World Politics - Europe [Archive] - Page 4

Furunculus

10-27-2009, 14:39

have national interests trumped all in germany too?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,657601,00.html

Is he capable of becoming a strong man in Brussels? Merkel is most likely hoping for the opposite. She doesn't want a strong commissioner, because she doesn't want anything from the European Commission. In her view, it should stay out of the big political decisions. The chancellor, together with the leaders of the other big powers in the EU, has long been attempting to steer the power in the European Union away from the Commission and toward the European Council. That is where the leaders of the 27 member states make the decisions, in particular the big leaders: Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In this light, Merkel's decision on the future German commissioner is far from "political madness," as it was described by Rebecca Harms, the Greens floor leader in the European Parliament. National interests have priority at the moment. Merkel has long recognized that it is laborious to attempt to reach European solutions and it often yields poor results. And she believes that she is best placed to represent Berlin's interests in Europe -- by that she means the interests of her government, her party, and herself.

and france too for that matter...........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6440754/Will-Tony-Blair-become-the-first-President-of-Europe.html

But that was the pragmatic President Sarkozy, a man keen to raise France's profile by having a President who would improve the EU's global credibility. In his weaker moments, however, wrapped in his emperor's clothes, he might not like the idea that President Obama telephones President Blair before President Sarkozy.

It's why some EU diplomats suspect he might have changed his mind about his old friend who failed to take Britain into the single currency and divided Europe over the Iraq war. "Can Sarkozy be trusted? Will he switch and swing behind Germany at the final hour," said one diplomat with experience of Paris putting the Franco-German alliance first.

yet more evidence of the era of chairman euro-pygmy:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,657606,00.html
Wheeling and Dealing Ahead of the Summit
Will National Interests Derail Europe's Fresh Start?

With the Libson Treaty approaching ratification, the EU needs dynamic and clever people to fill the roles of Council president and foreign minister. However, the old habits of tactical maneuvering by the national leaders risk jeopardizing what should be a fresh start for the EU.
The scene: a private room in Vienna's Café Sacher, where two men are deep in conversation. "I would prefer a woman," a grumbling José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, pleads with the other man at the table. But he won't be persuaded.
He will be sending a man to Brussels, insists Josef Pröll, Austria's vice chancellor and chairman of the Austrian People's Party. He, and not his coalition partner, Social Democratic Chancellor Werner Faymann, is entitled to nominate the next Austrian EU Commissioner, says Pröll, and he has decided that it will be Wilhelm Molterer, his predecessor as vice chancellor and finance minister.
Pröll says that he is strongly opposed to Faymann's idea (which is backed by Barroso) of extending the term of the current Austrian commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

Barroso repeats that he has an obligation to ensure "gender proportionality" on his commission. Then the men switch subjects. Barroso wants to know how Austria feels about former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Will Vienna support his bid for the new high-profile position of EU president? No, says Pröll, he will most certainly not be voting for Blair. This is music to Barroso's ears.

A few days later, Belgium Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy asks Austrian Chancellor Faymann the same question. He too is assured that the Alpine republic will join forces with Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands to prevent Blair from becoming "Mr. Europe." But the question of who else could do the job is left unanswered. A few names are mentioned -- and are promptly discarded.
The European bazaar is open for business once again. Hushed conversations not unlike the one between Barroso and Pröll in the Viennese café are now taking place right across Europe. In government offices in Stockholm, over dinner at Downing Street in London, in the small study of Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and in the splendid quarters of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Europe's political leaders are discussing the top posts to be filled at EU headquarters in Brussels:

* A new commission has to be appointed with each 27 member state nominating one commissioner.
* A High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy will bundle together the previously scattered powers and, as a quasi foreign minister, become the head of the EU's new diplomatic service, an organization encompassing up to 8,000 positions.
* A President of the European Council will finally lend a face to the EU's key decision-making body. He or she will chair the summit meetings of the member states for a term of up to five years. Until now, the presidency has rotated from country to country every six months, so that hardly anyone knows who happens to be speaking on behalf of Europe at any given time.

Is Europe Waking Up?
It took almost 10 years to gain acceptance for the idea of a European foreign minister and a Council President to serve as the key representatives of a new, bigger and more political union. Ten years, in which Europe's politicians had to respond to the skepticism of their citizens, who saw the non-transparent Brussels Eurocracy as a Moloch that was steadily acquiring more power. The necessary restructuring of the institutions was supposed to make the EU "more democratic, transparent and effective." But the French and the Dutch voted down the original constitution, while the Irish initially rejected its pared-down version, the Lisbon Treaty. It was only through a large number of special provisions and exceptions that the treaty could eventually be made more palatable for European citizens.
Will the eagerly awaited new beginning now succeed? Will the continent, with its half a billion inhabitants, acquire more influence on the global stage once again? Is Europe finally waking up?

Europe must now become "one of the most important players of the 21st century," says Sarkozy, noting that the continent should "make history instead of tolerating it." Jean-Dominique Giuliani, chairman of the pro-Europe Robert Schuman Foundation, wants to see a "jolt" pass through Europe. The EU must finally "break away from the state of rigidity" brought on by the years-long conflict over the treaty, says Giuliani.
Doers, problem-solvers and the best minds ought to be in demand right about now. But those are precisely the kinds of people that Europe's powerful heads of state and government are not interested in.
Whenever a crisis erupted at the EU's doorstep in recent years -- such as the five-day war between Russia and Georgia --, it was the ambitious national leaders who managed to distinguish themselves as crisis managers. Brussels was left with the role of participant at best.

Same Old Pattern
Will that change now? Probably not. The same forces that have already been partly responsible for crippling the union now threatened to thwart this new beginning. The tactical finessing by national leaders is standing in the way of a strong Europe. A good example is the search for new top personnel, in which the key positions in this beautiful new EU world are being negotiated according to the same old pattern: Support my candidate and I'll help yours, and together we will slaughter the competition.
Dangerously clever, overly courageous or even popular candidates are usually the first to be weeded out. The leaders of the large member states, in particular, have no interest in potential competition in Brussels. They want to see people there who are like Barroso -- bland, mediocre, devoid of vision and, therefore, compliant.

The former Portuguese prime minister was initially hoisted into his position because the British were trying to stop the then Belgian Prime Minister and enthusiastic Europhile Guy Verhofstadt. German Chancellor Angela Merkel then backed Barroso for a second term and he would never have suceeded without her support. Now Merkel can now expect payback, for example, in the form of her protégé giving his blessing to Germany's plans for Opel, possibly even in the face of objections from his competition commissioner.

The chancellor is also playing an important role in the process of filling the new top jobs. Recently her presence has been required in Berlin where she has been shaping her new coalition government. As she has had little time for travel, she has been using her mobile phone more than usual to remain in constant touch with her European counterparts. According to one of them, she calls "several times a week, sometimes even several times a day."
There is a lot to talk about. After all there is a long list of names being discussed for the Council presidency. Besides Blair, other politicians interested in chairing the future EU summits include Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales, former Irish President Mary Robinson and Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker.

Applicants are also lining up for the position of High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband is one of the early favorites. According to Brussels diplomats, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and Olli Rehn, the Finnish EU commissioner for enlargement, are "extremely interested." Meanwhile, envoys from Paris are sounding the waters to determine whether Sarkozy's chief diplomat, Bernard Kouchner, or his predecessor, Michel Barnier, would encounter resistance.
Ironically, the candidates from Paris could actually fail because of their own president. Sarkozy wants to fill an important economic post in the next commission with one of his own, and even France is not entitled to two slots on the commission.

Final Decisions in December
An initial discussion of possible candidates is expected to take place at the end of the week, during the next summit meeting of EU heads of state and government in Brussels on Oct. 29-30. It should then become clearer who is a possibility, and who is not an option at all. The final decisions will be announced at the December summit meeting, at which point the Lisbon Treaty will most likely be in force.
Several, mostly smaller countries have already agreed that Blair is not an option. They argue that he split Europe into two camps in the run-up to the Iraq War. And a politician is "not particularly big," says one Blair opponent, "just because he failed in a particularly big way."
There is also open resistance to Blair within the European Parliament. Several key MEPs representing Chancellor Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the parliament have signed an "anti-Blair petition" -- something they are hardly likely to have done without checking with their party leadership first.

If the former British prime minister is eliminated as a candidate for the Council presidency the chances of Miliband, Blair's fellow Briton and member of the Labour Party, becoming the first EU foreign minister will undoubtedly rise. However, a British EU foreign minister would require a regional and political counterweight in the top job. In that case, someone from a small country, a member of the Schengen Agreement and the euro-zone, would be in greater demand -- someone like Luxembourg Prime Minister Juncker.
Miliband and Juncker as a team would not be half bad. But experience with Brussels logic teaches us that the end result will probably be something completely different.
representative democracy at its finest, eh?

Louis VI the Fat

10-27-2009, 20:31

You're linking to today's newspaper articles that need a lot of words to say what I told you yesterday already. Should've run to that betting office. :beam:

The EU is not a representative democracy. I wish it was, but the sceptics prevent it. (Loss of sovereignity and all that). So don't complain it isn't. It is me who should complain to you that it isn't. :whip:

Lemur

10-27-2009, 21:01

Furunculus, my man, get hip with the [ex] tag when you're quoting big hunks of text. Your readers will thank you.

Furunculus

10-27-2009, 21:47

louis - good call, i'm providing evidence for your glorious predicition, live it up to the max.
but i don't want it to be a representative democracy, i don't want it to play any significant part in the governance of the people of europe.
the fact that it is an unrepresentative democracy is both of our faults, because we have conflicting aims.
the federal side cannot admit what its up to, because too many people are opposed .'. powers are granted by stealth and thus unrepresentative
the soveriegn side conpounds the problem by preventing progress that would make the granted powers more representative.

do we need a two speed europe?

lemur - roger that, live and learn. :2thumbsup:

Banquo's Ghost

10-28-2009, 08:46

There's a hilarious skit by Mark Steel (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-come-out-again-1810455.html) today on Blair's bid for the presidency.

This is someone who made himself one of the most despised people in Europe, so loathed that Britain came bottom of the Eurovision Song Contest because of an orchestrated protest. So that's the ideal President of a continent, the person who had even the judges in a music contest saying "Hello – Lithuania here, ooh what a splendid night and hard to choose between so many dreadful tunes, the only easy part is giving nought to the warmongering running dogs of poodle-boy Blair's blood-soaked United Kingdom."

....

So can you imagine the feverish dealing and smearing Blair's team will be organising against Luxembourg, with rumours being spread that they're building missiles that could reach the edge of Luxembourg, and issuing hypnotic stamps.

:laugh4:

Furunculus

10-28-2009, 10:03

on the other hand, ditching blair as the front-runner for president may well be justified in the murkey backroom horse-trading by giving britian the high representative position.

not that i have any liking for miliband, but i like the result for three reasons:
1) foriegn policy is THE most important government duty, so an EU foriegn policy may as well have at least a notionally British flavour to it.
2) it clears the way for a EUro-pygmy to be installed as president, who will then be promtly ignored by the US and China.
3) milliband doesn't have enough 'bottom' to be taken seriously as high representative by his EU counterparts, so he waon't be able to aggrandise the position.

If we ignore the fact that Lisbon is itself a lose-lose position in my opinion, this would be a win-win insomuch as getting the best result from a travesty.

Beskar

10-28-2009, 10:46

I think it should go to Miliband as well, or probably Nick Clegg. He is the liberal democrat leader so no one would take him seriously as a president, however, he could probably do a lot of good policy wise.

Furunculus

10-28-2009, 14:35

here we have an explanation as to why france and germany are keen on an anti-blair EUro-pygmy, they wish to re-invigorate the franco-german alliance as the engine of europe:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14704609&source=most_commented

Future dreaming
Oct 22nd 2009 | BERLIN AND PARIS
From The Economist print edition
French hopes for new Franco-German leadership in Europe may yet founder on disagreements about policies and priorities

TO MOST people, the prospect of an end to the European Union’s institutional navel-gazing is welcome. Once the Czech holdouts ratify the Lisbon treaty, goes the line, there should be no new grand schemes. Yet this is not how things are seen in France. Indeed, the French have been laying the ground for their next big idea: a deepening of the Franco-German axis to entrench their dual leadership and make Europe “one of the principal players of the 21st century”.
In a speech to his ambassadors in August, President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that he wanted “Europe once again to make history instead of enduring it”. His model was “Franco-German understanding” built on his friendship with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. His Europe minister, Pierre Lellouche, is zealously spreading the message. “More than ever, the relationship between France and Germany will form the heart of what I would call the third phase of post-war European history,” he recently wrote in Le Monde.

The French are not suggesting a new EU treaty, but they have plenty of other wheezes. The celebration with Germany of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall next month may make up for François Mitterrand’s lack of support for German unification. The French want a joint commemoration of Armistice Day on November 11th. There is talk of marking the 50th anniversary in 2013 of the Elysée treaty on Franco-German co-operation.
Plenty of policy ideas are being kicked around as well. The French want to persuade the Germans to back a new industrial strategy to promote European champions, a common investment in clean technology, a European plan for energy independence, greater tax co-ordination and more. They see common ground in opposition to Turkish membership of the EU, as well as reform of laissez-faire capitalism. There is talk of a joint Franco-German government minister. Mr Lellouche has asked his team to prepare “a new Franco-German agenda for Europe”, ahead of a joint cabinet meeting before the end of the year. “In the new European configuration,” he said last month, “the Franco-German relationship will be central, because only it combines both political will and the capacity to push grands projets forward.”
There are many impulses behind this new Gallic offensive. One is Europe’s changing politics. The French realise that the British are likely to be unhelpful friends if the Eurosceptical Conservatives win the election next spring. “David Cameron makes Maggie Thatcher look like a veritable federalist,” comments one aghast French politician. At the same time, the re-election of Ms Merkel at the head of a centre-right coalition, instead of her former unity government with the Social Democrats, boosts French hopes of a more decisive German government.
Another factor is the view that, when the French and the Germans agree, Europe makes its voice heard. The French list the G20 agreements to curb bank bonuses, strengthen bank capitalisation and squeeze tax havens as examples.

No bridge across the Rhine
As it happens, Mr Sarkozy, never an instinctive Germanophile, got off to a fractious start with Ms Merkel, falling out over French plans for a Mediterranean Union; and it took time for Ms Merkel to get used to Mr Sarkozy’s tactile chumminess. But Mr Sarkozy knows he cannot impose his ideas on Europe. Early on he spotted a chance to use the anti-capitalist mood against the “Anglo-Saxons”, and sought an ally. “There has been a spectacular conceptual rapprochement between Merkel and Sarkozy,” insists a French official.
Yet across the Rhine the preference is for plodding progress rather than grands projets. The German foreign ministry recently held a one-day meeting to discuss relations with France, but there was little debate about Mr Lellouche’s proposals. After all, there is still no new German government in place. The Social Democratic foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, will go, but his successor, almost certainly Guido Westerwelle of the Free Democratic Party, has not yet arrived. If Mr Lellouche “honestly wanted his proposal to happen, he wouldn’t have launched it in an article in Le Monde,” noted one Berlin-based observer of Franco-German relations.
Nor is a new golden age likely when Ms Merkel and Mr Westerwelle take office. The EU’s biggest member has acquired a reputation for looking after itself—whether over saving the Opel carmaker or over euro-area bank rescues. Mr Westerwelle’s party will be charier of an activist industrial policy than were the Social Democrats.
Germany has other foreign-policy priorities besides France, such as improved relations with Poland and other central European countries. On nuclear power and Turkish membership of the EU, Ms Merkel’s new government is closer to French positions, although even here agreement may be elusive. It will keep nuclear-power stations open longer, but the two countries may not agree on a lot else over the EU’s energy policy. Nor is it clear that Ms Merkel will want to obstruct membership negotiations with Turkey.
Economic issues may be no easier. Germany’s new balanced-budget amendment to its constitution will force it to pursue a tight fiscal policy, unless the coalition circumvents it to permit tax cuts. France, on the other hand, plans to grow out of its deficit at a leisurely pace. Differences in debt and competitiveness will make it harder to manage the euro area. Germany will preach thrift and reforms to boost competitiveness. But if it just lectures its partners rather than co-ordinating policies, it risks aggravating tensions within the euro group rather than alleviating them.
Nor is there yet a Franco-German agreement on how to take the EU forward after Lisbon. A ruling in the summer by Germany’s constitutional court means the government must consult the legislature more often about EU initiatives. It is not clear if Germany means to give the EU greater scope for action or treat it, as many others do, as the mere servant of national governments. There is no sign of a bilateral deal on the allocation of the senior jobs being created by Lisbon.
The French are not starry-eyed. They know they are heading for possible rows over deficit-cutting. On industrial matters, the two countries often compete. The French are not happy that German trains, not French ones, will run on the soon-to-open high-speed link between Moscow and St Petersburg, nor that Siemens is pulling out of its nuclear joint venture with Areva. And the French are not blind to the need for other ties in Europe. They still hope to draw the British into a common European defence policy, even under a Conservative government. It is far harder for two countries to steer an EU of 27 members than one of 12. Yet the French expect the most from Germany—and it is not clear they will get much.

Furunculus

10-29-2009, 09:32

Here is a list of quotes from around europe showing the divide on opinions on whether blair should become el-presidente:

Spain:

The Spanish daily newspaper El Pais carried a harsh critique of Tony Blair's candidature written by Emilio Menéndez del Valle, a former diplomat and socialist member of the EU parliament.

In an opinion piece under the headline "Tony Blair should not preside over Europe" he argued that no Briton should hold the Presidency because the UK is not in the Schengen Agreement nor part of the Eurozone and is therefore not central to the process of European integration.

He argued that Tony Blair was not the right man for the job labelling him "untrustworthy" because of his role in the invasion of Iraq based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Although he has yet to speak out publicly on the subject, Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, is thought to favour Mr Blair but has also indicated he might back Felipe Gonzalez, Spain's first Socialist Prime Minister, were he to stand.

France:

Although Nicolas Sarkozy has been a close ally of Tony Blair for many years, he has recently displayed reservations about backing him for the EU presidency.

The French president said there was a "clear problem" with a candidate from the other side of the Channel, because Britain was not part of the single European currency, and had opted out of other core EU agreements including the Schengen treaty on free movement.

Other French politicians have been far more negative, with Jacques Myard, a leading MP from the governing UMP party saying: 'Many say, "How can we choose a chairman of a country which is not very European?"'

Mr Myard said Mr Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was part of the problem, but added: "I think the main problem is that he has not brought Britain into euro systems."

Despite this, Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, has offered personal support to Mr Blair, saying: "Myself, your humble servant, I support Tony Blair."

Germany:

Herbert Reul, a conservative MEP and chairman of the industry and energy committee, is among those opposed to Tony Blair becoming EU president.

He said: "He doesn't fit the profile of a president of Europe at all. He doesn't reflect Europe's voice or mood. Blair is from a country that is not part of the eurozone, is not a member of Schengen and has opted out of the charter of fundamental rights."

Der Spiegel Germany wrote: "No enthusiasm for Tony Blair; the Blair phobia is growing across Europe. His chances of power have diminished significantly in the last week. Among Brussels politicians his chances are seen as 'better than zero'."

Austria:

"I am sceptical about Mr Blair," said Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann at the weekend. He cited his "closeness" with former US President George Bush as being a problem for him to take up the top EU post.

"We need a candidate who is not for Bush but for Obama," he added, saying whoever gets the job must be able to spread "social democracy."

Franz Fischer, a former Austrian EU Commissioner, said; "There are big doubts about his suitability for this job. Blair is stamped, particularly in the Arab world, as being a partner of Bush."

Der Standard newspaper in Austria said: "Tony Blair as president? A bad joke."

Italy:

Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini delivered a blow to Mr Blair's hopes when he said that the choice of future president should be "unanimous and the result of consensus" among the 27 EU member states.

Frattini and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had previously indicated they were warm towards Blair's candidacy.

"That's true," Frattini added, "but the entry into the fray of Mr Juncker and (Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter) Balkenende changes the picture," he said.

"We cannot imagine a divided Europe. We must find a consensus."

The Italian press have been circumspect. La Stampa said that many Europeans would regard it as "bizarre" that Mr Blair, as the former leader of such a euro-sceptic nation, would become head of the EU.

It would be a highly "peculiar" situation given that the UK signed up neither to the euro zone nor the Schengen treaty, the newspaper said.

The new head of the main opposition Democratic Party, Pier Luigi Bersani, echoed that view at the weekend – he said that while Mr Blair is a "splendid man" he is not right for the job because of Britain's refusal to adopt the euro and sign up to the Schengen Treaty.
there seems to be a definition coalescence on the issue of schengen and the euro among the 'nays', compared to previously where objections focussed on less structured matters over iraq.

Sarmatian

10-29-2009, 12:18

I don't really like Blair and I don't think a British politician should be the first "president". Gonzales is a much better option, imho. He's got political weight and experience, had been PM of Spain for 14 years.

It might be best to not have anyone from UK, Germany or France for this position first time round. Britain has been too eurosceptic, it's politicians are fond of talking things over with the US before European nations and it would be a bad move to appoint a Brit just to appease UK. On the other hand, excluding Germans and French would show that EU is much more than Franco-German project that eu sceptics like to point out and besides, there aren't some great candidates from those countries.

Furunculus

10-30-2009, 09:26

It looks like the horse trading behind the scenes is well under way, with Bliar's chance publicly ebbing away at the same time Milliband's is on the rise for the position of high representative.

It almost as if the British Gov'[t enetered Blair as a stalking horse to achieve two ends:
1) to ensure the position of high representative, i.e. the position that really matters
2) to sabotage the position of president, by ensuring a nice boring EUro-pygmy is chosen instead of a superstar

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

in other news, Vaclav Claus has secured an opt out from any legal implication regarding the Sudetan Germans (nice bit of high tension negotiating there):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/6463608/Czech-PM-Lisbon-Treaty-likely-to-be-ratified-by-end-of-year-after-EU-agrees-to-opt-outs.html

which does however leave Britain in the stick (rightly so, he was batting for the Czech national interest which is his job), so here is a tongue-in-cheek article for the economists resident europhile Charlamagne, on the fights Cameron should and should not pick with the EU:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2009/10/the_eu_fights_david_cameron_sh.cfm
October 27th

15:44 GMT +00:00
The EU fights David Cameron should pick, and avoid

Posted by:
Charlemagne

Categories:
Britain

YOUR blogger has something of an experimental piece in the latest issue of a Brussels based policy magazine, E!Sharp. Trying to puzzle out the best way to convey my sense that the Conservative opposition in Britain is preparing to pick the wrong battles with Europe, I decided to draft an imaginary email to the Conservative leader David Cameron, from an equally imaginary party policy group. The article (reproduced below) does not represent my views, and certainly not those of The Economist. It is an attempt at ventriloquism, if you will, borrowing the voice of a rather cynical bunch of Tory party strategists.

That said, I am obscurely proud of my memo’s final policy suggestion: that David Cameron should ask his fellow European leaders for the blue British passport back. Personally, I could not care less what colour my passport cover is, and it would be very easy for Mr Cameron to make such a demand look like a gimmick. But if he were careful and said it was not the biggest thing in the world, but that he wanted to make this a test of Europe’s ability to understand that it did not have to regulate everything and needed to be more sensitive to British feelings, I think it might be a small winner. Passports are certainly an emotive business: an entirely untrue story that the EU wanted to replace the royal coat of arms inside the British passport with an EU motto was all over the tabloids and the broadsheets a couple of years ago, and caused quite a fuss. In the frankly unlikely event that a demand for a British passport cover opt-out becomes Tory party policy, remember you read it here first.

Here, then, is my column from E!Sharp:

To: The Rt Hon David Cameron MP

From: Party policy group on Europe

To date, our big European policies, like pulling our MEPs out of the European People's Party, have been smart opposition politics. We need a policy for government.

Start with the European Parliament. It is a ghastly place, obsessed with its own power, but it has real clout. Forming our new group had a logic to it: the EPP is dominated by federalists and cheerleaders for the social market economy. In our new group, our allies from eastern

Europe are with us on the big stuff: they are Atlanticists, they oppose a federal superstate, and they more or less believe in free markets (just don't ask our Polish friends about farm subsidies).

The British press are wrong to call them fascists. It is more of a timing problem: on issues like gay marriage, the environment or on views of the Germans, our new allies from Latvia and Poland are in line with mainstream British Conservative thinking...circa 1983. It is a structural British problem, too: only on our side of the English Channel can you be a tree-hugging centrist and Eurosceptic.

The challenge will be in maintaining relations with allies who will not leave the EPP, but think like us on climate change, EU spending or free trade - parties like the Swedish Moderates, or the Dutch Christian Democrats. The federalists long to split us from such allies and marginalise us as Europhobes. To make it harder to sideline us as Eurosceptic headbangers, we need to:

For a start, pick our battles. Here are three battles to avoid. First, ignore pleas to get Britain out of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The CFP is a horror because lots of countries cheat. We cannot fix this alone. We are not Iceland, miles from anywhere and surrounded by cod. Our fish commute between British and foreign waters. The Dutch have historic rights to English waters, the French have historic rights to Scottish waters, and the Spanish are everywhere. If we ran our own fisheries, we would need an army of bureaucrats to negotiate all this. And you could fit Britain's fishermen in a single football stadium (and most are Scottish, so do not vote for us).

Second: EU asylum policy. Our voters would love us to opt out of this. But some big things about the status quo suit us. For instance, the Dublin II directive says that asylum seekers must file a claim in the first EU country they reach. If asylum seekers reach Britain from the continent, we get to send them back to their first entry country. As a rock off the top left-hand corner of Europe, we are big winners from this rule, which turns places like Italy, Greece, Malta or Poland into flypaper for migrants.

Third, there is this idea about restoring Britain's opt-out from the social policies of the old Social Charter. This stuff is maddening, but the reality is the whole social Europe thing is currently deadlocked, to our advantage. Do we really want to kick that particular anthill, as we take office? Instead, we recommend a different approach. Offer one concession, start one really tough fight, and go for one easy win.

The concession is on EU defence. Only two and a half countries in Europe are serious about defence: us, the French and the Germans (the half). The French long for a Europe of defence, the Germans are the recovering alcoholics of the military world, so that makes us the swing voter, able to set the pace. A lot of the French keenness is industrial policy in disguise, i.e. forcing everyone to buy Airbus transport planes that don't even exist yet. But the Americans want more European defence now: frankly, they don't care what flag the Euro-weenies are flying, if they will just turn up for a fight. We should stop blocking an EU military HQ in Brussels, then stuff it full of Brits. The French will owe us one, and the Americans will be pleased.

The tough fight is on financial regulation. In their dreams, half our EU partners would like to impose martial law on the City of London, under some French general in a képi. In theory, lots of EU financial regulations could be decided by qualified majority vote. Sane countries like Sweden say they cannot imagine imposing regulations on the UK against our will, because the impact on us is too big. Get that in writing: a political pledge from the other leaders that Britain has a veto on financial regulation affecting the City.

Finally, we need a quick win that will grab headlines. Ask for the blue British passport back. Don't oversell this. Just give interviews to the tabloids, saying: "Europe has to stop doing things without asking the British people, like turning their passports red and sticking 'European Union' on the cover. Here is a test to see if they are willing to change." You could deliver this: nobody understands why we care, but other governments would give us dark blue passports.

That is enough for the first six months. After that? Events, dear leader, events.
i love the europhile contempt for the voter, seen where he suggests distracting them with cheap baubles such as blue passports.
this marries nicely with a complete lack of empathy for position of the skeptic when hes suggests setting up joint defence establishments as a good idea.

Louis VI the Fat

10-30-2009, 12:02

It almost as if the British Gov't entered Blair as a stalking horse to achieve two ends:
1) to ensure the position of high representative, i.e. the position that really matters
2) to sabotage the position of president, by ensuring a nice boring EUro-pygmy is chosen instead of a superstarWith the emphasis firmly on 'almost', since of course neither is even remotely true.

And well done to the anti-Lisbon crowd. I am glad so many of your goals have been achieved: no rights for gays in Poland, no rights for workers in Britain, and no rights for Germans in the Czech. Rep.
Well done lads. Happy to see the traditional values of Europe so brilliantly protected by you fine lot.

Fragony

10-30-2009, 12:28

maybe people just don't want it, just musing

Furunculus

10-30-2009, 12:30

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-30-2009, 21:00

And well done to the anti-Lisbon crowd. I am glad so many of your goals have been achieved: no rights for gays in Poland, no rights for workers in Britain, and no rights for Germans in the Czech. Rep.
Well done lads. Happy to see the traditional values of Europe so brilliantly protected by you fine lot.

I want all of these rights, but they are not important enough to me to have the sovereignty of my nation destroyed for them.

Beskar

10-30-2009, 21:17

I want all of these things, but they are not important enough to me to have the sovereignty of my nation destroyed for them.

I didn't know you was a homophobe, interested in slavery and ethnical discrimination.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-30-2009, 21:37

I didn't know you was a homophobe, interested in slavery and ethnical discrimination.

I'm none of those things, and I wasn't aware that workers in Britain were slaves. I'm also the last person you'll hear calling for ethnic discrimination, especially against my own ethnicity.

Beskar

10-30-2009, 21:42

I said "Interested in Slavery" not Supporter/Chief Advocate.

However, just a quick re-cap, just to make-sure...

I am glad so many of your goals have been achieved: no rights for gays in Poland, no rights for workers in Britain, and no rights for Germans in the Czech. Rep.

I want all of these things [as in, wanting no rights for gays, no rights for workers, etc]

Is this exactly what you meant? Just so we are on the same foot.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-30-2009, 21:52

Is this exactly what you meant? Just so we are on the same foot.

No, I meant that I wanted rights for gays/workers/Germans.

Beskar

10-30-2009, 23:00

No, I meant that I wanted rights for gays/workers/Germans.

Ohh, ignore my previous comment then.

Imagine how I thought I saw what your comment as seeing now. "You don't want rights for gays, workers or germans?!?" :oops: :laugh4:

Furunculus

10-31-2009, 11:22

I'm none of those things, and I wasn't aware that workers in Britain were slaves. I'm also the last person you'll hear calling for ethnic discrimination, especially against my own ethnicity.

or to put it in another way; you want all those things but don't believe you have a right to impose your values on another group, which would also run the risk of others wishing to impose their values on you.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-31-2009, 16:48

or to put in another way, you want all those things but don't believe you have a right to impose your values on another group, which also runs the risk of others wishing to impose their values on you.

Precisely.

Beskar

10-31-2009, 23:49

Unfortunately, that happens already within nations, nevermind out of nations.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-31-2009, 23:51

Unfortunately, that happens already within nations, nevermind out of nations.

It doesn't make any sense to increase the scale of it.

Beskar

11-01-2009, 00:02

It doesn't make any sense to increase the scale of it.

Arguably, there is a shared culture and base of morals (or at least in History). Increasing the scale would most likely just allow others from other countries to be able to band together, discuss, and other things.

In many ways, I think I probably share many views with Louis (and he is French), so it is not a totally alien encounter, but more of a cousin.

Also, I have to admit, I do have a base of fundamental principles, such as Free Speech, Free Religion, Universal Healthcare, Discrimination Free (both negative and 'positive'-types). Couple of others, but those are obvious big ones. So if these are enshrined, I don't have any problems at all.

Furunculus

11-01-2009, 02:44

hold on, was i not mocked mercilessly for suggesting that a shared social and cultural history exists among nations which results in similar aims and objectives as a group.............? :p

Furunculus

11-02-2009, 13:33

Guido Fawkes is having a dig at Conservativehome for admitting that a lisbon referendum is off:
http://order-order.com/2009/11/01/cameron-flashback-i-will-give-this-cast-iron-guarantee/

..........If it is ratified what is the meaning of this promise? The Tories will stand on a Eurosceptic ticket and they will be in government with a treaty that has not been sanctioned by a referendum. Unless they turn the election itself into a referendum, which is risky. Only if the Tory manifesto says “we will renegotiate our relationship with the EU thus…” will they be able to say they have consulted with and won a mandate from the British people. Will Ken Clarke go along with that?
Guido is right, unless the cons have a direct mandate from the voter asking for a renegotiation with europe, europe won't take him seriously and rightly so.

Banquo's Ghost

11-02-2009, 14:18

Cameron knows very well that once the treaty is ratified, it makes his life immensely easier. He wants to govern the UK, not have a new parliament rent into tattered pieces over Europe all over again.

Britain will go back to sniping on the sidelines and glumly being dragged along with the European project - no influence, no benefit, no disengagement. All of the bad, none of the good.

Even more than the cowardly Blair and Brown (both alledgedly Europhiles who ran from making the case) Cameron wants Europe to be in the driver's seat. The Tory party has not healed - there's somewhat higher numbers of euro-sceptics, but the pro-europeans in the party are quite capable of tearing it apart if Cameron makes a wrong step..

Joining the Reformists group proved how craven Cameron is going to be on the subject of Europe. He can't heal his own party - which has endured years in the wilderness because of this very wound, let alone speak authoritatively to Merkel and Sarkozy about the vision of a trade union, not a political one.

I disagree with your view Furunculus, but it is at least consistent and you are happy to live with the consequences of withdrawal to EFTA status. It's a principled stand. Cameron, on the other hand, is feeble and will allow the UK to continue as a second rate, slow lane mutterer of dark thoughts. As we have (I think) agreed, Cameron's referendum should be on withdrawal or engagement.

Furunculus

11-02-2009, 15:24

I'm broadly agreed, though i believe the creation of the ECR was one of the few brave and principled moves he has made, even if he did so for the base reason of distracting the more rabid element of the euro-skeptics.

I agree with the get-on or get-out attitude, and i believe the decision should be made by the people for a change.

Were I a principled leader of the Cons, I would campaign on an election promise to hold the following referendum, with the following legislative responses to the public outcome:

Your relationship with europe:
1) Federation (become a full part of federal europe, whilst always advocating a limited federation from within the framework of EU discussion)
Legislative Result if Chosen
> We join the Euro
> We join Schengen
>> We quite bitching full-stop and get on with being good EUropeans

2) Confederation (consolidate our current position and effectively create a two speed EUrope)
Legislative Result if Chosen
> Stay outside schengen
> Stay outside Euro
> Move outside ECR
> Move outside a common defence policy
> Move outside a common foriegn policy
> Move outside common social policy
> Move outside common financial policy
>> Under the understanding that if this cannot be achieved we would seek EFTA status

3) Free-Trade (time to say goodbye)
Legislative Result if Chosen
> Use the Lisbon mechanism to exit the EU
> Negotiate an EFTA status similar to other EFTA nations
>> Under the understanding that we are not by any means assured of EFTA status (but we would get it)

I would demand that said principled leader not to campaign on option 1 if he wishes to get my vote, but respect that the tories have decided to be in the EU so would accept tory support for option 2 in addition to the nuclear option.

I would expect that principled leader to abide by the result, whatever it may be.

I would abide by the result, whatever it may be (read: i would quite bitching and become a good EUropean if that is what my countrymen wanted).

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

the other way to do it is to campaign on an general election manifesto to repatriate some or all of the competences listed in option two.

this would be a dangerous game however, because it would be a trade off between keeping life nice and easy, and leaving disatisfied tories voting UKIP anyway because Dave's compromise simply isn't good enough for them. not an impossible situation ever since the expenses scandal, as demonstrated by the euro elections.

Louis VI the Fat

11-03-2009, 00:00

Louis VI the Fat

11-03-2009, 00:05

Britain will go back to sniping on the sidelines and glumly being dragged along with the European project - no influence, no benefit, no disengagement. Nah, not quite, I think.

British politicians and the EU are like Palestinian representatives and peace negotiations. They say one thing in public, and another in private.

In public, before a British politician is of to Bruxelles, he performs his Churchill act: I shall fight the EU on the beaches! In the cities! In my underpants in the local Brussels SM club where I'll resists two Czech prostitutes in Nazi uniforms!

Then once the doors are closed, he'll sit down and have a cognac. Out comes his briefcase. In it, carefully studied lists of requests of British corporations and interest groups. All prepared and approved by himself and his staff. These are then carefully negotiated to everybody's mutual satisfaction and benefit.

Then the doors open again. And the British press awaits. And starts the show again: I showed 'em real good! I hit my shoe on the table until they caved in! I present you with these concessions I have managed to pry from the hands of the Europeans, to safeguard Britain against these outrageous intrusions!

That is the game British politicians play. That most European politicians play, in fact. But none more so than the British.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-03-2009, 00:15

A foreign war has nothing to do with how the citizens are governed. A referendum should be required at every fundamental change of the governmental system, and installing a whole new bureaucracy and extremely powerful union over the current national apparatus should require one. With all the talk of democracy from those who are pro-European, you would think that occasionally they would practice what they preach.

Louis VI the Fat

11-03-2009, 00:45

Practise what I preach? Only democracies are allowed entry and continued membership of the EU. The people of these democracies are free to chose any government of their liking. The people are free to give their government whatever mandate they deem appropriate. These governments are then democratically legitimized to negotiate on behalf of the state in question.

Returning to what I said a page ago to Furunculus: it is [i]me[/[i] who wants more democracy in the EU. It is the Euro-sceptics who refuse to grant it. What with European parliamentary control undermining national sovereignity and all that.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-03-2009, 00:50

These governments are then democratically legitimized to negotiate on behalf of the state in question.

Not on every issue, and not when they are trying to delegitimize themselves to act on certain issues, something which the people did not give them a mandate to do.

Returning to what I said a page ago to Furunculus: it is [i]me[/[i] who wants more democracy in the EU. It is the Euro-sceptics who refuse to grant it. What with European parliamentary control undermining national sovereignity and all that.

If you want more democracy then allow the referendums, let the people decide.

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 00:53

B...but what of a referedum about going to war? Surely, the very invasion of a sovereign foreign state would require the consent of the British people more than a carefully negotiated treaty between friendly states to co-ordinate policy on a few trifle matters? I say a referendum right now on whether to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What of a referendum about the British Union? Surely abolishing the complete sovereignity altogether of the home nations to form a real, actual union is a more pressing matter than membership of a supra-national organisation? At any rate, a bit longer overdue? And what of Cornwall, the Midlands? Have they ever been asked whether they want to be part of England in the first place? :no:

And NATO? Isn't it about time the British people finally got to have their say whether they actually agree with the aboilishment of the very first task of a sovereign state: that of sovereign defence of the state?

Why is Europe the one and only subject that calls for a referendum?

It wouldn't be because it is used as a scapegoat in the UK all the time? (To chickenpoo to tell the constituency they can't empty the seas, pollute the soil, or be rid of those pesky labour laws? Blame Europe. 'Hey, if it were up to me, people...but I have no choice. Europe demands we do this or do that')

no problem with that.

no probloem with that either, i'd love to see the glorious nation of cornwall pay for its own health care.

sorry, i'm lost, not sure how collective defence intereres with the defence of the realm.

because it is only to europe that our political masters are giving away the peoples consent to govern, and it is only when the peoples consent to govern is given away to third parties that i ask the government to ask explicit consent of the people.

that's kind of the point of my post above, let the people express their desire on what our relationship should be and much of the bitching would evaporate, even if individually we didn't like the result, it would be the representative democracy in action.

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 00:54

Nah, not quite, I think.

British politicians and the EU are like Palestinian representatives and peace negotiations. They say one thing in public, and another in private.

In public, before a British politician is of to Bruxelles, he performs his Churchill act: I shall fight the EU on the beaches! In the cities! In my underpants in the local Brussels SM club where I'll resists two Czech prostitutes in Nazi uniforms!

Then once the doors are closed, he'll sit down and have a cognac. Out comes his briefcase. In it, carefully studied lists of requests of British corporations and interest groups. All prepared and approved by himself and his staff. These are then carefully negotiated to everybody's mutual satisfaction and benefit.

Then the doors open again. And the British press awaits. And starts the show again: I showed 'em real good! I hit my shoe on the table until they caved in! I present you with these concessions I have managed to pry from the hands of the Europeans, to safeguard Britain against these outrageous intrusions!

That is the game British politicians play. That most European politicians play, in fact. But none more so than the British.

ah, you understand the problem so well, i congratulate you.

i can only ascribe it to the hideous strength of the EU that hannan talks about so frequently.

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 00:57

Returning to what I said a page ago to Furunculus: it is [i]me[/[i] who wants more democracy in the EU. It is the Euro-sceptics who refuse to grant it. What with European parliamentary control undermining national sovereignity and all that.

what you want is irrelevant to me, if you require the EU to bring you more democracy then that is your problem, especially if that means less democracy for me.

Louis VI the Fat

11-03-2009, 01:23

In many ways, I think I probably share many views with Louis That's such a coincidence! I too share less opinion with Furunculus than I do with myself!

Nah. I know what you mean. As you and I both know, Europe's elites have always been international. :smug:

Internationalism has always been the hallmark of the Europe's elite. This internationalism build Europe. Is Europe. Is European civilization:
The Mediaeval students, travelling halfway through Europe to be taught in Latin from Bologna to Paris, from Oxford to Salamaca.
Europe's aristocrats, consisting noble Irishmen marrying Russian women, Swedish princesses marrying German princes. Every monarchy has the same criticism levelled against it: they are really a bunch of foreigners.
The artistic elite, who've for centuries now all been on the Grand Tour of the art of the ancients and the Italian renaissance, creating a pan-European artistic legacy.
The merchants, and their international networks, their comptoirs, their lives spend abroad in the presence of their foreign collegues.

And it continues to this very day. Europe's elite is multilingual, cosmopolitan, at least, pan-European.

Especially for you, I shall add Europe's socialist legacy to the long list of Europe's internationalist legacy. It has been internationalist from the very beginning. Against capitalism, against the church, and against the 19th century instrument of oppression of these two themselves fully international institutes: the nation-state.

Banquo's Ghost

11-03-2009, 08:47

B...but what of a referedum about ...

As you well know, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy and that Parliament is not bound by referenda in any manner. However, when Parliament is riven to such an extent that the elected party has no clear line or policy that it can enact, a referendum (or election) may be called in an advisory capacity and thus provide a mandate. Elections are multi-issue, and therefore do not usually provide mandates for specifics.

Unlike of course, the French Republic. Which, lest we forget, held a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty (the latter being, for the uninformed, the former document with the word "constitution" scratched out and the words "Lisbon Treaty" scribbled in with crayon). Why did she do so? Was it entirely Chirac's belief that the people would fall down and worship his wisdom through the ballot? Or maybe something to do with a ruling by the Constitutional Council that the treaty could not co-exist with the French Constitution?

The French people of course, rejected the document. As did the Netherlands. (As one of the only two countries whose people have actually endorsed the Treaty, this is why Luxembourg ought to get the presidency).

Unlike the recalcitrant people of this island, they never got a second chance. The UK politicians, unsurprisingly, used that earlier failure to back off their referendum (amusing, because it was their decision that probably prompted President Chirac to seek la gloire).

I disagree with your characterisation of British politicians in private. That used to be the way, but Europe is way too poisonous now because of the lack of leadership in both parties. That is why Cameron has ended up in the Reform group - sheer political cowardice. It means the kind of deals you describe will be fewer and fewer - the penalties of Euro-scepticism will become ever more apparent and the UK more and more marginalised. The tabloids will leap on every failure, bemoan the fact that Johnny Foreigner doesn't play nice any more (since fewer "triumphs" will be forthcoming) and slowly, grudgingly, Britain will fall out of orbit.

She will pay a hard price. Better that Furunculus is listened to, and a clear decision made.

EDIT: I have just heard on the radio that the Czech Constitutional Court has over-ruled the objections and confirmed the Lisbon Treaty as being consistent with the requirements of the Czech constitution.

LittleGrizzly

11-03-2009, 09:23

Not on every issue, and not when they are trying to delegitimize themselves to act on certain issues, something which the people did not give them a mandate to do.

Since they didn't carry out thier referendum and have won an election since they stopped asking for one... I would say they have about as much mandate as anything else they have done. If anything I think not holding a referendum was one of Labours most obvious actions upon retaking power...

If the people were as concerned as you and Frunculus are they could have easily choosen another party to vote for...

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 10:10

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 10:19

If the people were as concerned as you and Frunculus are they could have easily choosen another party to vote for...
that was before the expenses scandal that fractured the british two and half party monopoly.

voting lib-dem, the most anodyne and pointless of politicalp parties, was the protest vote back then, now you have UKIP coming second in the euro elections and the BNP garnering a million votes, with even the greens doing pretty well for a change.

that should tell you something................

I disagree with your characterisation of British politicians in private. That used to be the way, but Europe is way too poisonous now because of the lack of leadership in both parties. That is why Cameron has ended up in the Reform group - sheer political cowardice. It means the kind of deals you describe will be fewer and fewer - the penalties of Euro-scepticism will become ever more apparent and the UK more and more marginalised. The tabloids will leap on every failure, bemoan the fact that Johnny Foreigner doesn't play nice any more (since fewer "triumphs" will be forthcoming) and slowly, grudgingly, Britain will fall out of orbit.

She will pay a hard price. Better that Furunculus is listened to, and a clear decision made.

that is an inevitable result of moving ourselves away from the centre of european politics, the only difference is that i don't believe it matters too much for britain, because europe is going to become a backwater anyway in the next 50 years, a fate we can avoid if we remain more outward facing given our advantages in the financial world and ties to the commonwealth.

the eu has forced us to be more inward looking, which would be fine if the group had a bright and sparkly future, but it has forced us to turn away from competitive advantages that would make other middle sized nations weep in the light of the wests demographic decline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6189918/Ambrose-Evans-Pritchard-does-the-EU-club-have-a-future.html

LittleGrizzly

11-03-2009, 10:37

that was before the expenses scandal that fractured the british two and half party monopoly.

voting lib-dem, the most anodyne and pointless of politicalp parties, was the protest vote back then, now you have UKIP coming second in the euro elections and the BNP garnering a million votes, with even the greens doing pretty well for a change.

that should tell you something................
l (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6189918/Ambrose-Evans-Pritchard-does-the-EU-club-have-a-future.html)

The lib dems did promise a referendum (forgot all about that TBH) I was thinking of UKIP mainly who only get any decent portion of votes in european elections (ironically) never in national ones.

The smaller partys have always recieved more votes in the european elections as its not seen as a wasted vote whereas voting smaller party in a MP's seat in a national election would be considered a waste... the big news was that the BNP managed to gain such a portion of the votes (a threat that is overhyped)

I don't see any major changes coming in the next national elections... the smaller parties may do a little better... hopefully the lib dems will too... but I don't see anything happening on enough of a scale to majorly change the two main parties strangle hold on the very large majority of the seats...

The expenses scandal upset people but any votes going to smaller parties get split up too much to make much of a difference...

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 10:53

The lib dems did promise a referendum (forgot all about that TBH) I was thinking of UKIP mainly who only get any decent portion of votes in european elections (ironically) never in national ones.

The smaller partys have always recieved more votes in the european elections as its not seen as a wasted vote whereas voting smaller party in a MP's seat in a national election would be considered a waste... the big news was that the BNP managed to gain such a portion of the votes (a threat that is overhyped)

I don't see any major changes coming in the next national elections... the smaller parties may do a little better... hopefully the lib dems will too... but I don't see anything happening on enough of a scale to majorly change the two main parties strangle hold on the very large majority of the seats...

The expenses scandal upset people but any votes going to smaller parties get split up too much to make much of a difference...

i beg to differ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...ion_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.

come the general election i see 1,000,000 BNP votes, because labour is incapable of doing anything about immigration, and unless the tories come up with a convincing answer on europe i see millions of UKIP voters too.

the expenses scandal changed the game.

LittleGrizzly

11-03-2009, 11:03

Your telling me we have had all this hype and the BNP couldn't even beat the greens...

Your link didn't work for me, anyway they were the european elections and they where also perfectly timed to come after the expenses scandal... the million BNP votes doesn't sound completely unrealstic but for the national I think it will be a couple hundred thousand lower... come round to the national elections and you seriously suggesting we'll see figures like that ?

Of course not the European elections are usually used to protest, blow of steam, go for a smaller party... and the fact is the euro elections always see a much smaller turnout... someone who doesn't care too much but does thier duty occasionally on election day they tend to go for the less extreme parties...

What there's like a 20-30% drop from national election turnout to european election ?

Bear in mind the expenses scandal will be a bit more distant in the mind when we get around to the election as well...

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 11:15

don't worry about the link, it didn't have much more than the election results already listed in the post............ unless you doubt their veracity?

if you believe that a generation of rising contempt for british politics, topped off by the expenses scandal, has not changed the game then you are as delusional as JAG when it comes to immigration and the BNP.

MP's treating voters with contempt is no longer an option, because ther is no longer a tribal loyalty.

FYI - BNP general election results:

2009 = 943,598 6.2% admitedly a euro election
2005 = 192,746 +0.5%
2001 = 47,129 +0.1%
1997 = 35,832 0.0%
1992 = 7,631 N/A
1987 = 553 0.0
1983 = 14,621 N/A

but whatever, you draw your own conclusions.......................... :dizzy2:

LittleGrizzly

11-03-2009, 11:25

I trust your figures (didn't know greens beat BNP though..) they look about right...

Don't get me wrong I think if we combine the two major parties as a block they will lose a few percentage points between them to the smaller parties but they will still be far and away the major powers in westminister, im not really sure how the half of our 2 and a half party system will do.. I think theres an effect but you are overstating it..

Have you got a previous BNP euro result so we can see the increase there as I have stated my problems with comparing euro and national elections... they give very different results...

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 11:37

2.5 = Lib/Lab/Con
Extreme = UKIP/BNP (i.e. extreme in the european context, like not wanting the EU)

2009 (2.5 = 57.1%) (extreme = 22.7%)
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%

2004 (2.5 = 64.2%) (extreme = 21.0%)
Conservative 4,397,090 26.7%
Labour 3,718,683 22.6%
UKIP 2,650,768 16.1%
Liberal Democrat 2,452,327 14.9%
Green 1,033,093 6.3%
BNP 808,200 4.9%

1999 (2.5 = 76.73%) (extreme = 8.09%)
Conservative 3,578,218 35.77%
Labour 2,803,821 28.03%
Liberal Democrat 1,266,549 12.66%
UKIP 696,057 6.96%
Green 625,378 6.25%
SNP 268,528 2.68%
Plaid Cymru 185,235 1.85%
Pro-Euro Conservative 138,097 1.38%
BNP 102,647 1.13%

1994 (2.5 = 89.0%) (extreme = 1.0%)
Labour 6,753,863 44%
Conservative 4,248,531 28%
Liberal Democrat 2,552,730 17%
Green 494,561 3%
SNP 487,239 3%
Plaid Cymru 162,478 1%
Independent 151,858 1%
UKIP 150,251 1%
Liberal 100,500 1%
Natural Law 96,554 1%
National Front 12,469 0%

1989 (2.5 = 78.11%) (extreme = 0.0%)
Labour 6,153,640 37.11%
Conservative 5,331,077 35%
Green 2,292,705 15%
Social and Liberal Democrats 986,292 6%
SNP 406,686 3%
Plaid Cymru 115,062 0.7%
Others 41,295 <1%

1984 (2.5 = 92.5%) (extreme = 0.0%)
Conservative 5,426,866 38.8%
Labour 4,865,224 34.7%
SDP-Liberal Alliance 2,591,659 19%
SNP 230,594 2%
Plaid Cymru 103,031 1%
Ecology 70,853 1%
Independent 11,073 0%

1979 (2.5 = 97.0%) (extreme = 0.0%)
Conservative 6,508,492 51%
Labour 4,253,247 33%
Liberal 1,690,638 13%
SNP 247,836 2%
Plaid Cymru 83,399 1%
United Against the Common Market 27,506 0%
Independent 23,539 0%

it is worth noting that not only has BNP vote increased in relative terms, it has done so in real terms time when overall vote count has dropped in real terms!
does this help?

LittleGrizzly

11-03-2009, 11:56

TBH that just reconfims my beliefs IMO. Conservative, Labour and some Lib Dems couldn't be bothered to turn up (for whatever reason) UKIP mostly got thier crowd out but seemed to have lost some ground (resurgant tories perhaps, they turned into lazy stay at home tories ?) and it seems mostly labour lost some votes to greens and BNP.. this loss may me slightly reflected in the national election but i suspect it was mostly a chance to kick labour and show they weren't happy...

It also makes the BNP result less exciting (threatening) they attracted a 140,000 less new votes than the greens, if we need to worry it seems the unwashed hippies are coming much sooner than the nazis ~;)

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 12:20

LittleGrizzly

11-03-2009, 12:29

I don't think the Lib dems will really move much from thier position in the general election...

So after that you have the block of the big two, one down and out losing voters, one on the rise... the tories will possibly lose a bunch of eurosceptics to UKIP... nothing significant in general elections usually though.. other than that I think they'll be okay, Labour will lose voters to BNP, Greens and the lib dems..

With 3 different small partys fighting it out for voters from the 2 major partys (of which the lib dems steal some) its hard to see any of them getting enough votes concentrated in a single area to get a seat.. if it is just a statement by the overall percentages of votes at the end you expect I think it will be noticed but it won't be a huge margin of change to the smaller parties...

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 12:35

well, you and i disagree on the impact of the expenses scandal.

Beskar

11-03-2009, 12:38

What is bad that only 30% even voted.

People don't even know what is good for them, I wish I could control that 70%, then I would make a real difference to the system.

Banquo's Ghost

11-03-2009, 13:09

given how close a general election is with so many marginal seats won by a few votes to get a parliamentary majority, a shift in vote share for the extreme from less than one third of the two-point-five to forty percent of the two-point-five, has the ability change the entire result.

No it doesn't, because of the first past the post system. The BNP support is concentrated in just a few constituencies but not enough to win a parliamentary seat. These tend to be strong Labour majorities and thus safe seats.

The UKIP vote is more widespread but almost exclusively in Tory constituencies, where the only effect is to lose Conservatives a few marginals - depending on the strength of the Liberal vote. In a general election, most of these voters will vote Conservative because they won't risk a Labour victory by default, and anyway they will be marginalised more because of usually higher turnouts. Frankly, Plaid Cymru have more parliamentary clout than either of these.

Finally, a hung parliament will be resting on the shoulders of the pro-Europe Liberal Democrats. Even if UKIP or the BNP won a seat by some miracle, they won't have the balance of power in any way. Sinn Féin will be more important. ~:eek: (Mind you, they are very close to your own views about the nation state in Europe, so maybe not all is lost :beam:)

Anyway, we digress.

Furunculus

11-03-2009, 13:41

you misunderstand me, there is no danger of UKIP or the BNP directly influencing power by ending up with parliamentary candidate that will end up as part of some grand coalition.

no, the danger they represent is that they drain support away from major parties which may prevent a parliamentary majority, which will necessitate a coalition.

right now, with a huge deficit and rising unemployment any coalition government would be a disaster.

Dave has one hell of a job on his hands, exactly how much do you think he wants a clear 100 seat majority instead of a minority government?

Louis VI the Fat

11-03-2009, 14:53

As you well know, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy and that Parliament is not bound by referenda in any manner. However, when Parliament is riven to such an extent that the elected party has no clear line or policy that it can enact, a referendum (or election) may be called in an advisory capacity and thus provide a mandate. Elections are multi-issue, and therefore do not usually provide mandates for specifics.Referenda are contrary to British political traditions. Even so, a referendum has been held on whether Britain should join the EU or not. Subsequent elections have provided ample opportunity for the British electorate to decide their policy towards Europe. These have as of yet always confirmed a democratic wish to remain engaged in Europe.

Of course, just like Ireland, the UK is perfectly at liberty to hold new referenda until the right result is reached. Democracy is an ongoing process.
Mind that an altogether too frivilous treatment of international responsibilities and commitments is detrimental to the political credibility of Britain and Europe. The UK is not Italy, and part of the UK's standing in international diplomacy is its reliability and commitment.

Unlike of course, the French Republic. Which, lest we forget, held a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty Gah! I say the referendum was lost because the question was asked in the positive. The question that asked was:
'Do you approve the bill authorising the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?'
Whereas it should have been:
'Do you disapprove the bill authorising the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?'

Both questions would've yielded a 'non' result. With the latter resulting in a ratification.

At any rate, the issue was put to the electorate again in 2007, during the presidential election. And this time, the yes vote won.

Also, Paris voted 'yes' in the referendum. The provinces voted 'no'. For practical purposes, this means the referendum was won and means have to be found to better educate the peasantry.

Likewise with the Irish. If London no longer wishes to keep Ireland in check, we shall have to do it for them.
let's not push my luck here...

gaelic cowboy

11-03-2009, 20:00

Likewise with the Irish. If London no longer wishes to keep Ireland in check, we shall have to do it for them.
let's not push my luck here...

Ha ha we had a referundum on that too:beam::beam::beam::beam:

Louis VI the Fat

11-05-2009, 12:03

The Americans last week expressed their frustration and concern over the direction the Conservatives want to take Britain in. The Americans lamented Cameron's decisions in a language that explored the limits of what is said openly.
Today France expressed the same concern, but disposing of conventions of diplomatic language, saying openly what everybody else is thinking.

The Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) were accused by the French government tonight of "castrating" Britain's position within the EU by adopting an "autistic" approach that would take Britain off the radar.

Speaking to the Guardian, Pierre Lellouche, France's Europe minister, described as "pathetic" the Tories' EU plans announced today, warning they would not succeed "for a minute". Giving vent to frustration across the EU, which has so far only been expressed in private, Lellouche – who said he was reflecting Nicolas Sarkozy's "sadness and regret" – accused William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, of a "bizarre autism" in their discussions.

He said: "They have one line and they just repeat one line. It is a very bizarre sense of autism."
Excellent. About time. Eight years of an autistic Bush regime was more than enough. We don't need another major Western power in the grip of autististic impulses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/04/france-autistic-tories-castrated-uk

Subotan

11-05-2009, 12:49

It's funny how the Tories complain about a "democratic deficit", and the need for reform, and then they intentionally isolate themselves from the rest of Europe, and prevent having an input or being able to call for that reform :dizzy2:

Furunculus

11-05-2009, 14:21

it's funny how i have no interest in the democratic deficit of of somebody else's nation that happens to sit on the continental landmass next to us.

i also have no interest in improving the democratic deficit of the EU because i have no connection of shared cultural and social history with those peoples, and thus have no wish to be governed in concert with them. their goals and aspirations are an irrelevance to me outside of its impact on British foriegn policy.

Furunculus

11-05-2009, 14:28

The Americans last week expressed their frustration and concern over the direction the Conservatives want to take Britain in. The Americans lamented Cameron's decisions in a language that explored the limits of what is said openly.
Today France expressed the same concern, but disposing of conventions of diplomatic language, saying openly what everybody else is thinking.

Excellent. About time. Eight years of an autistic Bush regime was more than enough. We don't need another major Western power in the grip of autististic impulses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/04/france-autistic-tories-castrated-uk

Cameron has made a difficult call, too early to see if it will work for him.

On the one hand he doesn't want to create a massive fight with the EU, by promising the voters too much, while he considers the economy to be a more pressing matter.

On the other hand, if he doesn't promise enough he may lose too many votes to UKIP, in which case he will end up leading a minority government without sufficient bums-on-seats to push through the necessary legislation to rescue Britain from McCavity's reign of terror.

I personally like the idea of a german style constitutional ruling that reinforces the primacy (and the duties) of parliament, and i like the idea of a referendum lock, however his problem is a lack of credibility; i.e. why should we trust him to enact these ideas in a way that really will bind the ambitions of the EU in Britain.

If i remain unpersuaded my vote goes UKIP, and i might not be alone in that................

Louis VI the Fat

11-05-2009, 18:27

Cameron has made a difficult call, too early to see if it will work for him.And there I was, thinking you'd be fuming at the mouth over Cameron's betrayal today.

Surely Cameron can't just renege on his promise to hold a referendum*? :deal2:

He promised! Just like Labour did. :wink3:

Surely Cameron can't just sit there idly twisting his thumbs while the EU subjugates the UK? :wink3:

John Redwood: 'The EU has declared war on Britain! There will be a price to pay!!1!' :wink3:

*Then again, David 'read my lips' Cameron, today: 'Such a “made-up” and “phony” plebiscite would be a waste of everyone’s time and taxpayers’ money, he stated'. :wink3:

Strike For The South

11-05-2009, 18:31

https://i347.photobucket.com/albums/p479/blindmessiahDC/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Louis VI the Fat

11-05-2009, 18:46

https://i347.photobucket.com/albums/p479/blindmessiahDC/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

That is an excellent portrayal of the UK Conservative Party, yeah.

I bet Cameron thinks this guy is still having a better day today than he himself is having.

(For all my relishing in the misery of Cameron, there remains the nagging feeling that there really is a legitimate concern about the democratic legitimization of the adoption of 'Lisbon' in the UK*. The Financial Times expressed it well, to which one should add the note that the concern should not be levelled at the democratic working of Europe, but instead at the UK:

There remains a legitimate concern. It is wrong that a government representing a minority can bring about irreversible constitutional shifts, on the narrowest of margins. That ability has helped to sour British attitudes towards the EU. Referendums are not ideal, but where a fundamental constitutional question is susceptible to a “yes” or “no” answer, the question should be put to voters directly. A proposal that the UK should join the euro, for example, would come into this category. For other questions, the parliamentary system should be strengthened, perhaps by requiring a two-thirds majority in each chamber. The UK deserves better mechanisms for approving constitutional change.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9873d17e-c977-11de-a071-00144feabdc0.html)

*And elsewhere too. Certainly, the appetite for constitutional reform in the EU wil be gone for quite some time to come. Which is also the tragedy of the Cameron. Even if he would be right, he is picking the wrong fight at the wrong time.

gaelic cowboy

11-05-2009, 19:26

Europe is going to fumble its way through a few years of inactivity it's pretty obvious there is no real appetite for further integration Cameron is just sounding off safe in the knowledge he can renege on his promise and still win the election.

To be honest I am bored with the Conservatives now. They are going to win not by fresh ideas but by shear voter fatigue of Nu-Labour.

Furunculus

11-05-2009, 20:33

And there I was, thinking you'd be fuming at the mouth over Cameron's betrayal today.

Surely Cameron can't just renege on his promise to hold a referendum*? :deal2:

He promised! Just like Labour did. :wink3:

Surely Cameron can't just sit there idly twisting his thumbs while the EU subjugates the UK? :wink3:

John Redwood: 'The EU has declared war on Britain! There will be a price to pay!!1!' :wink3:

*Then again, David 'read my lips' Cameron, today: 'Such a “made-up” and “phony” plebiscite would be a waste of everyone’s time and taxpayers’ money, he stated'. :wink3:

we shall have to see how firmly cameron sticks to the idea of constitutional reform, if not he may find his majority at the general election insufficient to carry out his policies in parliament.

the FT article was pretty sane for what is a europhile paper.

Beskar

11-05-2009, 21:00

I think the Liberal Democrats should win, just for the shock and amazement of the whole experience. In parliament, have the opposition being UKIP or Greens, anyone but Labour and Conservatives. Would be a political revolution.

Louis VI the Fat

11-05-2009, 21:24

To be honest I am bored with the Conservatives now. They are going to win not by fresh ideas but by shear voter fatigue of Nu-Labour.My thoughts too. Labour needs to go, time for a change. But the Conservatives are underwhelming at the moment.

I'm with Beskar. I'd love to see the Lib Dems in there.

Beskar

11-05-2009, 21:33

A famous British comedian (David Mitchell, I believe) once mentioned something I always found amusing, because it is true.

In all the political conventions, the Liberal Democrats always go first, as some call the taster session before the big two. However, it was noted, that the Liberal Democrats always come out with all the great and good ideas, and the problem is, it leaves the Conservatives or Labour unable to use them, as they would simply be stealing them from the Liberal Democrats, so these parties make worse ideas than Liberal Democrats and try to pass them off as their own.

Subotan

11-06-2009, 00:47

MY HEAD ASPLODE

*Ahem*

Also, I'm sure Cameron has that "vision-thing" as well.

Furunculus

11-06-2009, 10:06

would you care to decrypt the statement above, in order that the rest of us can understand your razor like insight into conservative politics? :)

Subotan

11-06-2009, 10:14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_thing

:D

Furunculus

11-06-2009, 10:21

cheers.......... i think.

Furunculus

11-08-2009, 11:34

If the aim of the ECR is to steer the EU away from its default direction of a full-blown federation, does David Cameron's post-election plan (if fully implemented) constitute enough protection to ensure that Britain ends up as part of a confederation (even if other members might might be more correctly termed federal entities)?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6521619/David-Camerons-plan-to-save-Britain-from-the-EUs-clutches-will-it-work.html

David Cameron's plan to save Britain from the EU's clutches: will it work?
Conservative leader David Cameron has set out a six point plan to preserve British sovereignty within the European Union. What are his prospects of success?

by Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 8:45AM GMT 08 Nov 2009

The six point plan set out by David Cameron last week was intended to preserve British sovereignty within the European Union now that the Lisbon Treaty - designed to streamline the EU and increase its powers now it has 27 members - has finally come into force.

There is no point, he argued, in holding a referendum after the event on something that was already law.

But what do his proposals add up to, and what prospect do they have of success?

THE REFERENDUM LOCK

What David Cameron has proposed

No future treaty which transferred powers away from Britain to the EU could become law without first being approved in a referendum.

Mr Cameron would enshrine this in UK legislation by amending the 1972 European Communities Act, the constitutional legislation that gives EU law supremacy over British laws.

This would make Britain like Ireland, the only European member state currently required to submit new EU treaties to a referendum.

The reform would also include "a legal lock" requiring a referendum before any British government could take Britain into the euro.

How could it be done?

The reform is within a future prime minister's gift because it requires merely legislation in the House of Commons. Any other government could reverse it again with equal ease, however, so long as MPs agreed.

But it would not satisfy Tories who want a referendum about the EU sooner rather than later - such as David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, who wants a Conservative government to call a poll on clawing back powers from the EU during its first three months in office.

EU diplomats and officials are relaxed about the "referendum lock", noting that it presents no imminent danger to European integration because everyone expects a pause now the Lisbon Treaty is law. "No one is against adding bells and whistles on this, or more of a say for national parliaments," said an official from a large EU member state. "After Lisbon there will be no new treaties for at least 10 years."

Verdict: Easy to deliver and risk free, because it is unlikely to be put to the test until 2020 or later.

A UNITED KINGDOM SOVEREIGNTY BILL

What David Cameron has proposed

An incoming Conservative government would use its first Queen's speech to table a UK Sovereignty Bill, to enshrine constitutionally the supremacy of the British parliament over encroachments from the EU.

"Unlike many other European countries, Britain does not have a written constitution," said Mr Cameron. "Given the increasing amount of EU law with which we have to deal, we would amend the law... to make it explicit that ultimately Britain's parliament is sovereign."

The Tories have compared the proposal to Germany's situation where its Federal Constitution, known as the basic law, is guarded by a powerful supreme court against all comers.

How could it be done?

Passing the legislation would be simple enough, though constitutional purists might debate the finer points. But what if a government tried to put it into practice?

EU officials and diplomats point out that it would overturn the entire principle of the EU and decades of supremacy of European legislation over British law.

The Tory claim that Germany currently has greater constitutional protection than Britain is suspect. In fact no national constitutional court, including that of Germany, has challenged the primacy of EU law in 45 years.

When it appeared, in 2000, that German constitutional law appeared to conflict with a European Court of Justice ruling over the right of women to join the armed forces, Germany got round the problem by changing its constitution to conform.

In effect, countries cannot be inside the EU club if they don't submit to the rules. Refusal to do so would be seen as a clear signal that a country was preparing to withdraw.

Verdict: A symbolic crowd pleaser, but any real challenge to EU supremacy would plunge the Tories into a full blown European crisis.

A GUARANTEED SAY FOR MPS IF MINISTERS WANT THE EU TO EXTEND ITS POWERS

What David Cameron has proposed

Under the Lisbon Treaty, leaders of member states can agree together to transfer new powers piecemeal from national governments to Brussels without the need for a new treaty or the trouble of a referendum.

Mr Cameron has promised "full parliamentary control" over such measures.

He is particularly concerned about two separate "bridging clause" provisions within the Treaty - known in EU jargon as "passerelles" - that could allow the EU to scrap the national veto in all remaining policy areas where it still applies, except defence. Policy could instead by decided by majority voting on the European Council, where ministers meet as the EU's governing body.

Another "ratchet clause" permits the rules to be changed more easily to scrap national vetoes.

The Lisbon Treaty requires parliamentary consent of all member states before EU powers can be extended this way. The Government proposes a mere 90 minutes of debate among MPs. Mr Cameron would insist on formal legislation - and thus a much more thorough discussion.

How could it be done?

A simple Act of Parliament would ensure that this proposal became law and tied the hands of future governments. A different government might try to reverse it, but that would be a difficult proposition to sell.

Verdict: An easy domestic reform that will please MPs across all political parties without upsetting any Europeans.

OPT-OUT FROM CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

What David Cameron has proposed

A plan to negotiate a "complete opt-out" from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees certain civil, political, economic and social rights for all those within the EU - including the "right to strike".

Britain already has an opt-out, negotiated by Tony Blair. But Mr Cameron says it does not go far enough.

Currently a British exemption is secured by a "protocol" - like an agreed footnote - to the Charter, stating that it cannot be enforced in the UK courts. But this is no more than a clarification, says Mr Cameron, and is not itself enforceable.

"We must be absolutely sure that this cannot be used by EU judges to reinterpret EU law affecting the UK," he said.

EU officials say this is a fake solition to a false problem - as the Charter is designed to apply only to EU institutions and legislation, not to those of member states.

How could it be done?

To put this into practice would need new legal wording which would be technically difficult to get right - and the agreement of all 26 other EU member states, which would be politically and diplomatically tricky.

Verdict: Difficult. Another symbolic opt-out is possible but might be resented and other member states will block anything that damages the Charter's intended EU role.

RETURN OF POWERS OVER CRIMINAL JUSTICE

What David Cameron has proposed

The Lisbon Treaty extends to the EU new powers over justice and policing legislation. Until now, all governments had to agree to any new EU laws in these areas but from 2013 and EU judges will have the final say over such topics as extradition and the European Arrest Warrant.

A temporary arrangement allows Britain to "opt in" on a case-by-case basis but Mr Cameron says Britain needs better protection. "This would protect against EU judges extending their control over our criminal justice system," he said. "We also want to ensure that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain."

How could it be done?

Now it is getting harder. Such a change would require a full amendment to the Lisbon Treaty - and that would need consent of all EU members.

Mr Cameron would face opposition from the many EU governments and police forces which have come to rely on closer EU cooperation on justice. He will also face opposition from senior British police officers who favour the EU extradition powers that Mr Cameron is threatening to block.

Verdict: Unlikely, as no other EU countries want to reopen the Lisbon Treaty and Mr Cameron can not change anything without all 26 agreeing.

"REPATRIATION" OF CONTROL OVER SOCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

What David Cameron has proposed

Restore British control over areas of social and employment legislation that were ceded to Brussels decades ago - governing matters such as maternity leave, the working week and the rights of part-time workers.

Mr Caneron argues that some of the legislation has damaged the economy, while the Working Time Directive hampers the provision of public services like the fire service and the NHS.

How could it be done?

Any "repatriation" of social legislation to Britain would require a change to the Lisbon Treaty - and merely to open the debate within the EU, Mr Cameron would need the support of most member states.

Other EU governments regard allowing Britain to ditch regulations and social protections that are in place elsewhere in Europe as giving unfair competitive advantage.

Verdict: The hardest of all to achieve. A Tory government would have to give something substantial in return - most likely the loss of national sovereignty in other politically unacceptable areas such as taxation.
Two additional questions:
1. Is the above achievable in your opinion?
2. and if he cannot secure all of the above, could he still say he had achieved his objectives of protecting Britain as a sovereign entity, i.e. does he have some wiggle room to persuade a skeptical electorate that he had lived up to his promise?

Beskar

11-08-2009, 17:25

I don't quite understand why we are not in the Euro. Being in the Euro would increase trade, amongst other obvious and tangible benefits.

Furunculus

11-08-2009, 19:34

why?

right now the fact that the pound is lower than the euro, possible because we are not the euro, is massively boosting trade because british goods and services are now a quarter cheaper for europeans than they used to be.

Subotan

11-08-2009, 21:29

Until the "J Curve effect" kicks in, meaning that the increased demand for British goods abroad, due to their cheaper prices will eventually strengthen the pound again. It's already happening now as a matter of fact. And for years prior to today, the strong pound did it's very best to gut British manufacturing, causing an over-reliance on financial services for growth and a growing trade deficit.

Furunculus

11-09-2009, 00:55

no doubt.

but in the middle of a recession, when we need it, its low because our currency freely floats.

read der spiegel and see how many euro nations are screaming because their exports are in the can, in no small part due to the fact the the various economic zones within the eurozone are not free floating, they are stuck as part of the larger euro value.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6389779/Euro-at-1.50-is-disaster--for-Europe.html

http://www.futurefastforward.com/financial-analysis/2609-by-ambrose-evans-pritchard-telegraph-uk-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6202911/The-Euro-why-Britain-is-still-better-off-out.html

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/eurosceptic-telegraph-still-praising-iceland/

-

Furunculus

11-09-2009, 09:16

Jewish groups are getting their knickers in a twist over Milliband branding the polish president as an anti-semite:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6510075/Serial-offenders-spared-jail-to-cut-crime.html

also had bbc radio on this morning, and they were doing a piece about the latvian MP's gross nationalism, which seemed to be code for; yes, hes is anti-federalist, isn't it so nasty?

Beskar

11-09-2009, 16:13

Problem with Latvia is the economy is getting steamrolled into the ground, along with various government policies about employment meaning everyone is losing permanment places, and being highed as temps in companies which have an exception to a new employment tax, then these temps get hired by these companies by other companies. So the attempt to get more tax is instead ended up through loopholes, being used to make others richer.

Also, Latvian nationalism is a very interesting concept, especially with a high population minority of them being Russians, who actively see themselves as being Russian and refuse to even use the Latvian language. They are also quite distinctive compared to the native Latvians. They even experience the New Year at Russian New Year time.

Furunculus

11-09-2009, 17:46

for this we have uncle Joe to thank, still they are the facts on the ground, and we cannot wish them away.

Furunculus

11-10-2009, 17:29

also had bbc radio on this morning, and they were doing a piece about the latvian MP's gross nationalism, which seemed to be code for; yes, hes is anti-federalist, isn't it so nasty?
re the beeb in its latest attempt to tilt at windmills:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100016352/false-charges-of-anti-semitism-demean-the-accuser-not-the-accused/

False charges of anti-Semitism demean the accuser, not the accused

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: November 10th, 2009

They just can’t let go, these Lefties. Their campaign against Michał Kamiński was based, as we now know, on a false initial report: the Chief Rabbi of Poland has complained that the New Statesman carried a “grotesque distortion” of his views. At the same time, the Latvian Foreign Minister (not a member of the LNNK, our sister party in Latvia) has telephoned David Miliband to warn that his partisanship is damaging the two countries’ bilateral relations.

Yet the smear-mongers continue unabashed. Last week, the BBC sent a team to Latvia which, despite its best efforts, was unable to find any evidence that the LNNK was far-Right. So instead, on the Today Programme yesterday, we got a spiel about how the LNNK is heartily disliked by Russians in Latvia (There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave, to tell us this: the LNNK, after all, ended the Russian occupation of Latvia.)

Now Jonathan Freedland complains in The Guardian that many of the British Jews who support Michał Kamiński are Tories. Well, yes, of course they are. Michał is a member of our allied party in Poland. Obviously his strongest supporters are likely to be on the Centre-Right. Now I’m fond of Jonathan Freedland: I read his columns avidly, and his book, Bring Home the Revolution, is a masterpiece. But it really is a bit rich for him to complain because the Telegraph described its signatories as “leading figures in the Jewish community”. Last month, his own paper ran a front page story about “leading Jewish figures” criticising Kamiński. Who were these “leading Jewish figures”? A Labour peer and, er, a Labour MP. Indeed, to see the opéra bouffe way in which that newspaper has conducted its campaign against the ECR, read this.

Please remember, chaps, that we’re dealing with human beings. Accusations of anti-Semitism should not be made lightly or wantonly, but reverently, discreedly, advisedly, soberly. As Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, and himself a Labour supporter, has said about l’affaire Kaminski: “There are few things more despicable than anti-Semitism, but here’s one of them: using a false charge of anti-Semitism for political gain.”
the federasts just won't let go, anyone would think they felt threatened or some such notion!

Subotan

11-10-2009, 20:00

Also, Latvian nationalism is a very interesting concept, especially with a high population minority of them being Russians, who actively see themselves as being Russian and refuse to even use the Latvian language. They are also quite distinctive compared to the native Latvians. They even experience the New Year at Russian New Year time.

If they're so Russian, why don't they move back to Russia?

Vladimir

11-10-2009, 21:06

If they're so Russian, why don't they move back to Russia?

Why don't dem darn fereigners move back war they came from!

It's a little more complicated than that.

Sarmatian

11-10-2009, 21:08

If they're so Russian, why don't they move back to Russia?

Maybe because democracy and freedom are concepts that are supposed to be applied to everyone?

Beskar

11-10-2009, 21:52

Russian Latvians want Latvia back in Russia. They see themselves as Russians and where they are as being part of Russia. I remember even seeing one of their equalivants to an MP with a Soviet numberplate on their car, seriously.

Subotan

11-10-2009, 22:29

Why don't dem darn fereigners move back war they came from!

It's a little more complicated than that.
I understand that, but it's just puzzling. If you consider yourself so Russian, that you refuse to learn the language of the country where you live, and refuse to teach your children it, then you would probably be better off in Russia.

Maybe because democracy and freedom are concepts that are supposed to be applied to everyone?
If they like it so much, then they should return to Russia to campaign for it to liberate their Russian brethren.

Russian Latvians want Latvia back in Russia. They see themselves as Russians and where they are as being part of Russia. I remember even seeing one of their equalivants to an MP with a Soviet numberplate on their car, seriously.
Is that funny or scary? Or both?

Furunculus

11-11-2009, 09:41

Simon Heffer's analysis on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of Cameron's EU policy and its impact on the ECR in europe:

When it comes to Europe, David Cameron is howling in the night
The other 26 EU countries are not about to exhume the corpse of national sovereignty, says Simon Heffer.

By Simon Heffer
Published: 7:40PM GMT 10 Nov 2009

Politicians find it hard to be honest with the public because the truth always hurts, and disaffects, a large portion of the electorate. The fraudulent debate being conducted about our economy, and how to revive it, is the result of this; and so, too, is the problem the Conservative Party has about Europe. That problem is back, mutating into a civil war, and it is going to get much worse.

It is curious that David Miliband should find it preferable to be the leader of the opposition of a glorified county council than to be the leading proconsul of an imperial power: he seems not to have accurately appraised the full reach of the superstate created by the Treaty of Lisbon. David Cameron, by contrast, seems to have worked that out, which is why he was so fervently opposed to the treaty's being enacted.

I do not doubt his sincere dislike of the treaty. Lisbon countermands any idea of a British democracy. That our Prime Minister should have signed it was a constitutional outrage. But Mr Cameron's inevitable decision to abandon his "cast iron" promise to have a referendum was handled extremely foolishly. He should have done it sooner rather than appear to have strung people along. I do not know whether he is obtuse or simply dishonest. I do not know at which point he realised that there would not continue to be a separate entity called the Treaty of Lisbon from which, by repealing an Act of Parliament, he could have Britain resile at any time. I do not know when he worked out that it was going to be consolidated into the governing treaty of the European Union. I do not know whether he has realised that the only referendum it is feasible for him to call, should he have the power to do so, is one that asks the public whether they wish Britain to stay in the EU, or to get out.

I do not like to impugn anyone's motives – even when he is Leader of the Opposition – but the mess Mr Cameron made last week in this desperate attempt to distract attention from his humiliating
U-turn does raise further questions. In setting out his new policy towards Europe, he seemed to show a continued unrealism about the institution with which he is dealing.

The policy consisted of four points. The first was a promise to hold referendums on any new European treaties. The second was to introduce a Sovereignty Bill to prevent certain powers ever being given abroad. The third was a specific promise to repatriate powers concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights, employment and criminal law. As a codicil to this literally incredible performance, William Hague discounted an assertion by Pierre Lellouche, the French minister for Europe, that this would "castrate" Britain in the EU.

Let us take each of these points in turn. Should Mr Cameron become prime minister and command a majority in Parliament, there would be nothing to stop him having referendums on future European treaties. All that would be required would be treaties to have the referendums on. More than a year ago, the Commission decreed that there had been enough treaty-making in Europe, after the single market, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and now Lisbon. It said the time had come for Europe to get on with being Europe, and to stop being distracted by making rules. It said there would be no new intergovernmental conference for 10, or possibly 15 years. This would mean that Mr Cameron would have to serve for longer than Tony Blair, or as long as Lady Thatcher, to have the chance to demonstrate this aspect of his commitment to democracy.

A Sovereignty Bill is an interesting concept, in much the same way as is shutting a stable door after the horse has bolted. All those treaties I have listed above, and the European Communities Act 1972 that began the whole process for us, have removed too much already. Such a law could also bring us into conflict with Brussels. The removal of more of our sovereignty is guaranteed by the ratchet effect of Lisbon, and the loss under it of so many of our vetos. This is a tiresome point, but one worth Mr Cameron bearing in mind. As for the repatriation of powers, that would require the agreement of all other 26 EU countries. That will not happen. Having all agreed to bury the corpse of national sovereignty, after a long illness and extended funeral, they are not now going to agree to its exhumation. This brings us back to Mr Lellouche, who made this point to the Conservatives last week. Mr Hague countered with the assertion that Mr Lellouche's was a minority view. I am afraid that is not true, as Mr Hague will find if he glances through most of the European press. All the Conservative Party is doing is howling in the night.

When Mr Cameron sees cocktail parties of the sort we witnessed in Berlin this week, with happy, smiling European leaders rejoicing in the new order, he must rather wish he had an invitation. He also knows that one of the perceived hallmarks of his party's so-called "nastiness" was their objection to our subsummation into the European superstate. Yet it was only with the support of 25 or so Eurosceptic MPs in the autumn of 2005 that his leadership campaign took off. Payback for them was the new alignment in the European Parliament that finds his party hobnobbing with alleged homophobes, anti-Semites and adulators of the Waffen SS, charges which have been hotly denied. He knows too that without the votes of millions of committed Eurosceptics he is sunk at the next election – especially if they split the vote in countless target seats by voting for Ukip, whose position on the EU is at least unequivocal. The anger among Tory voters that has followed his climbdown on the referendum is a warning of what will come when Europe next seeks to help itself to what we think is ours.

How long he can hold the meaningless new line remains to be seen. He must hope it will last until he has had his meeting with destiny – or, rather, the electorate – next spring. I suspect it will not be long after the treaty comes into force on December 1 that the full implications of it will become apparent to even the most casual observer, and with it the emptiness of Mr Cameron's promises. He does seem to make European policy without ever considering its consequences – as with his promise to leave the European People's Party, his promise to have a referendum, and now his promise to save British sovereignty. As Norman Lamont's boot boy, Mr Cameron had a ringside seat for the travails of John Major during the last civil war. He appears to have learned little from the exercise. Sir John encouraged false expectations and they were destroyed by the reality of the European project. Mr Cameron, even before he gets into power, risks making the same, corrosive mistake.

Perhaps when we all realise how much has been sacrificed for us in the name of European unity it will be easier for alleged sceptics like Mr Cameron to tell the truth. One thing, though, is never in doubt. To pretend that Britain might one day dine à la carte from the menu of the Treaty of Lisbon would be just the latest grotesque deceit practised upon this country in the name of Europe.
i'm agreed with heffer in that i don't have confidence that DC will have the resolve or the ability to make good on his EUro policy.

Furunculus

11-11-2009, 12:59

some awesome examples of the EU spending my money on propaganda that i am directly opposed to:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top50waste.pdf

a few choice examples:

€680,000 for “running costs” of NGOs promoting EU integration
In 2009 the EU allocated €680,000 for the “running costs of the Platform of European
Social Non-Governmental Organisations”. Among the stated aims of this are: “giving
citizens the opportunity to interact and participate in the construction of an ever closer
union”, as well as “developing the conscience of a European identity”, and “reinforcing
citizens’ sense of being part of the European Union.”
i don't want an ever closer union.

€400,000 for videomaking festival to promote EU citizenship
The European Cultural Foundation spent €400,000 on its ‘Stranger’ festival in
Amsterdam37, for 150 young people to develop their videomaking skills in the ‘Stranger
Academy’38. Short films were entered into a competition aiming to promote ‘intercultural
dialogue’ and EU citizenship. One of the winning 2008 films, “scriptwrited”, told the story
of a script writer who lives in two worlds, a world of dreams and the real world and in
“who I am (not)” a young boy lists off the many things he cannot do, concluding “but I
could record this film”.
nor too do i care about EU citizenship.

‘Donkeypedia’: the blogging donkey
As part of the EU’s €7 million ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ initiative, the European
Commission ran an art education project called “Donkeypedia”, in which a donkey
travels through the Netherlands, and primary school children meet and greet the donkey.
The aim of the project was “creating a reflection of all European identities. What are the
similarities, what are the differences? What is it that makes Europe as unique as it is?
Donkeypedia will try to make this feeling tangible by interacting and in dialogue with its
surroundings while walking a European route through several countries and collecting
data to support this image.” The donkey, named Asino, also maintained a blog
throughout the walk. One entry reads: “We started really early today, Cristian slept in a
bed in a house. It was a crazy morning waking up. I was under a chestnut tree sleeping
in sand, when I opened my eyes there were animals all looking at me. I was
embarrassed! Now I understand a little how people from different cultures may feel in the
Netherlands.”
just, what!?!?

In 2008 alone, the EU spent more than €2.4 billion promoting European integration
and ‘ever closer union’ through a myriad of funding streams and through the various
Commission departments – DG Culture, DG Education and Citizenship, and DG
Communication.
2.4B euros on ever-closer-union!!!!!!!!! i wonder how much they spent promoting a loose association of sovereign nation states?

Subotan

11-11-2009, 13:06

€680,000 for “running costs” of NGOs promoting EU integration
In 2009 the EU allocated €680,000 for the “running costs of the Platform of European
Social Non-Governmental Organisations”. Among the stated aims of this are: “giving
citizens the opportunity to interact and participate in the construction of an ever closer
union”, as well as “developing the conscience of a European identity”, and “reinforcing
citizens’ sense of being part of the European Union.”
I wonder what the costs of promoting the Scottish, Welsh or even British identity are.
Btw, some of us do want a closer union, and it's nice to see them allocating at least a small amount of money for this purpose :3

€400,000 for videomaking festival to promote EU citizenship

Yeah, European culture sucks, we should all watch Holywood instead, and all the American patriotism that comes bundled with that.

‘
Donkeypedia’: the blogging donkey

I suppose this would be a waste of money, if children could understand concepts such as race, identity, immi9gration, economics, demographics...
But they don't, so donkeys are a neat idea of getting the message across.

Furunculus

11-11-2009, 14:56

I wonder what the costs of promoting the Scottish, Welsh or even British identity are.

Btw, some of us do want a closer union, and it's nice to see them allocating at least a small amount of money for this purpose :3

within the EU, like the British Council for example, sure its propaganda but its aimed at outsiders and paid for by us, rather than us paying for propaganda to change our own opinions.

a small amount of money........... given the stated preference of the british public at least this is propaganda.

Beskar

11-11-2009, 15:04

Because all propaganda = bad?

The government pumps so much propaganda on the TV screens it is unbelievable. They pumped that advert with the cheese paste heart arteries and blood curdling images against smoking the same time they were passing bills to ban it in public places. Successful anti-smoking propaganda has turned smoking pretty much into a "mainstream cool thing" after years of advertisement (propaganda from companies) into a terrible and dirty thing.

Furunculus

11-11-2009, 15:20

i think most people can distinguish between a health campaign and political propaganda.

it is for this reason that public bodies like the BBC have a charter that specifies impartiality (whether they adhere to it or not), and why even repellent political parties are given air-time.

Subotan

11-11-2009, 15:25

Promoting understanding and pan-Europeanism is not propaganda, at least in the conventional sense of the term.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-11-2009, 19:50

Promoting understanding and pan-Europeanism is not propaganda, at least in the conventional sense of the term.

Yes it is, in fact it fits the very definition of propaganda:

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as it wasn't my tax money that was subsidizing this or that my tax money was evenly subsidizing the opposition (eurosceptic) viewpoint.

Beskar

11-12-2009, 03:08

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as it wasn't my tax money that was subsidizing this or that my tax money was evenly subsidizing the opposition (eurosceptic) viewpoint.

Don't worry, I contacted the European Union on your behalf. Your tax money is being spent providing biscuits for international business dealerships representatives.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-12-2009, 03:28

Don't worry, I contacted the European Union on your behalf. Your tax money is being spent providing biscuits for international business dealerships representatives.

At least that might indirectly put some money back into my pocket.

Beskar

11-12-2009, 04:34

At least that might indirectly put some money back into my pocket.

Indeed.

My money was actually used on expensive wall-paper, on the idea that these same businessmen make deals based on the quality of the wallpaper. (Well, officially, that is my Borough Council, but I bet the EU did the same)

Subotan

11-12-2009, 10:09

Don't worry, I contacted the European Union on your behalf. Your tax money is being spent providing biscuits for international business dealerships representatives.

They had better be chocolate Hob Nobs

Furunculus

11-13-2009, 09:24

oops, here's another reference to the EUSSR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6556379/Latvian-candidate-for-EU-President-says-selection-process-is-Soviet.html

Latvian candidate for EU President says selection process is 'Soviet'
Vaira Vike-Freiberga, a Latvian candidate to be the European Union's first President, claimed the appointment is being conducted with Soviet-style secrecy and contempt for the public.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 6:00AM GMT 13 Nov 2009

Mrs Vike-Freiberga, 71, the former Latvian President and the Baltic state's first post-Communist leader after independence from the Soviet Union, attacked the EU for operating in "darkness and behind closed doors".

"The European Union should stop working like the former Soviet Union," she said.

She is the only person to have openly declared herself as in the running to become EU President, a job created by the Lisbon Treaty.

European leaders will choose both a President and EU foreign minister over a summit dinner in Brussels next Thursday but the list of up to 12 candidates for each post is a closely guarded diplomatic secret.

Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian prime minister, is thought to be the current favourite for president. He has French and German support but has not publicly declared himself to be in the contest.

Other names in the ring are Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, and Jan Peter Balkenende, the current Dutch leader. Neither man has openly put himself forward as a candidate.

David Miliband, an undeclared candidate for the post of EU foreign minister until he pulled out on Wednesday, compared media efforts to work out the EU appointment process as akin to "Kremlinology".

Kremlinology was the name given to Cold War era attempts to understand the inner workings of a secretive and totalitarian Soviet government.

The lack of public, democratic campaigning during Soviet leadership battles left Western observers trying to divine internal political dynamics from apparent trivia such as seating orders at official banquets and the removal of portraits.

"Trying to work out who is going to be President of the EU Council is not dissimilar to decoding who was in or out in the Kremlin in the 1970s. It seems strange to many of us that 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall we have to dust off our Kremlinology skills here in Brussels," said an Eastern European diplomat.

Frederik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister and current holder of the EU's rotating presidency, is overseeing the secretive job selection. Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he denied that there was any comparison to the Soviet Union.

"I think it is a wrong comparison to use the word Kremlinologist because the Communist oppression was nowhere near what we are trying to achieve with democracy in Europe," he said.

Mrs Vike-Freiberga, who speaks English, French, German and Spanish in addition to Latvian, steered Latvia into the EU and Nato in 2004 and served as president for two consecutive terms between 1999 and 2007.

Known as the Latvian "Iron Lady" for her support of the Iraq war and military intervention in Afghanistan, she is not a member of a political party but is regarded as from the centre-right.

silly thing, doesn't she know that such facile comparisons do nothing but air-brush over the genuine suffering felt under communism! no....... wait, she was behind that wall too, maybe she's onto something?

Louis VI the Fat

11-13-2009, 13:29

oops, here's another reference to the EUSSR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6556379/Latvian-candidate-for-EU-President-says-selection-process-is-Soviet.html

silly thing, doesn't she know that such facile comparisons do nothing but air-brush over the genuine suffering felt under communism! no....... wait, she was behind that wall too, maybe she's onto something?No she wasn't behind the wall. She has never lived under communism. Her family was endeared to the nazis. They fled Latvia in 1944 to Germany. After Germany lost, they fled again to Morocco and later Canada.

She belongs to that circle of East European politicians who were very instrumental in bringing their countries into the EU. Only to start comparing the EU with Nazis or Communists as soon as the subsidies had started flowing. Very disappointing.

Furunculus

11-13-2009, 15:02

lol, good catch. :p

Subotan

11-13-2009, 19:17

One of the problems with the EU is that smaller countries mewl like piglets when anything that threatens their disproportionate power within the EU is proposed (Read: Democracy). If France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland and Spain just said "Luxembourg, Ireland, Malta; STFU.", we would have a much more efficient and democratic EU.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-13-2009, 20:20

Beskar

11-13-2009, 20:42

On the plus side, it is less bloodly than the previous attempts of uniting Europe over the last few hundred years.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-13-2009, 20:46

On the plus side, it is less bloodly than the previous attempts of uniting Europe over the last few hundred years.

So far, but you'd think they'd learn enough to give up after a while.

Beskar

11-13-2009, 20:52

So far, but you'd think they'd learn enough to give up after a while.

There is unfortunately a big advantage in doing it, especially for places like Britain which is very overcrowded and no resources for industry themselves. They look over to the East, a land full of pots of gold ready to be digged up, and perhaps shift some of the population over there too.

Furunculus

11-14-2009, 16:50

what are these lands to the east?

Beskar

11-14-2009, 16:54

Those with natural resources to plunder and need population in order to plunder them. Countries like Poland, etc.

Argubly, you could use free-trade to do that though. However, it is probably politically cheaper to dig it up yourself and just take it for elsewhere.

Biggest reason for empires is to attain resources for your Empire at the lowest possible dominator, also, bringing politically stability and control to those resources. This is why Britain had an Empire, this is while all other nations had an Empire or wanted a Empire, it's the foundation of all Empires is basic economic control and wealth, with further political control to stabilize the economy.

Furunculus

11-14-2009, 18:26

so is that the core motivator for left-wing EU enthusiasts; that by banding together in an exercise of empire building you will manage to preserve europe as an island of social democracy, impervious to the perfidious influences of capitalist and merchant'alist ideologies?

btw, i disagree that free trade is not the best way to achieve this end in the 21st century.

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

there are a number of interesting video interviews at this site:
http://www.greateudebate.com/

from various viewpoints about the britain's relationship with the EU.

only seen Danial Hannan's so far, but it is well worth watching, as are many of the others i suspect too:
http://www.greateudebate.com/2009/daniel-hannan-conservative-mep

-

Beskar

11-14-2009, 21:41

so is that the core motivator for left-wing EU enthusiasts; that by banding together in an exercise of empire building you will manage to preserve europe as an island of social democracy, impervious to the perfidious influences of capitalist and merchant'alist ideologies?

btw, i disagree that free trade is not the best way to achieve this end in the 21st century.

You put it in words I could never have done.

I wasn't speaking purely from my own point of view, but that could be a explanation of why many people would want it, speaking from an historical Empire viewpoint for reference (negative implications aside for now).

Louis VI the Fat

11-15-2009, 00:57

If France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland and Spain just said "Luxembourg, Ireland, Malta; STFU.", we would have a much more efficient and democratic EU.The last time we told a small and insignificant country to STFU, those Poles indeed mewled even louder than those two pot-bellied pigs I keep for a hobby.

I agree that very tiny countries like Malta and Ireland would be better off kept under the guidance of mature nations, yes. In fact, I don't see why Ireland should not simply be a part of the UK. Europe is not cluttered with an independent Cornwall or Isle of Wight either.

Furunculus

11-15-2009, 01:55

unfortunately that is because you fail to recognise that national sovereignty is still important to people, and ireland has no wish to be governed by the UK.

Beskar

11-15-2009, 01:57

I agree in that Ireland joining the Britain would be bad for it, in the current state of Britain. Europe has the potentional to do things right, unfortunately, it most likely won't go down the right route.

If European actually goes the Swiss route, then it would be a very diplomatic force which could make it great. However, it most likely turn into the shadow of the USSR/USA.

Very idea that a President of Europe won't be elected by its people is pretty sickening.

Furunculus

11-15-2009, 12:46

what do you mean by diplomatic force, and how is that reinforced by a swiss federal system?

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

re: the greateudebate

here is a pro EU interview with Richard Laming of the European movement:

http://www.greateudebate.com/2009/richard-laming-european-movement/

Beskar

11-15-2009, 17:48

Swiss federal style system inplace ontop of the current European system would be a big step towards a diplomatic Europe, where discisions are made in conjunction of the people of Europe and their delegates for their states in Parliament.

Compared to the system now where we elect people PR style into a parliament and it is ran by them and European quango's who mae decisions such as who the next leader is, etc.

European President should be a full European election from all member states. If I am honest, I am also believer that the cabinet as it were, should get elected individually as well. So that will go for the foreign secretary, etc.

Louis VI the Fat

11-15-2009, 18:36

I would love an elected president, and more power to the parliament. This will make the EU more directly accountable and transparant.

Alas, the anti-federalists will have none of it.

Beskar

11-15-2009, 19:32

I am curious, what do Furunculus and EMFM think? Do you think the president should be elected across Europe from the populace of member states? Or the quango-styled oppointment which is going on?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-15-2009, 19:35

I don't think there should be a President at all, especially with post-Lisbon powers. Ideally I would prefer them to be elected if we have to have one.

Furunculus

11-15-2009, 19:50

I am curious, what do Furunculus and EMFM think? Do you think the president should be elected across Europe from the populace of member states? Or the quango-styled oppointment which is going on?

i am absolutely in favour of directly electing the people who govern me.

however Louis is right; the problem is that i have no wish to be ruled from europe, by europe, and in the name of europe. so i take the principled stance of throwing every spanner into the cogs that i can find to slow down the loss of british national sovereignty. i have no wish to see the EU gain legitimacy because i do not want to be ruled from brussels.

the problem you have is that if i cannot be a good neighbour, i will be an atrocious tenant.

as long as europe connives with our own politicians to keep us inside an ever deeper union i believe you will find the British people will force their politicians into euro-skeptic positions necessary to stop outright revolution, so we will always be an atrocious tenant because the British people see no reason to opt for a federal EU governance.

it might be best for everybody if we left to join EFTA, because I really do want to be a good neighbour.

Subotan

11-16-2009, 01:27

That shouldn't be such a big step, silencing those who disagree with you is already part of the new European "democracy."

You miss this point; the EU focus on equality of states, not the nations and peoples which male up those states. That's the root cause of the "democratic deficit", as the vote of one German is worth considerably less that the vote of one Maltese, and this is exploited by cynical politicians and megalomaniacs. I'm not silencing those who disagree with me, I'm silencing corruption.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-16-2009, 01:51

You miss this point; the EU focus on equality of states, not the nations and peoples which male up those states. That's the root cause of the "democratic deficit", as the vote of one German is worth considerably less that the vote of one Maltese, and this is exploited by cynical politicians and megalomaniacs. I'm not silencing those who disagree with me, I'm silencing corruption.

The argument that you make here directly contradicts the standard pro-European argument that little countries will suddenly have more say on the world stage.

Beskar

11-16-2009, 03:19

I know we are getting a EU which I don't want. Now we gone over the step where we are actually part of a EU, we can now work to change it.

Furunculus

11-16-2009, 09:51

"i sense............. a disturbance in the force, it speaks of of strong parallels between your desires and Canutes tides."

really Beskar, our politicians have been playing that game for since before Mastrict, and it has had two results:

1. It has alienated British people from european political constructs. do not confuse xenophobia with EUro-skepticism.

2. It has made Britain into a very bad EUropean tenant because of the contortions WE force our politicians to perform.

Might it not be just better all round if we let EUrope get on with their federalism, as we cheer them on from the sidelines as a good neighbour should?

Subotan

11-16-2009, 19:29

The argument that you make here directly contradicts the standard pro-European argument that little countries will suddenly have more say on the world stage.

Again, you misinterpreted my argument. The individual states which make up the EU will have less power, such as the way in which Rhode Island has less influence internationally than California, however, the people within those countries will have more influence as individuals internationally due to them being part of the European Union.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-16-2009, 22:01

Again, you misinterpreted my argument. The individual states which make up the EU will have less power, such as the way in which Rhode Island has less influence internationally than California, however, the people within those countries will have more influence as individuals internationally due to them being part of the European Union.

Which is a contradictory argument. You will shut them up, close their embassies, and deprive them of an equal share in the vote. They will not be allowed even the minor foreign policy they hold now. Therefore, joining the European Union under any system but the present one will strongly devalue their power. For this reason the European Union will not work - it will either be undemocratic or will not achieve its goals. There are other reasons, of course, but that is a big one.

Subotan

11-17-2009, 00:20

Which is a contradictory argument. You will shut them up, close their embassies, and deprive them of an equal share in the vote. .

Once again, you have confused equality of states with the equality of people within those states.

They will not be allowed even the minor foreign policy they hold now.

In that case, why shouldn't Cornwall become independent? Or Bavaria? Or Brittany? Or even Frisia, Lusatia, or the Faores?
I could go on. You couldn't say that the people in those regions are denied a voice on the world stage, just because they happen to be part of a bigger nation.

Therefore, joining the European Union under any system but the present one will strongly devalue their power.
Yes, of the governments of those states. Which is what I want, and what Europe needs.

[QUOTE=Evil_Maniac From Mars;2379852]For this reason the European Union will not work - it will either be undemocratic or will not achieve its goals./QUOTE]

Heh, people said the same thing about the USA.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-17-2009, 00:30

Once again, you have confused equality of states with the equality of people within those states.

In a democracy these should be one and the same. If you devalue the power of those states you devalue the power of the people they represent.

In that case, why shouldn't Cornwall become independent? Or Bavaria? Or Brittany? Or even Frisia, Lusatia, or the Faores?
I could go on. You couldn't say that the people in those regions are denied a voice on the world stage, just because they happen to be part of a bigger nation.

It isn't the same argument, and I can refer you to the website that was linked to by Furunculus which will explain why.

Yes, of the governments of those states. Which is what I want, and what Europe needs.

The governments which represent the people should have reduced power? While it may be what you want, I want the government representing me to have as much power as possible. Progressive erosion of proper representation isn't what Europe needs or what her people need, it is what elements of the political class in Europe desire.

Heh, people said the same thing about the USA.

Perhaps, but by now they should have realized that the USA and the European Union are two entirely different entities in almost every respect. For a start, the USA is a national entity, the European Union is supranational.

Beskar

11-17-2009, 00:37

Perhaps, but by now they should have realized that the USA and the European Union are two entirely different entities in almost every respect. For a start, the USA is a national entity, the European Union is supranational.

Federal Europe would arguably become a national entity. It is only supranational in the sense that they are recognised as nations making it up, opposed to USA where California, etc isn't classed as a nation.

Also, Europe should serve the needs of the people of Europe and the people of Europe being equal. It shouldn't directly serve the needs of a nation within.

Furunculus

11-17-2009, 01:09

Federal Europe would arguably become a national entity. It is only supranational in the sense that they are recognised as nations making it up, opposed to USA where California, etc isn't classed as a nation.

only if the peoples within accept it as such.....................

Beskar

11-17-2009, 01:30

only if the peoples within accept it as such.....................

Yes, which is why said "could arguably become" and not said about it being so now. :yes:

Subotan

11-17-2009, 10:09

In a democracy these should be one and the same. ..
That is impossible.

If you devalue the power of those states you devalue the power of the people they represent.
Not if you increase their representation as a whole, through stronger, more meaningful Europe-wide elections.

It isn't the same argument, and I can refer you to the website that was linked to by Furunculus which will explain why.
Ok, sure. Link plz.

The governments which represent the people should have reduced power? While it may be what you want, I want the government representing me to have as much power as possible. Progressive erosion of proper representation isn't what Europe needs or what her people need, it is what elements of the political class in Europe desire.
You're not following. Reducing the power of the national entities (E.g. Luxembourg) would have to be met by a corresponding increase in both power and representation in the EU. I wouldn't suport a measure that didn't, and I'm sure nobody else in Europe would either.

Perhaps, but by now they should have realized that the USA and the European Union are two entirely different entities in almost every respect.
How so? The EU looks quite similar to the early Republic.

For a start, the USA is a national entity, the European Union is supranational.
This disregards the fact that the Republic was made of thirteen seperate colonies, which were effectively, umm, countries.

Furunculus

11-17-2009, 17:20

Time for some more Der Spiegel loving.

The European Union is struggling to find a president and a foreign minister:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,661595,00.html
Europe's Bumbling Search for an International Voice
By Hans-Jürgen Schlamp in Brussels

With the Lisbon Treaty soon to become reality, the European Union is struggling to find a president and a foreign minister. The dream of an EU diplomatic service is within grasp, but will it make a difference? Members of the European Parliament are already warning of a "bureaucratic monster."
It should have been a triumphant week of fireworks and celebratory fanfare. The new Lisbon Treaty has been ratified and the EU is about to embark on a new era, which will finally give Europe an entirely new ability to shape its political future.

Only two leading figures are still being sought to add new luster and generate new momentum for the community: a permanent European Council president, who will endeavor to unite the often quarrelsome European club, and a foreign minister, who will represent the continent on the global stage and act as the voice of the 27 member countries.
But it will be a difficult week for Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt -- and for Europe. This week the EU risks getting egg on its face once again -- and Europe will lay the cornerstone for a new mega-bureaucracy.

Now it is up to Reinfeldt -- who currently holds the six-month rotating EU presidency -- to avert the EU's next scandal. The only problem is that some of his colleagues have no desire to allow things to proceed smoothly.

Bickering with the Neighbors

The search for the two top politicians on the continent has degenerated into petty squabbling. Forget the spirit of European unity: Eastern Europe is at odds with Western Europe, small countries are bickering with their larger neighbors, and nationalists are locking horns with utopians who dream of a United States of Europe. And the usual alliances are once again being forged in the backrooms of Brussels.

Reinfeldt has negotiated with all 26 of his counterparts, but perhaps he lacked skill, or was too naïve or inexperienced. In any case, he has failed in his attempts to gain a majority for one candidate or the other. Now all hopes are being pinned on a Brussels "working dinner" this coming Thursday.
It could end up being a "very long dinner," warned the Swede, who is threatening, if necessary, to have the matter decided by a majority vote, instead of unanimously.

That would be a magnificent false start for the new Europe. It would, of course, be an embarrassment for the European Council president if part of the continent voted against him. But it would also make life extremely difficult for the EU's new foreign policy representative -- the man who, due to pressure from the British, will not be allowed to call himself the "EU Foreign Minister," but merely the "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy."
Massimo D'Alema, Italy's former prime minister and former foreign minister, currently has the best chances of getting the job. At first glance, it looks like D'Alema would assume a powerful position. He would become Javier Solana's heir as secretary-general of the Council and, at the same time, take over the portfolio of the EU foreign commissioner and serve as the vice president of the European Commission. No one has ever held a seat in both institutions, the Council and the Commission.

The EU's military and police agencies will be placed under the command of the future foreign policy head. He or she will also be responsible for coordinating security and defense policies, and will serve as the prominent head of the EU at political events in other parts of the world.

Dreams of an Equal Footing

To achieve this mission, a powerful administration will be placed at the foreign minister's disposal, something which promises to be both expensive and enormous. The new "European External Action Service" could end up with a staff of 6,000 to 7,000 eurocrats. The EU would acquire yet another bloated bureaucracy -- without eliminating a single permanent position in the foreign ministries of the 27 member states. [good!]

For decades, dedicated Europeans have dreamt of a unified foreign policy. They yearn to be on an equal footing with the superpowers -- always available, always capable of action. They finally want to speak with one voice and avoid fiascos such as during the Iraq war, when the EU was deeply divided in its position on the US-led invasion.

Hopefully, the days will be over when Solana, the EU's top diplomat, railed against electoral fraud in Kenya, while at the same time the EU development commissioner transferred millions of euros to the bank accounts of those who had rigged the elections. The EU also wants to put an end to embarrassing missions such as during the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, when French President Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally negotiated a cease-fire with the Kremlin that most Europeans found unsatisfactory.

An Annoying Rival

Other foreign policy initiatives have also ended in humiliation. In 2008 the Mediterranean Union turned out to be a French ego trip, and when the EU launched its so-called Eastern Partnership in Prague in May of this year, most Western European leaders shunned the founding summit, out of consideration for Russia. In view of the historical, political and cultural diversity of Europe, it can hardly be expected that 27 highly diverse countries would have the same opinion on issues such as the war in Afghanistan, peacekeeping troops for Africa or aid missions in the Balkans. However, a foreign minister armed with courage and skill would have an easier time forging compromises.
This is what the architects of the Lisbon Treaty had in mind. They want a strong and influential figure at the helm of Europe's foreign ministry. But the closer this new Brussels mega-bureaucracy has come to becoming a reality, the clearer it has become that this intention ultimately may not be reflected by the end product.

The dream of a European diplomatic offensive has started to crumble. Representing the EU to the outside world requires influence and prestige, yet the majority of Europe's leading politicians see the future foreign minister in Brussels as little more than an annoying rival. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown all want to see a figure who can be reined in whenever necessary. [No kidding!]

Not surprisingly, the top candidates currently under discussion to become the EU's chief diplomat are all colorless types -- in addition to D'Alema, there is the current EU commissioner for enlargement, Finland's Olli Rehn, and former Romanian Foreign Minister Adrian Severin.

On a Short Leash

To make matters worse, strict limits will be placed on the future chief diplomat's autonomy, as outlined in a 10-page paper which was approved at the EU summit in October. During the EU's regular consultations with the leaders of Russia, China or the US, the Council and the Commission presidents will do the talking. The foreign minister merely plays a "supportive role," as they call it in Brussels.

In addition to being placed on a short leash at such summits, Europe's chief diplomat will also not be allowed to venture beyond strictly defined limits when dealing with day-to-day politics. The high representative may be allowed to speak with the Turkish government about its relations with Iraq, but he or she will be prohibited from discussing with Ankara the prerequisites for possible EU membership, such as freedom of the press and respecting human rights. In the future, the issue of Turkish membership will still be reserved for the Commission.

In the Balkans the top EU diplomat can talk about everything under the sun -- but will be strictly forbidden from mentioning possible financial aid from Brussels. Everything that has to do with EU enlargement falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The top diplomat will also have to steer clear of key areas such as foreign aid and international trade.

The enormous flock of aides to the high representative could also create additional confusion. They are quite a mixed bunch. A few hundred experts from the European Council are to team up with 3,000 colleagues from the Commission. This group will be joined by as many as 2,000 additional diplomats and experts from all the member states. No one knows how the selection process will take place. Should the eurocrats submit a blanket application to the new institution or apply for specific jobs?

Coveted Jobs

The heads of state and government have decided that all candidates should be highly qualified. They also demand that a third of the workforce should be selected so that the staff adequately represents Europe's far-flung geography -- no country should be neglected. The regional distribution has to be balanced, along with the genders of staff members. What's more, plans call for them to be replaced every four years -- and regularly rotate jobs during their tour of duty.
This will almost inevitably lead to a high degree of frustration and low productivity among the staff. [Who'd have guessed!]There will be no lack of applicants. These jobs are coveted, especially in Europe's less affluent regions. A top diplomat in Bulgaria earns at most about €800 ($1,200) a month back home. In Brussels he would receive 10 times that salary, even if he only had a peripheral job in the administration.

At the moment, the European Commission already maintains over 130 branch offices around the world -- from Morocco to Macedonia and from Brazil to Burkina Faso. Over 5,000 EU employees write reports there, bring money into the country, monitor the allocation of these funds and make politics. Brussels is even present in Fiji, where it has no less than 35 employees.

The EU staff faces a shake-up. They will now be carefully sorted, with some being integrated into the new foreign office, while others will be hired by the Commission to serve as aid workers. All representations, whether they are located on Samoa or Fiji, will be replenished with fresh recruits from Warsaw, Prague or Malta, at least at the management level. It goes without saying that additional chauffeurs, cooks and gardeners will also be hired.

Fears of a Monster

It is hoped that this new European foreign ministry will become a cohesive entity, but EU parliamentarian Inge Grässle fears that it could rapidly turn out to be a "bureaucratic monster" with "27 power structures in Brussels and their satellites in the branch offices." Grässle, a German budgetary expert with the center-right Christian Democratic Union, says that the only thing that will ultimately matter is: "Who is reporting to whom and who is monitoring whom?"

The new foreign office also qualifies as a legally independent institution, which belongs to neither the Council nor the Commission. This largely excludes the European Parliament from participating in foreign and security policy. It will even limit its control of financial matters, which is normally a prerogative of any parliament.

Many members of the European Parliament are not willing to simply accept this. "The diplomatic service will decide the future of the EU," says CDU MEP Elmar Brok, who is calling for resistance to the new developments. Even Martin Schulz, the chairman of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, would like to see "a step toward more integration or a step back toward a Europe of governments." [Common sense at last!]

Uncertain Future

Meanwhile workers at the European Commission in Brussels appear more concerned about their own interests. At a recent general assembly there, a crowd of several hundred employees thronged the hall. There was a palpable mood of uncertainty. Currently some 6,000 Commission officials attend to Europe's relations with the rest of the world, and the services of only roughly half of them will be required in the new foreign office. "We are like the people at Opel," said one uncertain civil servant, referring to the troubled German carmaker. "We don't know what will happen to us."
The man doesn't have too much to worry about. Those experts in the foreign policy departments of the EU headquarters who will not be absorbed by the new foreign office won't have to fear for their well-paid jobs -- there is basically an employment guarantee in Brussels.
In a worst-case scenario, they will be transferred to a cushy position in one of the EU departments that already have a large number of personnel today -- and relatively little work to do. [It's enough to make one weep!]

Why was this necessary in the first place?

Subotan

11-17-2009, 18:32

T
Why was this necessary in the first place?
Because of compromise and watering down.

Furunculus

11-18-2009, 00:35

the iron lady of latvia is at it again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6920916.ece

Beskar

11-18-2009, 10:51

Being honest, Vaira seems a good candidate and the first President being a female sounds some what appealing as well.

Furunculus

11-18-2009, 11:27

agreed, despite not wanting a president at all, she'd make the best of a bad deal.

Louis VI the Fat

11-18-2009, 12:57

gaelic cowboy

11-18-2009, 13:27

Beskar

11-18-2009, 13:52

She may impress the Eurosceptic crowd with her demand that the position of EU chairman/president must be an elected office, an open process, but let's not forget that she herself was not elected president in a transparant election either, but appointed by parliament. As is the case in most European systems.

It is not just Eurosceptics. Do you class me as a Eurosceptic? I believe that the head and cabinet should all be individually elected if there is going to be a head. If I am honest, I see a "president" more of a chairperson than a leader. So ultimately, I would like to be a elected chairperson for the EU.

When's the last time Britain elected a PM? Never, of course, because that would mean a semi-presidential system.

I would love to see an elected prime-minister. Also, we wouldn't have got Gordon Brown. Shame Gordon Brown didn't jump ship and allowed David Cameron in office. I would have just laughed really loudly to see him inherit the Credit Crunch then the Depression.

- Unless one wants a presidential system, as in France or the US, a president / PM is not directly elected. I find it most peculiar that so many people who dissaprove of a directly elected head of their domestic government, should insist on a direct election of EU offices.

It is interesting. But not everyone wants their current domestic government system, such as myself, so I can't be thrown in there.

- Again, it is the anti-federalists who dissaprove of a direct election of an EU chairman. As they should, as an anti-federalist. Because an elected EU President has a direct mandate from the electorate. Which places her in a position of direct power against national governments. This means an end to the EU as an organisation of supranational states, and turns the EU into some sort of confederacy.

Evil anti-federalists getting in the way of democracy. :smash:

So: know what you are asking for when demanding an elected EU president. Don't just mewl that the process is undemocratic, while simultaneously demanding that it be thus.

Indeed.

gaelic cowboy

11-18-2009, 14:00

Just a correction for Beskar but a Prime Minister is only head of Goverment and so while important he is obviously elected to the assembly. Heads of state are differant many countries elect there head of state still more do not like england.

Beskar

11-18-2009, 14:22

Just a correction for Beskar but a Prime Minister is only head of Government and so while important he is obviously elected to the assembly. Heads of state are differant many countries elect there head of state still more do not like england.

I still think the head of government should be elected into that position.

Furunculus

11-18-2009, 14:24

A good candidate? A European Sarah Palin I'd say, but with brains. Vaira has never held an elected office. She is a Canadian professor of linguistics, who briefly held the mostly ceremonial function of president of Latvia.

She may impress the Eurosceptic crowd with her demand that the position of EU chairman/president must be an elected office, an open process, but let's not forget that she herself was not elected president in a transparant election either, but appointed by parliament. As is the case in most European systems.

When's the last time Britain elected a PM? Never, of course, because that would mean a semi-presidential system.

So: know what you are asking for when demanding an elected EU president. Don't just mewl that the process is undemocratic, while simultaneously demanding that it be thus.
I have made it quite clear that i encourage the democratic deficit within the EU, because;
a) i wish a federalising europe to be hampered at every turn, by its own lack of legitimacy, as long as we are within it.
b) there is no demos that i recognise as sharing my interests
c) there is no kratos with whom I am happy to have act in my name.

as to VVF:

Mrs Vike-Freiberga, 71, studied in Canada and became Professor of Linguistics at the University of Montreal. She is the author of 11 books and the recipient of 16 honorary doctorates. Married with two children, one of whom works in London, she is fluent in English, French, German, Latvian and Spanish and also understands Italian and Portuguese.

Her brand of centrist free-market politics — she stood as an independent candidate for the Latvian presidency — is built on a hatred of dogma in all its forms, but especially the communism that enslaved her country for 50 years.

Her baby sister died as the family fled the advancing Red Army, which her stepfather, a fireman, had been forced to fight when he was drafted into the Latvian legion — the Waffen SS. The family eventually found sanctuary from Europe in French Morocco and moved again to Canada in the 1950s. “As a child I have seen Europe at its very worst,” she said. “I have seen two occupations of my country and the front line going back and forth over my grandfather’s farm.

“Nobody who has not been occupied by two opposing forces should get on their high horse and start spouting about supporting one side or the other. We wanted a free Latvia. We hoped that the Allies would prevent us from being occupied by the Soviets but we were betrayed, including by the British. That’s a fact.”

Mrs Vike-Freiberga, who was nominated by the Baltic states to be UN Secretary-General after the departure of Kofi Annan in 2006, said that her programme for the EU presidency would be guided by pragmatism, rejecting ideologies such as federalism. Since leaving the Latvian presidency two years ago she has joined a group of senior politicians drawing up plans for the EU and is a frequent visitor to Brussels.

there is a lot to like.

Furunculus

11-18-2009, 14:26

And don't forget the likes of Furunculus is constantly telling us he wants an EFTA style arrangement when infact what he really means is an EEA arangement. The Anti EU crowd would really have summit to complain about then as the EEA must accept certain points of EU law without the ability to contribute to its crafting at all no ifs or buts. I may be sceptic but I aint no fool.
Actually, what i really want is a bilateral set of agreements such as negotiated by Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_and_the_European_Union

The quality of the deal we negotiate depends on ones negotiating power, like our trade deficit with europe for instance.

Furunculus

11-18-2009, 18:18

Thanks to ALH_P - the europhile blog Charlemagne of the economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2009/11/europes_global_credibility_in.cfm
Europe's global credibility in the balance
Posted by: Charlemagne

TWO days from the summit that should choose the European Union’s most senior representatives to the outside world, it is far from clear that most EU governments want to think, hard, about the outside world at all. In 48 hours from now we could be about to anoint a Van Rompuy-D’Alema ticket, a Schüssel-Diamantopoulou slate, or a Balkenende-Plassnik team. At which point an awful lot of people will turn around and say: a decade of institutional wrangling for that?

To a growing extent, I feel it is a shame that the discussion about global ambition has become bogged down in a discussion about the only world leader on the list of potential candidates, ie, Tony Blair. The fact that people have such strong feelings about Mr Blair has meant there has not been sufficient scrutiny of some of the more general arguments being advanced against him.

Talk to defenders of the modest “chairman” type president of the European Council, and you will hear an unholy alliance of reasons to aim as low as possible, when it comes to the EU as a global actor. From the federalist camp, and their cousins in places like Germany who believe in deeper economic integration, there is a clear desire to limit the clout of the European Council, in order to preserve the power of the European Commission and the European Parliament. There is a navel-gazing quality that is pretty startling: talk of the European Council’s job being to reach consensus about important things like agricultural spending, tougher regulations on banks or fighting illegal migration. In other words, domestic EU work, not great power foreign policy. They have been joined by people like the British Conservative opposition, who are labouring under the mistaken belief that a modest council president will lead to a modest EU (as I have written before).

Here is a big reason why: a lot of member countries of the EU simply do not do foreign policy. They have policies to do with their neighbours, ties to the odd ex-colony, but not foreign policies. They cannot imagine what it would be like to be an active player in a global crisis, and through a mixture of everything from pacifism to inertia, appear to feel it is naïve and vulgar to believe that you can ever affect the course of global events.

It is hard to convey to outsiders the narcissistic parochialism of Brussels at the moment. There is a sense that whoever is chosen on Thursday night, it will be a big moment for the world as the EU's new institutional arrangements are given their first figureheads.

The world is not waiting for the appointment of the EU's first double hatted foreign policy representative. The world is busy, and is dimly aware that Europe has finished with its latest treaty and is about to appoint some new top figures. The world will check who those new figures are, and if they appear credible and impressive, will take note. If they are unknown figures, appointed after hours of horse-trading dominated by considerations about balancing north and south, gender, left and right, big and small, new and old, central and peripheral etc, the world will shrug and walk away.
A sort of circular reasoning grips many of my colleagues in the Brussels press corps, lots of whom still yearn for the Luxembourg prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, to get the post of president of the council. The reasoning seems to go as follows: Europe needs to become much more integrated politically and economically to become a major world power. Mr Juncker has a long, unrivalled track record of promoting the economic and political integration of Europe, therefore if he is chosen, Europe stands the best chance of becoming a major power. That reasoning is flawed.
Try waking Barack Obama up in the middle of the night, because Jean-Claude Juncker is on the line. Imagine a crisis: perhaps Israel is 36 hours away from bombing Iran. With a heavy-hitting, charismatic president of the council, there might be a chance that “Europe” could work the phones between Washington, Beijing and Moscow, to put together a set of sanctions on Iran (a petrol embargo, say), tough enough to stall Israeli action. Is that a job for Mr Balkenende, Ms Diamantopoulou or Ms Plassnik? No.

So what is going to happen on Thursday night? I no longer have a clue. Or rather, I am no longer confident in anyone’s predictions, though I hear a lot of predictions from people actively engaged in these discussions. That is because if it were going to be a straightforward discussion, we would know that by now. The summit is arguably a week late, which indicates that the Swedes who are hosting the meeting are really struggling to reach a consensus on names. Diplomats are talking about the meeting going until dawn on Friday, or quite possibly ending without a result, forcing leaders to come back in December. Once you get to 3am in an EU contest, all the serious candidates thought of so far could be dead on the carpet, leaving a complete surprise to come through the middle.

methinks he is contradicting himself; apparently a euro-pygmie both will & willnot bring power and prestige to the position of EU president...................

the point about many euro nations simply not-doing foriegn policy is interesting, another reason why I am not interested in having British mule hitched to the back of the EU wagon-train, it's going nowhere interesting on the international scene.

gaelic cowboy

11-18-2009, 20:47

Actually, what i really want is a bilateral set of agreements such as negotiated by Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_and_the_European_Union

The quality of the deal we negotiate depends on ones negotiating power, like our trade deficit with europe for instance.

And yet it will be one way traffic for the majortiy of the bitter pills as stated in your own link

These negotiations resulted in a total of ten treaties, negotiated in two phases, the sum of which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. The treaties are:

Switzerland had to go through these procedure because the voters rejected EEA membership which would have imposed the same set of circumstances on them anyway. Unfortunately the voters of Switzerland could not stop there politicians from doing a deal under EFTA arrangements.

Earlier it states

Switzerland wanted to safeguard the economic integration with the EU that the EEA treaty would have permitted, while purging the relationship of the points of contention that had led to the people rejecting the referendum.

So we can see the voters were outmanouvered as they did not have the right to impose restrictions on there politicians right to act on there behalf when in talks.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-19-2009, 03:28

A good candidate? A European Sarah Palin I'd say, but with brains.

I'm sold.

Furunculus

11-19-2009, 09:48

And yet it will be one way traffic for the majortiy of the bitter pills as stated in your own link

These negotiations resulted in a total of ten treaties, negotiated in two phases, the sum of which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. The treaties are:

Switzerland had to go through these procedure because the voters rejected EEA membership which would have imposed the same set of circumstances on them anyway. Unfortunately the voters of Switzerland could not stop there politicians from doing a deal under EFTA arrangements.

Earlier it states

Switzerland wanted to safeguard the economic integration with the EU that the EEA treaty would have permitted, while purging the relationship of the points of contention that had led to the people rejecting the referendum.

So we can see the voters were outmanouvered as they did not have the right to impose restrictions on there politicians right to act on there behalf when in talks.

Hate to break this to you so bluntly, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain is not Ireland, and it is not Switzerland.

You want access to our trade deficit?
You want access to our diplomatic resources?
You want access to our military resources?
You want access to our worldwide network of bases?
You want access to our EU contributions?

Sure, but it'll come a cost.

Beskar

11-19-2009, 09:57

I'm sold.

Problem with Louis' definition is that Sarah Palin is looks with no brains.

So if she is Sarah Palin with Brains, that would mean she has looks and brains, and altogether perfect.

If she is just Brains and no looks, she is the opposite of Sarah Palin.

gaelic cowboy

11-19-2009, 17:47

Hate to break this to you so bluntly, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain is not Ireland, and it is not Switzerland.

You want access to our trade deficit?
You want access to our diplomatic resources?
You want access to our military resources?
You want access to our worldwide network of bases?
You want access to our EU contributions?

Sure, but it'll come a cost.

I hate to break it too you but any English man who thinks they can return to the days of having a sign a dover saying "Channel Fog Bound Continent Isolated" is maybe in need of a bit of blunt talk from reality.

Subotan

11-19-2009, 20:08

Well I suppose we could go Orwellian, willingly join into a union with the USA, rename ourselves Airstrip One and be colonised by the colonists?

Beskar

11-19-2009, 21:15

All hail our new Belguim Overlord.

Andres, get on your beer bike and come in this thread for a celebratory drink on you.

Subotan

11-19-2009, 21:16

I for one, welcome our new Europygmy Overlords.

tibilicus

11-20-2009, 01:03

Subotan

11-20-2009, 09:53

Tibilicus, did you vote in the last European Election?

Beskar

11-20-2009, 10:45

Tibilicus, did you vote in the last European Election?

I did. I voted Liberal Democrats.

Wasn't voting Labour and I would never vote Tory or any other nutcase parties.

Furunculus

11-20-2009, 12:09

So after tonight where does the EU go from here? More integration forced by bureaucrats?

Tonight's a significant event, a president of what is the most powerful economic body in the world was ushered in, and non of us had any say in the matter what so ever.

Europe the beacon of democracy?

My arse..

indeed.

we got a federast europygmy for president and a british non-entity for foriegn minister.

not a bad result all told.

Rompey is a pygmy from a pygmy nation, so his federalist clap-trap hopefully won't have much legs:

He has been described by Chris Bryant, the Europe minister, as having "a more federalist agenda than other prime ministers in Europe".

He once authored a federalist manifesto that decalared: "Apart from the euro, also other national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols (licence plates, identity cards, presence of more EU flags, one time EU sports events."

Just last week, speaking to a private dinner of industrialists, diplomats and politicians, he called for European taxes on financial transactions to fund the EU.

He is also a hard-line opponent of Turkey's bid to join the European Union because, he has warned, it is an Islamic country and would dilute Europe's Christian heritage.

Ashton is at least British, which is a good thing given that i view foriegn policy and defence as the most important thing a nation does, but is also a pygmy which means that neither the UK, France, or Germany is really serious about trying to forge a common foreign policy.

Another UK source said that by proposing her for the job, Mr Brown was ensuring the high representative could not be considered Europe's foreign minister. The source said: "This means the job is not a foreign minister job, it's a job of co-ordinating policies among 27 members."

i did think that blair's candidacy was being used by brown as a stalking horse to make sure miliband got the high-rep job, in an effort to protect a labour high-flyer from the butchery at the next election along with the following wilderness years.

this didn't happen, but i still reckon brown used blair as a stalking horse to ensure a brit got the high-rep job, by far the more important position provided a pygmy from the right of euro-politics got the job of president.

This advert will be playing in cinemas across Britain in the near future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DxPnjOBlRI

What do you think?

Furunculus

11-20-2009, 12:50

just came across this summation of events, which brilliantly matches my own thoughts on the matter in a few well-crafted paragraphs:

Baroness Ashton as EU Foreign Minister – is this the most ridiculous appointment in the history of the European Union?

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: November 20th, 2009

When Henry Kissinger famously remarked that Washington should have a single telephone number to call in Europe, I don’t think it was Labour peer Catherine Ashton he envisioned on the other line. I very much doubt that before today the former Secretary of State had even heard of Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and nor had I’m sure almost every person in Europe, including in her home country of Britain.

Admittedly I’m very relieved that David Miliband won’t be getting the post. He’s doing enough damage already as British foreign secretary, let alone inflicting further embarrassment on the UK from a new perch in Brussels. But what were the 27 EU heads of state thinking when they appointed someone with practically no experience whatsoever of foreign affairs to represent more than 500 million people?

I’m sure you could find 22-year old interns in the House of Commons who are far more knowledgeable on foreign policy than Baroness Ashton. She has a grand total of one year working in the international arena, as European Commissioner in Trade. Nor has she ever held elected office and is massively unqualified. Here is her less than impressive CV on the European Commission’s website. Ashton’s meteoric rise to power in Brussels is a damning indictment of the fundamentally undemocratic political process within the EU, and its utter contempt for public opinion.

There are though some positives in what is a spectacularly silly appointment. Perhaps the Obama administration might dampen its immensely naive enthusiasm for a federal Europe if it knows it has to deal with the less than dynamic duo of Catherine Ashton and new EU President Herman Van Rompuy. Somehow I don’t quite see Hillary Clinton and Lady Ashton as the Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid of international affairs – or even Cagney and Lacey for that matter.

It is also in Britain’s national interest to have an EU President and EU Foreign Minister who are political lightweights with zero international name recognition. Tony Blair after all would have given Europe a far higher political profile on the world stage, and been a force to be reckoned with at the negotiating table. Blair was by far the most qualified man for the job, but experience and real world qualifications count for very little in Brussels.

This may well be the most ridiculous appointment in EU history, but it will fortunately help set back European ambitions to be a major actor on the world stage. It is hugely ironic that after decades of slaving away at crafting the foundations of a European superstate, the Eurofederalists have been left with two of the dullest politicians on earth as the public face of the European Union.

Anything that undermines the Lisbon vision of the EU as a powerful supranational force is a good thing, and the appointments of both Baroness Ashton and Herman Van Rompuy will do that in spades. Better a weak non-entity as foreign minister or president than a powerhouse Henry Kissinger at the helm if the nefarious European Project is to be defeated. Europe doesn’t need a President, and nor does it need a Foreign Minister. What it needs is greater sovereignty, democracy, free enterprise and political accountability, all best preserved by the nation state.

Beskar

11-20-2009, 13:14

This advert will be playing in cinemas across Britain in the near future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DxPnjOBlRI

What do you think?

It's nice that it only displays all the costs and non-of the Benefits or even goes on to explain the costs.

I can do it too, give me the budget and the actors and there you go, you have an alternative point of view in the same exact style.

Which one would be correct? Neither of them.

Furunculus

11-20-2009, 13:19

that is a shame, my heart bleeds! :2thumbsup:

tibilicus

11-20-2009, 13:24

Tibilicus, did you vote in the last European Election?

No, a year to young.

Furunculus

11-20-2009, 13:30

It's nice that it only displays all the costs and non-of the Benefits or even goes on to explain the costs.

I can do it too, give me the budget and the actors and there you go, you have an alternative point of view in the same exact style.

Which one would be correct? Neither of them.

you know what, you are right.

but it's propaganda, and what i celebrate is the fact that it is no longer politically incorrect to publicly campaign against ever-deeper-union.

for the last twenty five years it has been impossible to question the unalloyed 'benefit' of the EU, all political parties were for being inside an economic EU, whilst never admitting that it was in fact a nascent political EU.

now the game is up, we have a president and a foriegn minister, and groups are publicly asking the question; what do we get for our money?

it's the dawn of a new consciousness in the electorate.

the electorate are about to become more euro-skeptic, not less.

Beskar

11-20-2009, 14:05

There is a difference about feeding ignorance to people than actually presenting all the information as facts. Majority of the Eurospectic position are people in the end scene thinking "But what if I have to say 500ml instead of a pint?!" opposed to looking at bogus recipts about the cost.

Also, there is actually a riot outside my window at this moment of time. I think it is about government policy to increase the cap on Student Fees, but damn, it is loud and noticable over-abuse of whistles.

Furunculus

11-20-2009, 18:46

Furunculus

11-22-2009, 11:18

our new overlord wants the EU to have direct tax raising powers:

Herman Van Rompuy: Europe's first president to push for 'Euro tax'
Herman Van Rompuy, Europe's first president, is to join forces with the European Commission to push for sweeping new tax raising powers for Brussels.

By Bruno Waterfield and Justin Stares in Brussels and Colin Freeman
Published: 7:00AM GMT 22 Nov 2009

Within days of taking office in January, the former Belgian prime minister will put his weight behind controversial proposals already floated by the commission's head, José Manuel Barroso, for a new "Euro tax".

He will add credence to Mr Barroso's plans, to be formally tabled in the New Year, by arguing for a Euro-version of a "Tobin Tax" – a levy on financial transactions already floated by Gordon Brown as a solution to the international banking crisis. It would result in a stream of income direct to Brussels coffers, funding budgets that critics say are already rife with waste and overspending.

Mr Van Rompuy, 62, who was appointed to the newly-created £320,000-a-year post at last week's special EU summit, set out his stall on direct Euro-taxes during a private speech at a recent meeting of the Bilderberg group of top politicians, bankers and businessmen. The group officially meets in secret, but when selected details of his remarks leaked out, his office was forced to issue a public statement on his behalf.

"The financing of the welfare state, irrespective of the social reform we implement, will require new resources," he said. "The possibility of financial levies at European level needs to be seriously reviewed."

Mr Barroso, whose commission acts as the European Union's executive arm and civil service, has set out alternative plans for a Euro tax that would involve Brussels taking directly a fixed percentage of VAT and fuel duties. While these taxes already help to fund EU spending – set at £121 billion next year – they are currently gathered by the treasuries of individual nation states, from which varying sums are paid into EU coffers.

A new Euro tax could appear on all shopping and petrol station receipts, showing the amount of VAT or fuel duty creamed off directly to Brussels. Supporters say it would take a fixed proportion of the existing tax revenue rather than increase it overall, and make the cost to taxpayers of running the EU more transparent. Critics argue this could backfire by increasing anti-Brussels sentiment.

Mr Van Rompuy has not set out in detail exactly which tax raising mechanisms he favours most, but after the Bilderberg meeting his spokesman said he would look favourably on either green taxes or a version of the Tobin Tax, originally proposed in 1972 by the US economist James Tobin as a tax on currency speculation.

Mr Brown floated this earlier this month as a way of financing future bail outs of the banking system, although he meant it for global rather than purely European purposes.

But whichever revenue-raising mechanism was used, the backing of two of Europe's most senior apparatchiks for the idea in principle will give it extra momentum.

Opponents of the idea could also underestimate Mr Van Rompuy's determination to get his own way. Ostensibly chosen for his new job because of his skill as a consensus-builder, he is also known as a skilled and ruthless political operator, who is happy to play rough as well as smooth. Last year he ordered the locks to be changed on a chamber in the Belgian parliament in order to prevent deputies holding a politically disruptive debate. According to Belgian newspaper De Morgen, van Rompuy told colleagues a few weeks ago that to achieve a top EU function you must "not ask for high office, but become a grey mouse, and offers will come."

Mr Barroso, meanwhile, has just been reappointed to his post by member states for a second five year term, freeing him to push his tax agenda in bolder fashion than before. Any move towards Euro taxes, however, will encounter bitter opposition from British Conservatives.

"Any kind of harmonised tax system will remove control over our national tax systems," said Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Britain's Conservative MEPs. "Competition in Europe depends on member states being allowed to have competitive tax regimes."

In opposing any Euro-tax plans, the Tories will find an unlikely ally in Mr Van Rompuy's sister Christine, 54, a left-wing nurse who joined the Marxist Belgian Workers' Party after witnessing the Belgian government's privatisation of the health service. She is now one of her brother's staunchest political critics, and the brochure used by her party features a picture of her brother dressed as a clown.

"I disagree with my brother's ideas for a green tax," she said. "Any new taxes would be paid by the poor. We need to tax the rich."

so, when we stay out of the euro-tax, in addition of the euro-money and euro border, will we have effectively created a two speed EUrope?

Furunculus

11-22-2009, 12:16

Hannan is often derided as a purely negative force, always complaining about the deficiencies rather than looking for the positive, so what would he do were he in Rumpey Pumpey's shoes?

Daniel Hannan: EU is 'in a democratic mess'
The European Union is an economic, demographic and democratic mess, writes Daniel Hannan.

Published: 11:42AM GMT 21 Nov 2009

"It's all very well to criticise, Hannan, but what would you do if you were in Van Rompuy's shoes?" So asked a euro-enthusiast friend when I had finished tearing into Thursday night's stitch-up.

It's a fair question, and it won't quite do to answer that I wouldn't be starting from here. The EU is in an economic mess: its share of world GDP will fall from 26 per cent to 15 per cent in 2025. It is in a demographic mess: 40 years of low birth rates have left it with a choice between depopulation and mass immigration. And it is in a democratic mess, with turnouts plummeting.

So what would I do? Step one is easy: I'd abolish the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby giving a greater boost to Europe's economies than any number of bail-outs and stimulus packages. Food prices would fall sharply: the average family would save more than £1,000 a year in grocery bills, with the greatest savings being made by those on the lowest incomes. Scrapping the CAP would also be the single greatest gift Europe could give the Third World. It would remove the main barrier to a full WTO agreement. Oh, and it would take a penny off income tax into the bargain.

With the CAP out of the way, it would be easy enough to dismantle the rest of the Common External Tariff. I'd phase out all structural, cohesion and social funds, releasing armies of consultants and contractors to more productive work. Ditto the staffs of dozens of euro-quangos: the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Authority, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and so on.

Now the biggie: deregulation. According to the Commissioner for Enterprise, Gunther Verheugen, the benefits of the single market are worth around 180 billion euros a year, while the cost of complying with Brussels rules is 600 billion euros. In other words, by its own admission, the EU costs more than it's worth. The solution? Heap the bonfire with pages of the acquits communautaire: the EU's amassed regulations. Scrap the directives that tell us what hours we can work, what vitamins we can buy, how long we can sit on tractors, how loudly we can play our music. Return power to national governments or, better, to local authorities – or, best of all, to individual citizens.

I would confine the EU's jurisdiction to matters of a clearly cross-border nature: tariff reduction, environmental pollution, mutual product recognition. The member states would retain control of everything else: agriculture and fisheries, foreign affairs and defence, immigration and criminal justice, and social and employment policy.

The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether; instead, seconded national MPs might meet for a few days every month or two to keep an eye on the bureaucracy.

You will, of course, have spotted the flaw in my plan: it would put an awful lot of Eurocrats out of work. Which, sadly, is why it won't happen. For, whatever the motives of its founders, the EU is now chiefly a racket: a massive mechanism to redistribute money to those lucky enough to be on the inside of the system.

Daniel Hannan is Conservative MEP for South East England.

Beskar

11-22-2009, 14:26

Scrap the directives that tell us what hours we can work, what vitamins we can buy, how long we can sit on tractors, how loudly we can play our music. Return power to national governments or, better, to local authorities – or, best of all, to individual citizens.

Wait... what?

This comment wasn't fully worked out. While on the face of it seems good, it is actually quite bad.

Firstly, several of these regulations are actually far cheaper than the alternatives and would cost the tax payer even more money. It might cut the cost at an EU level, but it would cost tax payers more if taken at a lower level, especially at National level governments or even local level government would now have to do regulation themselves. The advantages of it at a EU level are pretty obvious. Tax payers of the entire EU would result via pure basic mathetical ratio far cheaper than at lower levels which could result in exponential rises of cost of 10 to 20 fold for the Tax payer.

"What vitamins we can buy" I think regulation here is pretty obvious. They do experiments to see if the vitamins are actually safe for human consumption, and actually make sure they are clearly labelled and advised correctly. Helping the individuals to be able to do a good choice and get stuff that is good for them.

"What hours we can work" is in regards to work hours, this is to stop people from getting overworked by bosses. People if they really want, can work more than the maximum amount of hours at their own choice, opposed to being forced to do so. Just having it done at a cross level EU just makes everyone in the EU have that safe-guard.

etc

Furunculus

11-22-2009, 17:03

Wait... what?

This comment wasn't fully worked out. While on the face of it seems good, it is actually quite bad.

Firstly, several of these regulations are actually far cheaper than the alternatives and would cost the tax payer even more money. It might cut the cost at an EU level, but it would cost tax payers more if taken at a lower level, especially at National level governments or even local level government would now have to do regulation themselves. The advantages of it at a EU level are pretty obvious. Tax payers of the entire EU would result via pure basic mathetical ratio far cheaper than at lower levels which could result in exponential rises of cost of 10 to 20 fold for the Tax payer.

"What vitamins we can buy" I think regulation here is pretty obvious. They do experiments to see if the vitamins are actually safe for human consumption, and actually make sure they are clearly labelled and advised correctly. Helping the individuals to be able to do a good choice and get stuff that is good for them.

"What hours we can work" is in regards to work hours, this is to stop people from getting overworked by bosses. People if they really want, can work more than the maximum amount of hours at their own choice, opposed to being forced to do so. Just having it done at a cross level EU just makes everyone in the EU have that safe-guard.

etc
taken in order:
hours we can work, - national decision
what vitamins we can buy, - ambivalent
how long we can sit on tractors, - national decision
how loudly we can play our music - national decison

these are not things the EU should be engaged in.

Beskar

11-22-2009, 18:18

taken in order:
hours we can work, - national decision
what vitamins we can buy, - ambivalent
how long we can sit on tractors, - national decision
how loudly we can play our music - national decison

these are not things the EU should be engaged in.

Taken in order:

hours we can work, - Maximum contract hours up to the highest/universal level, actual working hours up to the individual.

what vitamins we can buy, - Research and study at the Universal level

how long we can sit on tractors, - Ultimately up to the individual.

how loudly we can play our music - Difficult one. For a farm in the middle of no where, whatever they want. If a complex of tightly packed flats... Yeah.

HoreTore

11-22-2009, 21:55

hours we can work, - national decision

NO!

Unions are international. Forcing them to be national would render them completely useless in a globalized society.

Also, if you want to work more, then there's nobody but your boss who can stop you, unless, of course, you're a surgeon or something else with extra safety measures. I worked 65 hour weeks a few years back, no law against that. But the thing is; I got to make that decision myself. Nobody forced me. That's freedom, my friend.

Furunculus

11-23-2009, 00:42

NO!

Unions are international. Forcing them to be national would render them completely useless in a globalized society.

Also, if you want to work more, then there's nobody but your boss who can stop you, unless, of course, you're a surgeon or something else with extra safety measures. I worked 65 hour weeks a few years back, no law against that. But the thing is; I got to make that decision myself. Nobody forced me. That's freedom, my friend.

we, in britain, kinda disagree with you on the roles and powers that should be assumed and wielded by the unions.

and i have no interest in fitting into someone elses idea of what a 'fair' globalised market should be.

Beskar

11-23-2009, 02:28

HoreTore

11-23-2009, 09:42

we, in britain, kinda disagree with you on the roles and powers that should be assumed and wielded by the unions.

and i have no interest in fitting into someone elses idea of what a 'fair' globalised market should be.

Your unions disagree with that.

I can't think there's a single union in the world who does not believe in internationalism. Heck, have unions ever been against internationalism?

How can you play the freedom card when you want people to have less freedom in how much they want to work? How is it freedom to have less power over a third of your own life?

Subotan

11-23-2009, 09:57

Your unions disagree with that.

I can't think there's a single union in the world who does not believe in internationalism. Heck, have unions ever been against internationalism?

Wellll, unions in America back in the pre-1940's were notoriously anti-black, and various unions in totalitarian regimes have been quite nationalist.

But no, no union I can think of in a free country has not been internationalist.

Furunculus

11-23-2009, 10:43

Your unions disagree with that.

I can't think there's a single union in the world who does not believe in internationalism. Heck, have unions ever been against internationalism?

How can you play the freedom card when you want people to have less freedom in how much they want to work? How is it freedom to have less power over a third of your own life?
they might not, but by now union membership includes less than a quarter of the working population in Britain:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=4

i. don't. care. about. unions.
i'm fine for them to exist, as long as they know their place, but any job that requires a shop 'steward' is not a job i want anything to do with.

Louis VI the Fat

11-23-2009, 12:49

We, Britain, disagreeBritain is a big and complicated place. There is no single, monolithic British opinion.

Also, until Thatcher's War on Unions the UK was Europe's Union headquarter.

HoreTore - unions have a long history of protectionism. Immigrant workers were the means by which employers broke Unions. This is the origin of Europe's mass immigration from the 1960's onwards. It was only later, that immigration became a leftist theme.

Furunculus

11-23-2009, 13:03

Britain is a big and complicated place. There is no single, monolithic British opinion.

Also, until Thatcher's War on Unions the UK was Europe's Union headquarter.

and yet it happened, and there isn't a single mainstream political party that would ever dare advocate a return to the 70's.

Subotan

11-23-2009, 22:47

they might not, but by now union membership includes less than a quarter of the working population in Britain:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=4

i. don't. care. about. unions.
i'm fine for them to exist, as long as they know their place, but any job that requires a shop 'steward' is not a job i want anything to do with.
Tbh, I'm quite happy with the strength of the Unions in the UK. Strong enough to represent the workers, yet not strong enough to damage the economy.

Britain is a big and complicated place. There is no single, monolithic British opinion.
Oh, I didn't notice that. :stare:

and yet it happened, and there isn't a single mainstream political party that would ever dare advocate a return to the 70's.
True, but the EU setting working hour directives is hardly going to do that.

Furunculus

11-23-2009, 23:37

True, but the EU setting working hour directives is hardly going to do that.

but, it is not a job that the EU has any business interfering with.

Beskar

11-23-2009, 23:44

but, it is not a job that the EU has any business interfering with.

Disclaimer: In Furunculus' opinion.

Furunculus

11-24-2009, 01:17

any reason why Britain benefits from having the EU decide this?

I would confine the EU's jurisdiction to matters of a clearly cross-border nature: tariff reduction, environmental pollution, mutual product recognition. The member states would retain control of everything else: agriculture and fisheries, foreign affairs and defence, immigration and criminal justice, and social and employment policy.

The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether; instead, seconded national MPs might meet for a few days every month or two to keep an eye on the bureaucracy.

Quote - Daniel Hannan

Furunculus

11-24-2009, 09:13

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).

scotland leaving the union might be a more remote possibility than you suppose:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6637020/Independence-and-SNP-support-down-Telegraph-poll-shows.html

Independence and SNP support down, Telegraph poll shows
Support for Scottish independence has plummeted as Alex Salmond prepares to publish plans for a referendum next year, a new opinion poll conducted for the Daily Telegraph shows.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
Published: 5:00AM GMT 24 Nov 2009

In a double blow for the First Minister, the YouGov survey appears to dash his hopes of making Westminster “hang by a Scottish rope” after the general election.

Mr Salmond wants to increase the number of SNP MPs from seven to 20 and use them to extract concessions in a hung parliament, but public support for his party has crumbled.

Staging a referendum is also near the bottom of a list of priorities voters think Mr Salmond should be pursuing, signalling his administration is out of touch with ordinary Scots.

However, the poll suggests the SNP leader could improve his party’s electoral fortunes by dropping his demands to break away from Britain.

Its findings come as he prepares for one of the most important weeks of his political career, with the Scottish Executive publishing a series of reports about why Scotland should become an independent country.

The campaign will culminate next Monday, St Andrew’s Day, with the publication of a white paper on Mr Salmond’s Referendum Bill, his administration’s flagship piece of legislation.

The YouGov questions were set by Anthony King, professor of government at Essex University and one of Britain’s leading psephologists.

He said: “Alex Salmond increasingly resembles a man trying to drag a heavy vehicle out of a ditch. He pulls harder and harder, but the vehicle remains firmly mired in mud.

“The findings show clearly that most Scots regard the idea of a referendum on Scottish independence as an irrelevant bore and that, if any such referendum were held in the near future, it would be overwhelmingly defeated.”

Mr Salmond wants to stage a vote asking Scots for permission to “negotiate a settlement with the UK Government so that Scotland becomes an independent state”.

Even using this favourable wording, which Unionist parties claim is geared towards a positive answer, the poll shows twice as many people north of the Border oppose leaving the Union as favour the move.

YouGov asked 1,141 Scots how they would vote in a referendum using Mr Salmond’s question, and 57 per cent responded they would say no to independence.

Only 29 per cent would vote in favour, and 15 per cent said they did not know or would not vote.

Since YouGov asked the same question in October last year, support for independence has fallen two percentage points, while backing for the Union has increased by four points.

The three main Unionist parties have made clear they intend to vote down the Referendum Bill, arguing the SNP administration at Holyrood should be focusing on tackling the recession.

The poll suggests the public agrees, with only one in eight respondents naming a referendum as one of the top two priorities on which the Scottish Parliament should be concentrating.

Reducing unemployment in Scotland heads a list of seven areas rated in the survey, with 63 per cent of Scots saying that should be one of Mr Salmond’s most important tasks.

About a third of respondents, 36 per cent, named tackling drug abuse as a top priority, and 26 per cent discouraging further immigration to Scotland.

Twenty-three per cent said Scottish ministers should focus on improving the quality of housing, and 16 per cent “restoring the position of Scotland’s historic banks”.

Holding a referendum was rated sixth out of seven, with 12 per cent saying this was a priority, just ahead of dealing with climate change (11 per cent).

Despite their overwhelming opposition to independence, 45 per cent of Scots are there should be a referendum within the next two or three years “to settle the matter one way or another”.

This is only slightly less than the 47 per cent who said there should not be a vote “as this would be a distraction from more urgent issues that need tackling”.

Mr Salmond hopes to make this a campaign issue at the next general election by arguing the Unionist parties are denying the people a say over Scotland’s constitutional future.

This is part of his strategy for the SNP to make a breakthrough when voters go to the polls next spring, and increase the number of the party’s MPs from seven to 20.

The SNP has traditionally performed much more poorly at Westminster than Holyrood elections because voters think only the Tories and Labour can form the Government.

However, a UK-wide opinion poll published at the weekend suggested there will be a hung parliament after the general election, with David Cameron leading a minority Tory administration.

Mr Salmond has said he would use his bloc of 20 MPs to make Westminster “hang by a Scottish rope”, extracting concessions from the Government in return for the SNP’s support on an issue-by-issue basis.

However, the poll’s findings about voting intentions for Westminster appear to put pay to this target and suggest the SNP will be lucky to win one more seat.

Support for Mr Salmond’s party has nosedived by a third since last year, while backing for Labour has recovered to the same level as the 2005 general election.

Twenty-four per cent of Scots said they will vote SNP next spring, down from 36 per cent recorded by a YouGov poll conducted in August last year.

This represents an increase of six percentage points compared to the popular vote the party won in the 2005 general election, but is not close to the level required to meet Mr Salmond’s target.

In contrast, Labour has seen a sharp revival in its fortunes north of the Border, with its support increasing ten points to 39 per cent since the August 2008 poll.

The poll puts the Conservatives on 18 per cent, two points higher the 2005 general election and the same as last year.

But backing for the Liberal Democrats has plummeted from the 23 per cent of the popular vote they won in 2005, to only 12 per cent.

The SNP has also slipped to second place in voting intentions for Holyrood, with the findings suggesting Mr Salmond’s prolonged honeymoon after winning power two years ago is well and truly over.

Thirty-two per cent of respondents said they would vote for his party at the next Scottish Parliament elections, down only one point since 2007 but a fall of 12 points since August 2008.

Labour attracted 33 per cent of support, an increase of one point since the election two years ago and a rise of eight points over the past year.

The Conservatives have seen a slight increase in their support since the 2007 election, from 13 per cent to 15 per cent, while backing for the Lib Dems has flat lined on 14 per cent.

The poll suggests the SNP’s falling support at Holyrood is thanks to growing disillusionment among voters about Mr Salmond’s record in power.

Among the key SNP manifesto pledges that have been dropped have been promises to scrap council tax, abolish student debt and reducing primary class sizes to a maximum of 18 pupils.

Forty-one per cent of respondents said they approved of the Salmond administration’s record to date, down from 52 per cent in August 2008.

Meanwhile, the proportion unhappy with SNP ministers’ performance has increased from 27 per cent to 36 per cent over the same time frame. This means their positive approval rating has fallen from 25 points to only five points.

The poll suggests that the surest way for Mr Salmond to revive his party’s fortunes would be to “defend and promote Scotland’s interests” but abandon his support for independence.

More than one in four respondents, 28 per cent, said this would make them more likely to vote SNP compared to only nine per cent who said they would be less inclined.

A further 36 per cent said it would make no difference as they would not vote SNP anyway, while 17 per cent said they would back Mr Salmond’s party regardless.

Furunculus

11-24-2009, 09:45

1. 'Europygmy' is a nom de tabloid. 'A Europygmy from a Europygmy country'. That's how the British Eurosceptical newspapers describe him, in a mixture of spite over Blair losing out, disdain for anything smaller than or simply different to Britian, and the need to feed their audience their daily EU outrage.
That's the tragedy of English being the world's leading language. British categorizations are taken over. Other considerations than finding a pygmy were the reason to choose Van Rompuy. Most capitals looked for 'a concensus builder' after the bloody, painful, nine year long oddyssey of 'Lisbon'.

2. Van Rompuy was the clear candidate of the European engine, France and Germany. Belgium and the Belgian model are taken quite seriously. (The secret plan is to model Europe after Belgium.)

3. I have no idea whom the Italians preferred, and nobody pays any attention to Italian politics anyway. The Portuguese are well catered to with Barroso, who heads the European Commission. Spain had Javier Solana, originally intented to take the post of 'foreign minister'. He only recently stepped down. The Scandinavians had some ideas of their own, but they are too polite to ever raise their voice. It is too early for the new East European countries to claim either post.

4. The two posts were going to be divided between, and decided upon, by the British Isles, France/Germany, and the Benelux. The British backed Blair. Brown kept backing Blair, until Merkel called Blair last week, informing him politely that he wasn't going to become president. When it still didn't sink in, she called him again, telling him this time in no uncertain terms that no, under no curcumstance could he become president.

5. At any rate, Blair will be lucky to evade criminal prosecution for war crimes, what with the British enquiry about Iraq starting this week.

6. The British were left with two options: aim for an economical position, desired by most British European politicians, or go for the glamour of the post of foreign minister. Brown chose the latter. Which, hopefully, the City will come to regret as this increases the chances of Europe regulating the financial markets, possibly by installing a Tonkin tax.

7. Merkel and Sarkozy understood that they couldn't claim the candidacy for their countries. Then the Benelux pulled its weight. They laid claim to the post. France and Germany informally agreed. Juncker initially, of Luxembourg, made his candidacy. In response, next the Netherlands and Belgium offered their PM's. The Dutch one is onpopular and spineless. The Belgian one is inexperienced, but his track record is impressive. Sarkozy agreed to Van Rompuy, because VR ticked all the right boxes:
- No Turkey in the EU
- Lacking the stature to overpower Sarkozy

8. Merkel was swayed to Van Rompuy too. When the preference for Van Rompuy became clear, the Dutch PM retracted his candidacy and the deal was done. This left the British to name the candidate of their choice for 'foreign minister'.
1. Lol, spite? No-one wanted Blair as president of europe, we spent long enough trying to ditch him in the UK without him returning to power, vampire like, at the head of the EU. It was also understood that Blair as president would bring too much prestige to the position, which is exactly what the British don't want, given that our politics isn't the partisan and tribal model which seems expected on the continent, where you must always back your guy in a euro-vision like manner.

2. Not the clear candidate of of France Germany and Britain because they all wanted a euro-pygmy who would not overshadow national politics.............. are you sure?

3. Given that you spend all your time castigating me for my lack of pan-european vision, and extolling the mantra that we are all the same, it is surprising to see you writing of the worth of the Italian's so casually................

4. So Brown didn't use Blair's candidacy as a stalking-horse to ensure that our position as king-maker resulted in us getting the foreign policy spot (which to me is more important given how spineless i consider continental foreign policy to be, and especially given the pygmy president)?

5. Lol, by who, and with who's army?

6. You may be right, it wouldn't surprise me if once again Brown picked prestige over power. However, if the intention is to wreck the city, then that is just another reason to get out, is that what you want?

7. No turkey - great shame, and yet another reason to think poorly of europe (as a group of peoples), with whom i have no wish to share a democracy.
Sarkosy's Napoleon problem - so you do admit that Rumpey Pumpey was chosen because he is a euro-pygmy?

8. So we got what we wanted (not that i'm saying we got the right thing), doesn't sound like a diplomatic disaster to me.

Beskar

11-24-2009, 15:08

Hey Furunculus, why does Dan Hannan always makes his public displays in an empty room? (cue his youtube videos like this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZdhQxlfNkY))
I think the guy next to him has his head phones tuned into RockFM

Or on scrapping the CAP (see here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn96JZ5v7fQ))

gaelic cowboy

11-24-2009, 15:17

The removal of the commission would severely hamper the work of the EU the reason is the EU MEP's cannot be trusted to follow lines of reasoning that would in the end destroy the Union.

The Parliament would for an example contain many more people interested in curtailing say Britain's financial industry. This would never happen in the commission as each country instinctively knows they might be next so France would shout but not too loudly in case Britain's smaller agricultural base would allow it to scrap the CAP say.

The day the EU Parliament actually means something is the day the EU ends. So Furunculus if you want rid of the EU start to campaign for more integration

Furunculus

11-24-2009, 15:28

Hey Furunculus, why does Dan Hannan always makes his public displays in an empty room? (cue his youtube videos like this):

Or on scrapping the CAP (see here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn96JZ5v7fQ))

i think it is an indication of seriously the majority of MEP's take their role as governers of the polities of europe.

excellent video, hadn't seen that one.

Furunculus

11-24-2009, 15:30

gaelic cowboy

11-24-2009, 15:36

i can see the logic in what you say, but i disagree that it is the best way to achieve the end result.

Just thought I needed to give you another plan so to speak:yes:

Furunculus

11-26-2009, 10:45

Didn't our friendly neighbours from the other side of the mudpuddle re-elect Mr.Bush?

At least Berlusconi's lifestyle only affects him personally, and I, for one don't see how his sleeping or not sleeping around affects his political career, unless he is financing escorts with tax money. If it keeps him happy and ready to do his job, I don't care if it is sheep that make him happy.
And I am really at a loss, with the Mafia, Camorra, unemployement, Alitalia, recession and all other ailments affecting Italy at the moment, the sex life of their president should probably be the far down the bottom of the pile of issues italians should be concerned with. In fact I wouldn't even be too surprised if Il Presitente had staged the whole circus to detract attention from the real issues as politicians have been known to do.

Louis, it was clear from the beginning that nobody from Eastern Europe would be given any responsibility. With the rampant corruption, neo-neo nazi tendencies, health problems, very recent acceptance among The Few, and potential to use the EU to oppose rather than negotiate with Russia, had made it clear that it was just not an option.
Vaira is probably no worse than most, and what is happening in Eastern Europe at large (the polish twin brother-evil alliance from last year, Estonia, Ukraine, Latvia, Kazakhstan and Lithuania forbidding Russian to be taught at schools out of nothing but blind and impractical nationalism, and the return of nationalist-right-wing politicians everywhere including Russia) can be seen as a natural reaction to repression of these local feelings during the communist years, a bit like teenagers acting up against their parents' curfew. As soon as new rules are in place and the novelty wears off, both politicians and their public will become less emotional about these things and begin looking outside.

As far as comparing the EU to the USSR, she is not alone. Mr. and Ms. SwordsMaster Senior, my honoured progenitors, have expressed that opinion many times. I prefer to see it as a Holy Roman Empire, lots of regalia and titles and little real power.
That's the only condition under which I'm prepared to stay.
True, but then again, maybe those americans chose to judge Bush by criteria other than those selected by witheringly scornful europeans, which again would explain the preference.

There is also the abuse of his media empire when it comes to presenting the government message and massaging government failures.
Berlusconi is also a ridiculous figure, who could NEVER get elected in britain, but he also represents a chance to escape the disastrous coalition politics that have dogged Italy's recent political history.

I don't hold Vaira's parents against her.
Nor do i hold against her the fact that she along with many latvians is grateful for the part the Latvian SS played in liberating their country.
I don't even mind that recent history has forced the eastern european nations into a agressive and confrontational nationalism, it is an inevitable result of their repression, and has no bearing on the europe i want anyway; a non political one.

I see the potential for a future to adopt some of the less savoury practices of the USSR.
Because the EU denies the existence of national culture, it will always struggle with percieved legitimacy.
Because the EU consolidates power in Brussels, it further diminishes the link between Demos and Kratos.
Because the EU isolates and insulates its political practices, it has removed the "representation" from democracy.
Because of the wildly different social and cultural histories of the peoples of europe, the EU will never be able to govern to the acceptable satisfaction of its electorates.
Because of all of the above the EU will grow to have contempt for the wishes of its peoples, and vice versa the people will have contempt for their 'masters'.
The only way to govern in these circumstances will to become further removed, and more authoritarian.
All that said, i agree with the sentiment that the only EU i want to live within is one with little real power.

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

The Commonwealth rises at the same moment the EU reaches its nadir, do you think this will go unnoticed by the British people?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/6659029/Commonwealth-Relic-of-empire-returns-to-centre-stage.html

Commonwealth: Relic of empire returns to centre stage
The once-derided Commonwealth could now wield real influence in the changing landscape of global politics, says Robert Colvile.

By Robert Colvile
Published: 7:39AM GMT 26 Nov 2009

It has welcomed democrats and dictators, Botswanans and Barbadians, but this weekend, the Commonwealth will receive its most unexpected guest of all – a French president.

In a curtain-raiser for the Copenhagen climate talks – and a reversal of centuries of imperial rivalry – Nicolas Sarkozy will join the UN Secretary-General and Danish prime minister in making the case for an agreement on carbon emissions. There have even been excitable reports – swiftly denied – that Barack Obama will jet in, hoping to woo the 53 members before the real bargaining begins.

Such diplomatic hurdy-gurdy reflects the fact that the Commonwealth has a membership unlike any other world body. As Tony Blair said in 1995, it "includes five of the world's 10 fastest-growing economies... It is the only organisation, outside the UN itself, to transcend regional organisations and bring together north and south. The issues that dominate post-Cold War relations are at its heart; refugees, drug trafficking, international crime, terrorism, Aids, debt and trade."

Since then, the rise of India has only increased the organisation's potential significance – especially for a Britain struggling to keep its place in an increasingly turbulent world.

In the old days, talk of the Commonwealth as "modern" or "vital" would have been bizarre. It was sometimes joked that "CHOGM" – the acronym for the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings – stood for "cheap holidays on government money", given that the centrepiece was a weekend retreat at which leaders chatted and negotiated as equals, free from the supervision of interpreters or civil servants.

Which other summit would see Margaret Thatcher waltzing arm in arm with the president of Zambia, the Queen offering cocktails to journalists on the Royal Yacht, or Tony Blair lining up tennis matches against anyone his officials thought he could beat?

It wasn't exactly that CHOGM was just a jolly – apart from the networking, there was serious business to attend to. In Trinidad tomorrow, leaders will discuss the readmission of Zimbabwe, and the arrival of Rwanda, which has proved its enthusiasm for Commonwealth affairs by forming a cricket team.

There will also be warm talk about historic links and shared democratic values. But underpinning it all will be the perennial question: what is the Commonwealth actually for? A report to be published today by the Royal Commonwealth Society warns that it has "a worryingly low profile" among both public and policy-makers: less than a third of people in the Commonwealth could name anything the association did, and the majority of those could cite only the Commonwealth Games.

Certainly, from the British perspective, the organisation has usually played second fiddle. In October 2001, the Brisbane CHOGM was abruptly postponed, partly because of security fears, but mostly because Mr Blair was scurrying around Asia, laying the groundwork for the assault on the Taliban. Given the choice between standing at the head of the Commonwealth or at the side of the Americans, the PM plumped instinctively for the latter.

By his lights, it was the right decision – but it was part of a familiar pattern. In opposition, New Labour claimed that the Commonwealth would be one of its foreign-policy "pillars". Mr Blair insisted that "we cannot let a priceless legacy like this fade into nostalgia" – but nothing happened. Similarly, William Hague recently promised the Tories' "unwavering support" – but specific proposals were thin on the ground.

The Commonwealth's supporters point out that its two billion inhabitants make up roughly 30 per cent of the world's population, and between a quarter and a fifth of its economy – a proportion that can only grow, given the membership of a resurgent India.

The connections between its members – in particular, the linguistic, administrative and cultural legacy of British rule – mean that it costs 15 per cent less to trade within the organisation than with outsiders. So why does Britain not embrace the opportunity the Commonwealth offers?

Part of the problem is that the relationship has always been slightly troubled. While we are rarely now at loggerheads with other members – in contrast to Mrs Thatcher's isolation over South Africa – we still have to perform a tricky balancing act. Do too much, such as chivvying members to improve their human rights record, and we are accused of being neocolonialist. Do too little, and we are accused of neglecting our historic allies.

"From the British perspective, there can be a bit of a mendicant flavour to proceedings," says Richard Bourne, the former head of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit. "There are all these small countries, begging for resources and favours."

As it stands, Britain provides the lion's share of the Commonwealth's budget, alongside Australia and Canada. But that budget is relatively tiny, especially compared with French largesse towards La Francophonie, France's rather smaller club of former colonies.

Despite the grandeur of the its headquarters on Pall Mall, in a mansion loaned by the Queen, the Commonwealth Secretariat rubs along on just £14.9 million a year, barely enough to pay for a Premiership footballer. As a result, most of its work is valuable but low level: development, election observation, mutual offers of scholarships and the like.

And despite the criticisms in the new report, the Commonwealth has tried hard to find a role. Back in 1991, after the collapse of Communism, the organisation proclaimed that it was no longer a fuddy-duddy relic of Empire, but a club of democracies. Under this new arrangement – unique among international bodies – the military strongmen who used to populate the meetings would find a bouncer at the entrance: no elections, no entry.

There was, however, the problem of enforcing this – and of massaging the divisions that are inevitable among such a diverse array of nations. Given how touchy former colonies are about their independence, the Commonwealth ethos is, in Bourne's phrase, "one of co-operation where at all possible" – the maximum progress compatible with the minimum offence.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), the rotating committee that monitors breaches of democratic norms, was only given any real authority because it was set up in response to a diplomatic crisis.

It was not just that Nigeria executed Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other environmental activists in the middle of the 1995 CHOGM, but that this contravened promises made to other leaders in private. As a result, John Major denounced it as "murder, callous and brutal", while Nelson Mandela fumed that General Abacha, the Nigerian dictator, was "sitting on a volcano, and I am going to explode it under him".

In general, however, the Commonwealth does not really do volcanic: indeed, Britain has been so hands-off that more than one Foreign Secretary has failed to attend CMAG's meetings, even when held in London.

Yet in the long term, as Amartya Sen writes in the foreword to another new report, Democracy in the Commonwealth: "The evolution of the Commonwealth from an Empire on which the sun used not to set to an alliance of free nations... has been nothing short of spectacular."

The authors of that report would like to see the Commonwealth continue down this road – to focus on development, human rights, and redressing the failure of many members "to encourage, or even countenance, open political competition".

Yet the Commonwealth has another kind of potential, which from a British perspective could be even more valuable. Amid the West's obsession with China, it is easy to forget that India – with its far more savoury political system – is also on the path to becoming a great power, hailed this week by President Obama as a nation whose relationship with the US would help define the 21st century.

"I've been predicting for years that India is going to be the leading player in the Commonwealth," says Derek Ingram, a journalist and leading Commonwealth observer, "and it's now coming to pass. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is putting it at the centre of Indian foreign policy."

Within the organisation itself there has been no struggle for power – it is far too gentlemanly a body for that – but India is nevertheless starting to flex its muscles: it provides the current secretary-general, will host the next Commonwealth Games, and is increasing its funding for a number of the group's initiatives.

"From the Indian point of view, the Commonwealth is an attractive field, particularly in terms of its rivalry with China," says Bourne, "It offers access to raw materials and investment opportunities, especially in Africa, and the ability to connect to the Indian diaspora across the world."

For Britain, a Commonwealth in which India took a lead would be more of a club of equals, a better reflection of the changing world. It would also, economically speaking, be a way to hitch a ride on the back of the Indian tiger – just as in cricket, where India now calls the shots, but the best British players still get a slice of the massive revenues from its Twenty20 competition.

Yet whatever happens, Britain's diplomats can reflect, as they bask in the Trinidadian sun, that what many have written off as an imperial relic has turned out to be a consensual, informal and adaptable organisation – and one that could, if policy-makers show some vision, be uniquely useful in a world whose problems are beyond the scope of individual countries, or even continents.
The Commonwealth is a resource of unparalleled potential, western europe will decline greatly in the coming century, but Britain's decline could be a lot more graceful than most were we to actually make use of the advantages we have.

gaelic cowboy

11-26-2009, 14:40

True, but then again, maybe those americans chose to judge Bush by criteria other than those selected by witheringly scornful europeans, which again would explain the preference.

Doubt it because they all regret it now at least the majority do and rightly so.

Sometimes the annoying cowardly neighbour who wont stop complaining about your loud parties has a point.

Furunculus

11-26-2009, 14:53

Doubt it because they all regret it now at least the majority do and rightly so.

Sometimes the annoying cowardly neighbour who wont stop complaining about your loud parties has a point.

everyone in politics has a sell-by-date, and bush's term was dogged by a multitude of the most difficult choices in recent history as a result of 911, so he made a lot of hard and unpopular decisions.

gaelic cowboy

11-26-2009, 16:05

everyone in politics has a sell-by-date, and bush's term was dogged by a multitude of the most difficult choices in recent history as a result of 911, so he made a lot of hard and unpopular decisions.

They were also incorrect and false as evidenced by the fact's on the ground.

Beskar

11-26-2009, 19:07

Furunculus, could you do a Commonwealth thread? (aka, similar to what this has become)

Would be interested in talking about that.

Louis VI the Fat

11-26-2009, 19:42

A UK, a EU, a NATO, a UN and a Commonwealth do not mutually exclude each other.

Here's a thought: wouldn't it impove Britain's standing in the EU if it is also the gateway to the 2 billion Commonwealth? Does Britain's relevance to the other Commonwealth countries not drastically increase if Britain is the key to unlock the door to the world's largest internal market?
Is the worth of Britian for America and for Europe not immeasurably increased because it serves as a springboard to the other?

Imagination, Furunculus! Imagination and grand ideas are what have put the 'Great' into Britain! Be the bloody centre of the world, not an introvert island afraid of losing sovereignity.

Why do you think even post-Empire the City could still trump NY, Tokyo and Hong Kong as the world's financial hub?

It is not about three French farmers receiving a handout, or two Polish plumbers. This is about creating a world, about keeping Britain at the centre of it, post Empire. Britain needs to do what it is good at, instead of frustrating it with undue provincialism.

Norway has oil, Australia has limitless natural resources. Britons, by contrast, need to work for their money. Need to find a way of making it flow to their island. What could be better than to tap British historical legacy and fortunate global position and become the world's services hub. Britain is sitting on a pot of gold, yet the silly Tories are mewling they want to close off Britain and let it rot away because of some ill-understood notions about sovereignity.

Furunculus

11-26-2009, 19:55

Furunculus, could you do a Commonwealth thread? (aka, similar to what this has become)

Would be interested in talking about that.

it would be interesting, as an successor to the Britain is not an island thread, but i am not yet focused upon the topic yet, perhaps you?

Louis - I have yet to see any sign that that EUrope is willing to let 2 billion people have free and unfettered access to its markets.

much easier to send them a few tractors, and a million Aid quango employees to make sure the EU baksheesh reaches the right swiss bank accounts.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-26-2009, 20:16

They were also incorrect and false as evidenced by the fact's on the ground.

Some were, some were correct, and some (such as the Iraq War) we don't know yet either way. A known unknown, so to speak. ~;)

gaelic cowboy

11-26-2009, 20:58

it would be interesting, as an successor to the Britain is not an island thread, but i am not yet focused upon the topic yet, perhaps you?

Louis - I have yet to see any sign that that EUrope is willing to let 2 billion people have free and unfettered access to its markets.

much easier to send them a few tractors, and a million Aid quango employees to make sure the EU baksheesh reaches the right swiss bank accounts.

The Commonwealth is even more a talkshop than the EU how long did it take to get Zimbabwe thrown out that time took ages if I remember correctly. Thankfully we threw off that useless piece of imperialist comfort blanket ages ago.

Furunculus

11-26-2009, 22:35

too true, but i don't want the Commonwealth to be a political union.

however, we are destroying the opportunity of treating it as an informal economic union my putting ourselves on the wrong side of the EU's subsidy/tariff barrier, which by definition locks us out of better opportunities to boost free-trade with english speaking nations with whom we already have a long history and excellent links.

Furunculus

12-02-2009, 09:35

and we willingly signed up to this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6666188/Nicolas-Sarkozy-hails-EU-appointment-to-clamp-down-on-City-of-London.html

Nicolas Sarkozy hails EU appointment to 'clamp down on City of London'
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has hailed the appointment of EU’s new finance chief as a chance to clamp down on City of London excesses, in a direct rebuke to the British government’s handling of the economic crisis.

By Andrew Hough
Published: 8:00AM GMT 02 Dec 2009

In a speech in the south of France, Mr Sarkozy said the appointment of Michel Barnier was a victory for European economic modelling.

Mr Sarkozy blamed the “free-wheeling Anglo-Saxon” model, favoured by Britain and the United States, for the global economic downturn while praising European thinking which “had nothing to do with excesses of financial capitalism”.

But Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, delivered a blunt warning to Mr Barnier against interfering with regulations governing the City of London, saying any foreign meddling by the EU would breed “confusion”.

In his speech, Mr Sarkozy failed to hide his satisfaction at the chance to try and control British banks and financial services through his former agriculture minister.

“Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City [of London]?” Mr Sarkozy said in La-Seyne-Sur-Mer.

“I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism.”

Mr Barnier's role as Europe’s new internal markets commissioner gives him power over financial regulatory reform, with France seen as favouring a tough stance on issues like bonuses and curbs on hedge funds.

Mr Barnier, whose new role allows him to oversee a radical revamp of financial regulations to prevent any new economic crisis, has stressed he knows the importance of the City of London for growth in Britain and Europe.

But some British financial service leaders and Downing Street fear Mr Barnier will push for stricter regulation at the expense of the City.

On the eve of a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels, to discuss financial sector reform, Mr Darling said it would be "self-defeating" to drive out business to other, less tightly regulated, jurisdictions.

Writing in The Times, Mr Darling said it was “undeniably in Europe’s interest that Britain’s financial hubs, the City of London and Edinburgh, flourish”.

“We must resist measures, however superficially alluring, that could undermine the effective functioning of our cherished single market,” he wrote.

“National supervisors, such as the FSA, must remain responsible for supervising individual companies.”

He added: “Making companies directly accountable to more than one authority is a recipe for confusion.

Mr Darling said the city was building on its strengths, he argued it was “too simplistic to argue that financial centres in Europe are just competing among themselves”.

“The reality is the real competition to Europe’s financial centres comes from outside our borders. And that London, whether others like it or not, is New York’s only rival as a truly global financial centre,” Mr Darling said.

“No other centre in Europe offers the same range of services: banking, insurance, fund management, law and accountancy.

“It is in all of Europe’s interests that they prosper alongside their close European partners.”

In an interview on French television, Lord Turner, the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, played down the appointment as he tried to defuse any row with France.

"I'm sure Mr Barnier will be attempting to work out what is effective regulation for the good of the whole of Europe,” he said.
this should be worrying for lefties that like all those expensive social policies, given how much revenue the city generates for the exchequer!

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2009, 12:11

Beskar

12-02-2009, 12:21

3) Good. Go Barnier. The crisis has made me reconsider many of my ideas. Unbridled non-regulation of the financial markets is a recipe for disaster. It has brought very little real wealth, made some people very rich, and undermined the financial stability of many.
Markets serve the people, not the other way round.

:yes: It is a shame many people forget this, or choose to ignore it.

Furunculus

12-02-2009, 13:46

Some thoughts:

1) Sarkozy was elected on his program of more 'Anglostyle' liberalism. He is a bit short of memory. :whip:

2) Brown wanted Blair. When that failed, he wanted the post of 'Foreign Minister'. Meanwhile, British eurocrats were pulling their hair out in despair, begging Westminster to claim the post internal markets commissioner instead. London was not paying attention. :smash:

3) Good. Go Barnier. The crisis has made me reconsider many of my ideas. Unbridled non-regulation of the financial markets is a recipe for disaster. It has brought very little real wealth, made some people very rich, and undermined the financial stability of many.
Markets serve the people, not the other way round.

4) Thank God there is a EU, so we have the critical weight to decide for ourselves whether we want unbridled plunder neoliberalism, instead of being at the mercy of others. (See 'Argentina', 'Russia 1995', etc)

1. no doubt, but by whose standards? it's all relative.

2. given that the EC economic section has been stuffed with brits for thirty years, we'll see how much real impact this guy has, but i agree it may be yet another poor labour decision.

3. the city has brought in a staggering ammount of tax revenue for the exchequer to blow in NHS improvement and child tax credits, along with every other half-cocked example of social engineering.

4. yes, the EU does have the ability to wall itself from global competition, and i can't see a faster way of creating economic stagnation which will accelerate europes decline in the coming century.

"Markets serve the people, not the other way round."
:yes: It is a shame many people forget this, or choose to ignore it.
if france gets her way, then the market will be serving someone elses 'people', and your social programs will go wanting.

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2009, 13:53

yes, the EU does have the ability to wall itself from global competition, and i can't see a faster way of creating economic stagnation which will accelerate europes decline in the coming century.We'll beat global capitalism into submission. It will crumble before our very eyes when a despairing world compares its misery to the superior European model.

Or not, and shortsightedness and a global rat race will revert us all back to 19th century Dickensian unbridled capitalism.

Furunculus

12-02-2009, 14:02

that's right, self delusion is the best way to cope with inevitable decline. :beam:

Subotan

12-02-2009, 14:34

1
3. the city has brought in a staggering ammount of tax revenue for the exchequer to blow in NHS improvement and child tax credits, along with every other half-cocked example of social engineering.
.

I wonder how you came to the opinion that a healthy population is a "half cocked example of social engineering" (Although I agree that some parts of the NHS should be cut, e.g. pre and post-natal care)

4. yes, the EU does have the ability to wall itself from global competition, and i can't see a faster way of creating economic stagnation which will accelerate europes decline in the coming century.

So does America. And China. And Brazil. And Russia. And ______.

if france gets her way, then the market will be serving someone elses 'people', and your social programs will go wanting.

If Britain got her way, the Queen would still be Empress of India, Africa would be pink from Cairo to Cape Town and America would still be a colony :smash:

Beskar

12-02-2009, 14:35

that's right, self delusion is the best way to cope with inevitable decline. :beam:

Speaking a little too honesty from experience there? :beam:

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2009, 14:51

this should be worrying for lefties that like all those expensive social policies, given how much revenue the city generates for the exchequer! While the City pays taxes buys yachts, business seats at Chelsea and cocaine, the British people see very little of 'those expensive social policies paid for by the money the City generates'.

More children live in poverty in Britain than in Turkey. Although it is slightly ahead of that other champion of Dickensian capitalism, the US, which has a child poverty level similar to Mexico.

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.pdf

In Scandinavia, social democracies, the least children grow up in destitution. Rhine model countries are next lowest.

For pensioners, the same mechanism applies:

The [UK's] government's child poverty targets lay in tatters today as new figures showed that 2.9 million children are officially living below the breadline in the UK – up 100,000 since 2005-06. The statistics, released by the Department for Work and Pensions, push the government even further from its target of halving child poverty by 2010. It is the second successive year that the government has failed to make progress.

The figures also show that in 2006-07 there were 2.5m pensioners living in poverty, a rise of 300,000. This is the first increase in pensioner poverty since 1998.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/10/welfare.economy

This is the brutality of unbridled neoliberalism. Destitution for many. Destroyed social mobility. And a bitter moral blaming of the poor themselves, and how they should be grateful for the 'social programs' of capitalism.
We can be Denmark, yet neoliberalism wants us to be Colombia. To willfully return to the 19th century, plundering social and environmental resources until we are back to Dickensian conditions.

I'll have none of it.

Furunculus

12-02-2009, 14:56

I wonder how you came to the opinion that a healthy population is a "half cocked example of social engineering" (Although I agree that some parts of the NHS should be cut, e.g. pre and post-natal care)

So does America. And China. And Brazil. And Russia. And ______.

If Britain got her way, the Queen would still be Empress of India, Africa would be pink from Cairo to Cape Town and America would still be a colony :smash:

poorly phrased, and the two should be disaggregated, though i agree with the need for reform.

america china and brazil do not have the same demographic collapse faced by europe, our energies should be focused on making Doha work rather than maintaining cretinous institutions like CAP.

so you're happy to wave the city goodbye.................... along with all the revenue it brings in for your anti-smoking officers and sexual equality consultants?

Subotan

12-02-2009, 15:03

IIRC, 1/3rd of all British children are growing up in poverty. One in three. That is a disgusting, utterly revoltingly high figure. And the Tories have gibbering on about the deficit and the need to cut public wages as if it was the public sector's fault for the recession.

america china and brazil do not have the same demographic collapse faced by europe, our energies should be focused on making Doha work rather than maintaining cretinous institutions like CAP.

Well, we could reduce our demographic poressures if we let more immigrants into Europe.

Although that's not likely to happen any time soon.

so you're happy to wave the city goodbye.................... along with all the revenue it brings in for your anti-smoking officers and sexual equality consultants?

No. We have an advantage in banking and financial services over other nations. But we have drifted into a situation akin to a Banana Republic; we are far too dependant on sector of the economy for our growth, and the City's presence in the UK's economy should be restrained.

Furunculus

12-02-2009, 15:31

IIRC, 1/3rd of all British children are growing up in poverty. One in three. That is a disgusting, utterly revoltingly high figure. And the Tories have gibbering on about the deficit and the need to cut public wages as if it was the public sector's fault for the recession.

Well, we could reduce our demographic poressures if we let more immigrants into Europe.
Although that's not likely to happen any time soon.

No. We have an advantage in banking and financial services over other nations. But we have drifted into a situation akin to a Banana Republic; we are far too dependant on sector of the economy for our growth, and the City's presence in the UK's economy should be restrained.
but we do, public spending vampiricily consumes nearly 45% of GDP, that is immoral!

you would be replacing demographic pressure with socio/cultural pressure, riots much.

you mean cut it down to size; so less money to the exchequer which can be spent on malnourished children? i'm not saying we are not overly dependant on financial services, but your solution seems a bit arse-about-face, surely we should build up other sectors rather than destroy financial services....................... at a time when every penny is needed to finance the deficit?

Subotan

12-02-2009, 16:07

but we do, public spending vampiricily consumes nearly 45% of GDP, that is immoral!

I know that it is not that high, and there is no way you can consider middle classes having to endure the woeful burden of a few extra taxes (Inheritance tax! Stamp Duty! TUITION FEES! The HORROR!) to be as immoral as one in three children in Great Britain growing up in poverty. I guess it's only Great for 66% of us, huh?

you would be replacing demographic pressure with socio/cultural pressure, riots much.

Possibly. But then again, the modern pension system, when subject to increasing lifespans is essentially the world's biggest Ponzi scheme; you need more and more suckers to buy into it and work to provide the money for pensions of old people, in the hope that they themselves will have a golden retirement.

you mean cut it down to size; so less money to the exchequer which can be spent on malnourished children? i'm not saying we are not overly dependant on financial services, but your solution seems a bit arse-about-face, surely we should build up other sectors rather than destroy financial services....................... at a time when every penny is needed to finance the deficit?

Making financial services act responsibly does not equal cutting them down. Besides, the government seems to be quite skilled at destroying things we're good at which aren't banks (See their support of record companies over musicians, and their neverending crusade to rid Britain of good computer games developers), so maybe the banks have the government by the balls just as much as the unions did back in the 70's.

Furunculus

12-02-2009, 16:18

I know that it is not that high, and there is no way you can consider middle classes having to endure the woeful burden of a few extra taxes (Inheritance tax! Stamp Duty! TUITION FEES! The HORROR!) to be as immoral as one in three children in Great Britain growing up in poverty. I guess it's only Great for 66% of us, huh?

Possibly. But then again, the modern pension system, when subject to increasing lifespans is essentially the world's biggest Ponzi scheme; you need more and more suckers to buy into it and work to provide the money for pensions of old people, in the hope that they themselves will have a golden retirement.

Making financial services act responsibly does not equal cutting them down. Besides, the government seems to be quite skilled at destroying things we're good at which aren't banks (See their support of record companies over musicians, and their neverending crusade to rid Britain of good computer games developers), so maybe the banks have the government by the balls just as much as the unions did back in the 70's.
maybe if we taxed less, the productive part of the economy would be able to achieve more.

again, we had the best private pension provision in the world................. until gordon decided to tax it.

oh yes it does. if we become over-regulated (read: european) financial services will move elsewhere, much as it moved to britain after sarbanes-oxley over-regulated the american financial services industry.

Subotan

12-02-2009, 16:27

maybe if we taxed less, the productive part of the economy would be able to achieve more
Maybe. But then it follows that we should tax the banking services.

And that depends on what the root causes for the failings of British industry are. If they're badly managed, or have no ideas, having taxes of 0% isn't going to help them.

again, we had the best private pension provision in the world................. until gordon decided to tax it.
[Citation Needed]
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought private pensions plans often invested in company stocks? Like, uh, the banks? meaning that even if they hadn't been taxed, they would have failed anyway.

oh yes it does. if we become over-regulated (read: european) financial services will move elsewhere, much as it moved to britain after sarbanes-oxley ove-rregulated the american financial services industry.
And look how fantastic that was for Britain. If companies feel a need to move because of their shady business practices, then we probably wouldn't want them anyway.

Furunculus

12-02-2009, 17:02

Maybe. But then it follows that we should tax the banking services.

And that depends on what the root causes for the failings of British industry are. If they're badly managed, or have no ideas, having taxes of 0% isn't going to help them.

[Citation Needed]
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought private pensions plans often invested in company stocks? Like, uh, the banks? meaning that even if they hadn't been taxed, they would have failed anyway.

And look how fantastic that was for Britain. If companies feel a need to move because of their shady business practices, then we probably wouldn't want them anyway.
How?

So your answer is that many parts of britains industry are becoming less productive, so lets kick the financial sector in the balls - equality of outcome and all that?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/taxraid
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=419021&in_page_id=6
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=419099&in_page_id=2
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/opinion/article.html?in_article_id=419053&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=2025
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=419013&in_page_id=2
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=419024&in_page_id=6
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/opinion/article.html?in_article_id=419026&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099428.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html
that do you?

shady practices? they operate within the most benign regulatory regime available. can we bring this back on topic now?

Vladimir

12-02-2009, 17:55

While the City pays taxes buys yachts, business seats at Chelsea and cocaine, the British people see very little of 'those expensive social policies paid for by the money the City generates'.

More children live in poverty in Britain than in Turkey. Although it is slightly ahead of that other champion of Dickensian capitalism, the US, which has a child poverty level similar to Mexico.

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.pdf

In Scandinavia, social democracies, the least children grow up in destitution. Rhine model countries are next lowest.

For pensioners, the same mechanism applies:

This is the brutality of unbridled neoliberalism. Destitution for many. Destroyed social mobility. And a bitter moral blaming of the poor themselves, and how they should be grateful for the 'social programs' of capitalism.
We can be Denmark, yet neoliberalism wants us to be Colombia. To willfully return to the 19th century, plundering social and environmental resources until we are back to Dickensian conditions.

I'll have none of it.

Look at how the define "relative" poverty. Are you also saying that Canada is an impoverished nation? Poverty is one of the most misused words in the English language.

KukriKhan

12-02-2009, 18:24

More children live in poverty in Britain than in Turkey. Although it is slightly ahead of that other champion of Dickensian capitalism, the US, which has a child poverty level similar to Mexico.

We need to put them thar 6-year olds to work in the fields pickin' my veggies. It's not like they can afford an Xbox to waste time on anyway. Income up, relative poverty down, Kukri's belly full. Win, win, win.

gaelic cowboy

12-02-2009, 18:25

How?

So your answer is that many parts of britains industry are becoming less productive, so lets kick the financial sector in the balls - equality of outcome and all that?

I would have to completely agree with you there it make's no sense to destroy the Financialised part of the economy or any economy.

Instead more tidy regulation and maybe some incentive to invest in the like's of certain sectors like I dunno energy or some manufacturing.

Whats needed is a bit of emphasis on the Primary and Secondary industries but not the old style of said sectors. Both those sector's in a modern economy are always going to be dwarfed by the tertiary sector which include's the financial sector but its always a good idea to keep some going.

Beskar

12-02-2009, 18:40

gaelic cowboy

12-02-2009, 19:27

For you Beskar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC31Oudc5Bg&feature=fvw)
:beam:

Furunculus

12-06-2009, 12:10

remind me again why Britain wants to be a part of this shabby ****up?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6737797/Stitch-up-Now-France-excludes-Britain-from-special-talks-on-EU-farm-spending.html

Stitch-up? Now France excludes Britain from special talks on EU farm spending
France has triggered a fresh row over EU power-broking by excluding Britain from key-Europe wide talks on the future of farm subsidies to be held in Paris this week.

By Kim Willsher in Paris and Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
Published: 8:15AM GMT 06 Dec 2009

The French government has summoned a meeting of what it called the "G22" - senior ministers from 22 European states - in an attempt to influence a rethink of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

However, it has not invited Britain or other so-called "reform nations" - the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Malta - all of which have argued for a full overhaul of EU farm subsidies.

