be fooled by any other goals that the FRE claims it beleives in - it was created for one single purpose, just like the USSR. There is a enough evidence that is available for analysts to see through. Artificially created federated republics all have ultimately been consigned to the rubbish heaps of history.In an era of economic battles, we all saw how toothless the ECB and EU were in taking action to control the bleeding - but for the UK and US, taking concerted action as Nation states alone can do, it would have been 1929 all over. We need to be fire walled really well - to survive the EU meltdown when it happens (just as USSR and Yugoslavia did).
Complain about this comment
#138
A lot of Eurosceptics like to compare the EU with the USSR.
Tell me, was there ever a queue of applicants to join the USSR?
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill, come on, it's not very fair to compare USSR formation in 1917 and the present day EU processes.
USSR was formed on the background of the 1stWW, when violence was all the rage in the continent. It was a more accepted method of solving issues back then, so to say, than in 1990.
Interestingly, the second bout of USSR enlargement also fell on the war/pre-war time, 1939-1940 (the 3 Baltics).
Nevertheless, you will have to search high and low, to find examples of republics/countries joining into the USSR "by Russia with fire and steel." Quite another creepy way. In fact happened very much by itself, you wouldn't even notice, LOL.
You only know the outstanding examples of the Baltics, plus 10-15 "Ukrainian freedom fighters" Joushenko found now with much difficulty in 1920-s, plus Georgia now remembered all scores for known reasons. Excuse me, that's 3+1+1 = 5, out of 15.
Whereas in fact - even in the Baltics, joined in in 1940, who are the most outstanding example of kicking and screaming and all against; 50% of population were for, and in their parliament who voted for - not less of genuine "all things socialistic-communistic" admirers.
You simply forget that there were so many leftists in these countries in 1917 that you can't even imagine. It was in vogue. Hard to imagine now, but true. And all these gravitated their countries into the USSR formation idea, streamed under the communist banners.
Another factor is simply that nobody knew 90 yrs ago that all things Marxists would fail back then. People actually lay high hopes on them.
And Russia was the centre of gravitation, for another reason as well, not only communist banners.
In 1913 it was one of the richest countries in the world, as simple as that. Certainly, the most well-off in these quarters.
Granted, its prospects became somewhat suspicious after the revolution, but still, you could reasonably count that you cannot spend whole wealth in 4 years, and something still stayed. Flies fly to honey, not to vinegar.
We are not the centre of wealth LOL these days, to put it simply, but still countries gravitate to money, nothing has changed in this respect.
A short period of Russian wealth, in the past several years, by the way has demonstrated this rule again. Many of those who ran away from us in 1990-s when we couldn't put anything anymore on the common table, turned around and began looking back.
Where there is the centre of wealth - there the countries would flock around. A cynical observation, but true. The only argument Russia could have for collecting lands back - is to become rich. In the unlikely event of that, LOL - small hoofs and horns - that's all that'll be left of the EU in its "expanded" format - in 10 minutes.
Complain about this comment
I think it's more scientific to compare the lists "who wants to join Russia" and "who wants to join the EU", as per 2009.
Because excuse me in 1917 I don't remember lines to join up neither Germany nor France nor Britain either.
Either back then European countries had no interesting banners or ideas to propose, or had no money, or may be had and money and technologies, but were not eager to share them with others.
These days the EU has both; alluring idea of democracy, money and technologies - so the lines to join the franchise have formed indeed.
But if you fail on either of the two parameters - don't even doubt re the outcome.
We don't join the cueue because have doubts in the EU desire to actually share both, with others. Rightly, or wrongly - no way to tell.
Democracy to us began looking suspicious when exercised on Serbia and Iraq; the way the English-speaking world "shares technologies" - we have tried ourselves, post-Perestroyka. Max that one can count on - is a screw-driver car plant, where assembly of ready exported pieces takes place on your ground. Even a bicycle scheme, LOL, you won't share.
Russia, to the opposite, may have a little - but what little we have we share with "ours", this can be counted upon. We will always take others' risks onto ourselves, as well, without a moment of hesitation.
Just a note, :o))) , about distant future.
