Europe

[Furunculus]

If I showed you a day in the life of a Pole and a day in the life of a Russian, you wouldn't know which is which (unless one of them is Krook), because there are no cultural differences. There are minor differences sure, like there's between a Norwegian and a Portuguese or an Italian and Irish.

What you are doing is mistaking political issues and disagreements for cultural and social differences.

i disagree, but socio/cultural differences don't matter for the EU i want; a glorified free trade agreement with legislative harmonisation where desired.

[gaelic cowboy]

why not fight for the europe you want, rather than the europe you fear.

if ireland ditched the treaty again then you would have britain and most of new europe backing you up against any reprisals.

Well the Europe I would like to see is probably a more integrated one but NOT federalised into some superstate cos it wouldnt work.

So far more and more harmonisation has been good for Ireland open borders more trade and better laws on various things which we had to change to get in.

So far its fine by me but we have to be in debating at the table to ensure its what we and not want not what others want to impose.

[gaelic cowboy]

i disagree, but socio/cultural differences don't matter for the EU i want; a glorified free trade agreement with legislative harmonisation where desired.

There is the problem with Europe in a simple sentence you look and see summit different to me when I look I see the same thing but totally different.

Many english people want a glorified free trade agreement with some legislative harmonisation they fear its gone too far I look I dont see it gone too far at all neither want a Superstate but none of us wants out really

[Furunculus]

There is the problem with Europe in a simple sentence you look and see summit different to me when I look I see the same thing but totally different.

Many english people want a glorified free trade agreement with some legislative harmonisation they fear its gone too far I look I dont see it gone too far at all neither want a Superstate but none of us wants out really

not sure what you're saying in the first sentence.

i DO want out of a federal EU superstate if that is the direction the EU is inexorably heading in, however that is not necessarily the end result despite the desires of Brussels as my next post will highlight.

[Furunculus]

lol, i'd laugh if i wouldn't end up crying;

Ireland to save us from the treaty, Germany to save us from the superstate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6202988/Germans-reel-at-prospect-of-submission-to-alien-powers.html


Germans reel at prospect of 'submission to alien powers'
Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall we can at last welcome the emergence of a healthy German nationalism that will help curb the European Union's overweening ambitions.

By Andrew Gimson
Published: 7:30AM BST 18 Sep 2009

Germans reel at prospect of 'submission to alien powers'

The EU's march towards statehood has been halted in Karlsruhe, where Germany's highest court has produced an unyielding defence of national sovereignty.

Until taking the extreme step of reading the German Constitutional Court's verdict on the Lisbon Treaty, I had no idea how firm a stand the judges have made. They bluntly declare that the EU is "an association of sovereign national states" that derives its democratic legitimacy from the member states and not from the European Parliament.

In a tone of barely suppressed fury, the court enumerates the encroachments Europe has made on national judicial systems and rules that this process must go no further. According to these judges, Germany's Basic Law, or constitution, promotes peaceful co-operation within the EU and the United Nations, but this is not "tantamount to submission to alien powers".

On the contrary: the Basic Law denies the German government the power "to abandon the right to self-determination of the German people", which they exercise by voting for their own parliament, which in turn must not be denuded of powers because otherwise German democracy would become meaningless.

The German judges add that measures of European integration "must, in principle, be revocable", and declare that they themselves have the right to safeguard "the inviolable core content" of the German constitution: a process that "can result in Community law or Union law being declared inapplicable in Germany". It is an extraordinarily high-handed and intransigent judgment.

But when a British Euro-sceptic writes about Germany, he or she has to be careful not to see only those parts of the picture that lighten the heart. This formidable judgment has not actually prevented the German government from endorsing the Lisbon Treaty: the court merely insisted, as a condition of ratification, that certain measures be taken to strengthen the position of the German parliament.

Jan Techau, a brilliant young analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations, questions whether the court will ever follow words with deeds: "The court has always barked but it has never bitten." Mr Techau points out that "Germany has traditionally been very integrationist" and believes that "the German people are not generally Euro-sceptic".

It is certainly true that the Germans wish to live in peace with their neighbours, and can see that the EU helps them to do this. Germany is so much stronger than any of the dozen or so countries that surround it, and inflicted such horrors in the period up to 1945, that it needs a system of European co-operation in order to reassure the rest of us that it no longer poses a threat.

The German political class sought to rehabilitate their country by becoming ardently pro-European: a position that made the burden of German history slightly easier to bear, and which, in 1989-90, facilitated peaceful German reunification. François Mitterrand may have warned Margaret Thatcher that the re-united Germany could "make even more ground than had Hitler", but it was difficult for anyone who knew the post-war Germans to take that sort of thing seriously.

The Constitutional Court stresses, incidentally, that the Basic Law "breaks with all forms of political Machiavellianism and with a rigid concept of sovereignty which until the beginning of the 20th century regarded the right to wage a war – even a war of aggression – as a right that is due to a sovereign state as a matter of course". The modern German understanding of sovereignty is anything but bellicose.

But the court's verdict has still induced something like apoplexy in the surviving members of the West German political class that committed itself to European integration. Prof Michael Stürmer condemned the judgment as "this absolutely irresponsible decision" and lamented the emergence of "a new generation without a sense of history, without that great project of Europe – it's bizarre and it's sad".

A note of pained incredulity entered Prof Stürmer's voice as he contemplated the madness of asking judges to rule on a question of foreign policy of which they have no comprehension. "They are being asked to sit in judgment on matters of raison d'état."

According to Prof Stürmer, who from 1981 was an adviser to Helmut Kohl on European policy, the judgment means that for the next 10 or 20 years, no German government "can really move forward on Europe": there cannot be a successor treaty to Lisbon. He reproaches Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, for having failed to begin at once "an open, principled conflict" with the court. But Mrs Merkel is astute enough to realise that there are no votes to be won by taking on the Constitutional Court, which enjoys greater respect than the political class.

This is why in the long term I expect the court's view to be decisive: it reflects German public opinion. When I lived in Germany, from 1994-2000, I found the people imbued with an entirely reasonable desire to run their own affairs. They wanted good relations with other Europeans, but could see neither sense nor justice in being told what to do by the power-hungry international bureaucracy now established in the Belgian capital.

The German example prompts the question of whether, as Lord Owen has urged, we should ask our new Supreme Court to take on a similar role, as the guardian of a constitution that our politicians cannot be trusted to uphold.


thank god for Britain's neighbours.

[Furunculus]

the author of the great european ripoff comments:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198708/EU-costs-Britain-118bn-a-year.html


EU 'costs Britain £118bn a year'
The European Union's vast cost is one of the biggest reasons to be concerned about Britain's relationship with it, says Matthew Elliott.

Published: 7:45AM BST 17 Sep 2009

The European Union is most commonly discussed in terms of constitutional debates, treaty negotiations, vetoes and votes. Of course, it is absolutely right that the crucial issue of the democratic deficit is addressed, but there are other reasons to be concerned about our relationship with the EU. The vast cost of the EU is foremost among them.

As important as questions of sovereignty and freedom are, it would be wrong to discuss the EU without fully investigating the costs it imposes: costs to the taxpayer, the consumer and business. And by any estimate, those costs are massive.

In our book The Great European Rip-Off, my colleague David Craig and I estimated the total cost to Britain of the EU, once the harmful impacts of its numerous policies and regulations have been taken into account, to be £118 billion a year. That is equal to £1,968 for every man, woman and child – a life-changing amount of money for millions who are currently struggling to make ends meet.

So what is that cost made up of? Up front, we paid the EU £16,398 million of taxpayers’ money directly in 2008: £650 for every person, or £45 million a day. This goes into the central EU budget. Of course, that £16,398 million contribution is a gross figure and the EU are always quick to point out that we receive money back from Brussels in the form of grants.

In fact, in 2008 they were generous enough to hand £9,830 million of our own money back to us. Before accepting that this money should be deducted from any estimated cost of the EU, though, it is worth looking at exactly what those grants are for. You will occasionally see “Funded by the EU” badges stuck on works of public art, stiles, free school diaries or in other places, and the range of things the money is used for is remarkably broad.

On close investigation, the actual list of what those EU grants goes on throws up numerous dubious examples. Meals for industry representatives at swanky restaurants, thousands of promotional items like fridge magnets and key rings, £460,000-worth of media training for EU officials based in London, video podcasts about EU events, and even a project run by an actors’ union to combat discrimination against elderly female actors – all are counted as grants to Britain from the EU, which we are expected to be grateful for.

The direct contribution to the central EU budget is just the beginning, though. On top of the cost of funding an army of well-paid bureaucrats in Brussels, the British taxpayer also foots the bill for a cohort of public servants employed by our own Government to implement and oversee the EU’s rules and regulations. With the EU in control of business, trade, environment, agriculture, fisheries, migration and more, a sizeable portion of each Government department effectively works for Brussels.

Those regulations themselves generate a large bill for all of us indirectly, too. Having paid Brussels to come up with so many rules, and having funded people in Whitehall to administrate them, we as consumers, employees and shareholders then have to bear the cost of abiding by it.

EU regulation touches just about every level of every industry. If you want to build something, grow something, mince something, scrap something, recycle something, burn something, paint something, bake something, package something or do a myriad of other things, there is a sheaf of densely typed regulations just for you. In total, red tape from Brussels adds another £100 billion of lost income, extra expenditure and forfeited economic growth to the bill.

The EU’s policies on food production have been particularly disastrous. The Common Fisheries Policy has had a horrendous impact economically, socially and environmentally. Almost 100,000 jobs have been lost in fishing and dependent industries, leading to increased social security bills in devastated fishing communities. Because fishing boats are banned from bringing home fish that exceed their quotes, even if they are caught accidentally, 880,000 tonnes of dead fish are dumped into the North Sea every year. With the fish supply reduced by these quotas and by the radical reduction of fish stocks, prices at the till are increased to the tune of £4.7 billion a year - £186 a year per family.

The same goes for the Common Agricultural Policy. A huge proportion of the EU’s annual budget is spent on dishing out subsidies to European farmers, whose sales are protected by tariff barriers which effectively tax much non-European produce out of the market. On top of our direct taxpayer-funded subsidy, the CAP costs the British consumer an extra £5.3 billion on their food bills.

There are numerous other examples of waste. The VAT system is so dysfunctional that it loses £80 billion of taxpayers’ money a year through carousel fraud. The EU’s libraries are so overfunded and underused that each book loan costs £570. A leaked copy of the secret report by auditor Robert Galvin that we published earlier this year revealed financial irregularities in the accounts of the majority of MEPs in the European Parliament . The list goes on.

Of course, there is heated debate about the actual cost of the EU when everything is taken into account. Various estimates have been produced, ranging from that of the Conseil d’Analyse Economique, which is chaired by the French Prime Minister and which failed to identify any trade benefits from the Single Market or the Euro, to that of the Swiss Federal Government which concluded that joining the EU would cost between six and eight times more than their current relationship with Brussels. The striking thing is that no Government has yet demonstrated in a fully detailed assessment that the EU is of overall benefit to its members.

Remarkably, even the EU itself has failed to produce any convincing figures to demonstrate the benefits of the organisation. Commissioner Gunter Verheugen estimated in 2006 that the cost of regulation to the European economy as a whole is £405 billion a year, while the Commission itself believes that between 1986 and 2002 the Single Market only brought benefits of £110 billion. Even after taking inflation into account, that means that the EU Commission itself believes the costs are three times larger than the benefits.

When weighing up any activity, it is sensible to work out how much it costs and what benefits it brings. If you join a club, you would expect the perks received in return to be worth at least the cost of your membership. If they were not, then you wouldn’t join – there are better things you could do with your money without such a costly middle man.

The more one looks into the costs and benefits of the EU, the more it seems like just such a rip-off. All the data suggests that it is a hugely expensive club which provides very little in return for your membership fee. As hotly as the EU’s cheerleaders try to discredit any and every figure produced that casts it in a negative light, it is impossible to ignore that the weight of evidence suggests overwhelmingly that the EU is a net cost for Britain.

It would be perfectly easy, of course, to settle the debate once and for all: the British Government could carry out its own cost/benefit analysis. Strangely, whenever that proposal has been put to government ministers they have blathered, obfuscated and then refused to carry one out. The unwillingness of a Government which believes, as Gordon Brown put it, that “we benefit from our membership of the European Union” to do the sums that would prove or disprove that assertion once and for all is suspicious and telling.

One of the first acts of an incoming Conservative Government should be to carry out just such a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis. If David Cameron wishes to balance the books and help the economy, he must address the vast costs of the EU.

Matthew Elliott

Matthew Elliott is chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and co-author of 'The Great European Rip-Off’ (Random House)


what were Louis's figures again on the economic benefits of the EU?

i'm not convinced by either, but i'd love to have a better idea on exactly what they were............

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I showed you a day in the life of a Pole and a day in the life of a Russian, you wouldn't know which is which (unless one of them is Krook):laugh4:

[Furunculus]

ah new europe, how i love thee.

Czechs playing silly buggers with the EU constitution until the Tories get back in:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6841622.ece


Czech Republic 'planning to delay signing Lisbon treaty'
Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer

(Julien Warnand/EPA)

Jan Fischer, the caretaker Czech PM
David Charter in Brussels

EU leaders are said to be furious that the Czech Republic is planning to delay signing the Lisbon treaty for up to six months even if the Irish vote "yes" in their referendum next month.

The country might even try to delay it until after the British general election campaign when a Tory victory would see the question put to voters by David Cameron.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped to draw up the treaty after the French and Dutch voted against its predecessor, the EU Constitution, has warned Prague that it faces "consequences" if it does not swiftly follow an Irish "yes" with its own ratification.

The outburst followed a private warning from Jan Fischer, the Czech caretaker Prime Minister, to his EU counterparts over dinner at their summit in Brussels last Thursday, it has emerged.
Related Links

Mr Fischer said that Václav Klaus, the country's unpredictable President, was planning to have a group of loyal senators in the Czech Upper House refer the treaty back to the country's constitutional court for a second time, which could delay ratification for between three and six months.

This would mean that the treaty could still be unratified going into the British general election campaign, expected next April or May. Mr Cameron has pledged that, if the document remained a live issue, even though Britain has completed its own ratification, he would call a referendum on it. This prospect horrifies most EU leaders, given the strong vein of euroscepticism in Britain.

Tensions are already running high among EU leaders over whether the Irish will vote in favour of the treaty on October 2 after a close-run referendum campaign. They are desperate that the momentum of a "yes" is not lost on the eurosceptic Czech and Polish presidents, the final two signatures required for EU ratification.

The treaty further erodes national powers to veto EU decisions, and a Tory government would campaign against it. President Klaus is understood to have told allies that he wants to wait if possible to see if Mr Cameron wins the next election.

Speaking after last Thursday's dinner, Mr Sarkozy said: "I stated clearly that if the Irish say 'yes', there is no question that we will accept to stay in a no-man’s land with a Europe that does not have the institutions to cope with the crisis,” he said.

Asked about what could be done to persuade President Klaus to sign, he added: "It will be necessary to draw the consequences — but those will be the subject of another meeting."

Mr Fischer is acting as caretaker Prime Minister after the government of Mirek Topolánek fell in the summer and while fresh elections are organised. He has warned privately that he has little control over the country's headstrong President. Speaking to Czech journalists after last week's summit, he admitted: "It is certainly a fact that several government leaders perceive the ratification process in the Czech Republic with a degree of nervousness."

would this be the schemings of the powerless and marginalised ECR Group?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped to draw up the treaty after the French and Dutch voted against its predecessor, the EU Constitution, has warned Prague that it faces "consequences" if it does not swiftly follow an Irish "yes" with its own ratification.

That is the really unnerving part for me.

[Furunculus]

reminds of the quote from last year about "poland missing a good opportunity to shut up" from france or germany.

maybe the fallout from obama's missile u-turn won't be so bad after all..........

[Louis VI the Fat]

ah new europe, how i love thee.

Czechs playing silly buggers with the EU constitution until the Tories get back in:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6841622.eceAs a champion of 'national sovereignity', aren't you at least a wee bit dismayed that the Czechs will not take this decision for themselves, but will let the Tories make it for them?


What a bunch of spineless weaklings. I say they missed an excellent opportunity to remain silent.


Edit, as to the other article: Yes, I too am very pleased that the German constitutional court deemed 'Lisbon' in accordance with the German constitution.
The court also stated that the EU must be democratically accountable. This in itself is neither pro nor against further European integration. It means that either the national or the European Parliament must have clear powers of control. In other words, this verdict opens the way for a fully functioning European parliament! Yay! Now if only we could convince the sceptics and the national sovereignists to grant it these powers of democratic control!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As a champion of 'national sovereignity', aren't you at least a wee bit dismayed that the Czechs will not take this decision for themselves, but will let the Tories make it for them?

They are taking it themselves, instead of bowing to pressure from Sarkozy's "consequences."* Not ratifying the treaty and trying to work with other nations freely is a lot more in the vein of national sovereignty than accepting the treaty because the European Commission told you to.

*Hopefully.

[Furunculus]

As a champion of 'national sovereignty', aren't you at least a wee bit dismayed that the Czechs will not take this decision for themselves, but will let the Tories make it for them?
What a bunch of spineless weaklings. I say they missed an excellent opportunity to remain silent.


Edit, as to the other article: Yes, I too am very pleased that the German constitutional court deemed 'Lisbon' in accordance with the German constitution.
The court also stated that the EU must be democratically accountable. This in itself is neither pro nor against further European integration. It means that either the national or the European Parliament must have clear powers of control. In other words, this verdict opens the way for a fully functioning European parliament! Yay! Now if only we could convince the sceptics and the national sovereignists to grant it these powers of democratic control!
tribeman has asked a similar question in the past (about 8 pages back), and it displays the same lack of understanding about what national sovereignty means to me, so to answer; no i don't care about what another sovereign nation does because it is not my sovereign nation. regardless of which, it is hardly an act of weakness on their part.

i too am delighted, because at the end of the day i want a EU that we can live with, and one that is constitutionally subservient to national parliaments is one i can live with. if germany actually enforces this ruling and other significant nations adopt the same stance then we will have made a good start towards preventing a federalised europe.

[gaelic cowboy]

The irony is that for smaller weaker countries national sovereignty is probably enhanced by entry into the EU because the rules are setup to make it so at least it is now anyway.

I thinking specifically here of my own country we entered the EU because your own country entered it we had no choice entry to English markets for our goods is too important. However our leaders probably hoped we might be able to remove the last vestiges of economic control the UK had on us by access to an even bigger market.

Course all it really did was increase the trade between us but hey it was a good thing for us at the time and its still pretty good now.

Now the fun part of the ride is over and all the stuff were asked to vote on these days is more technical and quite frankly beyond this mere mortal which is why the NO to Lisbon crowd is having a field day telling lies while at the same the YES side tell us just as big a load of lies.

I hope that the conservative grouping gets down to making the EU work better and not simply blocking I suspect they are there to work as I cannot imagine the UK is seriously considering any nuclear option.

I said it already but strategically the UK cannot allow itself to be outside the decisions in Europe so the UK will continue to have a love hate hate relationship with the EU.

[Furunculus]

The irony is that for smaller weaker countries national sovereignty is probably enhanced by entry into the EU because the rules are setup to make it so at least it is now anyway.

I thinking specifically here of my own country we entered the EU because your own country entered it we had no choice entry to English markets for our goods is too important. However our leaders probably hoped we might be able to remove the last vestiges of economic control the UK had on us by access to an even bigger market.

Course all it really did was increase the trade between us but hey it was a good thing for us at the time and its still pretty good now.

Now the fun part of the ride is over and all the stuff were asked to vote on these days is more technical and quite frankly beyond this mere mortal which is why the NO to Lisbon crowd is having a field day telling lies while at the same the YES side tell us just as big a load of lies.

I hope that the conservative grouping gets down to making the EU work better and not simply blocking I suspect they are there to work as I cannot imagine the UK is seriously considering any nuclear option.

I said it already but strategically the UK cannot allow itself to be outside the decisions in Europe so the UK will continue to have a love hate hate relationship with the EU.
you know what, you are right, but i wasn't aware that the UK was a smaller weaker country.

probably a good reason, in your position i'd support it too (taken from the chippy point of view).

so we weren't so bad after all.

beyond the lies, what kind of EU do YOU want? is it a federal state, or an association of cooperating sovereign nations?

me too. i don't want to knacker the EU, i just want to knacker a federal EU*.

i think you overestimate the importance of the EU countries, we're on the decline economically and militarily, and the UK is still big enough and global enough to be a useful partner to those still on the up.




* as long as we intend to be inside it.

[Furunculus]

....

[gaelic cowboy]

i think you overestimate the importance of the EU countries, we're on the decline economically and militarily, and the UK is still big enough and global enough to be a useful partner to those still on the up.

I dont really see the EU ever really been anything more than an economic power the hard power the will be jealously guarded by UK and France.

Many people still see the decline of Europe as some kind of disaster for us as people however the British Empire in terms of size and military power was massive in year 1900 and didnt exist in year 2000 yet the UK of 2000 would wipe the 1900 version off the map in every sense.

Decline in power is not neccesarily the death of a country.


beyond the lies, what kind of EU do YOU want? is it a federal state, or an association of cooperating sovereign nations?

Well cooperating states of course the problem as I can see it is people have vastly differant views on cooperation across the EU as a whole

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Cooperation should be achieved through free trade, a network of military alliances, and perhaps free borders. Anything much more than that is fundamentally dangerous to the national sovereignty of the nations in Europe.

[Beskar]

Cooperation should be achieved through free trade, a network of military alliances, and perhaps free borders. Anything much more than that is fundamentally dangerous to the national sovereignty of the nations in Europe.

Like national sovereignty actually means anything more than petty people drawing lines in the sand.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Like national sovereignty actually means anything more than petty people drawing lines in the sand.

It means that and so much more, though a determined internationalist will always be one regardless of how you rationalize to him.

[Furunculus]

the perils of federalisation when one country operates a financial model in which other 'brother' countries cannot compete:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100001043/germany-declares-economic-war/



Germany declares economic war

If there are any German readers of this blog, I would like to know what they think of the latest breath-taking provocations of German finance minister Peer Steinbrück.

Remember that Herr Steinbrück is not a journalist, pundit, or back-bench maverick. He speaks officially for the German government and for the German nation on the international stage.

Every assertion that he made about Britain in his interview with Stern is either factually wrong, or such a serious distortion of events that it amounts to a smear. Furthermore, it was quite threatening.

What he said, in effect, is that Germany will marshal its forces to ensure that a chunk of the British economy is shut down - whatever the social consequences. This is the closest thing I have seen to a declaration of economic warfare in Western Europe in my lifetime.

“There is clearly a lobby in London that wants to defend its competitive advantage tooth and nail.”

Stern said that he sees “dark powers at work” in Britain. He accused the UK government of “doing its best” to sabotage stricter financial regulation at the G20 in Pittsburg.

This resistance will be crushed. “We WILL effectively change the rules on the financial markets. Politics is sometimes like a locomotive which comes slowly up to full speed.”

“The British financial industry gains 15 per cent of the gross domestic product, in Germany is it six per cent.”

Britain is out of step with the rest of Europe in trying to keep this “advantage going.” It must “share the burden” of the financial crisis in the form of a tax on exchanges.

“The central question is who pays the bill? It cannot be that the citizens of Europe should carry the whole cost.”

Britain was having “an especially hard time, to put it politely”, agreeing to tougher regulation of hedge funds.

Now, I understand that this Westphalian bully is fighting an election on Sunday, and may well be forced out of government. But let me state a few points.

1) Britain is not blocking the G20 deal on bonus caps for bankers. It broadly supports the idea. It backs the push for greater transparency.

2) Hedge funds had almost nothing to do with crisis as agreed by the Turner Report and the EU’s Larosiere Report. They are already well regulated by the FSA in London (unlike New York, where they are not regulated). The FSA’s hedge fund code is generally viewed as a model for others.

3) UK financial services are 7.8pc of GDP, not 15pc.

4) German Landesbanken and mortgage lenders got into trouble on their global ventures because they tried to extract extra profit and were badly regulated by BaFin, the Bundesbank, and Mr Steinbrück himself. Their use of Irish SIVs, etc, to conduct off-balance-sheet speculation is the direct result of bad rules (Basel etc) drawn up after earlier crisis - a perfect example of how knee-jerk regulation by ignorant populists backfires.

5) Mr Steinbrück is the arch-cover-up artist himself. He has been resisting - “tooth and nail” - a transparent stress test of the German banks. This comes despite a string of criticisms from the IMF, OECD, and European Commission. It is blindingly obvious that he has swept the problems under the rug until after the election.

6) Britain is in considerable trouble right now - entirely of our own making, and caused by a decade of inept government, fiscal incontinence, and excess debt. Is that a moment to kick us in the teeth? One reason why the budget deficit has exploded to 13pc of GDP is that the collapse of City profits has cut a huge hole in government revenues. There is already a brutal adjustment underway. What is the benefit of further contracting credit in the middle of severe downturn. The man is mad.

7) In terms of morality, I don’t see much to choose between Germany’s car industry (with its stress on high-powered engines that consume scarce resources, and pollute) and the City of London. They are both core national industries, pillars of our respective economies.

8) Angela Merkel shares the British view that “binding powers” for the EU’s new trio of super-regulators is a step too far, and a breach of Germany’s constitution.

If a British Chancellor gave an interview on behalf of the British nation saying the German car industry should be shrunk massively, it would be viewed as a gross and gratuitous attack on Germany.

Need I add, yet again, that the banks did not cause this global crisis. Governments around the world caused the crisis by forcing down the price of credit (Greenspan, Bank of Japan, and ECB on short rates: China et al on long rates, by flooding the global bond market) far too low for many years, encouraging debt. Banks were the instruments, not the cause. That is an elementary point that many people - including Mr Steinbrück, obviously - still fail to understand.

The Westphalian bully likes taunting Britain. He made waves earlier this year mocking the “crass Keynesianism” of Gordon Brown at the most dangerous moment of the crisis. This prompted a formal protest by the British ambassdor in Berlin.

Mr Steinbrück subsequently engaged in a great deal of crass Keynesianism himself, as well as outright protectionism through the Deutschland Fund. If he remains in office, he will soon have to deal with the second leg of the German banking crisis that he has so artfully dodged until now .

We must resist Schadenfreude when that moment comes.


do i want EU to hold financial regulation as one of its 'competences'?

not on your nelly!

[LittleGrizzly]

It means that and so much more, though a determined internationalist will always be one regardless of how you rationalize to him.

I concur :balloon2:

[Beskar]

I concur :balloon2:

It's kind of sad in a way, it is like that.

Having "nations" is only a short-term solution, even I can understand that, you can't just suddenly combine everyone together into one massive melting pot or things would go horribly wrong. You have to do it graduately from the bottom, working itself upwards so the conditions are right. A combined Europe is only a step along a long road to the removal of irrational prolonging of national boundaries and a federal government would also play a part in bringing different aspects from others onto the same wavelength as it works upwards.

In the future, once the Europe has been established as a state for a long time, there would be EMFM's then going "Joining together with the likes of Russia/Africa/etc ?!" steadfast against change and progression.

[Furunculus]

In the future, once the Europe has been established as a state for a long time, there would be EMFM's then going "Joining together with the likes of Russia/Africa/etc ?!" steadfast against change and progression.

from the EFFM's the answer would be no, because the damage is already done by that point and we don't believe there to be any european identity that we care to relate too, so nothing to lose.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's kind of sad in a way, it is like that.

Having "nations" is only a short-term solution, even I can understand that, you can't just suddenly combine everyone together into one massive melting pot or things would go horribly wrong. You have to do it graduately from the bottom, working itself upwards so the conditions are right. A combined Europe is only a step along a long road to the removal of irrational prolonging of national boundaries and a federal government would also play a part in bringing different aspects from others onto the same wavelength as it works upwards.

For the security of the individual, which you profess to love, it is better to have more than one nation.
Nations are a natural entity. Simply unifying a continent is completely artificial, an exercise in control. It is wrong. Nationalism and internationalism are fundamentally different in this respect.


In the future, once the Europe has been established as a state for a long time, there would be EMFM's then going "Joining together with the likes of Russia/Africa/etc ?!" steadfast against change and progression.

If we get to that stage we're already :daisy:, so what's the point? You say that I'm against progress for the sake of being against it, and you're wrong. This isn't progress. It isn't really regression, but it certainly isn't bringing anything good to us.

[Beskar]

For the security of the individual, which you profess to love, it is better to have more than one nation.
Nations are a natural entity. Simply unifying a continent is completely artificial, an exercise in control. It is wrong. Nationalism and internationalism are fundamentally different in this respect.

Nationalism is artifical in itself. Before nationalism was regionalism, taking Italy for example: there were papal states, tuscany, sardinia, kingdom of the two scilies, etc. After the great unification, as famously said "Now we made Italy, now we make Italians." and over the years they did just that.

Germany is another example, it used to be Saxony, Balavia, Prussia, Hanover, etc, then they were unified and they became Germans. These were only done in the last 100+ years or so.

What makes it so different that it can't go larger? Why are you stuck on this level and why not advocate a return to the old system of Hanover/Prussia/Saxony/etc ?

Why is this level so special compared to the previous and the afters?

Is the Federation of Germany or the Federation of the United States, evil? If not, why would Europe be?


If we get to that stage we're already :daisy:, so what's the point? You say that I'm against progress for the sake of being against it, and you're wrong. This isn't progress. It isn't really regression, but it certainly isn't bringing anything good to us.

How so? You don't qualify your point at all. Tie it into previous question I asked if you like. If I am being honest, many arguments seems just to want status quo and against change/advancement.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not sure what actually qualifies the entity as artificial or not.... but wouldn't anything outside of a family unit maybe friends be artificial anyway...

I hardly see why a unified Europe nessecarily means more authoritarian... a few posters seem to think America is the most free country and thier not far off the size of it...

If anything maybe they could help us cut down on CCTV cameras in the UK...

How exactly would we be :daisy: by the time Europe was unified for a bit... will society come crashing down... did Italy or Germany suddenly fall apart... how about Britian ?

This is when we were less advanced and things were a bit more chaotic as well..

[Beskar]

I hardly see why a unified Europe nessecarily means more authoritarian... a few posters seem to think America is the most free country and thier not far off the size of it...

Actually, that brings up a point. Why is United States of America the best thing since sliced bread, in your opinion, EMFM, but the idea of an United States of Europe the worst thing imaginable?

[Tribesman]

Nations are a natural entity.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Nations are an entity , but they are a construct not a natural.

[Furunculus]

Actually, that brings up a point. Why is United States of America the best thing since sliced bread, in your opinion, EMFM, but the idea of an United States of Europe the worst thing imaginable?
not the best thing since sliced bread, but it exists for good or bad and they have made a good job of existing ever since.
lots of compromises happened in order to allow the US to exist, including disenfranchising the native inhabitants and various wars with neighbours and reluctant statelings.

the problem with a federal EU is that their is no tangible benefit to offset the many compromises that its creation would entail.

so we return to my eternal question: why is it necessary?

[Beskar]

so we return to my eternal question: why is it necessary?

Why is it necessary to work? (free dole money, yay!)

Why technological advancement necessary? (Honey, blow that candle out.)

Why is it necessary to give slaves freedom? (pick me that cotton! :whiplash:)

Why are elections necessary? (Gordon Brown)

You can apply that statement to everything to give the appearance of discrediting, when it does nothing of the sort.

[Furunculus]

foolish analogies.

with all the noted costs, do the benefits result in a net positive gain for Britain.

Gains -
greater influence in EU trade policy
greater influence in EU employment policy
greater influence in EU social policy
greater influence in EU foreign policy
more competitive in EU trade
better able to leverage benefit from EU group

Losses -
lesser influence in UK trade policy
lesser influence in UK employment policy
lesser influence in UK social policy
lesser influence in UK foreign policy
less competitive in world trade
less able to leverage benefit from Commonwealth group

Stay the same -
access to the common market - don't kid yourself otherwise

if we were Belgium then the listed gains would outweigh the losses, but we are not, and they don't. we are big enough and bad enough to forge our own path, forging agreements and common positions where it suits the British strategic interest to do so.

i don't see a net benefit. if anything i see the result being interference in british cultural/social evolution for the purpose of 'harmonisation' which doesn't otherwise have a tangible net benefit.

[Beskar]

There are many proverbs and sayings which boil down to "Money isn't everything."

Your argument, if anything, sounds more of a typical class argument. "Pfft poff, me giving a percentage of my money which is far more in total than those civvies down at the docks, to pay for their healthcare? My boy, I am with bupa, I do not even bother with that la-de-dar stuff, leave that stuff for the lower orders, my good boy."

Joking and friendly banter aside, it is more a individualist argument then a collectivist one, which is perfectly argumentable and on the plus side, I can actually understand your argument and points, they are quite rationale.

However, I believe in many ways, we are cosy in a position, in a sense, our boots are better than our feet and it will come to a stage when we realise this, it could be too late (Short-sightedness, failing to see the longer-term). A power like China currently has twice the economy of France, and it is rapidy growing, they have many things individual European nations don't have, which is the land, resources and population. By combining together, in unity, it would give Europeans a greater presence on the World-Stage shifting the balance of power heavily into Europes favour, opposed to Asia/Russia/America in a way, no individual nation can do on its own.

For pure example, the GDP of the European Union is approx: 18trill, with United States approx: 14trill. With greater unity which removes many of the inherent problems and beaucracy within the current system, and hopefully, with a new system being modelled on Swizterland's government system (I believe the plans revolved around this), it would create a very democratic and powerful super-state and easily knock the United States off its uncontested pendastal. (Along with others like Russia, etc)



On another note, while you and EMFM are on the same side of the debate, I do believe his argument is completely different to your own.

[Banquo's Ghost]

so we return to my eternal question: why is it necessary?

Well, your Prime Minister might not have to beg like a faintly embarrassing vassal to be allowed to kiss the ring of his suzerain before being sent back below the salt.

However, pretending independent sovereignty exists does allow the cherishing of a "special relationship" despite the preference of said overlord to meet with people that count, like the Chinese and Russians. I like to think of it as a "precious" thrown to the useful idiots as Britain's voice grows ever weaker.

[Beskar]

Well, your Prime Minister might not have to beg like a faintly embarrassing vassal to be allowed to kiss the ring of his suzerain before being sent back below the salt.

However, pretending independent sovereignty exists does allow the cherishing of a "special relationship" despite the preference of said overlord to meet with people that count, like the Chinese and Russians. I like to think of it as a "precious" thrown to the useful idiots as Britain's voice grows ever weaker.

I cringe every time that "special relation" is brought up and how Britain is USA's lapdog. With it's current strength, Britain would have a big say in a federal Europe to get things in its favour, in a rather Maggie T style, compared to further down the road where we would begging.

[Furunculus]

1. Joking and friendly banter aside, it is more a individualist argument then a collectivist one, which is perfectly argumentable and on the plus side, I can actually understand your argument and points, they are quite rationale.

2. However, I believe in many ways, we are cosy in a position, in a sense, our boots are better than our feet and it will come to a stage when we realise this, it could be too late (Short-sightedness, failing to see the longer-term). A power like China currently has twice the economy of France, and it is rapidy growing, they have many things individual European nations don't have, which is the land, resources and population. By combining together, in unity, it would give Europeans a greater presence on the World-Stage shifting the balance of power heavily into Europes favour, opposed to Asia/Russia/America in a way, no individual nation can do on its own.

3. For pure example, the GDP of the European Union is approx: 18trill, with United States approx: 14trill. With greater unity which removes many of the inherent problems and beaucracy within the current system, and hopefully, with a new system being modelled on Swizterland's government system (I believe the plans revolved around this),

4. it would create a very democratic and powerful super-state and easily knock the United States off its uncontested pendastal. (Along with others like Russia, etc)

5. On another note, while you and EMFM are on the same side of the debate, I do believe his argument is completely different to your own.
1. It is an individualist argument, i accept that.

2. There are things that can only be usefully achieved at a transnational level; free trade agreements, collective defence alliances such as NATO, and energy security agreements such as the Nabucco pipeline as just a few examples, however a federal government is necessary for none of this.

3. My problem is that the unacknowledged ambition has been ever greater union with no defined end state (short of full federalisation), and as long as it remains unacknowledged their is no mechanism to have a discussion about what all of us want from the EU. The most heartening positive development so far has been the German supreme court ruling stating the limits of EU involvement in national matters, whereas Britain contribution has been negative (via endless stalling) because all national debate on the aims of the EU has been closed down. Speaking frankly, until we have that debate in Britain I support all foot-dragging achieveable so we have time to decide before the choice is gone and decisions made.

4. I have no ambition to be part of the post pax-americana, not too do i fear russia.

5. for my curiousity, would you briefly highlight the difference as you see it?

[Furunculus]

Well, your Prime Minister might not have to beg like a faintly embarrassing vassal to be allowed to kiss the ring of his suzerain before being sent back below the salt.

However, pretending independent sovereignty exists does allow the cherishing of a "special relationship" despite the preference of said overlord to meet with people that count, like the Chinese and Russians. I like to think of it as a "precious" thrown to the useful idiots as Britain's voice grows ever weaker.
i personally see that as a flaw in Brown rather than Britian, resulting from his catastrophic lack of domestic popularity demanding a foreign policy beauty parade to bring home as a trophy.

well i disagree, given that i hold to the idea of common aims and objectives resulting from shared social and cultural history. america 'tends' to have similar objectives to those that i percieve as good for britain, thus they are the best vehicle to achieve those aims.

I cringe every time that "special relation" is brought up and how Britain is USA's lapdog. With it's current strength, Britain would have a big say in a federal Europe to get things in its favour, in a rather Maggie T style, compared to further down the road where we would begging.
Britain is declining, so we need outside vehicles to help us achieve our strategic needs. This can be either America or the EU, both have costs associated, it comes down to a judgement on how you value the costs involved from either vehicle, so i see no problems "down the road".

[gaelic cowboy]

And yet you will never leave because as I already said your locked into making sure Continental European integration never happens unless your in it.

The dream of people like yourself died the day the European Coal and Steel Community was thought up from that moment on Britain had to be in Europe.

Britain's ability to meddle in continental affairs had ended with the rapprochement between France and Germany no longer did you have the ability to play France off Germany or vice versa.

You overestimate EU interference I would like to point out your politicians are at the meetings where these things are thought up and Britain had her veto if they really were that important they would have exercised it no question.

Also Britain's bent towards services mean that the EU allows it to provide services anywhere in the EU without having to worry with all the old obstacles that used be in place to protect local services.

Britain does very well out of the EU but most of it is indirect benefit and not measured in a 19 century way in terms of how many ship's, coal and steel meaning it is impossible to relate to but very easy to knock for political gain.

Politicians are always knocking elites here at home the cry is "Look what there doing up in Dublin" etc etc thats because our politicians are more rooted in the area they come from in Ireland we effectively run a tribal system of government with indoor plumbing and electricity.

In London your politicians are far more removed from there constituients meaning how do they connect with people ta da "Look at what there doing over in Brussels" simple really.

The EU is a bureaucratic organisation but no more or less than the average council in England as apparently the tabloids are screaming all the time about looney councils banning Santa etc.

I for one hope Britain never leave because it is only Britain who can advance policies that encourage free trade thereby enriching the whole.

Too much time is spent by continental politco's trying to legislate for things like food prices and the ability to set up something as simple as your own business a company like Ryanair could never have happened in Ireland without the EU bringing about a marketplace where Ryanair could operate.

They way I see it John Bull is defending me from a system which would be designed to protect and not grow:beam:

[Beskar]

5. for my curiousity, would you briefly highlight the difference as you see it?

Forgive me if I got the wrong impression here, but EMFM just seems to be in many ways, just a pure nationalist "just because". He would need to answer the earlier points so I can get a greater understanding of his side, but in many ways, it looks like he just against it. (just for the sake of it)

On the otherhand, your argument is more individualistic in the sense of "Look, if we were Belgium, the pro-cons thing would be very well in our favour, I could support it, however, Britain is in a situation where I believe we can benefit more being out of Europe, due to the pro and cons etc".

The main difference is, I can understand your argument and in many ways I can see your side and being perfectly honest, in many ways, we share a similar position. If a Europe Federation was put on the table and lets say I had to authority to sign it and it had all the terms I agree with, lets say for arguments sake, it was a similar set-up to the Swiss System (most optimistic realist), at worse, the system of the United States (most realist), I could see myself signing it if I believe it is the best solution. I am not bound by the idea of just the nation, I think more the lines of "What is the best for the people/Common good". I see a European Federation might be a short-term "hmm..." like you are yourself, but I think we are different in our outlook of the future, I see a Britain increasingly marginalised and a relic of the past simply sitting on the table due to the past glories of an Empire, days long gone, and from my travels in Europe, I see that we have many things to share with our European cousins and things to learn from them and in many areas, we do have common ground, and it makes sense that we can all work together, identify with eachother, and actually have a chance where we can produce something beautiful.

However, even though ultimately, I would like to see complete unity of the world as afterall, we are all people, I don't believe that will happen overnight or anytime soon, I believe there are many stages, steps and technological/sociological steps we need to take before we ever get to that point. Also, if some one said about trying to form a one-world under lets say China/North Korea, I will automatically say "no" as you put it, you balance pro's and con's of ideas to see how we can benefit.

[Furunculus]

interesting, cheers.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think Beskar and Banquo pretty much summed up why I am a big fan of futher integration. Future potential and a decent voice in world events. I couldn't tell you if it has a positive impact or not at this present moment... I would like to think so but its complex if your trying to take everything into account... (somewhat similar to what gaelic cowboy said)

Our choices on the world stage seem to be follow what America does or not the other major powers are a little too different so we don't seem to follow thier lead as much whereas i think in the EU at least we will have a partial say in formulating policys...

[Furunculus]

1. And yet you will never leave because as I already said your locked into making sure Continental European integration never happens unless your in it.
Britain's ability to meddle in continental affairs had ended with the rapprochement between France and Germany no longer did you have the ability to play France off Germany or vice versa.

2. The dream of people like yourself died the day the European Coal and Steel Community was thought up from that moment on Britain had to be in Europe.

3. You overestimate EU interference I would like to point out your politicians are at the meetings where these things are thought up and Britain had her veto if they really were that important they would have exercised it no question.

4. Also Britain's bent towards services mean that the EU allows it to provide services anywhere in the EU without having to worry with all the old obstacles that used be in place to protect local services.
Britain does very well out of the EU but most of it is indirect benefit and not measured in a 19 century way in terms of how many ship's, coal and steel meaning it is impossible to relate to but very easy to knock for political gain.

5. Politicians are always knocking elites here at home the cry is "Look what there doing up in Dublin" etc etc thats because our politicians are more rooted in the area they come from in Ireland we effectively run a tribal system of government with indoor plumbing and electricity.
In London your politicians are far more removed from there constituients meaning how do they connect with people ta da "Look at what there doing over in Brussels" simple really.
The EU is a bureaucratic organisation but no more or less than the average council in England as apparently the tabloids are screaming all the time about looney councils banning Santa etc.

6. I for one hope Britain never leave because it is only Britain who can advance policies that encourage free trade thereby enriching the whole.
Too much time is spent by continental politco's trying to legislate for things like food prices and the ability to set up something as simple as your own business a company like Ryanair could never have happened in Ireland without the EU bringing about a marketplace where Ryanair could operate.
They way I see it John Bull is defending me from a system which would be designed to protect and not grow:beam:
1. And i don't want to leave, but at some stage in the game you have to assess the value of what you get by being in versus that of getting out. if we get a sensible EU that very clearly states the limits of its encroachment on sovereign power then fine, if we are subjected to ever more creeping federalism with no defined finish line then i'd rather be out. and strategies change, we have proven to be an adaptable bunch for quite some time now.

2. what people like me, you mean the ones who approve of visible and mutable lines of democratic accountability, where the demos have faith in their governance by the kratos, and the kratos in reliability of their demos? yes, i am one of those.

3. yes, we do indeed have a problem with our politicians forming a cartel that squashes all attempt at public debate on what we ACTUALLY want from the EU, as has been witnessed by the rise of anti-EU parties in recent UK euro-elections.

4. while at the same time eroding our competitive advantage via social financial and employment legislation. 48 hour week, and bankers bonus regulations being just two examples.

5. i agree that politicians in the UK have an unhealthy habit presenting europe in confrontational terms, they can't really do much else however while there is no other public debate about what we ACTUALLY want from the EU. if you've been telling the electorate for decades that ever-deeper-union really doesn't mean federalism then you have too lie and distort the appearance of every federalising EU initiative.

6. a jolly good reason for you to want the UK in the EU, but not very convincing or substantial reason to convince a brit he wants to be in EU. but remember, i too want the EU, however there is no reason anyone should write a blank cheque. everything has a value, and if the price-tag is significantly greater than the value then you don't buy, the essential point is to make an assessment of that value.

[gaelic cowboy]

1.
6. a jolly good reason for you to want the UK in the EU, but not very convincing substantial for convincing a brit he wants to be in EU. but remember, i too want the EU, however there is no reason anyone should write a blank cheque. everything has a value, and if the price-tag is significantly greater than the value then you don't buy, the essential point is to make an assessment of that value.

True

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nationalism is artifical in itself. Before nationalism was regionalism, taking Italy for example: there were papal states, tuscany, sardinia, kingdom of the two scilies, etc. After the great unification, as famously said "Now we made Italy, now we make Italians." and over the years they did just that.

But it wasn't artificial, or if it was, certainly not to the same extent that a European Union would be.


Germany is another example, it used to be Saxony, Balavia, Prussia, Hanover, etc, then they were unified and they became Germans. These were only done in the last 100+ years or so.

But they were Germans before they were unified, decades before. They shared, if not exact cultural customs, a similar language (and so on).

If you believe, however, that they were very different, then internationalism gets even worse. And why? The erosion of individual cultures. Like it or not, regardless of what you do to prevent it, our cultures will morph into a larger common culture much more quickly. I don't consider that a good thing, though you might.


What makes it so different that it can't go larger? Why are you stuck on this level and why not advocate a return to the old system of Hanover/Prussia/Saxony/etc ?

Balance. I consider this to be a good balance between the two, in addition to what I have explained above.


How so? You don't qualify your point at all. Tie it into previous question I asked if you like. If I am being honest, many arguments seems just to want status quo and against change/advancement.

What we are saying is that it is change, but not positive change (advancement). I've qualified my points time and time again, I dislike having to type them out every time. Hence the shortness of this post.


Im not sure what actually qualifies the entity as artificial or not.... but wouldn't anything outside of a family unit maybe friends be artificial anyway...

All in the formation.


I hardly see why a unified Europe nessecarily means more authoritarian... a few posters seem to think America is the most free country and thier not far off the size of it...

Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

That is the fundamental problem of internationalism. Corruption, control, it all becomes so much easier.


How exactly would we be :daisy: by the time Europe was unified for a bit... will society come crashing down... did Italy or Germany suddenly fall apart... how about Britian ?

1) Europe is much bigger.
2) The formations of Italy and Germany were certainly not the same.


Our choices on the world stage seem to be follow what America does or not the other major powers are a little too different so we don't seem to follow thier lead as much whereas i think in the EU at least we will have a partial say in formulating policys...

For the last time, that isn't your choice. That will only be your choice as long as your political leaders don't expand their own voice in the world. You're trading the potential to be your own power for the chance to have a 1/27th of an opinion on something.


Actually, that brings up a point. Why is United States of America the best thing since sliced bread, in your opinion, EMFM, but the idea of an United States of Europe the worst thing imaginable?

How are they being formed? What were the states, their cultures, and their beginnings? The differences between the two are massive.

You couldn't be more wrong when you say that I'm a nationalist just because. I'm not even really a nationalist - I'm just a committed anti-internationalist. Regionalism I wouldn't be a huge fan of, but I would much prefer it to a united Europe.

[LittleGrizzly]

But they were Germans before they were unified, decades before. They shared, if not exact cultural customs, a similar language (and so on).

We have Europeans now. A great many of them could communicate without the use of translators. Besides its hardly if language differences make unification impossible look at Britian, you have English, Welsh and Gaelic. We became a superpower for a while as well...

Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

When I think the whole of Germany uniting I think of 1984...

When I think of the whole of Italy uniting I think of 1984...

When I think of the whole of Britian uniting I think of 1984...

Thankfully I was pretty much wrong every time... so maybe when the EU unites were not going to all of a sudden see 1984... this was all back in the days when populations could be swayed to extremes so much more easily than today... Also America... when it united properly after the civil war the place became better (because the slaves were somewhat freer, although still messed about) Infact I think of all of these unification events as good things, you could possibly somewhat maybe blame German unification on Hitler I suppose but I think that was more of a product of the age and the events that happened to Germany rather than a direct result of its unification..

All in the formation.

So what exaclty, the act of union betwen England and Scotland and America's expansion including states seem about as artificial as the EU to me... well actually ours is done with democratic goverments that everyone gets a vote in so ours is a much better expansion if you ask me...

1) Europe is much bigger.

Is there some geographical limit of where suddenly when a nation owns a mile extra thier leaders become insane dictators... and ironically that exact geographical limit is slightly bigger than America so thats ok and possibly the coolest place ever... but its a bit smaller than the size of the EU, so the think is some kinbd of unworkable hitler/stalin dream... let us also ignore that places like China and India seem to function pretty well despite the fact thier not 1st world countrys like ours... that again is different obviously....


2) The formations of Italy and Germany were certainly not the same.


And America and Britian... and every other unification throughout time... because perhaps you weren't there at the time and politically opposed to them ?

For the last time, that isn't your choice. That will only be your choice as long as your political leaders don't expand their own voice in the world. You're trading the potential to be your own power for the chance to have a 1/27th of an opinion on something.

Ohh sure I missed out the option where we become our own our own superpower and join a great alliance with the fairy's and the trolls. We can't have much independance in foriegn policy we need to work in larger groups to achieve most things... the powers we can work with are America... and maybe China and Russia... within the EU we could make our own decision whether China Russia and America all weren't intrested in doing it all, atm with the EU as fractured as it is Britian's choice is follow America or not... within the EU our choice would be what do 'we' want to do...

Besides its hardly 1/27th of a choice we have, our opinions are hardly miles apart, if we joined in a union with a union which was exactly like euorpe but filled with leaders like the Chinese have then we would have a small crappy say which all the authoritarians could overrule. Within Europe its much more like common goals, sure there are differences but they are small so we would have a much larger say in foriegn policy then we do now...

[Beskar]

[B]Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

Just picking at a point, in 1984, Britain is part of American superpower being very honest, with our current anti-terror laws, CCTV everywhere, America's current actions, we are already in 1984. With a united Europe, there is actually a chance it might get reduced instead of America forcing us to follow their way.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm too amused to respond, especially when I've done so to this exact same debate so many times before. This might as well be an exercise in copy and paste. I'm out for now.

[Viking]

Nothing to do with size, per se. It's more to do with the internationalism of it. When I think internationalism, I think 1984. And why shouldn't I? If all of the world is under one government, where are we going to go to hide from that government?

All the power does not have to be gathered at one place; alot of power is normally placed locally, even the law differ within some countries.


Corruption, control, it all becomes so much easier.

Huh?

[Furunculus]

since we're back to the whole tiresome squabble over why a more global governance cannot successfully be forged, i give you this article which was an interesting read, and seems apt for the moment:


Thinking global brings a world of problems
The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, says Janet Daley.

By Janet Daley
Published: 5:35PM BST 26 Sep 2009

You are a political leader whose domestic programme is bogged down in messy controversy: what do you do? You go global. You walk the world stage with an air of supercilious moral righteousness, implying by your preoccupied manner that all the trouble back at home is just parochial backbiting.

I am not just talking about Gordon Brown. He is part of a great tradition of failing prime ministers and presidents at the fag end of their tenures going walkabout on the international circuit, in the hope that this larger arena will provide some sort of dignified final chapter to their historical story. But Barack Obama is at it too, and he is just at the beginning of what could still be (in spite of his present difficulties) a successful presidency.

No, there is something quite different going on: it is not just the clapped-out and desperate players who are leaping on to the grand transnational plane. There is a new discourse in the air which goes beyond the established understanding of the relationship between national and international politics: a language of "global governance" and an apparent consensus that all the interests of responsible countries are now "shared interests".

This vocabulary has aroused little resistance outside America, perhaps because older nations are sufficiently cynical to utter platitudinous phrases that they never intend to be bound by, whereas the US, whose political culture rests on sacred documents, places much more significance on words. And some of the words that are bandied about by the G20 are fatuous at best and sinister at worst.

The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, so what are we talking about here? World government? A system of laws and policing which would be beyond the reach of the electorates of individual countries, and therefore have no direct democratic accountability to the peoples of those nations? Even assuming that such institutions did not take on a self-justifying life of their own – which history teaches us is almost inevitable – and that they remained fastidiously responsive to the heads of national governments, they would still be, by definition, supranational.

In other words, their function would be precisely to ignore those needs and interests of individual countries which might endanger the welfare of the larger entity. And the welfare of that larger entity would be judged by – what? The interests of the most powerful or the most populous countries? Or by a simplistic majority vote? Or by endless wrangling and ineffectual compromise – as we see now in that sententious talking shop, the G20? And in this vast permanent seminar, how much would democratic legitimacy count in a nation's degree of influence: would a dictatorship have as much power as a fully fledged democracy, which would have to take the wishes of its own citizens as a priority?

Then there is the moral blackmail of "shared interests". Mr Obama has actually contended that, in the newly interconnected world, all of our interests are shared. Which is clearly false. Some of them are and some of them aren't, as has always been the case. When nations do indeed share interests, whether they are economic or military, there are traditional ways of formalising their mutually advantageous understandings. There have always been bilateral or multilateral trade and credit arrangements, just as there have always been mutual defence treaties and foreign policy agreements. It is no coincidence that such arrangements have tended to be temporary: national interests change with time and circumstances. Does Mr Obama (and Mr Brown, who is trotting alongside him) believe that we have reached the end of history, or that circumstances are actually altering more slowly now than in previous eras? Surely not. All of his rhetoric, in fact, says the opposite.

Which brings us to the sticking point: the tricky bit comes when the interests of sovereign countries are not shared, but actually conflict. When Russia's territorial inclinations are at odds with the independence of eastern European republics, or China's reliance on exports is contributing to America's credit problems, or Germany's economic priorities threaten Britain's finance industry – what then? Intoning pious banalities about global consensus will not make these differences go away: for the countries concerned they are – or may seem like – fundamental imperatives.

Every country has its unique history, its political culture, its sense of continuity and progress – and, above all, a duty to its own people. At the moment, the global governance fashion is trying to depict that duty as simply a malign parochialism – a kind of purblind national selfishness in which nations would rather beggar their neighbours than engage in civilised give-and-take. Again, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

What nobody seems to be saying is that it is the proper business of democratically elected governments to protect and defend the needs and wishes of their own people. This is nothing less than the whole 18th-century project of modern democracy with which we are playing fast and loose. Ironically, the fad for "global governance" – whatever that turns out to mean – suits democratically elected leaders rather well: it absolves them of responsibility while enhancing their prestige. Perfect. But then exposure on the world stage is also likely to betray the limits of their understanding: does Mr Obama really think that he can coerce or shame European nations – with all their historical baggage and self-serving complacency – into forsaking what he calls their "collective inaction" on foreign policy (on Iran, say)? It is hard enough for a leader to remain in touch with the consciousness of his own people: playing to a global electorate puts almost any politician out of his depth. Not that we are talking about electorates any longer. Voters are way, way down on the list of considerations in this new ball game.

But perhaps you find yourself convinced, in the present economic circumstances, that there are no national crises any more, only global ones – and that the governing of all nations must now be subsumed under some overarching international framework of law and supervision, to be monitored and policed by suitably empowered agencies. Maybe you think that is an acceptable price to be paid for stability at home and security abroad. But consider this: what if the new dispensation, once installed, fails to produce that stability and security, or delivers it only to certain nations (not yours), or does so only by limiting freedoms that you consider precious? What recourse will you have then to remove it peaceably from power, as you do your national government?

[Furunculus]

we're now in the hands of the irish:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,652690,00.html

Irish 'No' Campaign Gains Momentum
By Carsten Volkery in Dublin
Europe is watching Ireland anxiously on the eve of the second referendum. And while the "yes" camp seemed to be in the lead for weeks, the aggressive campaign against the Lisbon Treaty now appears to be swaying undecided voters.
Niamh is 19 years old. She studies Design, wears green chucks, heavy mascara, and a nose ring. She could not care less about politics but she has just been approached by an old man on Grafton Street. "He was so nice," she says. "Beforehand, I actually wanted to vote 'no,' but maybe now I'll be voting 'yes.'"
She doesn't know him. "Is he famous?" she asks. The man is Eamon Gilmore, leader of the Irish Labour Party. He's trudging through Dublin in a last ditch attempt to prevent a second calamity in Europe. On Friday the Irish will be voting for the second time on the treaty that hopes to reform the European Union. This time around nothing is supposed to go wrong.

"It is very important that you vote 'yes' on Friday," Gilmore tells Niamh, while pressing his two palms together, as if in prayer. Niamh is somehow inspired. She has already forgotten what was said, but remembers it being said in earnest.
But then what about the "no" posters? "They say that wages will sink," she says. "And what about my right to vote?"
Perplexing and Polarizing
Niamh is not the only one confused. Yes, no, yes, no -- a tour through the streets of the capital is a perplexing and polarized affair. One poster depicts a girl with nervous green eyes: "Irish Democracy 1916-2009? Just say No." Another poster states that the "yes" vote will bring economic recovery. These posters are everywhere. They all either entice, promise or warn. Most importantly, they all contradict each other. What can you believe?
Should you believe that the minimum wage would fall to €1.84 should the Lisbon Treaty pass? Or that it would signal the end of the Irish democracy? The government claims these are lies, but who believes the government anyway? "It has to come from somewhere," says Niamh.
Judging by the latest polls from this weekend, 19 percent of the Irish voters are still undecided, with 48 percent will vote "yes," and 33 percent will vote "no." The final result could swing either way depending on if and how the undecided voters make up their minds. As a result, a fierce tug of war between political groups as ensued. All of the major parties in parliament are campaigning for a yes apart from Sinn Fein, the left- wing nationalist party that presents itself as a mouthpiece for the disenfranchised.
"It is closer than anticipated," says one of the Labour Party's chief strategists. Though the "yes" camp was comfortably in the majority for many weeks, it seems that their advantage is seeping away at the final hurdle. The "no" camp is gaining momentum, he concedes, saying that those who are still undecided will in all likelihood end up voting "no." If that happens then the majority for the "yes" camp will be lost.
'There Will Be No Lisbon Three'
The Irish Prime minister Brian Cowen of the conservative Fianna Fail party is holding his final press conference in a hotel room in Dublin. A large, yellow "yes" badge is pinned to his lapel. There are journalists from Italy, Belgium, Spain and England. The treaty has already been ratified in 26 countries. The Czech and Polish presidents may be dragging their heels but essentially it is up to Ireland to decide if the treaty comes into force in 2010.
When asked what Cowen would do if the vote goes badly, he responds: "There would be no Lisbon Three." He does his best to talk up Friday as the "all or nothing" D-Day. It concerns "the future of our country," he exclaims. Two thirds of Irish jobs depend on exports to other EU countries He compares Ireland's situation before and after joining the then European Community in 1973, reminding his audience of how indebted the former poorhouse is to Europe. He appeals to the voters to set aside day-to-day political disputes and to concentrate on the collective mission.
A speech laden with historical pathos is Cowen's only viable option. Heavy endorsement of the treaty could be disastrous given that he is Ireland's most despised politician. His management of the economic crisis, which has affected Ireland worse than any other EU country, is regarded as catastrophic.
Gary Keogh, a dockworker, marches through downtown Dublin with fellow critics of the government. They are protesting against the government's austerity plans which envisage deep cuts in public spending. The 28-year-old crane operator has worked in Dublin's port for 12 years. He and his co-workers are on strike for three months as they refuse to put up with the recent wage cuts. His British employer has found temporary replacements -- English and Scottish workers who are prepared to do the job for 20 percent lower wages. Keogh chides the government for deserting the Irish workers. Although he is still an undecided voter, he leans towards rejecting the treaty. It would be a form of revenge, as the Cowen government is likely to fall if Lisbon is rejected for a second time.
'I Don't See Any Reason to Change My Mind'
"Many people want to stick it to the government" says the 21-year-old Ross Jones, a shopkeeper of a souvenir store in downtown Dublin. He himself plans to vote "yes," and so do most of his friends. He voted "no" in the first referendum as he feared Irish taxes would have to increase to meet EU levels. However, he is now satisfied that the government has secured a guarantee on the issue from the European Council
This echoes the attitude of many who voted "no" last time. In fact Dublin secured a number of legally-binding commitments in Brussels on a range of issues that were deemed to have been decisive in last year's rejections, such as abortion and military neutrality. However, others still cannot extract themselves from traditional attitudes towards authority. "The Irish don't like to be told what to do" explains Paul McSweeney. The 66 year old is disgruntled with the EU. He sees this second referendum as an act of impertinence. He voted "no" last year and will again vote "no" on principle. "I don't see any reason to change my mind," he says. His friend, 67-year-old Tom Trehy, pipes in: 'I don't want a lunatic like Sarkozy to be making my decisions."
Most are aware that Europe is watching on. It is now up to three million people to decide whether in the near future 500 million people share the same president and foreign minister. The pressure is immense. Andrew Duff, a British MEP, warns that the rejection of this referendum would create the "mother of all constitutional stalemates."
Whether the Irish want it or not, Friday's outcome will be of great symbolic importance to Europe. On Wednesday evening, the main Irish news program reminded its viewers that 600 journalists from all the EU countries are accredited to cover the referendum, and that the European governments will be in much suspense as they await the results on Saturday.
Tapping Into Class Resentments
Yet the outcome is in no way certain. The "yes" camp may have picked itself up this time round, and has perhaps put in enough time and money to change public opinion. The political and business elite have driven massive promotional campaigns and huge multinationals such as Intel, Dell and Microsoft have helped by promising more jobs.
Nevertheless, this aggressive campaign may actually have the opposite effect. The "no" camp has managed to tap into class resentments against those "up there." It's not at all helpful, says Jones, the shop owner, when the Irish budget airline Ryanair accuses the "no" voters in a newspaper advertisement of being "losers."
Niamh still does not know which way she will go. It is the first time that she has had the right to vote, and she will make her decision on Friday. She thinks she is leaning towards a "no." If she votes "yes," who knows what will happen to Ireland? If she votes "no" then "everything will stay just as it is." She is not the only one who thinks this way.

i love the reference to class resentment, ties in nicely with the euro-federalists branding the electorate: "too dull to know what's good for them, good job there are professional technocrats to ensure that society operates nice and smoothly"

personally i predict that most of the floating voters will vote no, but it won't be enough to stop the yes crowd winning the day by a very slim margin.

still even that will keep the question of the legitimacy of the whole sham open.

[Tribesman]

Typical Biffo


Two thirds of Irish jobs depend on exports to other EU countries He compares Ireland's situation before and after joining the then European Community in 1973, reminding his audience of how indebted the former poorhouse is to Europe.
...none of which has anything at all to do with the treaty

[Banquo's Ghost]

we're now in the hands of the irish:

Muhahahaha. :embarassed:

Well, they didn't change the Treaty, so I didn't change my vote.

[Furunculus]

i believe Tribesman harbours similar sentiments, and while i salute your good sense, i fear the "ayes" will have it.

if the "no's" somehow win the day, i will buy a non ryan-air flight to dublin and stick fifty pounds (or equivalent thereof) behind the first bar i find.

[Tribesman]

i fear the "ayes" will have it.

Of course they will, this re run has had the amazing ability to make even less people understand what it is they are voting about than last time.
It was exactly the same with Nice, which is funny when its quite common that you get idiots complaining about things that they they voted in favour of in that treaty. I expect the same idiots to be complaining about what they voted in favour of this time too in a short while.

[LittleGrizzly]

I understand your point and its true but there has to be a level of compromise to get some kind of agreement... you can't have everything you want in there and everything you don't want out.... so I wouldn't say its hypocritical just pragmatic...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It looks like a 67% yes vote. Our last hope lies with the Czechs and Poles now. :shame:

And Germany, come to think of it. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

in a way it may prove a good thing, for a decade now british politics hasn't had the courage to deal with britain in europe themselves, preferring the cowardly option of hoping that proxies will come to the aid of their indecision.

british politics may have to take a stance of their own now.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

in a way it may prove a good thing, for a decade now british politics hasn't had the courage to deal with britain in europe themselves, preferring the cowardly option of hoping that proxies will come to the aid of their indecision.

british politics may have to take a stance of their own now.

The Poles will probably sign in days and Cameron is already waffling. Our last hope lies with the Czechs delaying ratification long enough for Britain to plan a referendum (six to nine months should do the trick).

[tibilicus]

I love how Politicians can put enough Spin on the treaty to persuade people to vote yes.

If this treaty does in fact stand and the Poles and Czechs do ratify it's going to be a very dark day for Europe..

Also on the matter of it coming down to a British vote, if that were to happen im fairly confident Britain would NO.

[Beskar]

Doubtful.

Once Europe is set-up and if things go badly, the people will revolt and Europe would be forced to at least pander, to stop it ripping itself apart.

[Meneldil]

Nations are a natural entity.


Where did you get this weird idea? Nations are a quite recent form of political organization. They're built through a long, and often violent process. There's no such thing as a natural nation. The same can be said about states.

[Furunculus]

The Poles will probably sign in days and Cameron is already waffling. Our last hope lies with the Czechs delaying ratification long enough for Britain to plan a referendum (six to nine months should do the trick).

the question is; will the czechs be able to hold out against the bullying of france and germany?

I love how Politicians can put enough Spin on the treaty to persuade people to vote yes.

If this treaty does in fact stand and the Poles and Czechs do ratify it's going to be a very dark day for Europe..

Also on the matter of it coming down to a British vote, if that were to happen im fairly confident Britain would NO.
sadly yes.

agreed.

no question.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Where did you get this weird idea? Nations are a quite recent form of political organization. They're built through a long, and often violent process. There's no such thing as a natural nation. The same can be said about states.

:inquisitive:

I think we have a very different definition of what a nation is.

[Tribesman]

Also on the matter of it coming down to a British vote,
Britain has already ratified, that spiel from Cameron about having a vote is just bullexcrement for the consumption of fools.

[Meneldil]

I think we have a very different definition of what a nation is.

Care to elaborate what is your definition of a nation then? The only people who still claim nations are natural and have been there forever are nationalist nutjobs (from the left and from the right) and primordialist scholars (who are a tiny minority). The widespread consensus among scholars and students is that nations are born in the late 18th century (the modernist theory), either during the european revolutionnary wars (Renan, Kedourie), or after the industrial revolution (Gellner). Some other modernists point to South-America (Anderson) or to the US, but they also are a minority among modernists scholars.

Even Anthony Smith, who attempted to find a mindle-ground between primordialist and modernist approaches, with his 'pre-modern origins' confess that nations probably never came into existence before the 18th.

Now mind you, you're perfectly entitled to have your own definition of a nation. Hundred of scholars wrote book about nations and nationalism, and so far, they haven't reached an argument about what is a nation. But I hope you're part of the primordialist group rather than of the nationalist nutjobs one :-P

Furthermore, would you like to explain me how an European state would be more artificial than an Italian state? In 1850 most people in Italy didn't speak the same language, and didn't feel like having anything in common with people living on the other side of the peninsula.
The idea that an italian culture existed, and that italians should all live in a same state was pretty much only shared by the elites (and it's been like this for quite a while: Machiavelli wrote about it in the 16th). But your average Cesare most likely didn't give a crap. Note that the same was true for France, Spain or pretty much any country one century earlier (in fact, before the Revolution, many parts of what we call France now were considered as semi-independant States - Pays d'Etat - associated to the King of France - some tried to regain their independance during the Revolution).

Nowadays, we have people claiming we all share an European culture. Despite all our different languages, we're all (more or less) able to spout some gibberish in english. Whether what they say is true or not (I actually don't think it is), how are they crazier than Garibaldi?

Btw, when I say nations are the results of a historical process, I'm not necessarily saying they're built by men (or that they aren't). I'm just saying they certainly aren't a natural political organization, nor are they an ancient one.

As for your other arguments, they don't have much value. You're not even able to tell us why a german federation is okay, while an european one would lead to 1984, stalinism and what not. Your only excuse is 'balance'. Quite cheap ain't it, given that France and Germany now share much more than Cologne and Mecklemburg ever did.

[Louis VI the Fat]

:balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2: :ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland: :balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2:



@Banquo - the Treaty hasn't changed*, the world has changed. What made sense last time, is not automatically in the interest of Ireland any longer.

Ultra-liberalism provided excellent opportunities for Ireland, which it seized. But between the two referenda, ultra-liberalism has crashed Ireland into a severe economic depression.

Perhaps a rethinking of economic strategy, re-stabilizing Ireland in a larger framework, and the empowerment of states to protect the common good against private gain again, are just the right course for Ireland.


*It has changed a bit. The meddlesome influence of the Roman church and of American companies on Ireland have been guaranteed, at the behest of the 'sovereignty for Ireland!!1!!' camp.



:balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2: :ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland: :balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2:


@Maniac - there were no modern nations or nation-states before 1800. In 1780, it took seventeen days to travel from
Paris to Toulouse. You'd pass a dozen different languages, time zones, peoples, tribes, customs and toll zones, dishes, standards of measurement.*
Then nationhood was beaten into the populations of the new nation-states in the course of the 19th century. Then it all went wrong in the twentieth century. Nationalism thus discredited, Europe is trying to find a new balance between the local and the supra-local, on whatever level - region, state, EU, global.

*Asterixed for Furunculus, whose hands are no doubt itching to post 'That's all well and fine, Louis, but none of this applies to Britain'. I refer my honourable anti-EUist to Hobsbawm, 'Nations and Nationalism', for a sobering description of just how recent nations are, including the UK.



:balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2: :ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland: :balloon2::ireland::balloon2::ireland::balloon2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I know the theories of nationhood, and I don't want to get into the debate right now as I stated before. Thanks though.

[Beskar]

I said that many times, Menedil.

The clincher is, he loves the USA! Which is a bigger nation, however the idea of an USE is very bad.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The clincher is, he loves the USA! Which is a bigger nation, however the idea of an USE is very bad.

I love how you can't see a difference between the two. :2thumbsup:

[Beskar]

Oh that's easy.

USA - A world hyper-power which shapes the very world we live in, brought and instituted many operations from false-flag, CIA coups, installation of puppets, pretty much unrestraint power, ditacting European (and world) policy and using Europe (and world) as its own pawns and installing 1984 mindset at home and aboard.

USE - Something that doesn't exist, except on paper with a long way to go.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This is better than watching German comedy on TV I guess.

[Beskar]

Point out anything false in my statement.

I am sorry, sort of a trick question, because there wasn't anything false. Would take me 2 seconds to show evidence of every single point I made. :2thumbsup:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I can pick up at least four, though a socialist would naturally disagree regardless of the evidence.

[Beskar]

Nope, the fact is, I would only disagree with you because you are wrong. Nothing do to with ideology, simply facts.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This Guradian article discusses the EU and the UK, plus Ireland.


The plot by the European Union to subvert British democracy has to be one of the world's worst conspiracies. Every prime minister since Edward Heath has apparently colluded in this nefarious project, and yet, stubbornly, the UK still governs itself.

You get a much higher calibre of conspirator in Washington. They assassinate presidents and fake moon landings. Brussels can't straighten a banana without the bloodhounds of the conservative press unearthing the story.

But things are looking up for the plotters. A second Irish referendum has approved the Lisbon treaty, removing one of the last obstacles to its taking effect. This document, remember, is a European constitution in disguise, smuggled through Britain's parliament under the noses of somnolent MPs. It means that Albion's ancient powers can be whisked away at last to a dark Belgian corridor.

There is another interpretation: that there is no conspiracy; that the EU is an alliance of sovereign nations in which British prime ministers have collaborated because it serves the country's interests; that the Lisbon Treaty is just one in a parade of flawed but worthwhile compromises required to make a multinational alliance work. Dull, but true.

Full-bodied fear of the EU exercises only a small minority in Britain. But the underlying theme – that "Europe" and Britain are adversaries in a zero-sum game of power and influence – is deeply embedded in mainstream discourse. It is an idea that badly misrepresents where our national interests lie. Sadly, it is also about to become a guiding principle in our foreign policy, and at a time when the case for sensible pan-European accord has hardly been stronger.

There are various factors explaining why Ireland voted "yes" in Friday's poll, despite having declared the opposite 16 months earlier. There were symbolic concessions in the terms of the treaty and a better organised pro-Lisbon campaign. But a crucial intervention was made by the financial crisis, which threatened to hollow out the debt-laden Irish economy as it did Iceland's. The difference is that Ireland, as a member of the eurozone, was propped up by the European Central Bank.

The Lisbon Treaty actually says nothing about financial assistance. That is beside the point. The real threat of national bankruptcy put the theoretical threat of diminished national autonomy in its place. Unregulated global finance, it turned out, was more hostile to sovereignty than the EU.

Ireland's calculation describes, in essence, the whole point of the European project: negotiated political integration is a source of security, stability and strength.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nope, the fact is, I would only disagree with you because you are wrong. Nothing do to with ideology, simply facts.

If there's one thing the Backroom can show us, there are different facts and different interpretations thereof. You are more likely to take the anti-American ones, end of story.

And you still haven't managed to find the differences between American history and the history of European integration.

[Beskar]

Have you studied the history between making a pot and a kettle? End of the day, they are still black.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Have you studied the history between making a pot and a kettle? End of the day, they are still black.

They end up looking (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Pot_de_chambre_2.jpg) very different (http://www.gregcons.com/KateBlog/content/binary/kettle.jpg) though, internally and externally.

[Beskar]

Would you prefer them to be identical?

No two things are exactly the same, especially on the scale of nation building. However, end of the day, both the kettle and the pot can boil water.

Just because things are different doesn't mean they are completely at odds with each other. You can still use your pot to boil the water, and still use your kettle.

http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/pot-kettle.jpg

Do you look at the parts or do you look at the sum of the parts?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The point is that they - and their formation is a large part of what they are - are fundamentally different.

[Banquo's Ghost]

@Banquo - the Treaty hasn't changed*, the world has changed. What made sense last time, is not automatically in the interest of Ireland any longer.

Ultra-liberalism provided excellent opportunities for Ireland, which it seized. But between the two referenda, ultra-liberalism has crashed Ireland into a severe economic depression.

Perhaps a rethinking of economic strategy, re-stabilizing Ireland in a larger framework, and the empowerment of states to protect the common good against private gain again, are just the right course for Ireland.


*It has changed a bit. The meddlesome influence of the Roman church and of American companies on Ireland have been guaranteed, at the behest of the 'sovereignty for Ireland!!1!!' camp.

Hi Louis - I was wondering when you might turn up. Nice balloons. :wink:

The guarantees you note are not worth the hot air used to lie about them. As you well know, they have not been incorporated into the Treaty. Given that Ireland now has much less say over the governance of the EU, who exactly is going to uphold the guarantees when they conflict with greater interests? Sops to a vassal.

Of course, I don't disagree with your analysis of why the vote changed and the causes of Ireland's woe. My vote did not change however, because I was asked to vote again on a Treaty that had not changed, and my reasons for rejecting it backalong had similarly remained unsullied. I think it is disingenuous to change one's mind merely because the country has flushed itself down the u-tube. (As a side note, ultra-liberalism was never my thing and since I am now richer than the rest of the country combined, I have been proven correct in my stubborn conservatism).

You know well from our conversations the first time around that my objections are not at all to do with the European project itself, but derive from the anti-democratic nature of the Lisbon Treaty and the unwillingness of the project to trust and engage the people which it plans to rule. Subsidiarity is the heart of the original vision of the EU - the removal of petty nationalism and the enhancement of democracy at the lowest level practicable.

I find it endlessly amusing that we, of all people, should clash on this: the French revolutionary, truest proponent of equality, fraternity, liberty and the wisest man on this forum, upholding the right of unelected elitists to trample over the Rights of Man in an unseemly rush to establish an empire of corporate governance for their playground - against the crusty Old World aristocrat steeped in estate and riches sucked from the people's very veins arguing for their right to be consulted, engaged and empowered.

Indeed, this beautiful irony why Europe is such a wonderful, diverse and magical thing. And why it would be easy, if we had the courage of our convictions, for us to persuade most citizens of our great future together without resorting to subterfuge, lies, bullying or fear of the dark.

[Furunculus]

[

*Asterixed for Furunculus, whose hands are no doubt itching to post 'That's all well and fine, Louis, but none of this applies to Britain'. I refer my honourable anti-EUist to Hobsbawm, 'Nations and Nationalism', for a sobering description of just how recent nations are, including the UK.


but it doesn't, it simply doesn't.

i have a feeling that the next six months will see cameron very vague on the EU:


Tory sources suggested that if Lisbon was ratified when they came to power they could, instead of holding a referendum on the Treaty itself, stage a public vote on whether powers should be taken back from Brussels. The potential move was being dubbed a "blame it on Blair" plan.


Oh that's easy.

USA - A world hyper-power which shapes the very world we live in, brought and instituted many operations from false-flag, CIA coups, installation of puppets, pretty much unrestraint power, dictating European (and world) policy and using Europe (and world) as its own pawns and installing 1984 mindset at home and aboard.

USE - Something that doesn't exist, except on paper with a long way to go.
the US only influenced european policy because at the time the worlds other superpower sat on their doorstep with hundreds of motor-rifle and armoured divisions facing west....................... while europe refused to pay for its own defence.

[Furunculus]

The Grauniad once again peering myopically at the world through milk bottle bottoms:

1. The plot by the European Union to subvert British democracy has to be one of the world's worst conspiracies. Every prime minister since Edward Heath has apparently colluded in this nefarious project, and yet, stubbornly, the UK still governs itself.
You get a much higher calibre of conspirator in Washington. They assassinate presidents and fake moon landings. Brussels can't straighten a banana without the bloodhounds of the conservative press unearthing the story.

2. But things are looking up for the plotters. A second Irish referendum has approved the Lisbon treaty, removing one of the last obstacles to its taking effect. This document, remember, is a European constitution in disguise, smuggled through Britain's parliament under the noses of somnolent MPs. It means that Albion's ancient powers can be whisked away at last to a dark Belgian corridor.
There is another interpretation: that there is no conspiracy; that the EU is an alliance of sovereign nations in which British prime ministers have collaborated because it serves the country's interests; that the Lisbon Treaty is just one in a parade of flawed but worthwhile compromises required to make a multinational alliance work. Dull, but true.

3. Full-bodied fear of the EU exercises only a small minority in Britain. But the underlying theme – that "Europe" and Britain are adversaries in a zero-sum game of power and influence – is deeply embedded in mainstream discourse. It is an idea that badly misrepresents where our national interests lie. Sadly, it is also about to become a guiding principle in our foreign policy, and at a time when the case for sensible pan-European accord has hardly been stronger.

4. There are various factors explaining why Ireland voted "yes" in Friday's poll, despite having declared the opposite 16 months earlier. There were symbolic concessions in the terms of the treaty and a better organised pro-Lisbon campaign. But a crucial intervention was made by the financial crisis, which threatened to hollow out the debt-laden Irish economy as it did Iceland's. The difference is that Ireland, as a member of the eurozone, was propped up by the European Central Bank.

5. The Lisbon Treaty actually says nothing about financial assistance. That is beside the point. The real threat of national bankruptcy put the theoretical threat of diminished national autonomy in its place. Unregulated global finance, it turned out, was more hostile to sovereignty than the EU.

6. Ireland's calculation describes, in essence, the whole point of the European project: negotiated political integration is a source of security, stability and strength.

1. There is no conspiracy in Brussels, it has been the stated aim for 50 years that ever deeper union with no stated end point to integration is the aim of the game, the only conspiracy has been the british body politics attempt to deny what is common knowledge anywhere else.

2. No, it IS the european constitution rebranded, that is truth without a shadow of a doubt. And the idea of a self-amending constitution is particularly pernicious in a country where the political class refuse to admit or discuss the aims of the EU project with their electorate.

3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, if you're that confident dear grauniad, then you will be the first in line to back a referendum........................................................ oh, is that deafening silence i hear?

4. No its the problem of being a small nation being threatened with exclusion from the club, the yes vote was won by fear rather than optimism.

5. The problem was unregulated finance no doubt, why didn't ireland regulate their financial market to ensure that their liabilities didn't exceed their assets?

6. Where is the end point to that integration? The EU has a value to me that diminishes rapidly the further down that road the ever-deeper-union crew go, and while i would like to enthusiastically participate in the debate that shapes that journey I refuse to do so while their is recognition of what the EU is striving for from our political class.

[Banquo's Ghost]

For all my grizzling, it looks as if the result is very solid and based in a pretty big turnout. Final figures will be announced later today, but there's an interactive map here (http://www.irishtimes.com/) for those interested.

[Tribesman]

3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, if you're that confident dear grauniad, then you will be the first in line to back a referendum........................................ ................ oh, is that deafening silence i hear?

Maybe the Guardian has the brains to realise that you cannot have a referendum on something you have already approved.

[Beskar]

Maybe the Guardian has the brains to realise that you cannot have a referendum on something you have already approved.

It is like eating your cake then voting afterwards whether or not you should eat it.

The news, if you end up with a no vote, then you are pretty much screwed over, as you can't uneat the cake.



I find it endlessly amusing that we, of all people, should clash on this: the French revolutionary, truest proponent of equality, fraternity, liberty and the wisest man on this forum, upholding the right of unelected elitists to trample over the Rights of Man in an unseemly rush to establish an empire of corporate governance for their playground - against the crusty Old World aristocrat steeped in estate and riches sucked from the people's very veins arguing for their right to be consulted, engaged and empowered.

There is the advantage though, since the Lisbon Treaty is not a Constitution, etc, etc, but can help unite people in Europe, everyone who was worried about Europe can all unite together to ensure a good Europe comes out of everything. Making changes from within the system.

Problem is, you need all the idiots to vote first and vote the right way. (Idiot = non-voter)

[Banquo's Ghost]

There is the advantage though, since the Lisbon Treaty is not a Constitution, etc, etc, but can help unite people in Europe, everyone who was worried about Europe can all unite together to ensure a good Europe comes out of everything. Making changes from within the system.

Have you read the Lisbon Treaty? Your hope is not included in its provisions.

[Furunculus]

Maybe the Guardian has the brains to realise that you cannot have a referendum on something you have already approved.


It is like eating your cake then voting afterwards whether or not you should eat it.
The news, if you end up with a no vote, then you are pretty much screwed over, as you can't uneat the cake.

the answer to both of your objections is the following:
1. The government has no mandate to bind its population thus, (as all three parties campaigned on providing a referendum on lisbon).
2. Sovereign nation states can do whatever they like, they are sovereign, (provided you are willing to pay the price of annoying other nations).
3. No government can bind the actions of a future government (particularly when there was never a mandate, or public support, to sign up to lisbon).
4. The Kratos has a moral duty to directly request the permission of its Demos if it wishes to give that governing authority to a third party, (admittedly only a personal objection).

referencing this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/6257617/Lisbon-Treaty-Q-and-A-your-guide-to-what-it-means-and-what-happens-next.html

................. Any attempt to forge such a deal - which would amount to a lesser form of EU membership - would have to be acceptable to all 26 other member states. But, EU officials concede, if Britain voted No in a referendum, some kind of new relationship would have to be worked out......................
A senior Commission official said: "Disentangling Britain would be pretty brutal. Almost every aspect of British life is touched by the EU, certainly in terms of the economy and trade. There would be huge costs. Would people really want to pay them?"

There is always a way to get what you want (maintenance of sovereign status), and if it means forcing the creation of a two speed europe with Britain in the slow lane, then such can be achieved and iam willing to pay the price to achieve it.

[Tribesman]

the answer to both of your objections is the following:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
1,2,3 and 4 don't talk crap.


There is always a way to get what you want (maintenance of sovereign status), and if it means forcing the creation of a two speed europe with Britain in the slow lane, then such can be achieved and iam willing to pay the price to achieve it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:So all you need now is a pile of fruitckes with very very big wallets who are willing to pay.
Thats a wierd one isn't it , you maintain soveriegnty by accepting without challenge the terms foriegners decide they shall impose on you.

[Beskar]

2. Sovereign nation states can do whatever they like, they are sovereign, (provided you are willing to pay the price of annoying other nations).

Yes, that is indeed correct. Though as far as I am the aware, the ramifications would be pretty severe, you cannot restore the cake to what it was.

[Beskar]

Have you read the Lisbon Treaty? Your hope is not included in its provisions.

Viva la revolution.

I will be on the picket lines next to Tribesman and Louis VI the Fat and my other European cousins, burning down those pedestals. Even maybe Evil Martain and Furunculus would be there too.

[Furunculus]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
1,2,3 and 4 don't talk crap.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:So all you need now is a pile of fruitckes with very very big wallets who are willing to pay.
Thats a wierd one isn't it , you maintain soveriegnty by accepting without challenge the terms foriegners decide they shall impose on you.

which of the first three (the fourth is only personal) is untrue?

everything has a value and a price.

[Furunculus]

Yes, that is indeed correct. Though as far as I am the aware, the ramifications would be pretty severe, you cannot restore the cake to what it was.

have we already eaten the cake?

i prefer to look at it as a question swapping my extant cake for ****, rather than claiming something has already been consumed (and is thus extinct).

[Beskar]

have we already eaten the cake?

i prefer to look at it as a question swapping my extant cake for ****, rather than claiming something has already been consumed (and is thus extinct).

You could do, but I am not a fan of coprophilia and tend not to want to think about it.

Personal preference.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

i have a feeling that the next six months will see cameron very vague on the EU:


I'm giving it a 50-50 chance based on this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8289535.stm)

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm giving it a 50-50 chance based on this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8289535.stm)

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

The treaty has now been ratified by all member countries' legislatures (well, not the Dáil on vote 2 yet but they're now bound) - it is only a couple of presidential signatures that are missing. These cannot be with-held without sparking constitutional crises in the respective nations.

Cameron is trying to find a line that won't get him hung during his own party conference. The truth is, the British Parliament ratified the treaty and it has obtained Royal Assent. That means there is nothing he can do. (Unless he plans to leave the EU altogether, which rather amusingly, Lisbon now allows him to do).

[Tellos Athenaios]

the answer to both of your objections is the following:
1. The government has no mandate to bind its population thus, (as all three parties campaigned on providing a referendum on lisbon).
2. Sovereign nation states can do whatever they like, they are sovereign, (provided you are willing to pay the price of annoying other nations).
3. No government can bind the actions of a future government (particularly when there was never a mandate, or public support, to sign up to lisbon).
4. The Kratos has a moral duty to directly request the permission of its Demos if it wishes to give that governing authority to a third party, (admittedly only a personal objection).


(1) False. Your constitution grants the government sufficient executive powers not to seek ratification of its actions with the population. Ultimately the only one they owe any form of accountability to is your head of state who so happens to be not accountable at all. Meet your queen.
(2) Which kind of includes ignoring its nation and having its way with it.
(3) False. Unless you accept that your government (UK's) is not bound by pre-existing UK law. Which it currently is: that is the point, once accepted the Lisbon treaty becomes part of a chapter of international law applicable to all member states. It certainly isn't the same order of importance as, say, constitutional provisions; but it is still law and government life is bound to remarkably narrow margins of law.
(4) And false again: the responsibility is entirely the other way around: the demos has the moral duty to keep the kratos in check (by vote and demanding that the government accounts for its actions) and if it chooses not to give a proverbial then they shall suffer the consequence of their own negligence.

Bottom line: in a democracy election and mandate are not the same.

The first is a convenient shortcut so you can have people do your own work for you and not require to meet with the whole voting assembly (or whoever can be bothered to turn up; a pretty big issue with severe consequences in itself): you elect people to decide on matters of government and to ensure government accounts for its actions. Therefore what is and what is not silently accepted is ultimately, entirely up to them because you relinquish direct means of control over your government in favour of a more practical approach to the logistical problem.

The second is what rights are granted by law. I.e. the mandate of the voter is his citizenship right to vote and hope for the best; the mandate of the officials in government is to do as government proverbial well pleases as long as it requires no new law or as long as both houses of parliament and the Head of State are willing to say amen.

The UK is a particular striking example here because there is not an institutionalized concept of ‘seperation of powers’: formally there is little distinction between legislative and executive power giving your government a particular large mandate to do as it proverbial well pleases when it comes to international treaties and laws since they -by definition- make up a sizeable portion of the houses of parliament.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

The treaty has now been ratified by all member countries' legislatures (well, not the Dáil on vote 2 yet but they're now bound) - it is only a couple of presidential signatures that are missing. These cannot be with-held without sparking constitutional crises in the respective nations.


There is still the Czech constitutional court, which may deliberate for up to six or nine months. If they do delay it for that long (or rule the treaty unconstitutional) then Klaus may be able to safely withhold his signature for another month or two. That being said, it'll be interesting to see how a referendum would change anything - other than showing the EU that what they've been doing is against the will of the people, which they really don't care about.

[KukriKhan]

So, the Czechs and Poles held up ratification pending the resolution of the Irish referendum. Now that the Irish have decided "yes" to Lisbon, will those 2 Presidents sign off?

What happens next on that continent (+ large islands)?

[Beskar]

What I read about Lisbon treaty, it is no where near the 'Doom and Gloom' some people here try to make of it.

What is sort of funny, I am wondering about Furunculus' opinion on the President of the European Council position. It was originally a rotating position, now it is an elected one, and there is much talk that Tony Blair is a forerunner in that race. I am curious or not having 'Britain' president as the first is a good thing or a bad thing, in his eyes.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So, the Czechs and Poles held up ratification pending the resolution of the Irish referendum. Now that the Irish have decided "yes" to Lisbon, will those 2 Presidents sign off?

Well, the Polish President probably will within days, otherwise he could spark a crisis in his own country. The Czech President isn't allowed to until the Constitutional Court delivers a verdict.

[Furunculus]

Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
the answer to both of your objections is the following:
1. The government has no mandate to bind its population thus, (as all three parties campaigned on providing a referendum on lisbon).
2. Sovereign nation states can do whatever they like, they are sovereign, (provided you are willing to pay the price of annoying other nations).
3. No government can bind the actions of a future government (particularly when there was never a mandate, or public support, to sign up to lisbon).
4. The Kratos has a moral duty to directly request the permission of its Demos if it wishes to give that governing authority to a third party, (admittedly only a personal objection).
(1) False. Your constitution grants the government sufficient executive powers not to seek ratification of its actions with the population. Ultimately the only one they owe any form of accountability to is your head of state who so happens to be not accountable at all. Meet your queen.
(2) Which kind of includes ignoring its nation and having its way with it.
(3) False. Unless you accept that your government (UK's) is not bound by pre-existing UK law. Which it currently is: that is the point, once accepted the Lisbon treaty becomes part of a chapter of international law applicable to all member states. It certainly isn't the same order of importance as, say, constitutional provisions; but it is still law and government life is bound to remarkably narrow margins of law.
(4) And false again: the responsibility is entirely the other way around: the demos has the moral duty to keep the kratos in check (by vote and demanding that the government accounts for its actions) and if it chooses not to give a proverbial then they shall suffer the consequence of their own negligence.
(5)Bottom line: in a democracy election and mandate are not the same.
The first is a convenient shortcut so you can have people do your own work for you and not require to meet with the whole voting assembly (or whoever can be bothered to turn up; a pretty big issue with severe consequences in itself): you elect people to decide on matters of government and to ensure government accounts for its actions. Therefore what is and what is not silently accepted is ultimately, entirely up to them because you relinquish direct means of control over your government in favour of a more practical approach to the logistical problem.
The second is what rights are granted by law. I.e. the mandate of the voter is his citizenship right to vote and hope for the best; the mandate of the officials in government is to do as government proverbial well pleases as long as it requires no new law or as long as both houses of parliament and the Head of State are willing to say amen.
(6) The UK is a particular striking example here because there is not an institutionalized concept of ‘seperation of powers’: formally there is little distinction between legislative and executive power giving your government a particular large mandate to do as it proverbial well pleases when it comes to international treaties and laws since they -by definition- make up a sizeable portion of the houses of parliament.
1) When a conservative government arrives they will have the right to revisit a decision they, and the other major parties, said should be put to a referendum. if it is already ratified anyway then it may well be treated as an in/out decision, and the EU will agree to a change in britians status within the EU.
2) You aren't saying anything to refute to soveriegn position of a sovereign nation, i repeat, britain can have a referendum on anything it likes and act on the result in any way it likes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
3) No. Government. Can. Bind. Its. Successor. i repeat; if it chooses britain can have a referendum on anything it likes and act on the result in any way it likes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
4) as said earlier, #4 is only my personal opinion, i hold it up to no legal standard.
5) so what, nothing in the above can prevent an incoming government from changing Britains status from its position as per Lisbon.
6) hmm, kinda sounds like an incoming government can choose to do whatever it likes, like revisit the ratification of Lisbon if it so chooses.


What I read about Lisbon treaty, it is no where near the 'Doom and Gloom' some people here try to make of it.

What is sort of funny, I am wondering about Furunculus' opinion on the President of the European Council position. It was originally a rotating position, now it is an elected one, and there is much talk that Tony Blair is a forerunner in that race. I am curious or not having 'Britain' president as the first is a good thing or a bad thing, in his eyes.
Qualified majority voting on large swathes of the legislature = britain (and every other nation) having to accept legislation that is not tailored to the expectations of its polity.

I have nothing against blair from his actions on foreign affairs but domestically he is labour and therefore a cretin, but regardless of this he is possibly going to occupy a position to which i hold no respect and no allegiance and thus have no wish to hold power over me.

[Tribesman]

which of the first three (the fourth is only personal) is untrue?

All of them.


1) When a conservative government arrives they will have the right to revisit a decision they....
No they don't, you cannot revisit an approved ratification, they can however surrender their soveriegnty that you are so fond of mentioning and allow all the other countries to decide what to do with Britain if Britain doesn't want to play anymore...but I think that would be the equivalent of Britain dropping its trousers bending over and praying that maybe someone will be kind enough to apply a little lubricant as everyone lines up to thoroughly bugger Britain.

[Furunculus]

All of them.


No they don't, you cannot revisit an approved ratification, they can however surrender their soveriegnty that you are so fond of mentioning and allow all the other countries to decide what to do with Britain if Britain doesn't want to play anymore...but I think that would be the equivalent of Britain dropping its trousers bending over and praying that maybe someone will be kind enough to apply a little lubricant as everyone lines up to thoroughly bugger Britain.

disagreed (see where that informed line of debate gets us? )

sure we can, we can have a referendum which if voted no could be interpreted as a yes/no vote on the EU.
At that point we will be offered a different status within the EU*, or we will have the choice of exiting the EU**, my money is on the former.




* which will cost
** which will cost

[Tribesman]

sure we can, we can have a referendum which if voted no could be interpreted as a yes/no vote on the EU.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No, wrong again.
Come on Furunculus this is simple stuff , why can't you get it right.

[Incongruous]

What I read about Lisbon treaty, it is no where near the 'Doom and Gloom' some people here try to make of it.

What is sort of funny, I am wondering about Furunculus' opinion on the President of the European Council position. It was originally a rotating position, now it is an elected one, and there is much talk that Tony Blair is a forerunner in that race. I am curious or not having 'Britain' president as the first is a good thing or a bad thing, in his eyes.

Alot of the doom and gloom comes from the fact that quite a few of us never got a say, Lisbon has become poisoned by the anti-democratic tastes of quite a few supporters. Not to say that it is not, at this moment, the best option. But I wish it had been put to the vote, I wish there had been a concerted effort to properly educate people on it. Alas...

[Banquo's Ghost]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No, wrong again.
Come on Furunculus this is simple stuff , why can't you get it right.

Surely it is possible for the UK government to hold a referendum (or just decide itself) on the question of continuing membership of the EU? I was under the impression that Lisbon laid down a procedure for secession.

I agree that Furunculus is incorrect if he is claiming that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, held after ratification, could then be "interpreted" as a platform for re-negotiation of said treaty. Whilst I suspect his position is that the rest of the Union would be so concerned, they might make concessions, the reality is that then every other country would start demanding their own variations, and the EU would fall apart in short order. Much more likely that the United Kingdom would be asked to leave - which I fear, is a likely consequence of electing a Tory government.

There is already a two-speed Europe - the Eurozone and the rest. The Eurozone (not the UK) is likely to be in the proposed G4 and Britain is losing her place on the IMF. This is the realpolitik. The slow lane does not befit a country like Britain but there doesn't seem to be much hope when her politicians refuse to show courage either way.

Out or In. That's the choice the British people ought to be making, and soon.

[Furunculus]

1. Surely it is possible for the UK government to hold a referendum (or just decide itself) on the question of continuing membership of the EU? I was under the impression that Lisbon laid down a procedure for secession.

2. I agree that Furunculus is incorrect if he is claiming that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, held after ratification, could then be "interpreted" as a platform for re-negotiation of said treaty. Whilst I suspect his position is that the rest of the Union would be so concerned, they might make concessions, the reality is that then every other country would start demanding their own variations, and the EU would fall apart in short order. Much more likely that the United Kingdom would be asked to leave - which I fear, is a likely consequence of electing a Tory government.

3. There is already a two-speed Europe - the Eurozone and the rest. The Eurozone (not the UK) is likely to be in the proposed G4 and Britain is losing her place on the IMF. This is the realpolitik. The slow lane does not befit a country like Britain but there doesn't seem to be much hope when her politicians refuse to show courage either way.

4. Out or In. That's the choice the British people ought to be making, and soon.

1. quite correct: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100012400/david-cameron-ready-to-turn-referendum-threat-into-a-weapon/

2. no, you were right the first time.

3. this is inevitable as the BRIC's rise and demand power.

4. if the aim is a federal state which holds the final say on tax, social, economic and foriegn policy then yes, i want out, into an EFTA status, which will be granted.

[Tribesman]

2. no, you were right the first time.

You were perfectly correct both times Banquo.
Furunculus is getting it arseways and conflating two different events.

[Furunculus]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100012474/referendum-row-the-fall-back-strategy-emerges/




The Tory fall-back position on a Lisbon Treaty referendum is slowly taking shape. As Ben observed last night, David Cameron’s best option is to shift the focus of the debate from trying to unpick a treaty that has already been ratified (seemingly impossible) and start talking instead about repatriating powers from Brussels (desirable and possible). William Hague, in his speech this morning, set out the wider politics of this row. First, it is the Government that should be taking a hammering for cynically reneging on its 2005 manifesto commitment to put the treaty to the people. Second, the European Communities Act should be amended to ensure that such a betrayal can never happen again by making it a statutory obligation to hold a referendum before any more powers can be ceded by Westminster to Brussels. This is what Hague had to say:

“Accountability also means that the rights and powers of the British people should not be diluted or given away without their explicit consent. Let us be clear what we are dealing with and let no one ever forget, whenever a European referendum is discussed; Labour and the Liberal Democrats solemnly promised a referendum and then shamefully broke that promise. It is right that we voted for a referendum and right that we still want to hold one, and it is right, as I have made clear before, that a Conservative Government will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that if any future government proposes to transfer new competences or areas of power to Brussels a referendum of the British people will be required by law.”

This is a coherent and sensible approach to a tricky dilemma. Will this be enough to take the heat out of the issue for the rest of the conference? I rather doubt it.

sounds like what i have been saying for some time now.

[Tribesman]

sounds like what i have been saying for some time now.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Furunculus]

elaborate.

[Tribesman]

elaborate.
William Hague:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
+Nonsense.
Or ......

This is a coherent and sensible approach to a tricky dilemma.
No, it is nonsense
Or.......

sounds like what i have been saying for some time now.
Indeed:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Furunculus]

does this not sound like an eminently sensible principle by which government should be bound?

“Accountability also means that the rights and powers of the British people should not be diluted or given away without their explicit consent."
and have i not been consistent on this board in advocating that very principle?

[Tribesman]

does this not sound like an eminently sensible principle by which government should be bound?

No it doesn't, its nonsense.


have i not been consistent on this board in advocating that very principle?
exactly :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Furunculus]

you mean you support the principle that governments should be able to give away their authority to govern to random third parties?

you deserve the lisbon treaty you voted against.

[Tribesman]

you mean you support .....
objecting to nonsense positions you have taken does not mean that I support other nonsense positions that you dream up:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

In short you have taken throughout the topic many contradictory stances on often entirely unrelated issues , several of which are either completely fabricated or so detatched from reality that they have no bearing to this world at all, bundled them all together and said "this is what I mean and it is right" and then tried to go on from there .

Sorry Furunculus , but as far as soveriegnty, parliament and europe, let alone politics, law and history are concerned you are in a fantasy world that has no bearing on reality at all.

[Beskar]

I doubt random third parties actually includes"elected on mandate" government of the EU.

Well, I voted in the EU elections anyway. Apparently, 70% of the population (idiots) didn't, and in a way, they shouldn't complain.

[Furunculus]

objecting to nonsense positions you have taken does not mean that I support other nonsense positions that you dream up:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

In short you have taken throughout the topic many contradictory stances on often entirely unrelated issues , several of which are either completely fabricated or so detatched from reality that they have no bearing to this world at all, bundled them all together and said "this is what I mean and it is right" and then tried to go on from there .

Sorry Furunculus , but as far as soveriegnty, parliament and europe, let alone politics, law and history are concerned you are in a fantasy world that has no bearing on reality at all.

What is nonsense about that position?

What contradictory stances have i taken?

Why is the parliamentary sovereignty detached from reality?

[Beskar]

I know this is sort of off-topic, but what is your thoughts on Scotland's position in Britain? Where as, there is the British parliament, and there is the Scottish parliament.

Do you think Scotland should be completely seperate working in partnership (possible similar position to Ireland) or sort of Federal as it is now?

[Tribesman]

Why is the parliamentary sovereignty detached from reality?
Do you even know what parliamentary soveriegnty means?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


I know this is sort of off-topic, but what is your thoughts on Scotland's position in Britain?
Well that goes to national soveriegnty or several of them, the will of the people or several of them and parliamentary soveriegnty or several of them.
But anyway since a nation is a "natural entity" then Scotland is already an independant nation in existance.

[Furunculus]

I know this is sort of off-topic, but what is your thoughts on Scotland's position in Britain? Where as, there is the British parliament, and there is the Scottish parliament.

Do you think Scotland should be completely seperate working in partnership (possible similar position to Ireland) or sort of Federal as it is now?
pages four, five and six...........

[Furunculus]

Do you even know what parliamentary soveriegnty means?

without being a layer, yes.


Parliamentary sovereignty, Sovereignty of Parliament, parliamentary supremacy, or legislative supremacy is a concept in constitutional law that applies to some parliamentary democracies. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions (including any executive or judicial bodies as they may exist). Furthermore, it implies that the legislative body may change or repeal any prior legislative acts. Parliamentary sovereignty contrasts with notions of judicial review, where a court may overturn legislation deemed unconstitutional. Specific instances of parliamentary sovereignty exist in the United Kingdom

Several different views have been taken of Parliament's sovereignty. According to the jurist Sir William Blackstone, "It has sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal … it can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible."

One well-recognised exception to Parliament's power involves binding future Parliaments. No Act of Parliament may be made secure from amendment or repeal by a future Parliament. For example, although the Act of Union 1800 states that the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland are to be united "forever", Parliament permitted southern Ireland to leave the UK in 1922.

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:
Parliament can make law concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

Parliament may withdraw from the most of the commitments it has made or repeal any of the constraints it has imposed on its ability to legislate. Thus, Parliament theoretically remains almost entirely sovereign. The qualifier "almost" is provided because in 1921, after a century of dispute, Parliament passed the Church of Scotland Act 1921 which finally agreed that it does not have sovereignty over the Church of Scotland, the established church in Scotland.
There is a concept in political science of 'legal' and 'political' sovereignty. It can be argued that legal sovereignty has not been lost, because Parliament still retains all its theoretical powers. There are no legal limits on Parliament's sovereignty. However, as it is highly unlikely that the UK would repeal the European Communities Act and leave the EU, and it is unlikely the devolved legislature would be abolished, there are significant political limits on the sovereignty of Parliament. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the UK Parliament could do so without seeking the mutual consent of the EU or the devolved legislatures, as it did with the abolition of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in 1972, and that if it did, these repeals would be legally and politically binding.

[Tribesman]

wow a wiki cut&paste

[Furunculus]

it isn't a secret, i already linked to that page above.

what about it?

[gaelic cowboy]

4. if the aim is a federal state which holds the final say on tax, social, economic and foriegn policy then yes, i want out, into an EFTA status, which will be granted.

Thats not a good ideas if your in the EFTA you must except EU legislation as is no IF's no BUT's as the majority of the EFTA is in the EU you access the market but cannot influence the policy of the laws which you can inside the tent

[Furunculus]

it is not a one size fits all category, switzerland proved that, and a great deal can be achieved when you have a large economy and a security council seat, it's called leverage.

[gaelic cowboy]

How long more will Britain have that seat when she can barely keep her nuclear deterrent as is.

Pretty soon Brazil India will be in and possibly either south Africa or Nigeria who knows, Japan will be in and maybe one other Asian country the clamour to expand will by default make the seat worth less.

[Beskar]

Weren't they wanting to get rid of that, especially if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom?

Also, the whole proposed G4.

[Furunculus]

How long more will Britain have that seat when she can barely keep her nuclear deterrent as is.

Pretty soon Brazil India will be in and possibly either south Africa or Nigeria who knows, Japan will be in and maybe one other Asian country the clamour to expand will by default make the seat worth less.
i think the UK is safe for the next generation at least, given my own thoughts on the matter outlined in the second post here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=105415



Also, the whole proposed G4.
as per:
http://news.oneindia.in/2009/09/02/india-seeks-genuine-reform-in-unsc.html

London, Sep 2: Considering the 'genuine reform' in the UN Security Council as essential, India has included six new permanent members having veto power and four additional non-permanent members in the G4 proposal.
Addressing the informal meeting of the UN General Assembly on Security Council reforms, the Indian Ambassador to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri said, "We remain convinced that this is the optimum expansion that meets both the tests of representativeness and manageability."
"New permanent members would have the same rights and responsibilities as existing permanent members, including that of the veto. Nevertheless, recognising the complexity of the issue, the G-4 proposal offered to defer its utilisation until a review is undertaken," he said.
"Looking back at the first two rounds, two messages emerged loud and clear, first, that an overwhelming majority of member states believe that the status quo is untenable, in response to which genuine reform of the UN Security Council is essential," Puri added.
"Second, substantive reform requires an expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, and significant improvement of the Security Council's working methods," Puri said.
don't think we're going anywhere.

[Furunculus]

ah, and yet another slip-slide into federalism -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6266147/EU-draws-up-plans-to-establish-itself-as-world-power.html


EU draws up plans to establish itself as 'world power'
The European Union has drawn up secret plans to establish itself as a global power in its own right with the authority to sign international agreements on behalf of member states.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 7:00AM BST 07 Oct 2009

According to one confidential paper, the first pilot 'embassies' are planned in New York, Kabul and

Confidential negotiations on how to implement the Lisbon Treaty have produced proposals to allow the EU to negotiate treaties and even open embassies across the world.

A letter conferring a full "legal personality" for the Union has been drafted in order for a new European diplomatic service to be recognised as fully fledged negotiators by international bodies and all non-EU countries.

According to one confidential paper, the first pilot "embassies" are planned in New York, Kabul and Addis Ababa.

The move is highly symbolic in Britain as it formally scraps the "European Community", the organisation that Britons originally voted to join in the country's only referendum on Europe 34 years ago.

Mark Francois, Conservative spokesman on Europe, said that the deal showed why the British should have been given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

"As we have long warned, the Lisbon Treaty increases the EU's power at the expense of the countries of Europe," he said. "The new power a single legal personality would give the EU is a classic example.

"It illustrates why it is wrong for Labour to try to deny the British people any say on this Treaty at all."

The decision, taken shortly before Ireland's referendum last week, will mean a new European diplomatic service with over 160 "EU representations" and ambassadors across the world.

Lorraine Mullally, the director of Open Europe, described the move as "a huge transfer of power which makes the EU look more like a country than an international agreement".

"Giving the EU legal personality means that the EU, rather than member states, will be able to sign all kinds of international agreements – on foreign policy, defence, crime and judicial issues – for the first time," she said.

She pointed out that the 1975 referendum was on joining the EC and that it is the European Communities Act that gives Brussels legislation primacy over British law.

"British voters agreed to join the European Communities, not a political union with legal personality with the power to sign all kinds of international agreements," said Miss Mullally. "No one under the age of 52 has ever had a say on this important evolution and it's about time we did."

A restricted document circulated by the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, seen by The Daily Telegraph, spells out the need for legal changes to set up a European External Service (EEAS), an EU diplomatic and foreign service with "global geographical scope".

The paper said: "The EEAS will need a legal status providing it with functional legal personality so that it has sufficient autonomy.

"This legal personality should also give it the capacity to act as necessary to carry out (its) tasks."

A British diplomat defended the decision. "The EU has been able to sign treaties for over a decade. The innovation under the Lisbon Treaty is that the European Community will cease to have legal personality. This is about simplification," she said.

Brussels ambassadors yesterday (TUES) began detailed work, in secret, to create new institutions, the EEAS, "foreign minister" and EU President, that are to be set up under the Lisbon Treaty.

Decisions "in principle" will be taken despite the fact that both Poland and the Czech Republic have not yet fully ratified the new EU Treaty.

The creation of the EEAS has sparked a bitter Brussels turf war. The European Commission could lose up to 1,424 senior staff from three departments.

Another 400 staff will be taken from the Council of the EU and an "equivalent" number will be seconded from national diplomatic services.

The EEAS will take over Commission representations – there are currently more than 160 offices around the world – and its senior diplomats will be given the same status as national ambassadors.

[Tribesman]

The European Union has drawn up secret plans to establish itself as a global power in its own right with the authority to sign international agreements on behalf of member states.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Why is it that eurosceptics often turn out to be nuts?

[Subotan]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Why is it that eurosceptics often turn out to be nuts?

Well, that was from the Daily Torygraph :laugh4:
Besides, how come I didn't hear anything about that from other newspapers recently? Maybe because not only has it been in the pipeline for at least two years (http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/grant_guardian_blog_19june07.html), but it's also just a minor reform that forges two different departments, which were doing the same job into one single department. i.e. this saves the taxpayer money, and makes the EU more efficient, and accountable.

Which is what the Eurosceptics want, right?

[Furunculus]

"This saves the taxpayer money, and makes the EU more efficient, and accountable.
Which is what the Eurosceptics want, right?"

It is what everyone with a brain wants, however many skeptics believe that EUrope should not be taking on these competences in the first place.

[Subotan]

The EU, like it or not, is relevant enough in world politics and economics to warrant something like EEAS

[Furunculus]

only if you are confident that the EU will represent and negotiate your national position.
or
your diplomatic clout is so insignificant that you need the EU to have any impact on the world.

[Furunculus]

an EU ever further away from anything worthwhile to Britain:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,653723,00.html


Now Is the Time for More EU! [excerpts]

Thorsten Benner and Stephan Mergenthaler are from the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin and are experts on the EU's role in the world.*

1. With the Lisbon Treaty approaching the final hurdles before it is adopted, it is time for the European Union to take a bold step forward. It is up to Germany's new government to lead the EU out of a decade of doldrums. A European Army would be a good place to start.

2. The most obvious choice would be a deepening of Europe's collective foreign and security policy.

3. The US, overstretched as it currently is, would welcome any attempt to increase Europe's military capacity.

4. Instead of lobbying for a permanent German seat on the United Nations Security Council, the new German government should seek a European Union seat in the G-20.

* "vee have vays ov making you talk!"
1. lol, how about creating some backbone to use ones armed forces in the first place?

2. get stuffed, the best part about having trident is that it prevents our spineless polticians jumping feet first into a 'common' foreign policy.

3. roflmao, there will be no extra capacity, at best some additional harmonisation whilst budgets further dwindle, the result of which would be an end to independent military action.

4. most constructive ambition of the lot, but still not interested.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

4. most constructive ambition of the lot, but still not interested.

To share a seat with twenty when we could go for one on our own? Not interested at all.

[Beskar]

Why do all the Europe skeptics think their nation won't have a say, when they are in the nations with the biggest influence?

UK and Germany (in this thread) for instance. Europe is pretty much dominanted by France , Germany and the UK.

The people with hardly no say would be like Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium and others, yet they aren't the vocal ones.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They'll have a bit of power. We can have it on our own, without being subjugated to anyone. That being said, I don't think Frags is particularly pro-EU, though I could be wrong.

[Beskar]

Germany arguely is the most dominant power in Europe and in many ways "With what way Germany goes, the rest follow" with only check and balance being France and the United Kingdom, with similar but smaller power.

If Germany, France (which often work together a lot) with UK being the 3rd wheel in many things, but if all 3 had common goals, the whole EU basically follows them.

In UK politics style view, France+Germany are Labour, UK are the Conservatives and Possibly Italy as the Lib Dems. As in, France+Germany combination having the biggest say, with UK playing the opposition, and Italy just making lots of noise, but nobody notices them except their leader likes electing supermodels to the cabinet.

[Furunculus]

Germany arguely is the most dominant power in Europe and in many ways "With what way Germany goes, the rest follow" with only check and balance being France and the United Kingdom, with similar but smaller power.

If Germany, France (which often work together a lot) with UK being the 3rd wheel in many things, but if all 3 had common goals, the whole EU basically follows them.

In UK politics style view, France+Germany are Labour, UK are the Conservatives and Possibly Italy as the Lib Dems. As in, France+Germany combination having the biggest say, with UK playing the opposition, and Italy just making lots of noise, but nobody notices them except their leader likes electing supermodels to the cabinet.

there is a magic phrase hidden in there somewhere..................

EMFM has said it already, we can have power and influence already, without trying to dilute what we have in order to get 'more'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on a separate note, the Grauniad accuses the ECR of having hitlerite sympathies, and the latvian government gets so hacked off with the smears from Milliband it complains to our government:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100012893/the-smear-campaign-against-our-euro-sceptic-allies-becomes-demented/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

better still, Stephen Fry is getting in on the act too:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100012872/stephen-frys-slur-against-polish-catholics-remember-which-side-of-the-border-auschwitz-was-on/


Fry further exposed his Tupperware view of politics by dismissing the Conservatives’ regrouping in the European Parliament as relating to manoeuvres that nobody is interested in. Sorry, but in the real world as distinct from the luvvies’ bubble that Fry inhabits, many of us are enormously interested in what can be done to frustrate the encroaching power of the EU upon our national sovereignty and liberties.

[Kralizec]

Uh, the EU already has representation in the G20...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Uh, the EU already has representation in the G20...

Yes, that's true. The thing is that Germany has seperate representation, so I'd rather maintain that than give it up.

[Tribesman]

we can have power and influence already
where have you been for the last century?
Britain is now just a bit player.
In fact worse than a bit player as it has to be left out of certain scenes as it presence would be an embarrassment to the whole show.

[Furunculus]

interesting article by the economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14587055&source=hptextfeature


Wake up Europe!

Oct 8th 2009
From The Economist print edition
It is time for the world’s biggest economy to rise from its slumber and play a global role

Reuters

A REFERENDUM in a small island off the European mainland about an incomprehensible document sounds dull. Yet Ireland’s vote on October 2nd in favour of the Lisbon treaty marks a milestone for the European Union. The treaty—which, despite a flurry about the Czechs, now looks certain to be ratified—is likely to be the last big piece of EU institution-building for years to come. It also poses serious questions about the world’s biggest economy. Is Europe evolving inexorably into a federation of states? Could it become an economic trendsetter? Will Europe wake up and take a bigger role in the world? Or are the affairs of man to be decided largely in Washington and Beijing, with the new “G2” occasionally copying in the Brussels bureaucracy on its decisions?

Very few of the answers to these questions can be found in the moderately useless Lisbon treaty. It is a deliberately obscure reworking of the draft EU constitutional treaty rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. This newspaper opposed the constitution because it failed utterly to achieve the goals set by the Laeken European summit in 2001: simplification of the rules, a clearer distribution of power between the centre and national governments, greater transparency, bringing the EU closer to voters. That the Lisbon treaty is being driven through despite having been rejected by three out of a total of six referendums, and with ten governments reneging on promises to hold votes of their own, is deeply shabby.
The lessons of Lisbon

Some Eurosceptics want to fight on, hoping that a Tory victory in Britain could mean a new referendum. Assuming that the Czechs have by then ratified the treaty, that would be dangerous and pointless. Dangerous, because if everybody (including the British) has already signed the treaty, it could soon turn into a debate about Britain leaving the union—a considerably worse result for everybody than living with a slightly duff treaty. Pointless, because there is now a good debate to be had about Europe that liberal voices can and should win.

Many Eurosceptics are so blinded by hatred of Brussels that they have failed to grasp what a huge defeat the Lisbon treaty has been for their opponents. Every other EU treaty for the past 25 years has contained the seeds of the next one, making the process seem inexorable. But there are no such germs in the Lisbon deal and the participants are exhausted by the eight-year effort to push it through. It is not just the British who oppose more institutional deepening. The Irish will not want to repeat their practice of voting No and then Yes to another treaty. Even Germany’s constitutional court has raised a red flag to further EU integration. The union will thus continue as a mainly inter-governmental organisation with supranational attributes, rather than turning into a full federation.

Nor is the content of Lisbon all bad (see article, article). Alongside the unnecessary and intrusive charter of fundamental rights and the mad idea of giving the undeserving European Parliament more powers, Lisbon improves the EU’s voting system, partly sorts out a muddled foreign-policy structure and creates a permanent presidency of the European Council in place of the present six-month, rotating one. The challenge now ought to be to make it all work. And that points to two internal tasks and two external ones.

The internal tasks address Europe’s poor economic performance. The world’s largest economic block will lose ground even faster to China and America if it fails to raise its low productivity growth through liberalising reforms and by reducing the size of the state. Along with this comes a second task: to preserve the single market, by far the EU’s greatest achievement of recent years. The single market and the EU’s competition and state-aid rules are under attack as national governments look for ways to protect jobs. A priority of the European Commission must be to uphold the rules by taking a tough line in such cases as the proposed German bail-out for Opel.
Lift up your heads

The European project has spent too many of its first 50 years looking inwards: building the single market, sorting out institutions, arguing about money, endlessly negotiating treaties. In the next 50 years it should look outwards more. At present Europe is a weak actor on a stage dominated by America and China; India and Brazil are in the wings. Can this change?

It may. The chief obstacle to a common EU foreign policy has never been institutional. It is, rather, that 27 countries have different interests. It is desirable that foreign policy, like taxation, should remain subject to unanimity, for these matters lie at the heart of national sovereignty. But the Lisbon treaty creates two new posts—a new high representative for foreign policy, smashing together two current jobs, and the new council president—that could give the union a more public face, as well as a beefed-up foreign service. This offers a hope of the EU exerting an influence more in keeping with its economic weight, as it has so far done only in trade negotiations.

For this to happen, Europe’s leaders must get two more tasks right. The first is to stick with what has proved to be the EU’s most successful foreign policy by far: its own enlargement. The offer of membership has been the most effective tool for bringing prosperity and peace, first to the Mediterranean countries and then to ex-communist central and eastern Europe. Nowhere matters more to the stability of today’s EU than the region to its east and south-east. If the EU is to flourish, it must keep its doors open.

The second task is to choose substantial people for the two new positions. The foreign job may yet prove more powerful, but the president of the council will set the tone. One could imagine, say, Angela Merkel sitting down as an equal with Presidents Obama and Hu; but she has another job. So the choice is the usual Europygmies or Tony Blair (see article). Britain’s former prime minister has his faults; but he is a figure with clout and a name that is not merely known in Belgium. What is more, he would press for the reforms Europe needs. If Europe does not choose someone of his stature, it will be the first sign it has drifted back to sleep.

i'm not convinced the anti-federal argument has been won, and lol'ed at authors gushing over the EU's two major successes, enlargement and the common market, neither of which is caused by or dependent on a federal state.

[Furunculus]

and an interesting look at how spineless the conservatives intend to be when they get into power:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2009/10/britains_conservatives_not_as.cfm

Britain's Conservatives: not as Eurosceptic as you think

Posted by:
Charlemagne

Categories:
Britain

JUST how Eurosceptic is the leadership of today’s British Conservative party? My hunch, after a visit to their annual conference in Manchester which allowed me to speak to some senior figures, is that the party leadership is not as Eurosceptic as many people in Brussels or even Britain think.

Indeed, I would argue that if you read the fine print of his keynote speech on foreign policy to the conference, the shadow foreign secretary William Hague takes a much more nuanced line than press reporting of the speech would suggest.

I think the plan for an incoming Conservative government is to pick a couple of fights to satisfy the demands of their electorate for a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with Europe, but reassure other European governments by being surprisingly constructive on a range of issues, especially (and perhaps surprisingly) in the field of European foreign and security policy. In short, they think they are going to be firm but rather pragmatic. But and it is a big but, I think they are out of touch with the political realities of the EU of today. So what they think is pragmatic will still be seen as a red rag to a bull by their fellow EU leaders.

Much press reporting on the Hague speech trundled down the familiar train track of Tory-bitter-row-Europe. The Times, for instance, said:

William Hague risked re-opening the bitter dispute over Europe today by attacking the EU and demanding a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. After a week in which the Tory high command has tried to keep Europe out of the headlines, the Shadow Foreign Secretary said that there should be no president of the EU and that Britain must have its own distinctive foreign policy.

Hang on, read what he said. Calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is standing party policy, repeated endlessly in interviews by Mr Hague and David Cameron. And he does not say there should be no president of the EU. Mr Hague said:

“We seek a European Union that acts by agreement among nations rather than by placing its own president or foreign minister above any nation.”

The first part of his sentence is a bit disingenuous. The EU is not a purely intergovernmental body, and could not be, without losing things that the Conservatives strongly support, notably the single market: as Mr Hague knows full well. The Tories have always had a dilemma with the single market, which I have written about many times: they support the (rather amazingly liberal) principle that national governments are not allowed to give state aid to their national champions that distorts free competition within the union. Thus, under EU law it may well be illegal for the German government to give German taxpayers’ money to Opel to keep relatively high-cost factories open in Germany at the expense of Spanish, British or Belgian Opel factories that are more productive and competitive. That is amazingly liberal: just try telling the Americans, Japanese or South Koreans they could not spend their own money shielding their own car plants. But the mechanism that can deliver that liberalism has to be supranational: as I read somewhere today (I am sorry, I have forgotten where) try imagining what would be the fate of EU competition authority if it were controlled by national authorities, rather than the referee in Brussels.

But the second half of the sentence is not extreme at all, and does not amount to opposing a standing president of the European Council (the bit of the machine where national leaders meet), a post created by the Lisbon Treaty. The president envisaged by Lisbon will be elected by serving heads of state and government for two and a half years, and if he or she wants a second term will have to secure re-election from them. He will have no other direct mandate, unlike the serving heads of government whose summits he will chair. Anyone who thinks that such a president would be “above any nation” or indeed even above such bossy nations as France, Germany or Britain, is living in a political fantasy world.

Then read this from Mr Hague: it could come from the current British government.

“…when it comes to dealing with Iran over nuclear policy, Russia over energy security, or the Balkans to prevent new conflict or disorder, we need Europe to use its collective weight in the world and indeed to do so more often.”

And the pragmatic bit going wrong? I think the Tories are preparing to say they want to work with the EU on things like climate change, lobbying for global free trade and stability in the Balkans, which could, say, see much more British help being sent to the EU missions in Bosnia. I think in return they are going to ask for things including the renationalisation of EU employment policy, on the grounds that the Working Time Directive is an outrage. But I think they misjudge how that will work. Even if some other EU leaders might not care that much about granting Britain yet another opt-out, especially as EU social policy is a bit of a dead end at the moment, it will be seen as hugely provocative by the Euro-left and the trade unions. Expect immediate shouting about “social dumping” by Britain, which even sympathetic national leaders will struggle to ignore.

i agree that europe is not a fight the cons are really interested in, and they will certainly try to fob off the electorate with stern words about repatriation of powers and other such blather.

i am curious if the authors contention that conservative pragmatism will still blow up in their faces due to the continental left getting their knickers in a twist over british social and employment policy.
is there enough of the Left remaining in europe for this to be a serious problem, last time i checked greece and portugal don't count for much on the international scene?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The main BBC News site has some encouraging news today. :2thumbsup:

[Beskar]

there is a magic phrase hidden in there somewhere.................

Also, that is why it is a good thing. If it was totally all about Britain, it be a reminder of the British Empire were we "forcibly submit" others to our will and force them to serve us. United EU would be treated everyone as equal partners with the same interests opposed to selfishness of the minority.

[Furunculus]

If Germany, France (which often work together a lot) with UK being the 3rd wheel in many things, but if all 3 had common goals, the whole EU basically follows them.
there is a magic phrase hidden in there somewhere.................
Also, that is why it is a good thing. If it was totally all about Britain, it be a reminder of the British Empire were we "forcibly submit" others to our will and force them to serve us.

United EU would be treated everyone as equal partners with the same interests opposed to selfishness of the minority.
lol, how do you manage to invoke the 'evils' of empire when discussing great-power politics between britain france and germany?

and it's not selfish, its called national interest, and is quite a common sight among different nations because they have differing aims and differing values to which they attach to those aims.


The main BBC News site has some encouraging news today. :2thumbsup:
linky?

[Beskar]

and it's not selfish, its called national interest, and is quite a common sight among different nations because they have differing aims and differing values to which they attach to those aims.

Hence, it is selfish.

Unity would remove such selfishness so real progress is made for many more people. Instead of people in competition just trying to get a leg over eachother, there would be more co-operation.

[Furunculus]

are you proposing just clicking your fingers, and lo; the peoples of europe shall become one, with the same dreams and aspirations as their comrades from across the water?

because if you are not, then that unity of policy and action is better known as tyranny.

[Beskar]

1) No, since that is impossible.

2) No, it isn't.

[Subotan]

Yeah, because it's tyranny that people in Scotland or Wales work for the common good of Britain :inquisitive:

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14586858
So, will we see a "President Blair", and if we did, would it be a good thing?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

linky?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8299485.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8299485.stm)


Hence, it is selfish.

Unity would remove such selfishness so real progress is made for many more people. Instead of people in competition just trying to get a leg over eachother, there would be more co-operation.

In your socialist utopia, are the skies purple?

[Beskar]

In your socialist utopia, are the skies purple?

In yours, is there a constant nuclear winter?



Yeah, because it's tyranny that people in Scotland or Wales work for the common good of Britain :inquisitive:


Scotland, Wales, England all working together producing the very powerful and popular Britain.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In yours, is there a constant nuclear winter?

I tend to inhabit some form of reality, and we haven't had one of those here yet, so I think I'm alright.

[Beskar]

I tend to inhabit some form of reality, and we haven't had one of those here yet, so I think I'm alright.

But you have constant purple skies there right unlike the rest of us?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But you have constant purple skies there right unlike the rest of us?

The place I currently reside in, and where your body also does while your mind wanders in the realms of the glorious utopian state of your socialist comrades, has the normal blue skies. It is generally known as reality. If you like, you can use Google to find a picture.

[Beskar]

The place I currently reside in, and where your body also does while your mind wanders in the realms of the glorious utopian state of your socialist comrades, has the normal blue skies. It is generally known as reality. If you like, you can use Google to find a picture.

I found this one, explains everything:
https://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9183/evilmartian.jpg

Anyway, enough of being petty, EMFM.

[Furunculus]

Yeah, because it's tyranny that people in Scotland or Wales work for the common good of Britain :inquisitive:

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14586858
So, will we see a "President Blair", and if we did, would it be a good thing?
300 years since the act of union tells me that we have a pretty harmonised opinion by now.

he would be a good president, which is precisely why i don't want him, i want a pygmy to occupy the position if such a position must exist.

[Subotan]

300 years since the act of union tells me that we have a pretty harmonised opinion by now.

Despite the fact that it was created with force (See Civil Wars, Conquest of Wales, The Troubles, Jacobite Rebellions etc.)? Yet you oppose the peaceful formation of a loose association of states, that haven't been at war once since the beginning of that Union over 50 years ago?
:dizzy2:

[Furunculus]

why should i care how it formed, what matters is that it works now.

and i oppose britain's involvement in what appears to be a federal state because i consider it to have no net benefit.

if britain were so tiddly little continental state with no influence and a history of hosting other peoples wars then i might take a different assessment of the net benefit of being part of a federal state.

if i were absolutely convinced that the end state of the EU would result in a loose association of sovereign nation states then i would stop bitching, but history tells us all otherwise.

[Beskar]

Subotan, you are forgetting something, these people are basically nationalists. The fact we are a nation already means we are one now, and they don't care about some Europe as they only care about Britain (Furunculus) or they have some fantasy land ideal of the American dream (EMFM).

Furunculus's arguments are mainly based on the here and now of Britain, such as overall net benefits of Britain as a nation with pro's and con's. He generally sees Britain as a great nation, with a nato security seat, one of the top economies, etc and has a great pride in his nation. He sees Europe as this "foriegn tentacle monster" wanting to control his beloved nation, weakening it and have random people deciding policies and governance. His arguments for the situation are quite reasonable, as you cannot deny that Britain currently is in a very comfortable position in many aspects.


However, would you fully support a confederation, Furunculus? As in many ways, the EU is part of a confederation, not a federation. (In technical terms, it is some weird hybrid)

Taken from Wikipedia:

A confederation in modern political terms is a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.[1] Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.

The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies considerably. Likewise, the relationship between the member states and the central government, and the distribution of powers among them, is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations, while tighter confederations may resemble federations.



Off-topic:

why should i care how it formed, what matters is that it works now.

Dislike change?

[Furunculus]

i have the same problem with the looser definition of confederation as i do with the EU political project, i.e. there is no definition of what they wish to achieve and thus no limits to the application of ever deeper union.

if the agreed goal was to achieve the former and not the latter of the following:
"Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations, while tighter confederations may resemble federations," then i would be perfectly happy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Subotan, you are forgetting something, these people are basically nationalists.

And you're an internationalist. Big deal. We see the nation as, in this case, the ideal size of a country. It's not about America at all, it's about Germany and how I want my country to go forward in the world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?

Basically, that is Klaus' offer. He will only agree to Lisbon, if the EU is willing to give up social rights for the three million expelled Germans from the Czech Republic.


(Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Friday he wanted Prague to negotiate an "exemption" from the European Union's Lisbon Treaty to avert possible property claims by Germans expelled after World War Two


As to my own answer: No! The EU is here to put a final end to nationalist animosity. The Germans have social rights, like all other peoples. Incorporating Germany into a democratic Europe, and currently incorporating East Europe into a democratic Europe is the very business of the EU.
No to the Polish, Czech, Lithuanian (and their newfound friends, the UK Conservatives) demands to do WWII all over again.


Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions. We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.
So we might as well give in to the Czech anti-EU demands too - no social rights for the three million expelled Germans.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less) :shame:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?

I'd rather see an end to the European Union as a political organization, to prevent the long-term loss of rights and soveriegnty for every German. Ideally I would want both, especially since my family suffered because of this kind of thing, but eighty million come ahead of three million.


Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less)

Well, our attempts at reasonable debate are drowned beneath millions of dollars of pro-EU advertising run by our governments, so how else can we get attention?

[Incongruous]

I think he big worry now is theprospect of Tony becoming the EU prsident, who the heck wants that? Lisbon will finaly allow Europe to become more self-sufficient and yet me have a Washington Poodle (and war criminal) as our first president.

I think we should all unte in making sure old Tony don't get what 'e wants.

[Beskar]

Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions.

That is actually incorrect. Britain just has its own version in the form of British Common Law and the EU respects that as long as the rights in the charter are covered. Issues have been taken to the European Human Rights commission and won before, which means the UK had to follow the verdict.


put a final end to nationalist animosity

As much as I agree, there are those who have the agenda to keep it there for the stupidest of reasons.

[Furunculus]

Here's a nice dilemma for you, Maniac: do you prefer social rights for dispossed Germans, or do you prefer an end to Lisbon?
Basically, that is Klaus' offer. He will only agree to Lisbon, if the EU is willing to give up social rights for the three million expelled Germans from the Czech Republic.

As to my own answer: No! The EU is here to put a final end to nationalist animosity. The Germans have social rights, like all other peoples. Incorporating Germany into a democratic Europe, and currently incorporating East Europe into a democratic Europe is the very business of the EU.
No to the Polish, Czech, Lithuanian (and their newfound friends, the UK Conservatives) demands to do WWII all over again.

Then again: well, we've given in to Poland and the UK too - Polish and British subjects will remain unprotected by European human rights provisions. We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.
So we might as well give in to the Czech anti-EU demands too - no social rights for the three million expelled Germans.

Though frankly, I would've prefered the anti-EU / anti-Lisbon crowd to have more 'enlightened' demands than all of these. (Like more human rights and democracy, instead of less) :shame:
a wonderful example of national interest at work, pah to the internationalists.
and another example of a problem britain doesn't have, i.e. dangerous overlaps of cultural and national boundaries created by previous conflict, and a potential cause for future conflict.

WW2 again? bombing Dresden, marching through france, what a ridiculous notion that anyone should wish to do that again. might be an even bigger example of hyperbole than me branding the EU the EUSSR.

All fantastic examples of objectives and expectations shaped by the shared religious cultural and social history of the separate sovereign nations, and you wonder that these objectives and expectations are so disparate between nations?

The UK has human rights, it had them before the EU started getting its knickers in a twist over the issue, and as for democracy; my view is well known that representative democracy is best effected between a Demos and a Kratos that share the same social and cultural history, where the Demos is trusted by the Kratos not to introduce demagogues, and where the Kratos is always answerable to the Demos as a ward against tyranny.

[Furunculus]

I think he big worry now is theprospect of Tony becoming the EU prsident, who the heck wants that? Lisbon will finaly allow Europe to become more self-sufficient and yet me have a Washington Poodle (and war criminal) as our first president.


The yanks want a strong partner in a world where their power is in decline, which is why they are all for a fully federated EU (anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot), and it is why they want Britain within that federation (so the federal state retains a character sympathetic to US needs).

If you want a strong EU that is able to punch its weight on the international scene then you NEED someone like Blair, (he is an international superstar), the usual euro-pygmies from tiddly-winks nations simply won't cut the mustard.

I supported Blairs pro-americanism, and i supported his war, which is why i don't want him in the job of EU president; it directly conflicts with my desire for the federal ambitions of the EU to remain as weak and divided as possible.

Just because I am pro-american does not mean i am willing to subvert my nation in the interests of seeing the US get a more anglophile superpower partner for the 21st century.



put a final end to nationalist animosity

As much as I agree, there are those who have the agenda to keep it there for the stupidest of reasons.
if the aim of the game was to preserve national animosity then i would be agreed; that would be stupid.

however, you idealistic internationalists can only see the down-side of national sentiment so negative words like "animosity are automatically appended to your thoughts on nationalism, whereas many nationalists merely recognise that national sentiment is merely the result of their shared history and has resulted in a particular array of expectations and objectives peculiar to that group of people, who understandably feel that their rulers must share those same aims if representative governance is to be achieved.

i don't give a damn about abortion either way, nor does britain as a whole, but ireland obviously disagrees.
i reject the pacifist neutrality of ireland, and certainly britain as a whole is closer to my view-point than ireland.
i embrace NATO and by extension the US, and Britain certainly has a more relaxed attitude to the local superpower than Finland for example, who won't even join NATO.
i accept the potential for social instability resulting from our anglo-centric free wheeling capitalism, and judging by the level of support for hard left parties in the UK i'd say britain largely agrees with me, but i hardly think france feels the same given that Louis's compatriots are permanently on strike to protect their social welfare.

Even Louis accepted the existence of national expectations and objectives, he just didn't think they are important enough to derail a more integrated europe, so why the concept of something that is blatently common sense seems so obscure to you is a mystery to me..........

[Beskar]

Just a correction, I am not an "internationalist" per se, but carry on. :book2:

Also, your 'judging by the support for the left' comment is out of place, since the majority of support for Labour is on the left (which are currently in power), however, there is just the little problem where the party swapped sides and the fanbase is like "?!!?!?! lets continue voting the same!" and the mismatch between the Labour party (its members) and the Leaders. Also other factions regarding "If we continue supporting Labour, at least they can get into power". Party politics has turned something like Football teams. Just because your team is losing, or going to wrong way, mean you automatically jump ship to another team.

It's a sad case where I know many people "on the left" actually working for the Labour party and many "on the left" which voted for them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

another example of a problem britain doesn't have, i.e. dangerous overlaps of cultural and national boundaries created by previous conflict, and a potential cause for future conflict.I would've thought that last week's referendum would've reminded even the most stubbornly inward looking Englishman of the existence of the Emerald Isle...


:balloon2:



Beskar - Britain did secure exemption from European social rights for its working population. (Well done NuLAb! Keep those labourers and their cheeky demands in check!):

Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights feature in the new treaty?

No. There is a reference to it, making it legally binding, but the full text does not appear, even in an annex.
The UK has secured a written guarantee that the charter cannot be used by the European Court to alter British labour law, or other laws that deal with social rights. However, experts are divided on how effective this will be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm

[Beskar]

But the exception included provisions didn't it? As long as the United Kingdom kept a, b and c, in its own legal system. (or so I am led to believe) the exception was granted.

Furunculus probably knows more in that area anyway.

[Furunculus]

Also, your 'judging by the support for the left' comment is out of place, since the majority of support for Labour is on the left (which are currently in power), however, there is just the little problem where the party swapped sides and the fanbase is like "?!!?!?! lets continue voting the same!" and the mismatch between the Labour party (its members) and the Leaders. Also other factions regarding "If we continue supporting Labour, at least they can get into power". Party politics has turned something like Football teams. Just because your team is losing, or going to wrong way, mean you automatically jump ship to another team.

It's a sad case where I know many people "on the left" actually working for the Labour party and many "on the left" which voted for them.

i was really referring to the hard left, which is virtually non-existant here, but far more so on the continent.


I would've thought that last week's referendum would've reminded even the most stubbornly inward looking Englishman of the existence of the Emerald Isle...
Just a correction, I am not an "Englishman" per se, but carry on. :book:

from the point of view of existential threats to the continued existance of the UK, i.e. by acting as a trigger point for future conflict................. NI doesn't count.

But the exception included provisions didn't it? As long as the United Kingdom kept a, b and c, in its own legal system. (or so I am led to believe) the exception was granted.

Furunculus probably knows more in that area anyway.

nope, i'm no laywer, but the very uncertainty on our legal opt-outs is hardly a cause for confidence........

[Subotan]

We see the nation as, in this case, the ideal size of a country.

Despite the fact that nations range from 1,000 to over 1,000,000,000 people in size?


it's about Germany and how I want my country to go forward in the world.

I wanna see Germany go forward in the world too. I just don't see why Germany, France, Poland, UK etc. going forward in the world should mean that everyone else should go back.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Despite the fact that nations range from 1,000 to over 1,000,000,000 people in size?

It has relatively little to do with population.


I wanna see Germany go forward in the world too. I just don't see why Germany, France, Poland, UK etc. going forward in the world should mean that everyone else should go back.

Because then it won't be us going forward in the world, it will be a superstate going forward in the world instead of us. Poland, France, Germany, and the UK can all go forward - if we don't have a federal superstate.

[Subotan]

It has relatively little to do with population.


So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.



Because then it won't be us going forward in the world, it will be a superstate going forward in the world instead of us.
It would be the collective interest of everyone in Europe going forward.


Poland, France, Germany, and the UK can all go forward - if we don't have a federal superstate.
It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

[Beskar]

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.


No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.

:laugh4: Because it isn't change for the better, it's change for the sake of change - change for the worse!


So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Not that either.


It would be the collective interest of everyone in Europe going forward.

Going forward is in everybody's interest, but how we proceed with that isn't. You're assuming that everyone has the same definition of going forward, or that it will work for every country. We've seen this in the prison thread - some things just don't work everywhere. Some don't work anywhere. A superstate is a bad move for Europe. It will be now, it will be after a hundred years of unification.


It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

[Beskar]

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

Also violence and elitism.


Because it isn't change for the better, it's change for the sake of change - change for the worse!

No, that would be having a Monarch to govern all of Europe, or even a Monarch full-stop.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Also violence and elitism.

No. Those have always been there and will always be there. Those are problems (are they even always problematic? That's another discussion.) that will never be removed by society.


No, that would be having a Monarch to govern all of Europe, or even a Monarch full-stop.

Which doesn't really relate, at least not until the very unlikely chance that we get Emperor Barroso I or Emperor Blair I.

[LittleGrizzly]

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Its some mythical entity that some mantain exsist that binds some together and seperates them from others...

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.

Yes and I would rather be Tesco competing with ASDA and the other big brands than my corner shop down the road scraping by... there will still be competition, internally for products and externally with the big powers as a powerful entity than a small pawn on thier chess board.

[Beskar]

No. Those have always been there and will always be there. Those are problems (are they even always problematic? That's another discussion.) that will never be removed by society

Yet you can remove many of the causes and divides and many people can be open minded.

Remove nation aspect and you don't have nations fighting for superiority with one another, as exampled in the first and second world wars.

Make people equal, promote an open culture.

Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture. Just because people over there eat curry opposed to sushi, doesn't mean have same legal/political framework is going to some how replace all the choices and lifestyles with porridge.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So physical size? That's even more disproportionate.

Its some mythical entity that some mantain exsist that binds some together and seperates them from others...

Wrong again.

What's the saying? Competition breeds excellence? Something like that.


Yes and I would rather be Tesco competing with ASDA and the other big brands than my corner shop down the road scraping by... there will still be competition, internally for products and externally with the big powers as a powerful entity than a small pawn on thier chess board.

We will not see the same competition, especially if the goal of internationalists is met. I've said it once, I'll say it again - if you've been a powerful entity once, you can be it again. You just need the political will. If you invest the same political will for European integration into national betterment, you will see huge improvements.


Yet you can remove many of the causes and divides and many people can be open minded.

This is wishful thinking. People will always find something. Next it will be money, and we'll have to redistribute all money from the rich to give the poor people an equal amount so that there is no divide that way and nobody gets left out.

Wait, that's been tried.


Remove nation aspect and you don't have nations fighting for superiority with one another, as exampled in the first and second world wars.

No, you have supernational entities fighting each other, or internal civil wars, etc. Where are the wars in North America? In Western Europe? We're doing OK as it is. What makes you think that we'll all be one big happy family under world government or supernational government? We won't.

You're also ignoring the other causes of the First and Second World Wars. It wasn't just about nationalism. It isn't as if the various countries or federal entities in the world aren't going to fight one another anyway. We'll always find something to kill. Call it a problem of human nature, but don't call it a problem of the nation, because it has existed long before that - and proportionately, on a similar scale.


Make people equal, promote an open culture.

All for being open to others. I just don't want you to force me into something that I don't want to be in. That's hardly very open to other points of view, is it?


Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture.

What?!?!?! Losing your culture is OK?

That attitude makes me hate internationalists. Culture is an amazing thing, having so many different cultures all around the world is so beautiful. The fact I can go to France and see one culture, and then drive to the Czech Republic and see another totally different one is the reason I love to travel. Why bother when everything is homogenized, with a standard "human" culture?

[LittleGrizzly]

That attitude makes me hate internationalists. Culture is an amazing thing, having so many different cultures all around the world is so beautiful. The fact I can go to France and see one culture, and then drive to the Czech Republic and see another totally different one is the reason I love to travel. Why bother when everything is homogenized, with a standard "human" culture?

Maybe Wales is some freaky different place but there slight changes in culture all over the place... North vs South is certainly different, then you get to England...n haven't even got the same national sport (as in no.1 sport) as Wales, don't do all this silly dress up stuff on st davids day and haven't got some stange obsession with leeks..

In conclusion being part of one goverment entity doesn't really effect culture all that much... so no worrys....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maybe Wales is some freaky different place but there slight changes in culture all over the place... North vs South is certainly different, then you get to England...n haven't even got the same national sport (as in no.1 sport) as Wales, don't do all this silly dress up stuff on st davids day and haven't got some stange obsession with leeks..

In conclusion being part of one goverment entity doesn't really effect culture all that much... so no worrys....

Sometimes you can keep your culture, sometimes you are assimilated. It depends on the situation and can happen either way, quickly or over a hundred years. That isn't what I was responding to though - I was responding to his assertion that losing your culture is OK.

[Beskar]

What?!?!?! Losing your culture is OK?

That attitude makes me hate internationalists. Culture is an amazing thing, having so many different cultures all around the world is so beautiful. The fact I can go to France and see one culture, and then drive to the Czech Republic and see another totally different one is the reason I love to travel. Why bother when everything is homogenized, with a standard "human" culture?

Funnily enough, I believe I said this.


Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture.

What would you lose? You would still have French with berets with stripy jumpers, you will still have Japanese eating sushi, you will still have Curry night on Thursdays. The whoile idea that internationalist agenda creates a bland and exact sameness everywhere is superficial. An open culture is open to all the facets of learning, experimentation and being open to others of different cultures. You can easily go to Japan and learn about the Shogunate's and that will never change, just like trying and adopting features like trying out curry. The whole openess doesn't actually remove anyway, it only adds.

Your arguments are just alarmist and superficial with no grounding in reality.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Funnily enough, I believe I said this.

No, you said that losing your own culture is fine and dandy as long as you replace it with a culture that accepts everything. If not, your wording was off and you may want to elaborate.


I mean, are all the nations in the EU identical in culture, and if it became a Federal State, why would they just suddenly become the same. Your arguments are just alarmist and superficial with no grounding in reality.

I didn't say that they would all become the same, but eventually it may well homogenize - if it isn't torn apart by the differences first.

[Furunculus]

It would be most effective if we all want to go forward to work together to achieve that goal.
the greatest net effect might well be achieved, but if it isn't your aims that are being implemented, what value that forward march?

No, he just wants status quo for the sake of it and dislikes change for the better.
is it for the better.......... for Britain?


Going forward is in everybody's interest, but how we proceed with that isn't. You're assuming that everyone has the same definition of going forward, or that it will work for every country. We've seen this in the prison thread - some things just don't work everywhere. Some don't work anywhere. A superstate is a bad move for Europe. It will be now, it will be after a hundred years of unification.

^ wot he said. ^


Its some mythical entity that some mantain exsist that binds some together and seperates them from others...

what is mythical about it? i have listed plenty of individual examples, none of which have been refuted. Louis has admitted to it, although he differs on its importance. and the political governance of france and germany certainly agree given their enthusiasm to keep turkey out of the EU because it does not fit into the desired cultural make-up of the EU.

Yet you can remove many of the causes and divides and many people can be open minded.
Remove nation aspect and you don't have nations fighting for superiority with one another, as exampled in the first and second world wars.
Make people equal, promote an open culture.

Contrary to what many believe, evils of losing a culture are mainly superficial when replaced by an open culture. Just because people over there eat curry opposed to sushi, doesn't mean have same legal/political framework is going to some how replace all the choices and lifestyles with porridge.
given that people have been arguing that the nation state is not a natural state, and in fact a relatively new entity, does that not invalidate any argument that ending nationalism will end warfare and bloodshed?

it is not a matter of good or evil, cultures survive or die, and they die because they no longer have the vibrancy to compete against the attraction of neighbouring cultures.


What would you lose? You would still have French with berets with stripy jumpers, you will still have Japanese eating sushi, you will still have Curry night on Thursdays. The whoile idea that internationalist agenda creates a bland and exact sameness everywhere is superficial. An open culture is open to all the facets of learning, experimentation and being open to others of different cultures. You can easily go to Japan and learn about the Shogunate's and that will never change, just like trying and adopting features like trying out curry. The whole openess doesn't actually remove anyway, it only adds.

i would lose a Britain that is tied to a grouping i do care about; the anglosphere.
> if we integrated politically with europe the technology sharing with the US would disappear, thus our nuclear deterrent would disappear, which would reduce the depth of our mutual political ties.
> if we integrated politically with europe the intelligence sharing with the US would disappear (and our relative intelligence advantage would disappear), which would reduce the depth of our mutual political ties.
> both of the above would also push us further away from Canada and Australia, with whom we also have mutli-lateral agreements in place with.
> the inward looking nature of the EU would also push us further away from the Commonwealth.

[Furunculus]

hannan is claiming (without sources) that the french and german government are 'encouraging' czech politicians to impeach their president, if true; hardly the act of friendly nations:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100013246/the-eu-turns-its-hideous-strength-against-vaclav-klaus/

[Louis VI the Fat]

hannan is claiming (without sources) that the french and german government are 'encouraging' czech politicians to impeach their president, if true; hardly the act of friendly nations:And Hannan, a MEP, is encouring the president to obstruct the will of the Czech parliament. Hardly the act of a friendly MEP with respect for the sovereignty of the Czech republic.

[Furunculus]

there i was thinking that hannan was encouraging Klaus not to cave into EU pressure by closing down a judicial review, sponsored by the czech parliamentarians, before it had reached its due conclusion. ;)

[LittleGrizzly]

what is mythical about it?

That it is shared throughout a country but different to other cultures and its what makes the country work (insert demos and kratos randomly around the post for effect)

Me and alot of younger people think similarly to Louis, have similar values... alot of older people think like you, have similar values... A French, British and German farmer have far more in common than thier factory workers from thier country...

[Furunculus]

so your saying this association of 'community' within the national culture is shared by some but not others.....................?

agreed, you're a case in point, as am i. i guess what matters is whether either side can claim a majority.

the answer to this dilemma might be a referendum, a referendum on the post-sovereign issue of the day; Britains place within the EU perhaps...............? i'd be happy to apply that experiment to the dilemma, would you?

[LittleGrizzly]

so your saying this association of 'community' within the national culture is shared by some but not others.....................?

agreed, you're a case in point, as am i.

Im glad you agree, Britian runs along smoothly dispite many different values and cultures throughout the land...

the answer to this dilemma might be a referendum, a referendum on the post-sovereign issue of the day; Britains place within the EU perhaps...............? i'd be happy to apply that experiment to the dilemma, would you?

Lol, nicely turned.

I have nothing paticular against referendums, its good to see the public get more of a say.... there is an element of the masses who really don't know what thier talking about (most people) being swayed this way or that. and theres an element of of we elect people to make the decisions for us... AFAIK its been no secret that Labour were going to agree to it without a referendum and they have won an election since... so its not as if people had no warning...

All that being said I would have been happier having a referendum, but as I understand from my reading of the political commentator Tribesman the point is moot as we cannot call one now anyway...

[Furunculus]

the answer to this dilemma might be a referendum, a referendum on the post-sovereign issue of the day; Britains place within the EU perhaps...............? i'd be happy to apply that experiment to the dilemma, would you?

Lol, nicely turned.

I have nothing paticular against referendums, its good to see the public get more of a say.... there is an element of the masses who really don't know what thier talking about (most people) being swayed this way or that. and theres an element of of we elect people to make the decisions for us... AFAIK its been no secret that Labour were going to agree to it without a referendum and they have won an election since... so its not as if people had no warning...

All that being said I would have been happier having a referendum, but as I understand from my reading of the political commentator Tribesman the point is moot as we cannot call one now anyway...
thanks, it is kind of obvious tho.

i do object to referendums, in all instances except where our governors intend to give away the Kratos, that we the Demos entrusted to them so that they may act in our name. and the fact that labour betrayed this trust by campaigning on a referndum and failing to use it is no doubt part of the peadophile level of pupularity they now enjoy.

i applaud the fact you have the courage of your convictions, however i think your confidence is misplaced, and that changes nothing from the fact that:
a) we can have a referendum on anything we like
b) we should have a referendum to ask whether the government acted with our permission when it handed over large tranches of governing authority to a third party, especially given that the agreement was to a self amending treaty which will prevent such inflection points, where the public demand to be asked, in future.

[Banquo's Ghost]

the answer to this dilemma might be a referendum, a referendum on the post-sovereign issue of the day; Britains place within the EU perhaps...............? i'd be happy to apply that experiment to the dilemma, would you?

Yes, indeed.

It's long past time that the British people got a proper say in their future - in or out of the EU. Sadly, I don't think there are any political parties that could explain the consequences either way, but I think all of Europe is tired of Britain being so negative, yet still wanting a place at the top table.

If EFTA status is what is really wanted, then so be it. It makes sense as long as the voters understand what this means for the pound and their economic influence. Similarly, if the voters want Britain to be part of the EU project, let it be an enthusiastic part, bringing some of the good sense of that country to bear on the development of a federal state based on subsidiarity and democracy.

[Furunculus]

couldn't agree more, europe should rightly be annoyed with all the griping and foot dragging from britain, but that fault can firmly be laid at the foot of successive governments that have failed to persuade their electorate by open and honest debate.

while i think federalism is unnecessary, i am happy to let europe get cracking with my blessing, if that's what they want.
what i am not happy with is the fact that we are being dragged along with them by default, because our political class is too spineless to put the case before its electorate.

[Banquo's Ghost]

couldn't agree more, europe should rightly be annoyed with all the griping and foot dragging from britain, but that fault can firmly be laid at the foot of successive governments that have failed to persuade their electorate by open and honest debate.

while i think federalism is unnecessary, i am happy to let europe get cracking with my blessing, if that's what they want.
what i am not happy with is the fact that we are being dragged along with them by default, because our political class is too spineless to put the case before its electorate.

And whilst I am greatly in favour of federalism, I agree with you absolutely. :bow:

Didn't the Liberal Democrats want to hold a referendum on this basis, even though they are pro-Europe?

[Furunculus]

And whilst I am greatly in favour of federalism, I agree with you absolutely. :bow:

Didn't the Liberal Democrats want to hold a referendum on this basis, even though they are pro-Europe?
we all have our faults. ;)

i believe they did because to my knowledge all three major parties campaigned on a referendum platform, however it is kind of irrelevant because they are never in with a hope of being in government. it is the same as their statements about giving up trident, it simply doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[Banquo's Ghost]

i believe they did because to my knowledge all three major parties campaigned on a referendum platform, however it is kind of irrelevant because they are never in with a hope of being in government. it is the same as their statements about giving up trident, it simply doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

I'd agree with you on Trident, but there is still a distinct possibility that they will be the power brokers in a hung parliament this time round.

It might suit one of the main parties to let a referendum go ahead with the LDs as the "scapegoat" should one of their coalition demands prove to be such a vote (along with PR, which is a desperate necessity for New Labour if they are not to disappear forever once Scotland leaves a Tory-run UK).

[Furunculus]

On that note this xenophobic and nationalistic racist with militaristic and autarkic tendancies, is going to spend the next five days enjoying Oktoberfest with his wingman in Berlin, paid for by some film company, and via an epic roadtrip across glorious europe.

Whilst he is doing this he will no doubt be building a hatred towards all foriegners, and planning to revive the empire so that fine upstanding whitey englishmen can properly supervise the peasant-like johnny-foreigner once again.

When I get back I expect to find either scintillating debate on how ECRG has collapsed, or deathly silence indicating that its motoring on quite successfully in obscurity.

Have fun.

[gaelic cowboy]

We've given in to the Irish too - no abortion for raped teenage girls, American corporations retain their favourable tax rates, and Ireland does not have to pick up its share of the tab for defense.

An Irish teenage girl who is raped is by definition allowed to travel to a country where abortion is allowed if she so wishes it's the law here we had a big court case over it.

In an economic union where Interest rates are set for the majority then the only way to run your economy is through your tax system.

Our troops are over in Chad cleaning up the mess French imperialism left behind it.

This Lisbon treaty is a bore its a load of rubbish I predict at the next enlargement an new treaty will be required again.

I voted for this tissue paper treaty with its verbal opt outs which have :daisy: basis in reality for one reason the C.A.P. I suspect I am the only person on the org who at the minute his daily life is impacted by it.

[Tribesman]

I voted for this tissue paper treaty with its verbal opt outs which have :daisy: basis in reality for one reason the C.A.P. I suspect I am the only person on the org who at the minute his daily life is impacted by it.

No offence, but you sound like one of those chaps that were on the news at the ploughing championships. "if we don't vote yes the cheques for farming will be stopped".
So what is your big fiddle ? sheep probably, I doubt its dairy , maybe you got into the really big fiddle with horses that has now come completely unstuck.

[gaelic cowboy]

No offence, but you sound like one of those chaps that were on the news at the ploughing championships. "if we don't vote yes the cheques for farming will be stopped".
So what is your big fiddle ? sheep probably, I doubt its dairy , maybe you got into the really big fiddle with horses that has now come completely unstuck.

None taken I have never been to the ploughing Championships and I aint in IFA those guys on the telly were idiots. I believe if you dont like the EU send the cheque back since we get subventions i aint voting for anything however remote may change that.

Beef is my fiddle.

On a positive note I just watched the Bull resign earlier on and it was lovely even if he is moving to a lovely feather bed of compensation for stepping down

[Tribesman]

Beef is my fiddle.

Ah I was expecting you to be after the headage for non existant flocks scattered all over Mayo.
So any nice grants for slatted sheds lately or has the tightening of rules put a stop to that?

[Strike For The South]

There are farm subsidies over there to?

I like to rag on the cotton farmers over here, good to know this thing is wroldwide!

[Tribesman]

There are farm subsidies over there to?

Of course, but the biggest fiddle recently (apart from subsidised fictional sheep) has been horses, everyone wanted to get on that dodge.
The result now is that lots of people are stuck with loads of horses they cannot sell (and that they cannot feed after another dismal summer wrecked the winter fodder again) .
Twice recently I have been offered very fine horses as part payment for work, (I didn't take them, but one of my cousins has ended up taking 7 already this year)

[gaelic cowboy]

Heard about that horse thing what a load of cobblers will people never learn quick there offering grants for sheds build some then later hey whats this shed for I dunnno but we got one:wall:

Good beef animals were using a grass based system all year round not putting animals in is healthier and they only eat about the same in hay and silage anyway.

Means less input in nuts however thay are not overly heavy animals so it works out the same just means stock is a small bit less for same money at the factory.

I think you will find the sheep thing is gone a good while Tribesman fictional sheep were being claimed for but the real problem was overstocking as evidenced by the massive collapse back in middle nineties of lamb prices.

A field of ducks at that time was worth more than ten fields of sheep:wall: our stock level was before that and got out completely when prices hit the wall. Likely will restock one day soon there good for keeping down noxious weed levels.

I am convinced the rise of part time farming allied with rural housing development and reduction of sheep numbers in the country gave rise to the explosion of ragwort. I am sick of having to deal with weeds that just blow in on the wind even more than they used too.

[Tribesman]

Yeah, the only problem with keeping them out all year is ground conditions and time. Its a lot easier to fill the feeders in the shed than driving cross muddy fields in the dark.
But hey don't knock the idiots wanting lots of sheds they won't use, I really cleaned up on that:2thumbsup:
As for ragwort...lazy useless ********* nowadays , its absolutely everywhere.

[Strike For The South]

Of course, but the biggest fiddle recently (apart from subsidised fictional sheep) has been horses, everyone wanted to get on that dodge.
The result now is that lots of people are stuck with loads of horses they cannot sell (and that they cannot feed after another dismal summer wrecked the winter fodder again) .
Twice recently I have been offered very fine horses as part payment for work, (I didn't take them, but one of my cousins has ended up taking 7 already this year)

What sort of back asswards socitey do you live in that horses are used as payment?

That's retarded.

[Tribesman]

What sort of back asswards socitey do you live in that horses are used as payment?

That's retarded.
Actually its good, the market is currently flooded, people who got into the market the past few years have debts they cannot maintain.
If someone offers an asset that used to be worth a fortune and will soon again be worth fortune to pay off a debt of a few grand then you are laughing, especially if the horse has a good line, training or record.
Taking someones horse as payment is no different from taking their car or land.
I prefer land or machinery myself because even though I like riding I am not really into racing that much.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah, the only problem with keeping them out all year is ground conditions and time. Its a lot easier to fill the feeders in the shed than driving cross muddy fields in the dark.
But hey don't knock the idiots wanting lots of sheds they won't use, I really cleaned up on that:2thumbsup:
As for ragwort...lazy useless ********* nowadays , its absolutely everywhere.

All true my galway friend were in a bit of a sweet spot locally for the farm but yes sometimes you do wonder if a slatted shed would be nicer

God Miriam is nice at twenty past one in the morning with a few pints on yethe real lisbon debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmOLQP9F_Vo)

[Furunculus]

[live from berlin] "back on topic people" :balloon2:

[Beskar]

I have to admit, we should really close this topic and open a new one just about the European Union, since it has been off-topic from "European Conservatives and Reformists Group springs into life " for 35 pages.

[Furunculus]

disagreed.

this is about the EU precisely because we are trying to define terms to describe how the ECR will make a difference in european politics (or not).

we need terms of reference to describe what the status quo has been up till now, then we shall be able to judge the impact (or not) of the ECR.

[Subotan]

Maybe we could just rename this to the "EU Thread".

[Furunculus]

the yanks are now getting their knickers in a twist over the Conservatives place in the ECR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6391838/Conservative-Party-facing-US-pressure-over-links-with-far-right-parties-in-Europe.html


Conservative Party facing US pressure over links with far-right parties in Europe
The Conservative Party is facing pressure from the Obama administration over its European policy and links with far-right parties from Latvia and Poland.

Published: 7:00AM BST 21 Oct 2009

William Hague, the Shadow Home Secretary, is to meet the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in Washington on Wednesday amid outrage from the American Jewish community about the alleged antisemitic and neo-Nazi views of the Tory's European allies.

There is also concern in the US that David Cameron's Euroscepticism could damage the influence a Conservative government would have over events in the EU.

According to The Guardian newspaper, Mrs Clinton is facing calls from influential Jewish groups to challenge the Conservative Party's decision to enter a European parliament coalition with a Latvian party, some of whose members attend memorials for Latvian units of Hitler's Waffen-SS, and a Polish politician who has questioned the need to apologise for an anti-Jewish pogrom during the second world war.

Mr Cameron has ordered the Tories to leave the mainstream European People's party and form a new Eurosceptic caucus, the European Conservatives and Reformists, with mainly east European rightwingers, including Michal Kaminski, of Poland's Law and Justice party, and Roberts Zile's Latvian party, For Fatherland and Freedom.

"I think Churchill would turn in his grave. It is an insult to the tradition of this great party," George Schwab, president of the New York-based National Committee on American Foreign Policy and a Holocaust survivor from Latvia, told The Guardian.

A Conservative Party spokesman said Mr Hague would discuss Afghanistan, the Middle East, Iran and the Balkans, during the meeting with Mrs Clinton.

The Obama administration wants the British Government, its closest ally in Europe, at the heart of policy-making on the continent alongside Germany and France.

An American official, asked about the consequences for the US and about the far-right links, said: "I do not see any upsides in the new grouping. I can only see downsides. In life it is normally best to do things when they have an upside."

gee, sounds like confirmation of my earlier statement that the US wants a strong federated partner, and wants the UK firmly on the inside to ensure that strong partner is both:
1) strong
2) anglophile
as a friend of america; "tough nuts!"

[Tribesman]

gee, sounds like confirmation of my earlier statement that ...the tories have joined a bunch of fruitcakes

[Louis VI the Fat]

the yanks are now getting their knickers in a twist over the Conservatives place in the ECR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6391838/Conservative-Party-facing-US-pressure-over-links-with-far-right-parties-in-Europe.html


gee, sounds like confirmation of my earlier statement that the US wants a strong federated partner, and wants the UK firmly on the inside to ensure that strong partner is both:
1) strong
2) anglophile
as a friend of america; "tough nuts!"Frankly, I do not think this is a confirmation of your earlier statements. Nor, indeed, of your very enthusiasm for the direction the Conservatives want to move Britain in, which is what this thread started about.

This is instead about America - to which you want to move Britain ever so closely - deploring the direction the British Conservatives have moved in. And worrying about the repercussions this will have for Anglo-American and Euro-American relations.


Edit: Ah, Tribes - now there's a man of efficient phrase. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

...the tories have joined a bunch of fruitcakes

:laugh4: Exactly.

[Subotan]

<3 Tribes

[Furunculus]

double post

[Furunculus]

oops triple post

[Furunculus]

even were i to accept that, which i do not, they would be fruitcakes pulling in the same direction as the Cons on europe, which is about the limit of my interest in elected euro MP's from the continent.

[Tribesman]

they would be fruitcakes pulling in the same direction as the Cons on europe
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
the fruitcakes can't even decide on who is pulling what in which direction.

[Furunculus]

"CONSCIOUS OF THE URGENT NEED TO REFORM THE EU ON THE BASIS OF EUROREALISM, OPENNESS, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY, IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR NATIONS AND CONCENTRATES ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY, GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS, THE EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVES AND REFORMISTS GROUP SHARES THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:

1. Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity.
2. Freedom of the individual, more personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability.
3. Sustainable, clean energy supply with an emphasis on energy security.
4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.
5. The sovereign integrity of the nation state, opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity.
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures.
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."

this is at least a political platform i can respect from within the EU parliament, it has yet to be demonstrated that they can achieve anything in this direction, but it is at least right-wing and anti-federal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

it has yet to be demonstrated that they can achieve anything in this direction, but it is at least right-wing and anti-federal....and anti-healthy Transatlantic relations.

The Conservatives can pretend to their electorate that their unfortunate change of policy is really cool, what with taking a though stance against an EU that seeks to undermine Britain's sovereignity.

But now not only Britain's European partners, but the Americans too, are starting to worry that the Tories will weaken British influence. Weaken it in Europe, and in Washington.


You have two recurring themes, Furunculus, of where you want to take Britain: less EU, and more pro-American. It would seem that the two are increasingly at odds, owing to the unfortunate change of course of the Tories.
That is what this is about. About American unease over the Tories and this new alliance of the weird, the bizarre, and the British Conservatives. Washington, in order to maintain the special relationship with the UK, would prefer the Tories to be mature towards Europe. The Conservatives are not the UKIP, they have no business with these parties and sentiments.



There is growing unease in the White House that David Cameron's Euroscepticism could undermine the ability of a Conservative government to influence events in the EU, threatening to weaken Britain in the eyes of the US. Clinton, while anxious not be seen to be interfering in a domestic election, has discussed the issue informally in Europe.
[...]
"I think Churchill would turn in his grave. It is an insult to the tradition of this great party"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/tories-eu-allies-us-pressure

An American official, asked about the consequences for the US and about the far-right links, said: "I do not see any upsides in the new grouping. I can only see downsides. In life it is normally best to do things when they have an upside."

Louis Susman, the US ambassador in London, in an interview with the Financial Times, issued what could be interpreted as a warning to the Conservatives not to try to disrupt Europe.

European diplomats said Clinton believed it would be unwise to try to overturn the Lisbon treaty in the unlikely event that it has not been ratified by the time the Tories come to power. She is also understood to believe that it would also be unwise for a Tory government to try to undo earlier EU treaties.

"Hillary Clinton is concerned that the Tories would not take a lead in Europe," one European diplomatic source said. "It is clear that this US administration does not believe that Britain's relations with Europe and the EU are a zero sum game – the wrong-headed idea that if you are close to one you can't be close to the other. The US wants Britain to be fully engaged in the EU – that makes Britain more relevant in US eyes."That's what Washington is thinking. Pretty close to my position: strenghten Britain, strenghten the EU, cherish the Special Relationship between the UK and the US, and strengthen Transatlantic ties.

So much better for everybody, in Europe, in the UK, and in America, than this immature posturing of the Conservatives. They shouldn't pander to populist sentiment. They should prepare themselves to lead Britain instead.

[Subotan]

So much better for everybody, in Europe, in the UK, and in America, than this immature posturing of the Conservatives. They shouldn't pander to populist sentiment. They should prepare themselves to lead Britain instead.

It's hardly likely you'd get legions of hardcore Tories defecting to UKIP in a General Election. Cameron has the political capital to just ignore the Eurosceptic wing of his party; it's not an issue we, the electorate, care about. Having the capital doesn't mean you have the balls though :no:

[Tribesman]

4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.

That just shouts that the whole of the group is going to be caught having a gay orgy at their next meeting.


10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."
Does that mean a muppet like Kaminski will have to stop ranting about everyone who just happens to not be Polish?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

:laugh4: Exactly.

Well, so has every other party, including your socialist comrades forming the farthest left-wing grouping in the Parliament. Though to be honest that group consists entirely of fruitcakes...


I like that "populism" is so easily dismissed as a bad thing by so many of the crowd here in Europe especially. Populism, by definition, represents the needs and wants of the ordinary people. Whether I agree with those needs or not is irrelevant, because is that not an important basis for democracy?

[Beskar]

Well, so has every other party, including your socialist comrades forming the farthest left-wing grouping in the Parliament. Though to be honest that group consists entirely of fruitcakes...

Do you know who I voted for in the last election? They actually got 63 seats in the house of commons.

Edit: I hate this forum, it chopped up a massive reply I wrote about the rest of your message. :wall: I can't be bothered writing it again, so in short "Political questions presented to the politics are frauds", I did have the evidence and proof, but I am not rewriting. Also pointed to the figures that 5% of those presented were actually informed enough to be answer to answer properly, and 2% of those were well-read and know all the details. They are also leading questions and full of fallacies and complete joke questions like "Are you a racist?" in a live-interview situation.

[Subotan]

I thought populism was more generally defined as "mob rule", when politicians are elected on issues which resonate with the plebians, usually with disastrous results.

[Furunculus]

...and anti-healthy Transatlantic relations.
The Conservatives can pretend to their electorate that their unfortunate change of policy is really cool, what with taking a though stance against an EU that seeks to undermine Britain's sovereignity.
But now not only Britain's European partners, but the Americans too, are starting to worry that the Tories will weaken British influence. Weaken it in Europe, and in Washington.:oops:

You have two recurring themes, Furunculus, of where you want to take Britain: less EU, and more pro-American. It would seem that the two are increasingly at odds, owing to the unfortunate change of course of the Tories.
That is what this is about. About American unease over the Tories and this new alliance of the weird, the bizarre, and the British Conservatives. Washington, in order to maintain the special relationship with the UK, would prefer the Tories to be mature towards Europe. The Conservatives are not the UKIP, they have no business with these parties and sentiments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/tories-eu-allies-us-pressure
That's what Washington is thinking. Pretty close to my position: strenghten Britain, strenghten the EU, cherish the Special Relationship between the UK and the US, and strengthen Transatlantic ties.

So much better for everybody, in Europe, in the UK, and in America, than this immature posturing of the Conservatives. They shouldn't pander to populist sentiment. They should prepare themselves to lead Britain instead.
So you're telling me that america wants us in the heart of federal europe. Is that because:
a) They want a partner in the 21st century
b) They want that partner to be as anglophile as possible
Tell me something i don't know!

No, what i'm telling you is that a Britain of shrinking importance is feeling increasingly like it must choose a side rather tha straddle the divide, i disagree, but if a side must be chosen then i would prefer we chose the anglosphere rather than europe.
This does not mean that i refuse to recognise that the US wishes to leverage the UK for US strategic benefit by anglo-cising a potential partner for the future (read: federal EU), but why does that matter? i don't feel jilted or betrayed, politics is about interests, and i seek to ally Britain to power blocs that are:
a) powerful
b) as closely aligned with our own interests as possible
So the fact that we don't wish to infiltrate and subvert the EU is something Washington will have to live with.

No, it is called representative democracy, they are representing the wish of the electorate in holding a platform that opposes further federal integration.

It's hardly likely you'd get legions of hardcore Tories defecting to UKIP in a General Election. Cameron has the political capital to just ignore the Eurosceptic wing of his party;

it's not an issue we, the electorate, care about. Having the capital doesn't mean you have the balls though :no:
lol, what parallel universe do you live in?
the expenses scandal was an event that broke the stranglehold of the 2.5 party system, voter contempt (if it persists) for a political class that doesn't represent their interests could see a general election where no party can form a majority government without a coalition of minor parties.

roflmao, not an issue voters are interested in, dissatisfaction at the lack of the promised referendum is about the one issue that every voter agrees with.

"4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society."
That just shouts that the whole of the group is going to be caught having a gay orgy at their next meeting.

"10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."
Does that mean a muppet like Kaminski will have to stop ranting about everyone who just happens to not be Polish?
thanks for the useless non-contribution, no really.

well lets see, it might mean something like not having france making public statements about how poland missed a historic opportunity to shut up, or something similar.

I thought populism was more generally defined as "mob rule",

when politicians are elected on issues which resonate with the plebians, usually with disastrous results.
in the context of British parliament it is the byword for politicians who do what the voter wants rather than pursue there own agenda, created by the same people who are stunned when people vote en-masse for the BNP and UKIP because of trifling issues such as immigration and the EU.

good job we have all those technocrats who are willing to lead a dull electorate down the correct path in life, eh?

[Tribesman]

thanks for the useless non-contribution, no really.

They are valid statements , just because you don't like criticism of the fruitcakes you support it doesn't make that criticism useless.

well lets see, it might mean something like not having france making public statements about how poland missed a historic opportunity to shut up, or something similar.

It was a historic oppertunity , for fruitcakes to shut up their revisionist crap and nationalist nonsense so they didn't look quite so crazy and might get taken more seriously.

[Subotan]

lol, what parallel universe do you live in?
The one where Europe features about 10th on the scale of importance in elections.

the expenses scandal was an event that broke the stranglehold of the 2.5 party system, voter contempt (if it persists) for a political class that doesn't represent their interests could see a general election where no party can form a majority government without a coalition of minor parties.

So electing Esther Rantzen and having a few more UKIP MEP's is "Breaking the stranglehold of the 2.5 Party system"? Under a PR system, that might be true, but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem.


in the context of British parliament it is the byword for politicians who do what the voter wants rather than pursue there own agenda, created by the same people who are stunned when people vote en-masse for the BNP and UKIP because of trifling issues such as immigration and the EU.

So, essentially what I just said.

[Furunculus]

They are valid statements , just because you don't like criticism of the fruitcakes you support it doesn't make that criticism useless.

It was a historic oppertunity , for fruitcakes to shut up their revisionist crap and nationalist nonsense so they didn't look quite so crazy and might get taken more seriously.
i'm fine with criticism as long as its evenly applied: *
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/labour-europe-kaminski-poland?showallcomments=true

oh, i thought it was an excellent way to alienate the nations of new europe by telling them to keep quiet when their superiors have already made their opinion clear............

*

Labour's unsavoury Euro friends
Before complaining too loudly about Michal Kaminski, Labour should look at its own dubious connections in Europe

Harry Phibbs
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 October 2009 17.30 BST

"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" asks St Matthew. A very good question for our foreign secretary David Miliband. He has been busy denouncing the British Conservatives for forming an alliance in the European parliament with Latvian, Czech, Polish and other Euro MPs who share the Tories' sceptical outlook rather more than their erstwhile Christian Democrat allies.
Miliband claims that the new allies from the east have some unsavoury extremist connections. The accusation against the Latvian Fatherland and Freedom party, that they "celebrate Waffen SS veterans", has rather run out of steam. They attend an annual commemoration of all Latvia's war victims, an official remembrance day attended by every non-Russian political party in Latvia.

Rather more effort has gone into denouncing Michal Kaminski, the Polish MEP from the Law and Justice party who is leader of the new group. There has been some effort to brand him homophobic. This is because he used the term pedaly, a slang term for homosexuals that is, or at any rate was when he used it in 2000, in common usage including among Polish politicians. There is some dispute over whether it is equivalent to saying "fags" or "queers" or something rather less derogatory, but Kaminiski has agreed not to use the term in future as he does not wish to give offence. By the way, I used to sometimes use the term "Polacks", under the impression it was equivalent to "Aussies" or "Kiwis". When I was gently told that Polack was an offensive term I stopped using it. Kaminski says he is proud that Poland was the first European country to decriminalise homosexuality, in 1928, that he has gay friends and that he has "nothing against" civil partnerships.
But the main thrust has been to accuse him of antisemitism. This has been based on two pieces of evidence. First, that he opposed an apology on behalf of the Polish people for the massacre of Jews by Poles as well as Germans which took place at Jedwabne. But this opposition was based on his view that those individuals involved in the massacre were guilty, rather than it being a matter of collective guilt. He regards the massacre as shameful.

Second, when Kaminski was 14 years old, a time when there was no open opposition, he joined the first anti-communist group he came across, the National Revival of Poland (NOP). This subsequently became an antisemitic party, but he had left by the age of 17. So this involvement doesn't even prove that was an antisemitic teenager, let alone that he is antisemitic now.
Still, it would have been better if Kaminski hadn't joined NOP, if he hadn't used the word pedaly. These were misjudgments. But what about the beam in Miliband's eye? A look at the lineup of MEPs in the socialist group of the European parliament shows that they are mad, bad and dangerous to know. There's Romania's Social Democratic party, whose members include Radu Mazare, the mayor of Constanta, who dressed up as a Nazi at a fashion show, and was strongly criticised by Jewish groups as a result. From Ireland we have in the socialist group (having defected from the communist group) Proinsias De Rossa (born Francis Ross), a former member of the IRA. He says he "can't remember" whether or not he wrote to the Soviets asking for money. He'll forget his own name next.

Then, since the Labour party is so interested in Polish MEPs, it might care to explain why, in December 2004, it welcomed into its ranks two MEPs from the Self Defence of the Republic party, Bogdan Golik and Wieslaw Kuc, although Kuc left, leaving Golik behind. This party is led by Andrzej Lepper, recipient of two honorary degrees from the antisemitic Interregional Academy of Personnel Management – an outfit that counts the American white supremacist David Duke as an honorary professor. Lepper has multiple convictions for assault and his party anthem once featured the line "this land is your land, this land is my land [and] we won't let anyone punch us in the face".
Before June, also sitting in the socialist group was a former communist Italian MEP called Giulietto Chiesa, whose main concern was promoting his 9/11 conspiracy theory that it was all a put-up job by the Americans. Thankfully, the Polish Self Defence party was wiped out in the European elections and Chiesa, who went to stand in Latvia, also lost his seat. This is to the credit of the Polish and Latvian electorates – but no thanks to the Socialist MEPs, who were happy to shelter them in their ranks.

Nor do they show much sign of having changed. They continue to sit alongside the Slovak Social Democrats (SMER), who share power with the neo-Nazi Slovak National party, which is open in its admiration for Jozef Tiso, the wartime ruler of fascist Slovakia. It is as if Labour councillors had entered a coalition with the BNP.

What of the Bulgarian Socialist party, who Labour MEPs also snuggle up to? Its leader, Sergei Stanishev, condemned Bulgaria's first gay pride march, declaring his disapproval of "the manifestations and demonstrations of such orientations". Many of the eastern European parties have their roots in the communist dictatorships of the old Warsaw Pact. The Hungarian Socialist party, the successor to the Hungarian communists, is led by Ferenc Gyurcsány. He was chief of staff for his predecessor Péter Medgyessy, who was once a communist counterespionage officer under the code name D-209.

There is nothing particularly new about the European parliament being stuffed with weirdos. It's not just the socialists, of course. The Christian Democrat grouping, the EPP, that the Tories have ditched, include Mussolini's heirs in the National Alliance – now absorbed into Berlusconi's People of Freedom party. The Lib Dems have got some oddballs in their group. What all this mudslinging at the Tories comes down to is that the European establishment dislike the prospect of a mainstream, respectable Eurosceptic grouping emerging. The double standards involved in making the attacks are quite staggering.

[Tribesman]

Wow this means you ended up where you started off anfd are now reposting stuff that was already rubbished 25 pages ago.
Full circle.
So

I think the Polish members are those dreadful Kaczyński twins again.
I think the Belgian members are far-right
I think the Latvians are dangerously close to fascism
I think the Dutch are reactionary homophobes

The others seem to be run-of-the-mill rural, conservative, somewhat alarmist but mainstream parties.

Family, God and Fatherland seems to be what they all have in common. Best of luck to the British Conservatives. Remember: in the end, the only thing national parties have in common, is incompatible national narratives and interests. Pan-national national parties don't tend to last very long.





It's what I predicted before the election. Just when they need the EU to counter a major economic crisis, the British are sending more Europhobes to Brussels in an attempt to sideline themselves. The new formation is going to be just another anti-tax party in disguise, and it is going to last just as long as all the others.

Mainstream my foot.

EDIT
'Racist flat earthers' made me laugh. Sorry Furunculus, the Daily Torygraph isn't very convincing.
__________________



Said perfectly without me having to lift a finger to write my own.

[Furunculus]

The one where Europe features about 10th on the scale of importance in elections.

So electing Esther Rantzen and having a few more UKIP MEP's is "Breaking the stranglehold of the 2.5 Party system"? Under a PR system, that might be true, but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem.

So, essentially what I just said.
this tells me otherwise:
http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_pollwatch.html

i beg to differ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm
Conservative 4,198,394 27.7%
UK Independence Party 2,498,226 16.5%
Labour 2,381,760 15.7%
Liberal Democrats 2,080,613 13.7%
Green Party 1,303,745 8.6%
British National Party 943,598 6.2%
With dissatisfaction with labour so high, those lost votes should have gone to tory's and lib-dems, instead the fringes of british politics got a massive boost over and above anything seen previously.
We are still a 2.5 party system, what the euro elections results in effect said was that this assumed truth is in danger of becoming a fallacy if voter contempt for the political class doesn't improve.

perhaps, the only difference is that i happen to think representative governance is a good thing, whereas you appear deeply ambivalent to it............
a remarkably similar view to the sentiments from Beskar supporting 'benign authoritarianism' to help the foolish proles choose the correct path:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2270642&postcount=181

[Furunculus]

Wow this means you ended up where you started off anfd are now reposting stuff that was already rubbished 25 pages ago.
Full circle.
So
i really don't see of what great consequence this post is supposed to herald...........?

ECR MEP's are a little exotic.
EPP MEP's are a little exotic.
S&D MEP's are a little exotic.

it least i'm consistant in not wanting a federal union with people i consider too 'exotic'.

[Beskar]

Though it isn't "benign authoritarianism", there are clear differences. At the moment, the public could be argued are purposely made unaware of the real issues. According to the governments body involving in handling questionaires and gauging public opinion, in their own estimates, 5% are able to actually give a proper opinion, with 2% of those being well-read and fully understanding the issues.

Now read the above with my statement:
unfortunate fact that the average man doesn't know what is good for him, as they aren't taught or made to understand things. Simple education providing key skills such as critical thinking and how to research/come up with valid conclusions by itself will make the common man know what is good for them

I am clearly saying the public should be actually taught, for the government and media to actually give all the issues and discuss the various points of view, in "Question Time" manner and in unbiased manners. Then people are able to understand the issues, able to give solid opinions, able to make the right choices.

You seem to think that is authoritarianism. I call that educating the public to give us an informed and knowledgeable voting base.

[Beskar]

but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem.

No it doesn't.

[Furunculus]

if you were misunderstood, my apologies.

[Subotan]

i beg to differ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm
Conservative 4,198,394 27.7%
UK Independence Party 2,498,226 16.5%
Labour 2,381,760 15.7%
Liberal Democrats 2,080,613 13.7%
Green Party 1,303,745 8.6%
British National Party 943,598 6.2%
With dissatisfaction with labour so high, those lost votes should have gone to tory's and lib-dems, instead the fringes of british politics got a massive boost over and above anything seen previously.
We are still a 2.5 party system, what the euro elections results said is that fact is in danger if voter contempt for the political class doesn't improve.

Ok fair enough, I accept that there is disdain for many politicians at the moment (Although voting UKIP because of anger with corruption is laughable). But that won't translate into support for UKIP at a general election.



perhaps, the only difference is that i happen to think representative governance is a good thing, whereas you appear deeply ambivalent to it............
a remarkably similar view to the sentiments from Beskar supporting 'benign authoritarianism' to help the foolish proles choose the correct path:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2270642&postcount=181
That's not my opinion at all. What I oppose is politicians manipulating ignorance and a lack of understanding, because they're either too weak or stupid to have any real qualities, in order to gain political power. That's my understanding of populism, and were the public properly educated about the EU, and they decided they didn't like it, I would be upset, but I would not oppose it.


this tells me otherwise:
http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_pollwatch.html

Sure, those say that people oppose the EU, but when it comes to the crunch, issues such as the economy, NHS, education etc. will always trump the EU Card. I remember reading the statistic I produced on the BBC, but I can't find it...:sweatdrop:

[Beskar]

if you were misunderstood, my apologies.

I wouldn't call producing an educated public who are able to discuss and vote on issues in an intelligent matter (As they know the facts, etc) a form of authoritarianism.

However, just thinking now, you probably thought I was saying "Make the choices for the public since they are uneducated". Which would be authoritarian. If you thought that, I wasn't meaning that. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on the point.

[Furunculus]

I wouldn't call producing an educated public who are able to discuss and vote on issues in an intelligent matter (As they know the facts, etc) a form of authoritarianism.

However, just thinking now, you probably thought I was saying "Make the choices for the public since they are uneducated". Which would be authoritarian. If you thought that, I wasn't meaning that. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on the point.
fair enough, it would seem that several of us were mistaken.

for my part, my apologies.

[Subotan]

but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem. No it doesn't.

It practically does, and you know it.

[Tribesman]

i really don't see of what great consequence this post is supposed to herald...........?

I know you don't, which is why it is so funny.