Bruno Le Maire, the French agriculture minister, said the aim was to "produce a battle plan to defend a strong common agriculture policy, to support a renewed CAP."

The snub follows hard on the heels of rows over the appointment of Michel Barnier, himself a former French agriculture minister, to the key role as the EU's commissioner for the internal market - which will give him potentially sweeping powers over the City of London.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has hailed the appointment as a triumph for France and claimed that the British are the "big losers" from the shake-up of EU commissioners' posts. Last week he cancelled a planned trip to London after an angry Gordon Brown refused to fit in a meeting with him.

At the European Council in December 2005 Tony Blair negotiated away around 20 per cent – or £7.2 billion – of the rebate Britain would have received from the EU over the period 2007 to 2013. As part of the "deal", Britain received promises of cuts to the CAP subsidies paid to farmers. However, these have not so far been forthcoming, and now the French government in particular is digging in its heels as negotiations over the next six-year budget are about to begin.

Mr Le Maire said: "It is time to produce a battle plan to defend a strong common agriculture policy, to support a renewed CAP. Work on this has to start as quickly as possible. The whole point of this meeting in Paris is to show our attachment to the CAP, our attachment to the tools of European regulation that are the only thing capable of guaranteeing the future of European agriculture, and to show that we are capable of imagination and daring."

Senior British government sources last night expressed surprise and concern over the meeting of the "G22" - which is outside the formal umbrella of the EU and is being billed as a "reflection" on the future of the CAP.

But the Conservatives said news of the talks was further proof that Gordon Brown's government was being outmanoeuvred within the EU by the French. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "In return for giving up £7 billion or our rebate we were promised a fundamental review of the whole EU budget, including the CAP. We hope to see the European Commission's proposals for that reform officially published soon.
"It's important that the Commission does not allow itself to be nobbled by countries with vested interests. The EU needs a modern budget for the 21st century, not one stuck with the spending priorities of the 1960s. Ministers need to wake up and start making the case for change to our partners.

"While the French are pro-actively advancing their interests in Europe this Labour Government is yet again failing to exercise leadership."

As he crowed over his successes last week, Mr Sarkozy only raised anxiety in London further by promising that the 57-year-old Mr Barnier would rein in the "free-wheeling Anglo-Saxon model" of banking - a remark which reverberated around a nervous City of London.

Allies of Mr Barnier, who is renowned for his charm and courtesy, defend him from the suggestion that he is now the most dangerous man Britain faces in Europe - and he himself insisted in a French radio interview last week: "I'm not an ideologist. I'm very practical. Everybody needs to calm down."

Yet whatever his true intentions towards Britain's financial industry, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that Mr Barnier expects to continue to exercise great influence over the EU's farming policy as well as over Europe's financial institutions.

As France's agriculture minister last year, Mr Barnier obtained the agreement of 24 out of 27 EU countries that the CAP's generous subsidies would remain in broadly their current form - against the wishes of Britain.

"The CAP will continue after 2013," he told Le Figaro newspaper at the time, admitting Britain had opposed his plan. He added: "Right to the end I tried to get the British to swallow it, but in vain."

On a previous occasion he said: "There are those in Europe who no longer want the CAP. Clearly that's an Anglo-Saxon vision but it isn't ours. Our allies are Poland, Italy, Spain, who are the big agricultural nations and who have the same problems as us."

As agriculture minister he staunchly defended the massive subsidies to France from the EU budget - and last year urged Africa and Latin America to copy Europe and set up their own versions of the CAP.

He now has a perfect opportunity to push his views on European farms policy through his friendship with the new EU agriculture commissioner, Dacian Ciolos, 40, a Romanian technocrat who has spent so much of his life studying and working in France that he regards it as his adoptive country.

Mr Ciolos, whose wife is French, has been nicknamed the "second French commissioner" by newspapers in Paris and Bucharest.

He studied agriculture in Rennes, is a fan of the French system of farm subsidies and production - and is also a friend of Mr Barnier.

"The second victory is that our friends, the Romanians, have agriculture," Mr Sarkozy boasted after learning that his discreet lobbying for Mr Ciolos' appointment had borne fruit.

While considering his stance on reform of the CAP, which in any case benefits backward Romanian farmers more than most in Europe, Mr Ciolos will have a powerful voice whispering in his ear: that of Mr Barnier.

Mr Barnier told French reporters that he would be keeping the work of his colleagues, and particularly Mr Ciolos, whom he cited by name, under close watch.

"It is a duty to participate and be interested in what others do," he said. "He (Ciolos) will be independent but I will give him my opinion."

In case Mr Ciolos was uncertain of that, Mr Barnier added that he saw it as essential to "preserve farm regulations, because feeding people is not a service like any other."

The fact that the two men are friends and hold similar pro-regulation and pro-subsidy views on European agriculture reveals just how skilfully the French president played his cards over the Commission appointments.

While Gordon Brown expended political capital championing the lost political cause of Tony Blair for the new post of European Council president, then "triumphed" by securing the high profile but almost powerless job of "high representative for foreign affairs" for the previously little-known Labour peer Baroness Ashton, Mr Sarkozy was engaged in a more subtle game.

Now it is clear that France has secured two of the posts most likely to cause irritation - and, quite possibly, damage - to Britain.

So what is Mr Barnier really like, and what does he believe?

Friends say that he has a motto of which he likes to remind himself when the going gets tough: "Stay professional and stay pleasant." One friend said: "That is a bit Boy Scout-ish - but he's like that."

Last week Mr Barnier told French radio that the British reaction to his appointment had been "very exaggerated". "I know the importance of the City of London, I know the major importance of this financial institution for the growth of the United Kingdom and the whole European economy," he said.

He declined to give any British media interviews to help quell the alarm in London, but agreed to accept three emailed questions from The Sunday Telegraph.

His replies were diplomatically bland. Asked what "Anglo-Saxon" banking had to learn from the French or European model, he responded: "I'm not going to give lessons to anyone. Together, we need to learn lessons from this crisis. We all have something to learn from it."

He declined to say whether he would back a possible EU-wide tax, a controversial option that has been floated by the European Council's newly-installed president, Herman van Rompuy.

Asked his views on reducing the size of the CAP for the EU's next budget period, he said this was for the new Commission to discuss. "Of course, like all my fellow Commissioners, I will participate," he added.

Colleagues say that he bristles at the idea of being branded Mr Sarkozy's poodle in Brussels, maintaining that he will be bound by oath to be independent.

Yet the beauty of his appointment, from the Elysee Palace's point of view, is that he already shares much of Mr Sarkozy's outlook on Europe and the world.

Originally from the Savoie area of the Alps, Mr Barnier has been active in the right-wing Gaullist movement - named after the wartime leader and subsequent president, General de Gaulle - since he was 15. A career politician, he graduated from one of France's elite "grande école" business schools in 1972 and six years later was elected to the French national assembly becoming, at 27, the country's youngest MP.

He has served as a European commissioner for regional policy from 1999 until 2004 - and in the French government, as environment minister, European affairs secretary and foreign minister.

Some consider him a committed federalist - "federalist to the fingertips" was how one Eurosceptic critic put it. But friends put it differently. He believes strongly in the nation state, but argues with equal force that nations must serve the wider European good. "He approaches everything as a committed European," one friend said.

Mr Barnier supports the idea of a "Franco-German" tandem leading Europe and said of the alliance in an interview with Politique Internationale in 2005, reproduced on the website of the French Embassy in London: "When it doesn't work, nothing much works."

He served just over a year aas French foreign minister before being replaced following the country's "no" vote to the revised European Constitution in 2005. When Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in 2007 he returned to favour and was appointed agriculture minister. He headed the list of candidates for Mr Sarkozy's right wing UMP party for the European Parliament elections earlier this year.

A jazz lover, his wife Isabelle is an adviser to the French health minister, and they have three children in their twenties.

The sudden advancement of his friend, Mr Ciolos, who will manage around 55 billion euros in European farm subsidies in the 2010 budget, is a triumph for Mr Barnier's view of France's role in Europe.

During one spell in government, he said one of his aims was to secure "a French presence in all central, eastern and Baltic European countries". The appointment of Mr Ciolos seems to have proved the benefits to France of that approach. Whether there is benefit to Britain is another matter.
so, CAP is going to continue to be wasted on continental farmers, at the same time DOHA is buried, and europeans pat themselves on the back by giving out free tractors to the developing world at the same time we keep them poor by erecting trade barriers and obstructing free trade.

AWESOME!

Furunculus

12-06-2009, 12:43

Why do people think regulation is always a bad thing? I remember reading about the days when there were no regulation and missing body parts was an all time high. Regulation is important to make sure things go right and proper regulation would have stopped the problems in the economy.

Also, defending the banks all the time just shows naviety. Looks at the recent (see: month or so ago) when the banks made a big profit. They spent 2 billion on bonuses. While Furunculus might think this was a brilliant idea, especially as we had to bail them out for doing such a poor job, there were far better uses of that 2 Billion such as putting it into loans to help the economy, or even invest it in capital, or even pay back the tax payer some of its money.

On another note, could we stop talking about tax payers money in relation to GDP? It is a scam. You could go "Bankers Free Ride on the Government is 2% GDP" which translates to 10% of National Tax Income. It makes people think that it is only costing 2% when the ratio to taxes is far higher.
because regulation is a blunt tool that invariably acts to torture human nature away from its natural expression.
because regulation is beloved and most extensively practiced by those of a statist nature who believe in social engineering.
because regulation, implemented lightly and judiciously, is something that statists never achieve, because there is always another element of the human condition they can 'improve' with just a bit more regulation.
because social science is not a science, it is a faith that you can express the breadth of human emotion and frailty with a simplified model of collective behavior.
it is an arrogance that leads to ideology which is invariably a universal failure for the reason mentioned above, and it is usually grossly intrusive to the individuals it is practiced upon.
worse, the damage that is done by these social engineers is blithely disregarded as a necessary and temporary evil, to achieve the glorious emancipation of humanity......... as they see it.
there is a world of difference between a social engineer/scientist and an real engineer or scientist, and I will always have contempt for those that think they can engineer away the less perfect parts of the human condition via some pseudo-scientific ideology realised as a non stop bombardment of regulation.

re: the banks, if our government is even half-way competent then it will eventually make the taxpayer a profit when it sells off its stake in the banks. however, the fact that they created the tripartite system of financial governance in the first place shows that they are not competant, i can only hope that the Cons do better.

and no, i will never stop drawing attention to the fact that government spending is created out of taxing me and you, and that when a government is spending over 40% of GDP it is quite simply immoral.

Furunculus

12-10-2009, 09:28

Women challenge the Irish abortion law in the european courts:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/6775045/Women-challenge-Irish-abortion-law-in-European-court.html

now we'll see what the Irish opt-out is worth.

if the opt-out is vigorously upheld, then my objections are less pressing then i imagined them to be.

if the opt-out is slapped down, then i am delighted, as it will be further fuel on the fire in the eyes of British voters.

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

the phrase; may you live in interesting times, seems very applicable to the eurozone atm:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,665679,00.html
Timebomb for the Euro
Greek Debt Poses a Danger to Common Currency

By Wolfgang Reuter

As economic indicators have improved, concern about the financial crisis has abated. But the next big problem could be approaching. Greece's public deficit is skyrocketing and the country may become insolvent. The effect on Europe's common currency could be dire.

Josef Ackermann, the CEO of Deutsche Bank, has given the all-clear signal many times in the past. He has repeatedly said that the worst was over, only to see the financial crisis strengthen its grip on the world economy.

Last week, however, Ackermann was singing a completely different tune. Although many indicators are once again pointing skyward, he said at a Berlin summit on the economy, Chancellor Angela Merkel, the assembled cabinet ministers, corporate CEOs and union leaders should not to be deluded. He warned emphatically that the financial situation could deteriorate once again. "A few time bombs" are still ticking, Ackermann told his audience, noting that the growing problems of highly leveraged small countries could lead to new tremors. And then, almost casually, Ackermann mentioned the problem child of the European financial world by name: Greece.

Ackermann isn't alone in his opinion. Practically unnoticed by the public, an issue has returned to the forefront in recent weeks -- one that was a cause for great concern at the height of the financial crisis but then, as optimism about the economy began to grow, was eventually forgotten: the fear of a national bankruptcy in the euro zone. And the question as to whether such a bankruptcy, should it come about, could destroy the common European currency.

Greece was always at the very top of the list of countries at risk. But now the danger appears to be more acute than ever.

Insuring Against Default

The seismographs in the trading rooms at investment banks detected the initial tremors weeks ago. Today, when the code "Greece CDS 10Yr" appears on Bloomberg terminals, a curve at the bottom of the screen points sharply upward. It reflects the price that banks are now charging to insure 10-year Greek government bonds against default.

The price of these securities has jumped dramatically since Greek Finance Minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou announced three weeks ago that his country's budget deficit would reach 12.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the 6 percent originally forecast -- and well about the 3 percent limit foreseen by European Union rules.

A second curve is the mirror image of the first. It depicts the price of government bonds from the euro-zone country. It points sharply downward.

Greece already pays almost 2 percent more in interest on its debt than Germany. In other words, at a total debt of €270 billion ($402 billion), Greece will be paying €5 billion more in annual interest than it would if it were Germany. And, with rating agencies threatening to downgrade the country's already dismal credit rating, the situation is only likely to get worse.

The finance ministers and central bankers of the euro-zone member states are as alarmed as they are helpless. "The Greek problem," says a senior administration official in Berlin, "will be an acid test for the currency union."

No Buyers Can Be Found

Greece has already accumulated a mountain of debt that will be difficult if not impossible to pay off. The government has borrowed more than 110 percent of the country's economic output over the years, and if investors lose confidence in the bonds, a meltdown could happen as early as next year.

That's when the government borrowers in Athens will be required to refinance €25 billion worth of debt -- that is, repay what they owe using funds borrowed from the financial markets. But if no buyers can be found for its securities, Greece will have no choice but to declare insolvency -- just as Mexico, Ecuador, Russia and Argentina have done in past decades.

This puts Brussels in a predicament. European Union rules preclude the 27-member bloc from lending money to member states to plug holes in their budgets or bridge deficits.

And even if there were a way to circumvent this prohibition, the consequences could be disastrous. The lack of concern over budget discipline in countries like Spain, Italy and Ireland would spread like wildfire across the entire continent. The message would be clear: Why save, if others will eventually foot the bill?

A Domino Effect

On the other hand, if Brussels left the Greeks to their own devices, the consequences would also be dire. Confidence in the euro would be shattered, and the union would face a crucial test. What good is a common currency, many would ask, if some of the member states pay their debts while others do not?

Furthermore, there is a threat of a domino effect. If one euro member falls, speculators will test the stability of other potential bankruptcy candidates. This could destroy the currency union. Because of this systemic risk, say the economists at the Swiss bank UBS, "we believe that if a country is facing a problem with debt repayment or issuance, it will be supported.

A default of a euro-group country doesn't worry the monetary policy hawks at the Bundesbank, Germany's central bank. "So what if Greece stops paying its debts?" one of the executive board members asked at a recent banquet in Frankfurt. "The euro is strong enough to take it." The real threat, he says, is if Brussels comes to the Greeks' aid. "Then the currency union will turn into an inflation union."

But it remains to be seen whether politicians can maintain such an unbending approach. The prices for Greek government bonds plunged once in the past, until then German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, to the horror of the Bundesbank, publicly pledged to help the Greeks if necessary. There is much to be said for the government taking exactly the same position today.

Can Bankruptcy Be Prevented?

A national bankruptcy in Greece would have a serious impact on Germany, where many banks have invested heavily in the high-yield Greek treasury bonds -- after borrowing the money to buy the bonds from the European Central Bank (ECB) or other central banks at rates of 1-2 percent. Making money doesn't get much easier -- as long as the Greeks remain solvent.

But can a Greek bankruptcy even be prevented anymore? The answer, at least initially, depends heavily on the ECB. Will the custodian of the euro continue to accept Greek bonds as collateral for short-term liquidity assistance, or will it turn down the securities in the future? Another possibility is a compromise, under which the banks would pay additional interest when they submit Greek bonds.

The next meeting of the ECB takes place on Dec. 17. "The subject will be on the agenda," say officials in Frankfurt. Time is of the essence.

Central bankers in the euro zone are already speculating, behind closed doors, what would happen if the Greeks started printing euros without ECB approval. There is no answer to the question, and that makes central bankers from Lisbon to Dublin even more nervous than they are already.

Massaging Budget Figures

And more mistrustful. In 2004, it was discovered, completely by accident, that Greece had only managed to qualify for entry into the currency union by massaging its budget figures. The Greeks have only complied with the Maastricht criteria once since the introduction of the euro, in 2006.

Even those figures may have been doctored. At the time, the Greeks managed to increase their official gross national product by a hefty 25 percent, partly because they included the black market and prostitution in economic output. This brought down the deficit rate -- on paper, at any rate -- to 2.9 percent.

The figures representing Greece's budget deficit are constantly being revised upward. The most recent uptick, by close to 7 percent, is a record for Europe -- and it comes in a country that was relatively unaffected by the financial crisis. This year, the Greek economy will have shrunk by only 1.2 percent, say Greek economists. Next year they expect the economy to return to grown, albeit modest.

Particularly vexing to the remaining EU countries is the fact that Greece has profited from its EU membership for decades. Year after year, net transfers from Brussels have exceeded payments moving in the opposite direction by €3 billion to €6 billion. These numbers, too, have often been suspect. At times, the land area declared for agricultural subsidies was incorrect, and sometimes approval conditions were not met.

Resolute Words

Nevertheless, EU politicians find their hands tied. "The game is over," the chairman of the euro group, Jean-Claude Juncker, declared recently, only to turn around and assure the country of his solidarity. "I don't have the slightest suspicion that Greece could go bankrupt -- anyone speculating that this will happen is deluding himself," says Juncker.

His resolute words were directed at investment bankers in London, Frankfurt and New York. They know full well that Greece is indeed on the brink of bankruptcy, but they don't know whether the EU will, as Juncker insinuated, come to the aid of member state Greece. Juncker's message, in other words, was that those speculating on a bankruptcy could be left out in the cold.

The EU has now begun a tougher approach to Greece. Three weeks ago, the government in Athens received a rebuke from Brussels, followed by another one last week. So far, however, the Greek government has shown little inclination to take any significant steps. It does intend to reduce the deficit, but only to 9.1 percent next year. This is far too little for many European foreign ministers. As the new Greek finance minister, Giorgos Papakonstantinou, recently announced, the country will need at least four years to get its deficit under control "without jeopardizing the economic recovery."

But by then the government deficit will have reached about €400 billion, or about 150 percent of GDP. Servicing that amount of debt, even at current interest rates of about 5 percent, will make up at least one third of government spending.

A London investment banker is betting on the continued decline of prices for Greek bonds in the short term, while simultaneously waiting for the right time to start buying the securities again. He jokes: "If someone has €1,000 in debt, he has a problem. If someone has €10 million in debt, his bank has a problem. And the bank, in this case, is Europe."

will they or won't they, and what will be the consequence of either?

interesting times indeed, have fun with that one.

Furunculus

12-11-2009, 12:08

Oh dear, British mainstream political parties are once again implicated with the lunatic political fringes common amongst our continental neighbours. Silly tories, it's not as if you weren't warned!

no wait, turns out is wasn't the tories, its labour, found to be in bed with crazy gypsie hating slovakian fruitcakes of Tito loving fame:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/12/labours-unsavoury-allies-part-three.html

Labour's unsavoury allies (part three)

Pes The Party of the European Socialists Annual Congress in Prague has just voted to reinstate Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico’s Direction/Social Democracy (SMER) party to full membership of its trans-national political family.

SMER was suspended from the PES in September 2006 for forming a governing coalition with Ján Slota’s far-right Slovak National Party - a group who make the membership of the BNP look like the audience of a Benjamin Zephaniah poetry recital in an Islington coffee shop.

At the time, SMER were strongly criticised by PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen for failing to adhere to party rules demanding members "refrain from any form of political alliance or co-operation at all levels with any political party which incites or attempts to stir up racial or ethnic prejudices and racial hatred". The coalition remains in place today.

The Slovak National Party's platform is fairly predictable ultra-nationalist stuff.

Party leader Ján Slota appears to have a particular problem with Hungarians, declaring them a "tumour in the body of the Slovak nation" and "ugly, bow-legged, Mongoloid characters on disgusting horses". He has also charmingly declared that "we [Slovaks] will sit in our tanks and flatten Budapest" if ethnic Hungarians assert their authority in the Slovakia.

Gypsies, Slota claims, should be dealt with in "a small courtyard and with a long whip" and refused to apologise for describing the Roma as "race who steal, rob and pilfer" on the grounds that "at least half of the nation think the same way".

Slota has also praised the country's fascist dictator Jozef Tiso (hanged in 1945) as "one of the greatest sons of the Slovak nation" and dedicated a plaque to him whilst Mayor of the city of Zilina. Homosexuality, he argues, is equivalent to paedophilia.

I could go on - but I think you get the picture.

Is it really appropriate for the Labour Party to be aligned to political parties like SMER who remain in coalition with the likes of the Slovak National Party?

> Labour's unsavoury allies - Part I and Part II

how can this be? the party of european socialists (PES) , along with their publicly acceptable right wing counterparts the EPP, are surely among the blessed peoples, for they are euro-federalist and can thus do no wrong!

i thought it was only swivel-eyed right-wing euro-skeptics who abused children, slapped mums around, and hung darkies from the nearest lamp-post?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-11-2009, 13:10

He sounds like Borat, only with the unfortunate coincidence that he happens to be serious.

Furunculus

12-11-2009, 13:37

He sounds like Borat, only with the unfortunate coincidence that he happens to be serious.

is there a video somewhere?

cegorach

12-11-2009, 19:56

Furunculus

12-11-2009, 20:13

P.S. Personally I don't care what allies the British Conservatives are finding and where, but this part of the article was a bit one-sided, much like the entire nonsense with Kaminski* was.

didn't you read the first 15 pages of non stop vituperation against the shocking bad sense displayed by the tories in leaving the 'mainstream' of euro politics, and how reprehensible any alternative to the EPP and PES would be?

cegorach

12-11-2009, 20:50

didn't you read the first 15 pages of non stop vituperation against the shocking bad sense displayed by the tories in leaving the 'mainstream' of euro politics, and how reprehensible any alternative to the EPP and PES would be?

I wasn't there and I don't need to, I've seen enought in the Guardian - sometimes even three articles a day for Christ's sake! Of utter nonsense I've observed with disbelief.

IN my opinion Tories made a mistake and the Law of Justice is a failing party which is despised in Poland by 3/4 of voters. The good side is that thanks to their disgusting ideas and appearance the ruling Civic Platform scores stable 40%-60% points in every survey.

The Law and Justice, may it rot in hell, has nothing to do with racism, neonazism or anti-semitism smearing campaign attributes to them otherwise they wouldn't score 5% elections.

They are terrible semi-anarchic, ultra-centralised (at the same time) party with outdated, socialist economic ideas, nationalist-populist slogans, almost-communist language, semi-authoritarian traits and usually rude and noisy supporters which it is enough to earn my lifetime hatred.

I don't need to manufacture silly arguments to treat them with greater contempt. If I ever did I would become like them and that thought is more than sobering.

It is like an ice cold shower and I'd recommed it to anyone.

Besides it is really not my problem. In a year the Law and Justice will lose the president (20% in popularity ratings - he will lose against anybody), in the spring they will lose local elections just like they did lose previous local elections, general electons and Euroelections.

After that it will either fracture, fade and die or be pushed even further from the real politics.
And so be it! :yes:

If someone really has to represent populist-nationalist quasi-patriotism they can stay as long as they ramain the pariah of politics in Poland.

Furunculus

12-11-2009, 20:57

adapt or die, a motto equally appropriate for politics as it is for evolution.

Louis VI the Fat

12-18-2009, 22:39

The European Parliament has approved a 122.9bn euro (£110bn) EU budget for 2010 - nearly half of which is to go to agriculture and natural resources.
It is a 6% increase on the 2009 budget, which was worth 116bn euros. Good. More money to the EU! :2thumbsup:

The UK's net contribution to the EU budget will rise by almost 60% to 7.2bn euros (£6.4bn) next year, the UK Treasury has said, because of the costs of EU enlargement and a cut in the annual rebate to the UK. While I don't trust British accountancy, especially concerning the EU, the increase if true is of course splendid news, suck 'em dry I say, always more where that came from, erm, I mean, an unfortunate turn of events for the UK.

A turn of events which obviously nobody saw coming. The British increase is not, I must insist not, the result of clever French negotiators - always drawn from the brightest minds France can muster, who apply en masse for diplomatic jobs like these because these carry far more prestige this side of the channel - who thoroughly outsmarted their British counterparts in predictable manner yet again.

It is the last year that the EU budget has been negotiated under Nice Treaty rules.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, which went into effect on 1 December, the European Parliament will have greater powers to influence the budget. All areas will be subject to parliament's "co-decision" with the EU governments.
For the first time MEPs will have the power to challenge farm spending figures.Curse that Lisbon Treaty! It gives more power to the people, more power to parliament, and more power to those woho wish to challenge the size and allocation of the EU budget.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8418275.stm

Furunculus

12-20-2009, 20:23

Ah Louis,

Blair gave away the rebate in return for a promise that the EU would look to reform CAP, and in a way i am delighted that we have been seen to be screwed over once again, for it will only act to further harden our hearts against political governance from a federal EU. By the time we have a government willing to act against the interests of the ever-closer-union brigade, they will have an electorate that is willing to back them in the risky games of hi-jinx, you wait and see.

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

in other news, national sovereignty still exists within the EU, hoorah for the italians:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100020323/whod-ha-thunk-it-italian-constitutional-court-tells-echr-to-take-a-hike-asserts-national-sovereignty/

Who'd ha thunk it? Italian Constitutional Court tells ECHR to take a hike, asserts national sovereignty

By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: December 19th, 2009

The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)

The Constitutional Court ruled baldly that, where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such decrees “lack legitimacy”. In other words, they will not be enforced in Italy. Although this judgement related to issues concerning the civil service, the universal interpretation is that the ECHR’s aggressive ruling in Lautsi v Italy, seeking to ban crucifixes from Italian classrooms, shortly before, was what concentrated the minds of the judges in the Italian Supreme Court.

In fact, sources close to the Italian judiciary have informally briefed that the decision was a warning that activist rulings by the ECHR “will not be given deference”. The juridical principle at issue here is nothing less than national sovereignty. Where an alien court has the right to overrule a national constitution, sovereignty has de facto ceased to exist. Citizens may go to the polls at a general election to elect an administration, but the “government” they choose will be no more than a municipal council. This, of course, was always the intention of the Lisbon Treaty and its supporters.

Europhile politicians and commentators in Britain, after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the ratting by the Vichy Tories on their promise of a referendum, were masochistically resigned to the United Kingdom becoming a province of Brussels. Now the Italians have overthrown the fatalistic notion of the irresistible march of Eurofederalism. They have simply said: if it encroaches upon our national sovereignty, it won’t fly here. This is excellent.

Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords.

But such considerations should not blind us to the fact that the sovereignty of European states has been given a crucial boost by the Italian ruling. It is also likely to bolster resistance in Ireland, where a similar activist case from the ECHR is expected to attempt to impose abortion on a state that has rejected it. Not everyone would have expected the first roll-back of Lisbon to come from Italy; but it has, so we should be heartened. Eurofederalism – just say no!