The way the EU is now expanding, absorbing all in-between lands, can be characterised only by one word: "Pick up the suitcase, quickly, the train is leaving from the platform!"
In fact, this condition is worded here even more energetically:
"Pick up railway !!! (station) suitcase is leaving!" :o)))))))
Why so much in a hurry, may I wonder :o)))) ?
Because suitcase is leaving.
Clear why, because it's far easier to enter a block than exit out of it.
You are becoming some hotel California. Any time of day, LOL.
So all is reasonable and understandable, and I don't blame the EU for rapid expansion. You will first get lands and states, while you can, historic period allowing, and then will start figuring out what to do with them.
Counting on the economies of scale, or something else will be worked out, "the curve will take us out of it somehow anyhow".
In this interesting state the EU will promise the new potential entrants the world, to Ukrain, to Georgia, to anyone. Like was already promised to the Baltics.
We understand own deficiencies and if we compete, for the in-between lands' affections, we compete very modestly. But I rather hope Kremlin won't give to those, in hesitation, one un-backed promise. I count we won't.
Complain about this comment
Healthy competition, in the continent ahead, don't you think ? :o)
Well, once it will be fair, it's good, for all.
Complain about this comment
It is a fight between the #1 and # 2.
In 1776 - 1814, Napoleon/France challenged us and lost. We built upon it and created Planet English.Germany became # 2 under Bismarck.
In 1914 - 1945, Hitler/Germany challenged us twice and lost. We built upon it, but the baton passed over to USA from UK. Russia became # 2.
In 1945 - 1989, Lenin/USSR challenged us and lost. The EU became # 2.
With 75 % Catholics, the EU is embarked upon the decimation of Planet English : replacement of English by Esperanto, declaring Catholicism as its official religion, abolishing the currency and the monarchy are explicit goals. Thankfully though, just like the Nation State based on Communism failed or any attempts to construct a Nation State based on Islam will fail, the Nation State of EU based on Esperanto & Catholicism is bound for failure. We need to be fire-walled from its inevitable failure and not join them to suffer like Belarus and Slovenia - these two could not avoid their fate; we can and we ought to. However, we are a democracy and we need the people to decide - with the agenda clearly spelt out.
Complain about this comment
well judgement day is coming lets vote for the parties against the EU to shown lying brown that we dont want EU and the BBC to start going with the vast public views on it.Also Mark Mardel to resign for being to pro EU
Complain about this comment
MA. Good evening. several things.
on the "tsar bomb" - don't remind me. (never heard it's called "tsar" in Russia, you are the first one telling me.) Anyway we have family scores with it. Namely my mum was blond. Ab first 25? 30? years of her life. Until she sailed on a ship, her institute "usual" meteo observation expedition, in the White Sea, where the bomb was blown up. Like the whole expedition, she didn't know a thing about a minor nuclear blast that took place there. In fact she said they all wondered, why suddenly the need to check wind, sea conditions, do this and that measurements, in that god forgotten place. Said they were all young graduates, spent ab 2 months on board the scientific ship, cruising those waters. Mercilessly eaten by moscitoes when close to the shore. And white thick fogs over the water (that's why we called it White Sea. You can't see a thing there in 10 metres. White fog over water - at sea!)
And moscitoes would have stayed the only memorable thing, only she strangely became dark haired after, in ab half a year. As well as other blond girls from the expedition. They couldn't figure out what's the plague, but nobody heard of the nuclear bomb a thing. (if you were ever a blond girl who turns brownish all of a sudden - you'd understand the indignation and feelings).
I am afraid my mum became then a strong , how to put it, in opposition to all things nuclear and thinks them plain criminal.
"you have no idea how big the buildings were" (the twin towers)
Happen to have, believe it or not I even flew in helicopter from Kennedy to the landing on water, by pier, opposite, to cut the time in driving. ! (Those were the days when I was spoiled). I had friends working in one of the two, DHL colleagues. Naturally when it all happened I thought only about how they made it out or not. (They did. nature of the courier bsnss luckily means easy running, how to say, quickly to take off, by mind, people) In fact this very minute have a coffee mug in front of me, still with the twin towers, from right out one of one of them.
"tipping point". Mavrelius it's unfair to morally get prepared to the "other , better world" while others don't want to. And explain "ah, doesn't matter, what America will do with the world, it is doomed anyway, due to nature's tricks." Still not a bad planet, look around.
Besides, if you LOL carefully read Russian media, you would know that natural disasters, troubles and hurricanes, floods and whatever happen exclusively to ill willing aggressive countries ! :o)))))
Thus the best proof of Russia's current peaceful nature is that nothing of the kind here. No earthquakes, floods or fires or hurricanes tornadoes and things.
Mavrelius, don't you know that thoughts are material They materilise, and when you get way too busy with annoying others, it hits back.
(we were awaiting something supernatural similar here after Georgia, some weather defects, but no, apparently :o)))) by universal judgement it's all moral and fair and highly recommendable.
"shock and awe in 2003" yes that's what I watched.
Your 1991 invasion we have no idea about. Theoretically we know, but practically nobody here does. Ask a 100 people in the street was America in Iraq before 2003 - nobody would have a clue.
You simply don't understand that in 1991 the last thing we were interested on earth was America, Iraq or whatever.
We had own country falling under our feet, all going to Hell.
Feeling like in a falling elevator. Or may be on an ice floe cracking under you in the middle of the sea. That lovely period that you still think "was all good and enjoyable for them, finally they became free."
Aha.
So you may wish to explain me what tze-tze fly bit you back in 1991 that you went to bomb Bagdad.
On an un-related subject, how is it in your country of the victorious capitalism, are tooth doctors same obsessed with extracting wisdom teeth, instead of peacefully quietly fixing them? Saw two docs so far and all refuse to deal with, "wisdom tooth/No 8? we don't fix those, take it out immediately."
Complain about this comment
WebAlice 140, etc.
Of course, I bow to your superior knowledge of USSR history. However, I think the important point is that there remains a choice of which train to get on, or, indeed, whether to catch a train at all.
Complain about this comment
We could really do with a referendum on yes or no to Europe and not another fudge.
Complain about this comment
NikolayTzvetkov wrote:
Democracythreat (113)
"I think my question is entirely honest. I read your whole post and got your point, but I think you got me wrong. Freeborn-John obviously has his own position, but if we have to argue if EU is democratically legitimate or not I need to know before hand where John stand.
.....
As I can not read minds I cant argue with John why Lisbon treaty is a good idea, before I know where exactly he stands. "
Please read these statements and think about them carefully. How is it possible that you need to know another persons' argument before you can make your own case for a proposal that has nothing to do with that other person?
I put it to you that if you are honest, and you truly cannot argue why the Lisbon treaty is a good idea before you know where Freeborn John stands.... then you have no case.
And that is my point. You don't have a case. None of the supporters of the EU really do, anymore. They haven't since the trading alliance became a commissariat devoted to securing legal power over European taxation revenue.
Instead of making the case FOR the EU, the overwhelming trend has been to make the case against the stupid, unreliable, COMMON folks who object to it.
It is the same thing with regard to democratic practice. Have you ever heard a single politician in Europe advocate for direct democracy, according to the Swiss model?
Have you ever heard even ONE politician argue for more democracy, based on the model found at the heart of Europe, the model that generates the most wealthy and most peaceful society in Europe?
I haven't. But then, I have never heard anything from a politician who does not belong to a major political party. It seems to be the rule that only the major parties get air time. And they never, ever suggest more democratic practice. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Isn't it odd that people have been saying for years that the EU has a democratic deficit.... but the politicians remain uniformly silent on the issue?
Now i am not suggesting a conspiracy, merely a common sense institutional analyses. It is not really that odd that a party based system of power sharing would advocate for a democratic system. 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.
And I don;t think that is the case, any longer. I don;t think many people believe in the two party system. Just because it survives, that doesn't mean has the support of the people. the USSR survived for years and years when everyone openly talked about it as if it was a joke.
So if you can't make a case for the EU... why not stop attacking those who are trying to make a case for something better?
It may feel good to win phoney arguments over people with seemingly radical ideas, but it isn't very impressive, nor is it rewarding. If that is what your faith in the EU institutions has made of your intellect, perhaps you should question that faith.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS