World Politics - Europe [Archive] - Page 5

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 11:56

Happy new year Orgahs from your resident xenophobe and nationalist racist with militaristic populist, and autarkic tendencies, it is once again time to delve into the beautiful question; what right does brussels have to bind us with its decisions......

The european court is about to tell us who we are obliged to pay social security money too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6994194/Wives-of-terror-suspects-could-have-benefits-reinstated.html

Wives of terror suspects could have benefits reinstated
The wives and families of suspected terrorists could soon have benefit payments reinstated, following opinions expressed by the European Union's most senior law chief.

By Martin Evans
Published: 8:40AM GMT 15 Jan 2010

Ministers stopped the handouts following the September 11 attacks in America in order to prevent money being channelled towards banned groups.

Current Treasury rules state that social security payments cannot be made available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, anyone who is on the UN terrorism sanctions list.

But remarks by the senior advocate of the European Court of Justice, Paulo Mengozzi, could soon mean the Government is forced to reverse that decision and reinstate the payments.

Mr Mengozzi said the decision to halt the payments was unfair on the grounds of human rights.

Europe's highest court is due to consider three test cases, brought by the wives of British based terror suspects later this year, at which Mr Mengozzi's observations are likely to prove crucial.

The court has agreed with eight out of ten of the advocate general's previous rulings.

Any decision by the European court, which is expected to issue a judgement within the next six months, will be binding on courts throughout the EU.

The identities of the families bringing the case are not known, but it is understood they have been linked by security officials to al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

They have argued that the ban on benefits amounts to a violation of their human right to a family life.

If the Government's ban is overturned the taxpayer will soon be funding benefits – including child benefit, housing assistance and income support – to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds a year.

Matthew Elliot of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "It is absurd that this unaccountable European Court is trying to dictate to the British Government how we spend our own money. British taxpayers are already sick of bankrolling the lifestyles of people who preach hate against our country and there is no way that they should be able to fund their activities or their families through milking the welfare system.

"Whether you agree with the judgement or not, it is a choice that should be made by our country, not these lawyers, who are answerable to nobody."

Earlier this week the European Court of Human Rights dealt a separate blow to UK anti-terror policy when it ruled that the stopping and searching of suspects without grounds for suspicion was unlawful.
The only important question here; is this the will of the British people?

I suspect it is not, and this is just one more reason to remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the european court.

Subotan

01-15-2010, 14:32

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 16:04

Are judges in the UK meant to represent the will of the people? The answer is No, they're meant to defend and enforce the law as passed by Parliament. As Parliament has passed the Human Rights Act, then it is the job of legal experts to enforce it, whether they're European or not.

That law is an expression of what the will of the people is.

Our government has no business foisting off final arbitration on legal matters to unaccountable third parties, who are neither drawn from, representative of, or interested in, what the the people of Britain believe to be justice in this case.

Subotan

01-15-2010, 16:08

That law is an expression of what the will of the people is.
So there's no problem then.

Our government has no business foisting off final arbitration on legal matters to unaccountable third parties, who are neither drawn from, representative of, or interested in, what the the people of Britain believe to be justice in this case.
You could say just the same things about judges in the UK.

al Roumi

01-15-2010, 16:12

Happy new year Orgahs from your resident xenophobe and nationalist racist with militaristic and autarkic tendancies, it is once again time to delve into the beautiful question; what right does brussels have to bind us with its decisions......

The european court is about to tell us who we are obliged to pay social security money too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6994194/Wives-of-terror-suspects-could-have-benefits-reinstated.html

The only important question here; is this the will of the British people?

I suspect it is not, and this is just one more reason to remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the european court.

What the hell is the will of the British people? Are you so naive as to think politics and legislation actually has very much to do with the direct "will" of the British people?

I would suggest you add "populist" to the list of adjectives you have ascribed yourself...

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 16:30

What the hell is the will of the British people? Are you so naive as to think politics and legislation actually has very much to do with the direct "will" of the British people?

I would suggest you add "populist" to the list of adjectives you have ascribed yourself...

shock horror, i wish my representative democracy to actually be, well........... representative! :idea2:

perhaps it might be better stated; does this represent the will of the British people? because if doesn't then we live under tyranny.

and those attributes were ascribed to me by others in thread, not myself.

al Roumi

01-15-2010, 16:41

perhaps it might be better stated; does this represent the will of the British people? because if doesn't then we live under tyranny.

Ok, which British people? I'm a British person and this particular judgment might very well be my will, so IMO we don't live under tyranny. :beam:

shock horror, i wish my representative democracy to actually be, well........... representative! :idea2:

Well it is, just as long as the person you elect votes exactly as you will him to. :whip:

Voodoo Zombies for election! Damn it, who went and resurected Ming Campbell again? Have they no respect for the existentially challenged???

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 17:00

Ok, which British people? I'm a British person and this particular judgment might very well be my will, so IMO we don't live under tyranny. :beam:
Well it is, just as long as the person you elect votes exactly as you will him to. :whip:

so, in your esteemed opinion, are we more likely to get a judicial opinion that better represents the will of the British people if the final court of arbitration is british judges, or some random collection of continentals?

because if you argue that it doesn't matter which you will find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion by a vast margin.

al Roumi

01-15-2010, 17:44

so, in your esteemed opinion, are we more likely to get a judicial opinion that better represents the will of the British people if the final court of arbitration is british judges, or some random collection of continentals?

because if you argue that it doesn't matter which you will find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion by a vast margin.

You are quite sold on this "will of the British people" thing aren't you?

Permit me a question or two (beyond the obvious How do you impartialy measure it?):

-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if they disagreed with you?
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if you knew that what they wanted was impractical, flawed or dangerous?

Personaly I'm deeply suspicious of anyone purporting to follow the "will of the people", it's just populism. Firstly, It sounds to me like ridding a white rhino, secondly I'm concerned about the nut-job who would get on it -and exactly what scruples they do have.

Given the drivel in the media, can you actually trust the people it informs? I'm cautious at best.

Subotan

01-15-2010, 19:09

The "will of the people" is nice and vague enough to justify pretty much anything. And yet if we had followed it constantly, then we would never have legalised abortion, homosexuality, scrapped the death penalty etc.

so, in your esteemed opinion, are we more likely to get a judicial opinion that better represents the will of the British people if the final court of arbitration is british judges, or some random collection of continentals?

Seeing as how the legislation it is referring to is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, I'd say the latter.

because if you argue that it doesn't matter which you will find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion by a vast margin.
Silly me, having my own, well considered opinions. I guess I should just hoover up whatever is in the Daily Fail and believe that then.

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 19:25

1. You are quite sold on this "will of the British people" thing aren't you?

2. Permit me a question or two (beyond the obvious How do you impartialy measure it?):
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if they disagreed with you?
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if you knew that what they wanted was impractical, flawed or dangerous?

3. Personaly I'm deeply suspicious of anyone purporting to follow the "will of the people", it's just populism. Firstly, It sounds to me like ridding a white rhino, secondly I'm concerned about the nut-job who would get on it -and exactly what scruples they do have.

4. Given the drivel in the media, can you actually trust the people it informs? I'm cautious at best.

1. yes. it's called political representation and i'm a big fan.

2. yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.
yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.

3. personally, i have sufficient faith in the strength of our social and cultural institutions that i am willing to trust my 'family' to act in a manner that i can abide. we are not some tin-pot continental country recently reprieved from dictatorship, nor brutalised by fifty years of ideological oppression, or have a recent history dotted with revolutions. we have been free and represented for 350 years, there is no need for proportional representation to disallow tyrants and demagogues from the levers of power.

4. in Britain, those of over 18 years of age and sound mind are considered legally responsible, adults in short. i prefer to treat the adult population of britain as capable and responsible of acting in an adult manner............ and punishing those who fail to do so. treating people as infants for whom every action and thought must be proscibed and regulated inevitably infantilises that population.

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 19:29

The "will of the people" is nice and vague enough to justify pretty much anything. And yet if we had followed it constantly, then we would never have legalised abortion, homosexuality, scrapped the death penalty etc.

Seeing as how the legislation it is referring to is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, I'd say the latter.

Silly me, having my own, well considered opinions. I guess I should just hoover up whatever is in the Daily Fail and believe that then.

are you sure of that? i am not so sure because there is no evidence that britain would have acted differently were circumstances different.

you may get a shock when you realise that the majority of your compatriots disagree with you.

you can hold whatever opinion you wish, i just find it slightly tyrannical that you are willing to justify the imposition of your liberal (in the modern sense) opinion on every one else, whether they want it or not.

Louis VI the Fat

01-15-2010, 19:37

Fight the tyranny, Furunculus! That's two Britons on this very page who refuse to bow to the Will of the British People! Fight, fight and resist them - lest there be people who stand in the way of Britain's One and Indivisible Will! :smash:

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 20:27

Subotan

01-15-2010, 20:37

are you sure of that? i am not so sure because there is no evidence that britain would have acted differently were circumstances different.
IIRC support of the death penalty is almost always high when it is abolished, and then gradually declines over time. I don't know about the others, to be fair.

you may get a shock when you realise that the majority of your compatriots disagree with you
Funnily enough, people always get a shock when I tell them I'm pro-EU. The very idea is alien to many of them, since they have been force-fed for years this concept of all-incompetent, all-useless Union.

you can hold whatever opinion you wish, i just find it slightly tyrannical that you are willing to justify the imposition of your liberal (in the modern sense) opinion on every one else, whether they want it or not.
Well, that's the great paradox of liberalism, isn't it? Is it illiberal to force other people to be liberal?

Fight the tyranny, Furunculus! That's two Britons on this very page who refuse to bow to the Will of the British People! Fight, fight and resist them - lest there be people who stand in the way of Britain's One and Indivisible Will! :smash:
England Prevails! :smash:

Furunculus

01-15-2010, 20:50

IIRC support of the death penalty is almost always high when it is abolished, and then gradually declines over time. I don't know about the others, to be fair.

Funnily enough, people always get a shock when I tell them I'm pro-EU. The very idea is alien to many of them, since they have been force-fed for years this concept of all-incompetent, all-useless Union.

Well, that's the great paradox of liberalism, isn't it? Is it illiberal to force other people to be liberal?

England Prevails! :smash:

i agree entirely that the death penalty is the exception here, only difference is that i have nothing against the death penalty if that's what the people want. i am equally happy to be without the death penalty if that is what the people wish. what is unhealthy is laws that do not have the agreement or respect of civil society.

as opposed to years of being fed pro-EU propaganda, that is different somehow?

it might be a paradox for modern liberalism, but that ain't my problem as i'm all about classical liberalism.

we usually do, you never know we might do this time too.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-15-2010, 21:53

as opposed to years of being fed pro-EU propaganda, that is different somehow?

Indeed. Here, claiming one is anti-EU in any company but that of your closest friends or family automatically seems to make others wonder if you are a far-right extremist. An irrational viewpoint, to be sure, but I cannot deny that the pro-European propaganda has been phenomenally good.

Kralizec

01-15-2010, 23:19

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/

*Sigh*

The ECHR is not a part of the EU. And for the record, that particular law wich was condemned by the court is a fascist abomination (literally - it was instituted by Mussolini and never repealed)

AFAIK most condemning verdicts by the ECHR are acted upon by the country involved because they're often considered embarassing. Not in this case apparently, though I'm not surprised. I've often wondered if Italian politicians are even capable of feeling embarrassment.

Subotan

01-16-2010, 01:33

i agree entirely that the death penalty is the exception here, only difference is that i have nothing against the death penalty if that's what the people want. i am equally happy to be without the death penalty if that is what the people wish. what is unhealthy is laws that do not have the agreement or respect of civil society.

So would you have supported the abolishment of the death penalty if 75% of Brits had agreed with it? (IIRC, that was the statistic of people who agreed with it in Germany when it was abolished)

as opposed to years of being fed pro-EU propaganda, that is different somehow?
I was exposed to that propaganda for just under two months, as I was born in July 92 :smash:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-16-2010, 01:43

So would you have supported the abolishment of the death penalty if 75% of Brits had agreed with it? (IIRC, that was the statistic of people who agreed with it in Germany when it was abolished)

I personally would not support the idea - presuming "death penalty" is generic for whichever policy I support - of abolishing it, but if that was the will of the people, I would not be as upset.

Furunculus

01-16-2010, 21:39

So would you have supported the abolisment of the death penalty if 75% of Brits had agreed with it? (IIRC, that was the statistic of people who agreed with it in Germany when it was abolished)

I was exposed to that propaganda for just under two months, as I was born in July 92 :smash:

yes.

no you weren't, you just get your pro-EU propaganda mixed in with some blame-the-eu tub-thumping from some opportunist british politicians.

Furunculus

01-16-2010, 23:30

*Sigh*

The ECHR is not a part of the EU.

And for the record, that particular law wich was condemned by the court is a fascist abomination (literally - it was instituted by Mussolini and never repealed)

*Sigh x1000 (because i just love to be dramatic*

don't care, the ECHR is a legal authority that is not ultimately answerable to Britain, nor is it formed from british ideas of justice.

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.

Subotan

01-17-2010, 03:19

I personally would not support the idea - presuming "death penalty" is generic for whichever policy I support - of abolishing it, but if that was the will of the people, I would not be as upset.

yes.

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that if 75% of people had opposed the abolishment of the death penalty :sweatdrop:

no you weren't,
Um, I think I know when I was born.

you just get your pro-EU propaganda mixed in with some blame-the-eu tub-thumping from some opportunist british politicians.
How wowuld I do that?

don't care, the ECHR is a legal authority that is not ultimately answerable to Britain

It's an international organisation, of course it isn't in the strict definition you apply to "answerable". In that case, neither is the UN, Nato, etc.

nor is it formed from british ideas of justice.

So? Is the European idea of justice totally alien and incompatible with ours? Besides, the ECHR is vague enough so as to be applicable to any liberal democracy.

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-17-2010, 03:49

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that if 75% of people had opposed the abolishment of the death penalty :sweatdrop:

Same answer. I would acknowledge the will of the people, even if I did not support the specific policy.

Furunculus

01-17-2010, 12:38

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that if 75% of people had opposed the abolishment of the death penalty :sweatdrop:

Um, I think I know when I was born.

It's an international organisation, of course it isn't in the strict definition you apply to "answerable". In that case, neither is the UN, Nato, etc.

So? Is the European idea of justice totally alien and incompatible with ours? Besides, the ECHR is vague enough so as to be applicable to any liberal democracy.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

yes. i don't have a strong opinion on the death penalty. i am mildly in favour, but happy to go whichever way the majority of my compatriots choose.

EU propoganda did not stop in 1992, therefore you did not stop being subjected to it shortly after you were born.

we have a system of common law that adapts and moulds itself to judicial precedent, case law. i don't want the final authority on elements of case law that effects internal british governance decided by a non-british body.

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.

whatever. it is an internal italian matter that is no business or interest of mine.

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

on the related subject of europe and its superpower ambitions:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7005887/Haiti-response-shows-the-difference-between-the-EU-and-a-superpower.html

Haiti response shows the difference between the EU and a superpower
The earthquake in Haiti provoked prompt and effective action from the US, and waffle from the EU, says Christopher Booker
Published: 6:49PM GMT 16 Jan 2010

Compare and contrast the initial responses of two "major world powers" to the Haitian earthquake disaster. Within hours of Port-au-Prince crumbling into ruins, the US had sent in an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters, hospital and assault ships, the 82nd Airborne Division with 3,500 troops and hundreds of medical personnel. They put the country's small airport back on an operational footing, and President Obama pledged an initial $100 million dollars in emergency aid.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Union geared itself up with a Brussels press conference led by Commission Vice-President Baroness Ashton, now the EU's High Representative – our new foreign minister. A scattering of bored-looking journalists in the Commission's lavishly appointed press room heard the former head of Hertfordshire Health Authority stumbling through a prepared statement, in which she said that she had conveyed her "condolences" to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and pledged three million euros in aid.

A gaggle of other Commision spokesmen followed, to report offers of help from individual member states, such as a few search and rescue teams, tents and water purification units. We were also told that an official EU representative would be trying to reach Haiti from the Dominican Republic, to stay for a few hours before returning to report what he had found.

Memories might have gone back to December 2004, which saw similarly contrasting responses to the Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe which cost nearly 300,000 lives. Again, within hours the US took the lead in forming an alliance with Australia, India and Japan, and had sent in two battle groups fully equipped to deal with such an emergency, including 20 ships led by two carriers with 90 helicopters. President Bush immediately pledged $35 million, later rising to $350 million. Because they were self-sufficient, the US forces pulled off a stupendously successful life-saving operation, almost entirely ignored by the British media, notably the BBC (whose journalists on the spot were nevertheless quite happy to hitch lifts from US helicopters).

The EU, by contrast, pledged three million euros for the tsunami victims, called for a three-minute silence (three times longer than is customary to remember the millions who died in two world wars) and proposed a "donors' conference" in Jakarta nearly two weeks later to discuss what might be done.

The only real difference between these two episodes is that, in the five years which have elapsed since 2004, the EU has even more noisily laid claim to its status as what Tony Blair liked to call "a world superpower", capable of standing on the world stage as an equal of the US. Anyone who witnessed the dismal showing at Thursday's press conference of the High Representative, which would scarcely have passed muster at a board meeting of the Hertfordshire Health Authority, might well cringe at the thought.

Subotan

01-17-2010, 14:19

Same answer. I would acknowledge the will of the people, even if I did not support the specific policy.

yes. i don't have a strong opinion on the death penalty. i am mildly in favour, but happy to go whichever way the majority of my compatriots choose.

Even if the abolishment of it would (Hypothetically) lead to a situation where the majority of people opposed the death penalty?
(When the death penalty was abolished in Germany, 77% of West Germans supported the death penalty. Now, Germany is one of the most vocal opponent of the death penalty)

EU propoganda did not stop in 1992, therefore you did not stop being subjected to it shortly after you were born.
Oh? Then why do the vast majority of the media in the UK so vehemently oppose the "Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats"? Allthough it would be nice to think they were double bluffing.

we have a system of common law that adapts and moulds itself to judicial precedent, case law.
Glancing through the ECHR, I don't see anything that our flexible judicial system can adapt to. Although it is interesting that "X vs. United Kingdom" keeps cropping up time and time again :yes:

i don't want the final authority on elements of case law that effects internal british governance decided by a non-british body.
There are plenty of examples of similar situations e.g Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs which aren't intrinsically European.

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.
Source? I admit, I know next to nothing about law, so I can't really comment on stuff like that in great deal. That doesn't mean I don't want to know though.

Kralizec

01-17-2010, 14:40

*Sigh x1000 (because i just love to be dramatic*

don't care, the ECHR is a legal authority that is not ultimately answerable to Britain, nor is it formed from british ideas of justice.

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.

*Sighs x2000*

Would you also applaud Saudi Arabia if it dismisses criticism of its human rights situation? It would only be consistent if you did, since sovereignty is basically the ability to raise the middle finger to others when it comes to "your" territory.

It's not as if the European Court of Human Rights ever was capable of amending Italian laws, or whatever. The political indignation with this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with concerns about sovereignty and everything with christian (or rather, catholic) chauvinism. If Italy doesn't want others to criticize them on human rights, they should not have agreed to be criticized about it in the first place by signing the ECHR. The person who wrote that article doesn't know what he's talking about.

....

About the CAP, I don't like it in it's current form. But at the same time, I realize that the EU needs some sort of common agricultural policy. Just not this one.
Think about it, if farming subsidies weren't standardised and centralised as they are now, France would simply give their farmers a buttload of cash and said farmers would then out"compete" any other farmers in Europe. While I'm against subsidizing farmers, giving every farmer the same at least ensures that competition within the EU is fair.

Personally, I'd scrap the subsidies and raise tariffs for farming products that come from countries such as the US wich still subsidize their farmers.

Furunculus

01-17-2010, 14:44

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.
Source? I admit, I know next to nothing about law, so I can't really comment on stuff like that in great deal. That doesn't mean I don't want to know though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system

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

Louis VI the Fat

01-17-2010, 16:19

*Sigh*

The ECHR is not a part of the EU. And for the record, that particular law wich was condemned by the court is a fascist abomination (literally - it was instituted by Mussolini and never repealed)

AFAIK most condemning verdicts by the ECHR are acted upon by the country involved because they're often considered embarassing. Not in this case apparently, though I'm not surprised. I've often wondered if Italian politicians are even capable of feeling embarrassment.You are quite correct. The ECHR is not an EU intitution at all.

The ECHR is one of the wonders of Europe. Where else does a citizen have access to an independent international court that guards over his basic human rights? :2thumbsup:
All European states expected that the others would be most affected by this court. All have been given a brutal wake-up call, for no state in Europe is beyond the temptation to infringe the human rights of its citizens.

However, there is one caveat: Lisbon enabled the EU to subscribe to arbitration by the ECHR. The EU is since a month a legal entity of its own (although many people presumed, most notably those against the EU, that it had been so for ages). Together with all the member states, the EU is now directly bound by the ECHR.
This is one of the great aspects of Lisbon: the EU is now bound directly by legal precedent of the European Court for Human Rights.

If I get the case correct, 'Lautsi' can now use the EU legal system as a further means to assert his rights against his government. The Italian state now not just has to face with a toothless court, but with the EU, if it seeks to act against its own legal obligations.

As for Italy - I suppose no-one is surprised anymore that Berlusconi would brush aside Italian law and treaties, would act against his own constitution.
But I'll never get used to his supporters at home and abroad, cheering him on to do so.

Louis VI the Fat

01-17-2010, 16:20

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.The consequences are that basically, according to this, the state must enjoy absolute sovereignity over its subjects.

'The will of the people', expressed in vague notions, and whatever that may be, is the final word.

Me, I think the individual citizen has inalieble rights, which no state can infringe upon. These rights are expressed in law, constitutions, and reviewed by an independent judicial system, and no state can infringe upon them unless through proper channels.

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.Presumption of innocence and trial by jury have been continental legal concepts since Celts where hunting wild boars on the British Isles.

It is a common misconception that, because concepts like 'Habeas Corpus' and 'presumption of innocence' are differently expressed in continental and common law legal systems, they therefore should not exist in one or the other.

For example, both the French declaration of Human Rights of 1789, and the ECHR of 1950, and the EU's own charter of human rights, and every legal system of every single member of the EU expresses the notion of 'presumption of innocence'.

on the related subject of europe and its superpower ambitions:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7005887/Haiti-response-shows-the-difference-between-the-EU-and-a-superpower.html

Haiti response shows the difference between the EU and a superpower
The earthquake in Haiti provoked prompt and effective action from the US, and waffle from the EU, says Christopher Booker
Published: 6:49PM GMT 16 Jan 2010

Compare and contrast the initial responses of two "major world powers" to the Haitian earthquake disaster. Within hours of Port-au-Prince crumbling into ruins, the US had sent in an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters, hospital and assault ships, the 82nd Airborne Division with 3,500 troops and hundreds of medical personnel. They put the country's small airport back on an operational footing, and President Obama pledged an initial $100 million dollars in emergency aid.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Union geared itself up with a Brussels press conference led by Commission Vice-President Baroness Ashton, now the EU's High Representative – our new foreign minister. A scattering of bored-looking journalists in the Commission's lavishly appointed press room heard the former head of Hertfordshire Health Authority stumbling through a prepared statement, in which she said that she had conveyed her "condolences" to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and pledged three million euros in aid.

A gaggle of other Commision spokesmen followed, to report offers of help from individual member states, such as a few search and rescue teams, tents and water purification units. We were also told that an official EU representative would be trying to reach Haiti from the Dominican Republic, to stay for a few hours before returning to report what he had found.

Memories might have gone back to December 2004, which saw similarly contrasting responses to the Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe which cost nearly 300,000 lives. Again, within hours the US took the lead in forming an alliance with Australia, India and Japan, and had sent in two battle groups fully equipped to deal with such an emergency, including 20 ships led by two carriers with 90 helicopters. President Bush immediately pledged $35 million, later rising to $350 million. Because they were self-sufficient, the US forces pulled off a stupendously successful life-saving operation, almost entirely ignored by the British media, notably the BBC (whose journalists on the spot were nevertheless quite happy to hitch lifts from US helicopters).

The EU, by contrast, pledged three million euros for the tsunami victims, called for a three-minute silence (three times longer than is customary to remember the millions who died in two world wars) and proposed a "donors' conference" in Jakarta nearly two weeks later to discuss what might be done.

The only real difference between these two episodes is that, in the five years which have elapsed since 2004, the EU has even more noisily laid claim to its status as what Tony Blair liked to call "a world superpower", capable of standing on the world stage as an equal of the US. Anyone who witnessed the dismal showing at Thursday's press conference of the High Representative, which would scarcely have passed muster at a board meeting of the Hertfordshire Health Authority, might well cringe at the thought.
There are few superpower ambitions.

There is a EU ambition to pull its weight in times of crisis. A harmonised response force would go a long way towards fulfilling this ambition.

Alas, the anti-EU crowd is allergic to establishing any means for a common EU defense or foreign policy. To be able to act as decisively as the US must remain a future ambition.

But it is one or the other, Furunculus: either one is in favour of granting the EU means to act decisively, or one is not. And in the latter case, it is most unfitting to then deride the EU for lacking these means.

Kralizec

01-17-2010, 18:34

However, there is one caveat: Lisbon enabled the EU to subscribe to arbitration by the ECHR. The EU is since a month a legal entity of its own (although many people presumed, most notably those against the EU, that it had been so for ages). Together with all the member states, the EU is now directly bound by the ECHR.
This is one of the great aspects of Lisbon: the EU is now bound directly by legal precedent of the European Court for Human Rights.

Some MEP's asked questions to the commission about that. I don't know if they're answered yet, but the answer seems pretty clear to me.
The Lisbon Treaty says that the EU will accede to the ECHR. That means that acts and decisions of the Union can be brought before the ECHR court. It does not mean that the EU will in enforce ECHR decisions directed against countries wich happen to be member states of the EU. The Lisbon treaty itself explicitly says that the EU's accession to the ECHR will not give the EU more authority than it has according to the Lisbon treaty itself.

Furunculus

01-17-2010, 20:40

i'm not so fussed about the EU's involvement in, or commitment to, the ECHR, more that we are signed up to the ECHR at all.

Meneldil

01-18-2010, 09:07

Furunculus

01-18-2010, 09:28

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

(Where's Tribsey when you need him?)
why don't you take a pop yourself, go on, it can't be that hard if its that ridiculous.............. no really, fill your boots.

if you have some objection over the presumption of innocence, then yes i know, there is a somewhat equivalent recognition in many civil law systems (its in the link i provided after all), but the differences between legal systems are manifest and significant to the point where I am uncomfortable having a mixed-system judiciary acting as final arbiter of sections of British law.

so, crack on, lets hope you can justify those smileys with a witty riposte otherwise you'll look quite foolish, tribesman often did at any rate.

p.s. there are some clues here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2416313&postcount=1029

Furunculus

01-18-2010, 12:56

interesting article on possible eu policy to expel countries that leave the Euro:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7012297/ECB-prepares-legal-ground-for-euro-rupture-as-Greek-crisis-escalates.html

ECB prepares legal ground for euro rupture as Greek crisis escalates
Fears of a euro break-up have reached the point where the European Central Bank feels compelled to issue a legal analysis of what would happen if a country tried to leave monetary union.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 5:12PM GMT 17 Jan 2010

“Recent developments have, perhaps, increased the risk of secession (however modestly), as well as the urgency of addressing it as a possible scenario,” said the document, entitled Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU: some reflections.

The author makes a string of vaulting, Jesuitical, and mischievous claims, as EU lawyers often do. Half a century of ever-closer union has created a “new legal order” that transcends a “largely obsolete concept of sovereignty” and imposes a “permanent limitation” on the states’ rights.

Those who suspect that European Court has the power pretensions of the Medieval Papacy will find plenty to validate their fears in this astonishing text.

Crucially, he argues that eurozone exit entails expulsion from the European Union as well. All EU members must take part in EMU (except Britain and Denmark, with opt-outs).

This is a warning shot for Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. If they fail to marshal public support for draconian austerity, they risk being cast into Icelandic oblivion. Or for Greece, back into the clammy embrace of Asia Minor.

ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet upped the ante, warning that the bank would not bend its collateral rules to support Greek debt. “No state can expect any special treatment,” he said. He might as well daub a death’s cross on the door of Greece’s debt management office.

This euro-brinkmanship must be unnerving for the Hellenic Socialists (PASOK). Last week’s €1.6bn (£1.4bn) auction of Greek debt did not go well. The interest rate on six-month notes rose to 1.38pc, compared to 0.59pc a month ago. The yield on 10-year bonds has touched 6pc, the spreads ballooning to 270 basis points above German Bunds.

Greece cannot afford such a premium for long. The country must raise €54bn this year – front-loaded in the first half. Unless the spreads fall sharply, the deficit cannot be cut from 12.7pc of GDP to 3pc of GDP within three years. As Moody’s put it, Greece (and Portugal) faces the risk of “slow death” from rising interest costs.

Stephen Jen from BlueGold Capital said the design flaws of monetary union are becoming clearer. “I don’t believe Euroland will break up: too much political capital has been spent in the past half century for Euroland to allow an outright breakage. However, severe 'stress-fractures’ are quite likely in the years ahead.”

As Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (PIIGS) slide into deflation, their “real” interest rates will rise even higher. “It is tantamount to hiking rates in the already weak PIIGS,” he said. This is the crux. ECB policy will become “pro-cyclical”, too tight for the South, too loose for the North.

The City view is that the North-South split may cause trouble, but that there will always be a bail-out to prevent a domino effect. “If a rescue turns out to be necessary, a rescue will be mounted,” said Marco Annunziata from Unicredit.

It comes down to a bet that Berlin will do for Club Med what it did for East Germany: subsidise forever. It is a judgement on whether EMU is the binding coin of sacred solidarity, or just a fixed exchange rate system like others before it.

Politics will decide, and in Greece it is already proving messy as teams of “inspectors” ruffle feathers. The Orthodox LAOS party is not happy that an EU crew dared to demand an accounting from the colonels. “The Ministry of Defence is sacrosanct,” it said.

Greece alone in Western Europe treats the military budget as a state secret. Rating agencies guess it is a ruinous 5pc of GDP. Does the country really need 1,700 battle tanks, 420 combat jets, and eight submarines? To fight NATO ally Turkey? Merely to pose the question is to enter dangerous waters.

Who knows what the IMF surveillance team made of their mission in Athens. The Fund’s formula for boom-bust countries that squander their competitiveness is to retrench AND devalue. But devaluation is ruled out. Greece must take the pain, without the cure.

The policy is conceptually foolish and arguably cynical. It is to bleed a society in order to uphold the ideology of the European Project. Greece’s national debt will be 120pc of GDP this year. S&P says it will reach 138pc by 2012. A fiscal squeeze – without any offsetting monetary or exchange stimulus – will cause tax revenues to collapse. Debt will rise higher on a shrinking economic base.

Even if Greece can cut wages without setting off mass protest, it lacks the open economy and export sector that may yet save Ireland in similar circumstances. Greece is caught in a textbook deflation trap.

Labour minister Andreas Loverdos says unemployment would reach a million this year – or 22pc, equal to 30m in the US. He broadcast the fact with a hint of menace, as if he wanted Europe to squirm. Two can play brinkmanship.
have fun with that greece and portugal!

Kralizec

01-18-2010, 14:55

Well, to point out one thing...

You argue that presumption of innocence does not exist in all continental countries.
A few posts before that you complain that the ECHR dissaproves when the UK withholds social security for family of suspected terrorists.

:juggle2:

Beskar

01-18-2010, 15:31

al Roumi

01-18-2010, 15:42

oh i will, i will always fight to ensure a representative Britain.

whether i like the result or not.
have i not said in the past that i would accept (grudgingly) a federal EU with Britain a active and positive participant, if that is what the people wanted?

while the people are not given that choice, and especially so when the people appear to be opposed, then the result of pursuing the default course of ever-deeper-union is both un-representative and tyrannical.

but you guys won't have a problem with that; tyranny of the majority just being another slogan to shout whenever anyone threatens your post-national liberal* project. ;)

* in the modern nannying sense, rather the the more noble original.

1. yes. it's called political representation and i'm a big fan.

2. yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.
yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.

3. personally, i have sufficient faith in the strength of our social and cultural institutions that i am willing to trust my 'family' to act in a manner that i can abide. we are not some tin-pot continental country recently reprieved from dictatorship, nor brutalised by fifty years of ideological oppression, or have a recent history dotted with revolutions. we have been free and represented for 350 years, there is no need for proportional representation to disallow tyrants and demagogues from the levers of power.

Furunculus, are you by any chance an idealist?

You look increasingly like an anarchist for the total democracy you seem to desire.

I think you are also shaky on the "free and represented for 350 years", I would entreat you to find out more on who was represented and who was free -and dare I say at the expense of whom, during these glorious 350 years.

You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

But never mind, we're a boiler-plate post-colonialist only-recently-relegated superpower, still "punching above our weight", right?

Furunculus

01-18-2010, 16:15

You argue that presumption of innocence does not exist in all continental countries.
A few posts before that you complain that the ECHR dissaproves when the UK withholds social security for family of suspected terrorists.

two points:

i pointed out* the presumption of innocence thing (along with other points such as common{adversarial}/civil{inquisitorial} law systems and trial by jury) to point out the differences in legal systems, a fact that makes a european court less able to dispense british justice, not because it was better (i stated as much in the same thread).

i also stated in the iceland thread** that i have no objections to anti-terror law and understand it sometimes needs to go outside what is acceptable for civil society, but i object when it is badly drafted and can be misused for 'civilian' purposes, so there is no incompatibility between the general presumption of innocence and the extraordinary measure taken to stop terror funding.

any more?

Shhhh don't correct him, it would just hurt his nationalistic pride.
anything to add, or still just cheer-leading?

* https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2416757&postcount=1035
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2416584&postcount=99

Furunculus

01-18-2010, 16:20

Furunculus, are you by any chance an idealist?

You look increasingly like an anarchist for the total democracy you seem to desire.

I think you are also shaky on the "free and represented for 350 years", I would entreat you to find out more on who was represented and who was free -and dare I say at the expense of whom, during these glorious 350 years.
You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

But never mind, we're a boiler-plate post-colonialist only-recently-relegated superpower, still "punching above our weight", right?
a little yes, because i believe we have a system worth fighting for.

not total democracy, just representative democracy.

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

is there anything wrong with the statement you quote? :inquisitive:

al Roumi

01-18-2010, 17:00

a little yes, because i believe we have a system worth fighting for.

not total democracy, just representative democracy.

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

Aww man, I wish. I wish we, or anyone, had a truly representative democracy. I wish society was able to cope with such a thing! Frankly, wishing for proper democracy and representation is wishing for a utopian ideal, you might say as crazy as wishing for a working form of communism.

On what basis do you think elections are won? Issues and Manifestos? Emotions? Personalities? Marketing? What the media say? What the people who own the media want?

The elected representatives, according to what criteria are they put forwards? Impartiality? Suitability for the job? Internal party politics? Who they know? Who they pay off?

And what about the electorate? Do they have the first clue about the consequences of political and budgetary decisions? Is there any way they can be appropriately informed by a sensationalist, commercialised and news-as-entertainment media?

1 single example, look at the responses to the spending cuts requried by the recession: everyone says it is neccessary to cut government spending, but won't actually take the hit on Education, Health or anything else that they value! How helpfull is the "will of british people" then???

IMO you have to be a loony or a complete tosser to go into politics, but ultimately the poor buggers in office are faced with some seriously difficult decisions. At the best of times they will always p!ss someone off and ultimately those decisions will all snowball and they'll end up faced with an electorate who are bored with their face and voice, and want some other prat to talk ernestly to them!

As Churchill said: democracy is not the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives (or something simmilar).

But don't for one second kid yourself that it's anything to be particularily proud of. It can only ever be "less bad" than something else.

al Roumi

01-18-2010, 17:25

With apologies to the esteemed Mods for this double post...

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

How do you judge society to be stable and plural I wonder? Plural is an easier one to look at, so lets have a quick look at how inclusive Britain has been... this list is not by any means going to be definitive, but I'll try to bring out some important milestones or positive steps.

Suffrage in the United Kingdom was slowly changed over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries to allow universal suffrage through the use of the Reform Acts and the Representation of the People Acts.

Reform Act 1832 - extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights
Reform Act 1867 - enfranchised all male householders, so increasing male suffrage to the United Kingdom
Representation of the People Act 1884 - amended the Reform Act of 1867 so that it would apply equally to the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised, whilst women could not vote
Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men, who could vote at 21; however women's votes were given with these property restrictions, and were limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918
Representation of the People Act 1928 - this made women's voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions
Representation of the People Act 1948 - the act was passed to prevent plural voting
Representation of the People Act 1969 - extension of suffrage to those 18 and older

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

So, up untill 1928, only the upper/middle classes could vote -while 1832 saw only 1 in 7 of the male population with a vote. Up untill 1948, some people had more than 1 vote (e.g. extra votes for having a degree, owning a certain ammount of capital, owning properties in different constituencies etc), elections were literaly biased in the favour of the views of the few.

Just how is that open and plural?

is there anything wrong with the statement you quote? :inquisitive:

Do you know what hubris is?

Furunculus

01-18-2010, 17:44

Aww man, I wish. I wish we, or anyone, had a truly representative democracy. I wish society was able to cope with such a thing! Frankly, wishing for proper democracy and representation is wishing for a utopian ideal, you might say as crazy as wishing for a working form of communism.

On what basis do you think elections are won? Issues and Manifestos? Emotions? Personalities? Marketing? What the media say? What the people who own the media want?

The elected representatives, according to what criteria are they put forwards? Impartiality? Suitability for the job? Internal party politics? Who they know? Who they pay off?

And what about the electorate? Do they have the first clue about the consequences of political and budgetary decisions? Is there any way they can be appropriately informed by a sensationalist, commercialised and news-as-entertainment media?

1 single example, look at the responses to the spending cuts requried by the recession: everyone says it is neccessary to cut government spending, but won't actually take the hit on Education, Health or anything else that they value! How helpfull is the "will of british people" then???

IMO you have to be a loony or a complete tosser to go into politics, but ultimately the poor buggers in office are faced with some seriously difficult decisions. At the best of times they will always p!ss someone off and ultimately those decisions will all snowball and they'll end up faced with an electorate who are bored with their face and voice, and want some other prat to talk ernestly to them!

As Churchill said: democracy is not the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives (or something simmilar).

But don't for one second kid yourself that it's anything to be particularily proud of. It can only ever be "less bad" than something else.
there really isn't a useful response to this other than to say; no kidding.

i agree and concur that these are the problems faced, but that will not stop me advocating a political system that does its best to represent the will of the people, because the alternative is tyranny, and varying intermediate steps on the way to tyranny.

Furunculus

01-18-2010, 17:47

How do you judge society to be stable and plural I wonder? Plural is an easier one to look at, so lets have a quick look at how inclusive Britain has been... this list is not by any means going to be definitive, but I'll try to bring out some important milestones or positive steps.
So, up untill 1928, only the upper/middle classes could vote -while 1832 saw only 1 in 7 of the male population with a vote. Up untill 1948, some people had more than 1 vote (e.g. extra votes for having a degree, owning a certain ammount of capital, owning properties in different constituencies etc), elections were literaly biased in the favour of the views of the few.
Just how is that open and plural?

Do you know what hubris is?
you missed the "relatively" in my statement. as i inferred earlier; i recognise that human history evolved from cavemen with clubs rather than Elysium.

lol, yes, however the opposite is equally as damaging a trait, and i find it far more common in Britain.

Subotan

01-18-2010, 18:23

You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

With one nation in particular enduring particular oppression. The British Empire was built upon the bones of millions of Indians.

al Roumi

01-18-2010, 18:40

i agree and concur that these are the problems faced, but that will not stop me advocating a political system that does its best to represent the will of the people.

Honestly, I find it hard to seperate what you advocate from anarchy or government by plebiscite.

Neither of which are at all guarantors of the stability you applaud. Stability has historicaly been maintained by the haves, and undermined by the have-nots (who would like to have, and thus have a jolly good -and unstable- upheaval during or as a result of their acquisition).

If the UK has been stable as you assert, its because it was definitley not a plural and open society. Historicaly, the UK gave little and selectively enough to dampen social upheaval and maintain the staus-quo for the haves.

The ruling parliaments of GB were cautious to learn from others' mistakes -as in the French revolution (which started as a power grab by middle class property owners, which GB celebrated as freedom from tyranny, and was co-opted by working class/artisans, which horrified the ruling class of GB).

Kralizec

01-18-2010, 21:00

two points:

i pointed out* the presumption of innocence thing (along with other points such as common{adversarial}/civil{inquisitorial} law systems and trial by jury) to point out the differences in legal systems, a fact that makes a european court less able to dispense british justice, not because it was better (i stated as much in the same thread).

i also stated in the iceland thread** that i have no objections to anti-terror law and understand it sometimes needs to go outside what is acceptable for civil society, but i object when it is badly drafted and can be misused for 'civilian' purposes, so there is no incompatibility between the general presumption of innocence and the extraordinary measure taken to stop terror funding.

As for incompatibility issues, the argument is not without merit but you're exaggerating it. Especially with the ECHR, wich is mostly concerned with results and not with the way the result has been achieved.

No objections to anti-terror law? Really?
I'm okay with putting terrorism suspects under surveillance. But punishing the relatives of people who've never been convicted in court?
Someone should not have to put up with gross violations of basic human rights just because it's beneficial for society, or just because the majority of people think it's acceptable to maltreat minorities or invididual persons.

Representative democracy, will of the people, etc. (paraphrased)

Tyranny of the majority is a logical consequense of blindly following the will of the people. Many people think that the protection wich minorities enjoy in western societies is due to our respective democracies, but that's not true. It's because of the synthesis between the concept of representative democracy and the concept of the rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat).

On another note, in earlier discussion about this you've argued in favour of your current system because it creates clear majorities and is practical in other respects as well. That's a valid argument, but a system that offers only 2 or 3 viable candidates doesn't do the best job possible of representing the will of the voter. Surely, somebody who is as passionate about the Will of the People as you should staunchly support proportional representation? :smash:

Subotan

01-18-2010, 21:17

I once heard direct democracy described rather brilliantly as the "Crack cocaine of democracy"

Furunculus

01-19-2010, 09:37

Honestly, I find it hard to seperate what you advocate from anarchy or government by plebiscite.

Neither of which are at all guarantors of the stability you applaud. Stability has historicaly been maintained by the haves, and undermined by the have-nots (who would like to have, and thus have a jolly good -and unstable- upheaval during or as a result of their acquisition).

If the UK has been stable as you assert, its because it was definitley not a plural and open society. Historicaly, the UK gave little and selectively enough to dampen social upheaval and maintain the staus-quo for the haves.

The ruling parliaments of GB were cautious to learn from others' mistakes -as in the French revolution (which started as a power grab by middle class property owners, which GB celebrated as freedom from tyranny, and was co-opted by working class/artisans, which horrified the ruling class of GB).

i fail to see why you think i have a thing for anarchy or direct democracy.

I am a fan of neither, i am in fact a fan of letting the government take the tough decisions that people (as a crowd) would always shout down. but for this to work the people have to be able to weigh the decision makers on the merits of their decisions and then cast a vote of approval or disproval at the next election. that is neither of the ideas which you suggest i hold.

Where my enthusiasm for representation comes from is when the system described above fails; i.e a consensus forms between the two poles of politics that a given policy is-the-way-forward and the disatisfaction of the voter is to be disregarded.

it is a contemptuousness of the voter that will only breed contempt from the voter for his political 'masters'.

and you can tell when this has happened in a stable polity like Britain because the poles of British politics no longer dominate the ballot sheet results.
examples of this include:
> both parties letting too many immigants into the country (particularly labour) which has resulted in 1,000,000 BNP votes at the last euro election. only now are senior Labour figures beginning to admit they made a mistake after 12 years of chaos.
> both parties holding a greater enthusiasm for ever-deeper-union than its electorate, and repeatedly lieing to the voters about each new level of integration that wasn't happening, thus do we have UKIP.

this is a failure to represent because there is no opportunity to punish a bad decision within the mainstream of politics, and thus do the les pleasant and less credible fringes flourish. if you can't kick out those who hold with decisions with which you disagree then you are not represented.

so please, control any urge to travel further down this intellectual dead-end about direct democracy or anarchy as the only end-result of being enthusiastic about representative democracy.

here's a clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

Furunculus

01-19-2010, 09:51

As for incompatibility issues, the argument is not without merit but you're exaggerating it. Especially with the ECHR, wich is mostly concerned with results and not with the way the result has been achieved.

No objections to anti-terror law? Really?
I'm okay with putting terrorism suspects under surveillance. But punishing the relatives of people who've never been convicted in court?
Someone should not have to put up with gross violations of basic human rights just because it's beneficial for society, or just because the majority of people think it's acceptable to maltreat minorities or invididual persons.

Tyranny of the majority is a logical consequense of blindly following the will of the people. Many people think that the protection wich minorities enjoy in western societies is due to our respective democracies, but that's not true. It's because of the synthesis between the concept of representative democracy and the concept of the rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat).

On another note, in earlier discussion about this you've argued in favour of your current system because it creates clear majorities and is practical in other respects as well. That's a valid argument, but a system that offers only 2 or 3 viable candidates doesn't do the best job possible of representing the will of the voter. Surely, somebody who is as passionate about the Will of the People as you should staunchly support proportional representation? :smash:

perhaps, but from my point of view why was this necessary in the first place? i would argue it will produce at best no better result and at worst an inferior result then systems already in place that were created by British legal precedent and directly accountable to British institutions of governance.

Sure, the individual argument may have merit, and i am perfectly willing to lets the corts decide if it is a reasonable action, but why isn't the British high courts ruling on it?

Oh dear god, the blessed tyranny of the majority again! Quite frankly; i am not worried that a representative system of governance such as enjoyed by the UK is liable to produce pogroms and other such significant minority repression, as the edificie is too well tuned and and stable. if you think other countries might have that problem fair enough, but its not my problem and its not Britains problem. the one instance where there is such a potential problem in britain is immigration, and that occurred precisely because politics did not represent the needs of the people by controlling immigration, thus the rise of the BNP.

proportional representation is for the political class that does not trust its electorate not to produce demagogues, and it is for an electorate that does not trust its political class not to produce tyrants.
not Britains problem. in addition to that, PR reduces the level of representation because there is not direct connection between the electorate and their elected representative. britain had a useful 2.5 party system, and when it stopped representing people on green issues or immigration or european integration it grows other minor fringe parties. the long term viability of these fringe parties is directly proprotional to the ability of the mainstream parties to adopt their issuess and thus represent that sector of the electorate. the reason the BNP and UKIP have continued to grow is because the mainstream has denied there is a debate to be had (because labour loved immigration and the tories didn't want to be seen as nasty), how long this situation is set to continue is yet to be seen.

Kralizec

01-19-2010, 20:50

perhaps, but from my point of view why was this necessary in the first place? i would argue it will produce at best no better result and at worst an inferior result then systems already in place that were created by British legal precedent and directly accountable to British institutions of governance.

Sure, the individual argument may have merit, and i am perfectly willing to lets the corts decide if it is a reasonable action, but why isn't the British high courts ruling on it?

British judges, AFAIK, have absolutely no room to decide wether laws are "reasonable". Parliamentary supremacy and all that. The only thing they can do is interpreting statutes restrictively as to limit their scope. To use a rather hyperbolic, but theoretically possible example: the UK's parliament could decide to abolish Habeus Corpus tomorrow and British judges wouldn't be able lift a finger in response, "constitutionally" speaking.
The Human Rights Act of 1998 is a bit different. But if it's causing problems, that's the fault of the UK legislators and not of some supposed "incompatibility" with between the British system as such and the principles defined in the ECHR.

Oh dear god, the blessed tyranny of the majority again! Quite frankly; i am not worried that a representative system of governance such as enjoyed by the UK is liable to produce pogroms and other such significant minority repression, as the edificie is too well tuned and and stable. if you think other countries might have that problem fair enough, but its not my problem and its not Britains problem. the one instance where there is such a potential problem in britain is immigration, and that occurred precisely because politics did not represent the needs of the people by controlling immigration, thus the rise of the BNP.

Your standards must be quite low if you think having "human rights" means not being subjected to pogroms. :coffeenews:

proportional representation is for the political class that does not trust its electorate not to produce demagogues, and it is for an electorate that does not trust its political class not to produce tyrants.

This makes no sense at all. Could you elaborate?

not Britains problem. in addition to that, PR reduces the level of representation because there is not direct connection between the electorate and their elected representative. britain had a useful 2.5 party system, and when it stopped representing people on green issues or immigration or european integration it grows other minor fringe parties. the long term viability of these fringe parties is directly proprotional to the ability of the mainstream parties to adopt their issuess and thus represent that sector of the electorate. the reason the BNP and UKIP have continued to grow is because the mainstream has denied there is a debate to be had (because labour loved immigration and the tories didn't want to be seen as nasty), how long this situation is set to continue is yet to be seen.

Just curious, have you ever spoken to your MP in person?

You're missing the point entirely. The fact that Labour and the Tories have been able to ignore "fringe" movements for so long is because the people who vote for these movements never had a change to get their voices represented in parliament until recently. Wether that's a good or a bad thing is debatable, but artificially eliminating fringe movements from representation makes the institution less representative.

Furunculus

01-19-2010, 22:56

British judges, AFAIK, have absolutely no room to decide wether laws are "reasonable". Parliamentary supremacy and all that. The only thing they can do is interpreting statutes restrictively as to limit their scope. To use a rather hyperbolic, but theoretically possible example: the UK's parliament could decide to abolish Habeus Corpus tomorrow and British judges wouldn't be able lift a finger in response, "constitutionally" speaking.
The Human Rights Act of 1998 is a bit different. But if it's causing problems, that's the fault of the UK legislators and not of some supposed "incompatibility" with between the British system as such and the principles defined in the ECHR.

Your standards must be quite low if you think having "human rights" means not being subjected to pogroms. :coffeenews:

This makes no sense at all. Could you elaborate?

Just curious, have you ever spoken to your MP in person?

You're missing the point entirely. The fact that Labour and the Tories have been able to ignore "fringe" movements for so long is because the people who vote for these movements never had a change to get their voices represented in parliament until recently. Wether that's a good or a bad thing is debatable, but artificially eliminating fringe movements from representation makes the institution less representative.

why. is. it. necessary? i see no need to move the final arbiter of sections of british justice away from direct british jurisdiction.

we had 'justice' for quite some time before people decided that rights should be inalienable.

PR more or less prevents any kind of decisive majority in parliament, which prevents the decisive and radical politics being experimented with that i prefer (incidentally; the opposite to what you ascribed to me), and as such make a great bulwark against tyrants and demagogues because everything must be achieved through consensus and coalition.

no, i'm not married either, but that doesn't change the fact that i recognise the practice to be beneficial to society.

no it doesn't, FPTP insists that the political parties parties are flexible enough to try and accomodate enough of the wavering vote to ensure that they win, rather than become merely one of many inflexible factions that must be bought as within a PR system.

Kralizec

01-20-2010, 11:54

why. is. it. necessary? i see no need to move the final arbiter of sections of british justice away from direct british jurisdiction.

I don't need to justify anything to you. Ask your government and parliament about it, who've signed and ratified the ECHR. Surely a Westphalian enthousiast like yourself thinks treaty obligations are extremely important...

I could make a long post about the advantages of being able to show your case to a third party when you feel wronged by the government (including the courts). But I get the feeling that such arguments are lost on somebody who thinks his government system is inerrant because it's an expression of the General Will of the people :coffeenews:

PR more or less prevents any kind of decisive majority in parliament, which prevents the decisive and radical politics being experimented with that i prefer (incidentally; the opposite to what you ascribed to me), and as such make a great bulwark against tyrants and demagogues because everything must be achieved through consensus and coalition.

For all this talk about PR systems, how many could you name offhand? And how many of those do you follow frequently in the news?
PR system is more friendly to newer, smaller parties (wich includes demagogues) than FPTP is so I don't understand where you get all these ideas from.

no it doesn't, FPTP insists that the political parties parties are flexible enough to try and accomodate enough of the wavering vote to ensure that they win, rather than become merely one of many inflexible factions that must be bought as within a PR system.

You still don't get it, do you?

* If I have more options to chose from, the one I chose is more likely to be an accurate representation of my political views.

* You can name as many advantages of FPTP, real and perceived, as you like. But being workable is not the same as being representative of something.

* If Labour gets 60% of the seats by winning less than 40% of the vote, how in Jupiter's name can you claim that the resulting Parliament is somehow a representation of "the will of the people"

Furunculus

01-20-2010, 12:57

I don't need to justify anything to you. Ask your government and parliament about it, who've signed and ratified the ECHR. Surely a Westphalian enthousiast like yourself thinks treaty obligations are extremely important...
I could make a long post about the advantages of being able to show your case to a third party when you feel wronged by the government (including the courts). But I get the feeling that such arguments are lost on somebody who thinks his government system is inerrant because it's an expression of the General Will of the people :coffeenews:

For all this talk about PR systems, how many could you name offhand? And how many of those do you follow frequently in the news?
PR system is more friendly to newer, smaller parties (wich includes demagogues) than FPTP is so I don't understand where you get all these ideas from.

You still don't get it, do you?
* If I have more options to chose from, the one I chose is more likely to be an accurate representation of my political views.
* You can name as many advantages of FPTP, real and perceived, as you like. But being workable is not the same as being representative of something.
* If Labour gets 60% of the seats by winning less than 40% of the vote, how in Jupiter's name can you claim that the resulting Parliament is somehow a representation of "the will of the people"

How about i ask British people about, to create a discussion about it, and ensure that the merits of the point are considered rather than forgotten, cos that's what i think i'm doing here.
As a westphalian enthusiast i am keen to see that matters of internal governance remain the sole province of the sovereign nation state, because i believe the principle that unless given responsibility and held accountable for the responsibility you will act irresponsibly because there is no accountability.

Why does it matter how many i can name?
PR makes difficult outright majorities, which makes difficult party domination of parliament, which makes difficult radical politics, which makes it difficult for demagogues and tryants to gain absolute power. great system if the electorate doesn't trust its political system, and likewise ther political system doesn't trust its electorate (tyrants and demagogues), but not a system i approve of because:
> i like entrusting a political party the power to enact its radical politics, because i trust Britain not to abuse it.
> it breaks the link of direct representation between the voter and his MP

No, you still don't get it; representitive'ness isn't the only quality i expect in a political system, and it is not directly tied to the type of political system employed. Most of my problem with the lack of representation in British politics (as currently stands) is due to the political spectrum adopting a single position on an issue which precludes the voters from disagreeing with it. This might be better addressed by PR, but it also makes it more difficult for radical policy to be employed because of the need for horse-trading inherent in a PR system.

Furunculus

01-20-2010, 13:10

A rambling Norman Tebbit article with some surprising points of similarity to views held by myself:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100022942/i-used-to-believe-britain-had-a-lot-in-common-with-europe-how-wrong-i-was/

I used to believe Britain had a lot in common with Europe. How wrong I was

James Delingpole’s news that many Conservative candidates in winnable seats (or at least many of those with the courage to reply to a poll) are Conservatives and far from convinced by the Warmist case is encouraging. It may have within it the answer to many bloggers on this site who ask how our great institutions can be rescued from the shysters who have seized control of them.

I should, by the way, have said that the Monarchy and the Armed Services are still sound. In particular, the Queen has done very little wrong. A constitutional Monarch has to be very careful indeed not to use his or her last ditch powers unless they are absolutely sure that such a move would have overwhelming support and that the crisis could not be resolved by in other way. I hope that those who understand the importance and utility of the Monarchy will not undermine Prince Charles even before he comes to the Throne. I do not share his certainty about climate change, but I do share his views on architecture and I support his right to express his feelings as he does. A life in a cage, even a gilded cage, is a pretty frustrating one for an active man with a lively mind. Nor can it be a bundle of joy to face becoming of pensionable age before taking up the job to which you have been committed since birth.

Anyway, who do the republicans think we would get as president? Perhaps Tony and Cherie would run as a joint equal opportunites candidate – or could it be Jonathan Ross, or the winner of Strictly Come Dancing, or Peter Mandelson?

The key to solving our problems lies in the House of Commons. And the electorate holds that key. The Commons does not have to be the poodle of the executive. It still has the power of the purse in its control. It has the power to rewrite a budget presented to it in whole or in part.

For the moment, at least, I will not succumb to the temptation offered me by the commenter called “James (1)”, who would like a conversation about “third world immigration, Islamification and a non-indigenous demographic time bomb” – although I would observe to opponents of Islamification that it is quite difficult to beat a something with a nothing.

Quite rightly a number of contributors to this blog have questioned whether the United Kingdom any longer passes the tests of what is a sovereign state. It is a finely balanced matter. The claim to continue to be sovereign now rests soley upon the right of Paliament to repeal the Treaty of Accession. We have put our sovereignty into the care of the European Union, with a claim that it could be retrieved. The question is for how long a power which is unused can remain potent – and, beyond that, if the EU becomes, as we all expect it to do, the European Republic, what then?

I should have known better, for I was one of those who voted for that Treaty in 1972. I genuinely believed, as most of us did, not just that it would benefit us to be in a European free trade area, but that the commonalty of culture across the member states was far greater than it was and that we could share many institutions.

Looking back, I think that may have come about because as an airline pilot I was a member of an international elite who did share a common culture and I probably had more in common with an Air France or KLM pilot than a Birmingham bus driver. The longer I spent as a Minister around the negotiating table in Brussels, the more I realised I had been wrong. It was not that I dislike my European colleagues – it was just that I realised that the underlying history and culture which had formed their institutions was deeply different and indeed hostile to those which had formed ours.

That was when I remembered the words of Enoch Powell: “Europe can never be a democracy because there is no European Demos.”

All that leaves open what relationship we in the UK should have with the other states of Europe, or the EU. Perhaps that is a question we should be asking of our party leaders. Until we get it right, a lot of what goes on in the House of Commons (and indeed the Lords) will be no more than what the psychologists call a displacement activity.

Oh, by the way, I should confess that my political hero is Alfred the Great.

Subotan

01-20-2010, 14:18

I love First Past the Post, as it prevents the annoying coalition building prevalent in Europe. Anyone who doesn't is a Lib Dem, and should go cry in the corner.

"Europe can never be a democracy because there is no European Demos.”

Ankoraŭ ne

al Roumi

01-20-2010, 14:34

why. is. it. necessary? i see no need to move the final arbiter of sections of british justice away from direct british jurisdiction.

I guess it's not neccessary as such, but it makes cross-border co operation alot easier and builds cohesion between European states. Whether you are sold on that idea kinda influences how you feel about that too I gues...

we had 'justice' for quite some time before people decided that rights should be inalienable.

Come on mate, people living under Ghengis Khan had "justice" and "rights", as do people living under the Taliban. They just aren't in the same spirit of Human rights.

One of the main features of the Human rights movement was that the rights should be inalienable. Not just a happy accident of fortune, withdrawn at the whim of someone in power.

Furunculus

01-20-2010, 15:01

I guess it's not neccessary as such, but it makes cross-border co operation alot easier and builds cohesion between European states. Whether you are sold on that idea kinda influences how you feel about that too I gues...

Come on mate, people living under Ghengis Khan had "justice" and "rights", as do people living under the Taliban. They just aren't in the same spirit of Human rights.
One of the main features of the Human rights movement was that the rights should be inalienable. Not just a happy accident of fortune, withdrawn at the whim of someone in power.

quite so, and i'm not.

as stated in my profile I am not a huge cheer-leader for human rights (insomuch as Britain is concerned):"Human Rights: I am a fan of the social contract, which means i support the concept that civil rights are not natural rights, nor permanently fixed, and that English Law (read: Common Law) has spent 800 years morphing itself to the expectations of that social contract and thus has the greatest claim to validity as an instrument of justice. To me this sits at odds with the idea of an inalienable right enacted by statute (more appropriate to a Civil Law system) and not ultimately subject to English legal interpretation (as currently the case with the ECHR)."
We have been working on the concept of justice for at least 795 years, and i like to think we had it pretty much nailed by now, if other countries have problems with lunatics running around chopping peoples hands off then fine, let them have human rights.

Louis VI the Fat

01-20-2010, 15:42

Quite rightly a number of contributors to this blog have questioned whether the United Kingdom any longer passes the tests of what is a sovereign state.Ah, yes. The EU: an entity consisting of 26 sovereign states, plus enslaved Britannia.

I accuse Norman Tebbit of not even actually existing.

Do you know that genius postmodern text generator? It is a program that automatically produces an interesting (at first glance) postmodern text. Out of just a few words and concepts, endlessly mixed and re-arranged, the programs manages to produce an infinite number of texts.
I say the Telegraph has managed the same. The paper is filled by spambots, several programs written by the Telegraph, which automatically create daily, endlessly repetitive articles based on just a few concepts and phrases, such as 'national sovereignty', 'end of', 'demos', 'Britain must put an end to', 'representation', 'taken away', 'foreign interference'.

I feel like Groundhog Day when reading the Telegraph.

Subotan

01-20-2010, 15:58

The Torygraph is no longer an apt name for it, and UKIPgraph isn't as catchy.

Kralizec

01-20-2010, 16:20

We have been working on the concept of justice for at least 795 years, and i like to think we had it pretty much nailed by now

I imagine that people thought the same thing at pretty much every point in history.

Let's look at one of the ECHR rulings against the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_v._United_Kingdom

The commission found that the existence of different age limits was discriminatory and that no valid grounds existed to justify that discrimination. They therefore found that the age of consent for homosexual acts should be lowered to 16. In arriving at their conclusion the commission cited their reasoning in the previous cases, Dudgeon v. United Kingdom and Norris v. Ireland.

In response to the commission's findings the Applicant and the UK Government, on 13 October 1997, submitted an agreement that a Bill would be proposed to Parliament the summer of 1998 to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16. They agreed that once the legislation was passed the Government would pay reasonable costs and the parties would apply to the Court for approval of a friendly settlement.

The Government brought the Crime and Disorder Bill to Parliament in June 1998 which contained a provision to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16. Those provisions were accepted by the House of Commons, but were rejected by the House of Lords. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 16 December 1998 and the relevant provisions were again endorsed by that house, but were later rejected by the House of Lords.

Lot's of interesting things about this case. The UK government still was actively persecuting homosexuals by the end of the 20th century. And instead of having pogroms against homosexuals, western continental countries such as France and the Netherlands were ahead of the UK at least 50 years, if not centuries.

The court of human rights, quite correctly, rules that this archaic piece of legislation is a violation of human rights as defined in the treaty signed by the UK. Both the government and the House of Commons voluntarily decided to make amends and change the law (something that the ECHR can't force them to do), but were thwarted by an undemocratic institution: the House of Lords, the enemy of the will of the people :smash:

Furunculus

01-20-2010, 16:48

I imagine that people thought the same thing at pretty much every point in history.

Let's look at one of the ECHR rulings against the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_v._United_Kingdom
Lot's of interesting things about this case. The UK government still was actively persecuting homosexuals by the end of the 20th century. And instead of having pogroms against homosexuals, western continental countries such as France and the Netherlands were ahead of the UK at least 50 years, if not centuries.

The court of human rights, quite correctly, rules that this archaic piece of legislation is a violation of human rights as defined in the treaty signed by the UK. Both the government and the House of Commons voluntarily decided to make amends and change the law (something that the ECHR can't force them to do), but were thwarted by an undemocratic institution: the House of Lords, the enemy of the will of the people :smash:

as already stated; i recognise that human civilisation has been an upward struggle, and did not originate from Elysium, but that does nothing to make me believe the institutions of British justice could not exist perfectly well without final arbitration from bodies not created by, to specifically serve, and to be accountable to, Britain.

lovely, but you have no reason to believe a Britain without a ECHR ruling would not have achieved the same. and worse, in my opinion, foisting off responsibility for good governance onto unrelated third parties leads to a lack of responsibility among the electorate and the institutions; it is their job to demand and implement good governance.

nice hyperbole, but the Lords has been an excellent and effective amending House for the UK.

gaelic cowboy

01-20-2010, 17:17

Ah yes the house of Lords you know even Irish peers could sit it if they declared so which sounds a bit like another institution which has unrepresentative people making decisions for UK.:beam: Sorry couldnt resist it

Furunculus

01-20-2010, 17:31

al Roumi

01-20-2010, 18:35

nice hyperbole, but the Lords has been an excellent and effective amending House for the UK.

...preserving the status quo and the "stability" you earlier vaunted.

One man's stability is unfortunately another's oppression, hence why Labour did as much as they could in '97 to dismantle the stagnant establishment it had become. Probably their single greatest acheivement in these 3 terms of power. (Some uncharitable types might argue their only one!)

In drasticaly curbing the number of hereditary peers and stuffing the House with Labour friendly/affiliated Lords they've (in theory) balanced things out a bit such that the House of Lords has a party political composition more consistent with that of the 'Commons. NB I'm writing this with not a clue as to current figures...

Furunculus

01-20-2010, 18:59

i am happy for it to be amended, britains institutions should be flexible, isn't thsi getting somewhat far removed from the topic in question?

al Roumi

01-21-2010, 11:27

i am happy for it to be amended, britains institutions should be flexible, isn't thsi getting somewhat far removed from the topic in question?

...maybe... :yes:

Furunculus

01-22-2010, 20:11

An awesome article from Norman Tebbit, his first non-rambling article more to the point, and luckily enough for us it is on the subject of Britains place in Europe:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100023423/britain-and-the-eu-time-for-a-divorce/

Britain and the EU: time for a divorce

It may well be that Mr Cameron regards any discussion of the EU as “banging on about Europe”, but here in the Telegraph blogosphere – to judge from the over 350 comments on my last blog post – it does seem to be a matter of some interest.

However, I should first say to Gary 4 that I certainly did NOT tell people “to get on their bikes”, I am not, and never have been a “Monday Club politican”, although I see nothing shameful in being one. After all, it is not like being a Fabian. Nor have I ever urged people to vote UKIP.

On the other hand, ZigZag says he cannot understand the logic behind my view on the EU since he thinks that “the English are just a European Nation” and “the EU is simply an institution to which most European nations belong”.

So let me explain. The English are, of course, a European nation, but we are different by virtue of our history from the others. And I suppose that at this stage I should come clean about my own background.

Yes, we are all immigrants, since during the depth of the most recent ice age Britain was not inhabited by man. Even since the land bridge to the mainland was submerged there have been a good number of new arrivals, not least the Scandanavians, Romans, and Normans. My paternal forebears probably arrived here sometime in the 16th century from the continental lowlands. Indeed had they not got on their bikes, so to speak, I might have been born a Belgian. Happily they passed the cricket test with flying colours and integrated into the East Anglian turnip taleban of their time.

They, and most of us who came here until recent times, adopted the history and culture of England and the English. We were much infuenced by the Scandinavian practice of the folk moot, wherein lie some of our democratic ideas and which had a part in the thinking which led to Magna Carta.

It saddens me that in the bastardised ruins of what was once an educational system even children taught the importance of what happened at Runnymede are often told that the barons forced King John to grant rights, such as free speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and the right to a fair trial. No, not quite so. The King was forced to sign a declation that he would not interefere with, nor abridge, those rights which were were the inherent rights of English freemen (and women too, Harriet) according to rank.

Our fellow Europeans may well enjoy similar rights, but they are rights which have their origins in constitutions and laws. The right of a German or Frenchman to free speech is a grant by law – essentially an entitlement rather than a right. Here, it requires a law to set limits upon that right, which in this Kingdom is (I’m sorry Professor Dawkins) the God-given right of an Englishman or woman from birth.

What I discovered during many days (and not a few nights) negotiating and dealing around the table in Brussels was that my colleagues were, with a few wonderful exceptions such as Count Otto von Lamsdorff, not just corporatist by nature, but inclined to the unspoken assumption that man was made for the state rather than that the state was made for man. At its worst, that became an assumption that whilst the citizen must obey the law and his rights were limited by the scope of the law, the state could do whatever was not specifically forbiden to it.

The basic assumptions underlying the two systems of law, English Common law and European law, are such that they cannot exist side by side. While we are members of the EU as it is constructed today, wherever the two clash on a matter within European competence, European law is superior.

Nor is it just a matter of law. Our history has shaped our society to be different. We have suffered no invasion nor conquest since 1066 and no civil wars, revolutions nor military dictators since Cromwell’s time, and we have stopped one attempt after another to create a pan-European state. Philip of Spain, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin have all been frustrated by the people of these islands. In short, we have form as a destructive force against European political and military union.

Churchill was right. We should wish European union well – so long as it does not seek to cross the Channel. Certainly I have no ill will towards our friends on the mainland, but I think it is time the British dog got out of the federalist manger. I could live happily on the mainland as a foreigner. I believe that we should have a treaty relationship with other European nations covering matters of mutual interest, but that our Parliament should remain fully sovereign.

Divorce is never easy, but it may be better than persisting in an unhappy marriage. The question should not be whether we part, but what sort of relationship would follow.

hmmm, pretty close to my views, as should be obvious after having survived the first 36 pages of this thread.

Tellos Athenaios

01-22-2010, 20:37

You meant the writer of the article lacks basic analysis skills, dictionary and access to wikipedia for some real facts?

Being prevented from curtailing others in $something is not equal to establishing the right of others to $something... A grant by law to $something means to enshrine the right (indeed, entitlement) to $something. And sitting through a history 101 for that author would be time well spent too... Pathetic ramblings.

Furunculus

01-22-2010, 21:20

Kralizec

01-22-2010, 21:22

No, not quite so. The King was forced to sign a declation that he would not interefere with, nor abridge, those rights which were were the inherent rights of English freemen (and women too, Harriet) according to rank.

Our fellow Europeans may well enjoy similar rights, but they are rights which have their origins in constitutions and laws. The right of a German or Frenchman to free speech is a grant by law – essentially an entitlement rather than a right. Here, it requires a law to set limits upon that right, which in this Kingdom is (I’m sorry Professor Dawkins) the God-given right of an Englishman or woman from birth.

You bolded this part. How do you reconcile this with:
Human Rights: I am a fan of the social contract, which means i support the concept that civil rights are not natural rights, nor permanently fixed, and that English Law (read: Common Law) has spent 800 years morphing itself to the expectations of that social contract and thus has the greatest claim to validity as an instrument of justice. To me this sits at odds with the idea of an inalienable right enacted by statute

Our fellow Europeans may well enjoy similar rights, but they are rights which have their origins in constitutions and laws. The right of a German or Frenchman to free speech is a grant by law – essentially an entitlement rather than a right. Here, it requires a law to set limits upon that right, which in this Kingdom is (I’m sorry Professor Dawkins) the God-given right of an Englishman or woman from birth.

A romanticized distinction.

Putting a citizen's right in a constitution does not imply that said right didn't exist before or that it was an act of generosity by the state. The idea is that no law can be enacted that infringes that right without changing the constitution first, wich usually needs qualified majoritities. Rights of British citizens can be taken away by a simple law, should Parliament feel like doing so.

Earlier we talked about a British law that punished relatives of suspected terrorists. You said that while the notion of "individual rights" may have merit, you thought that it should be British courts to decide about it, and that ECHR shouldn't be able to criticize the UK about their human rights situation.
Well, in most (all?) continental countries the judiciary would be able to overturn such a manifestly unjust law by looking wether it conflicts with the constitution.

Britiain (and maybe Canada and Australia, I wouldn't know) is the only country in the western world where Montesquieu's idea of "seperation of powers" hasn't had even the slightest influence. In Britian, it's not the people or the monarch wich is sovereign, but parliament. Parliament, or nowadays the House of Commons specifically, can do whatever the hell it pleases.
Now, you're free to still think that your country's system is preferable. But suggesting that British people enjoy more freedom from their government or that their rights are somehow more durable than rights laid down in European constitutions is daft at best :coffeenews:

Furunculus

01-22-2010, 21:50

You bolded this part. How do you reconcile this with:
Human Rights: I am a fan of the social contract, which means i support the concept that civil rights are not natural rights, nor permanently fixed, and that English Law (read: Common Law) has spent 800 years morphing itself to the expectations of that social contract and thus has the greatest claim to validity as an instrument of justice. To me this sits at odds with the idea of an inalienable right enacted by statute

Putting a citizen's right in a constitution does not imply that said right didn't exist before or that it was an act of generosity by the state. The idea is that no law can be enacted that infringes that right without changing the constitution first, wich usually needs qualified majoritities. Rights of British citizens can be taken away by a simple law, should Parliament feel like doing so.

Earlier we talked about a British law that punished relatives of suspected terrorists. You said that while the notion of "individual rights" may have merit, you thought that it should be British courts to decide about it, and that ECHR shouldn't be able to criticize the UK about their human rights situation.
Well, in most (all?) continental countries the judiciary would be able to overturn such a manifestly unjust law by looking wether it conflicts with the constitution.

Britiain (and maybe Canada and Australia, I wouldn't know) is the only country in the western world where Montesquieu's idea of "seperation of powers" hasn't had even the slightest influence. In Britian, it's not the people or the monarch wich is sovereign, but parliament. Parliament, or nowadays the House of Commons specifically, can do whatever the hell it pleases.
Now, you're free to still think that your country's system is preferable. But suggesting that British people enjoy more freedom from their government or that their rights are somehow more durable than rights laid down in European constitutions is daft at best :coffeenews:

the fact that i am a fan of the social contract does not mean that he is the same. but what he refers to in essence is the principle in common law of; that which is not specifically proscribed by law is not unlawful as opposed to the principle of civil law; which is law by statute which tends to work from the other direction, that which is sanctioned is encouraged and that which isn't....................

very true, but we have a body of law that has morphed to meet the needs of the nation over a period of nearly a millenium which alongside a stable and uninterpeted polity and governance means that i have little to fear from not having had my rights enshrined in law. i trust.

jolly good, why am i concerned?

actually, it is the executive that is over-powerful, and because we have a flexible system the imbalalnce will no doubt be rectified. and i am not necessarily saying our system is better, i am saying it is different; it derives from differnt principles and attempts to achieve different aims, it is therefore less than ideal to submit this legal system to a sovereign aribter that was formed under different concepts and mediated by people who work to different aims.

Furunculus

01-26-2010, 17:16

old tebbit is posing some blinders:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100023732/the-defeated-equality-bill-contains-harmanesque-poison/
"Should it [The Gov't] ask the Commons to vote for the European authorities against freedom of conscience and religion or risk a case being brought against a church – or God forbid, a mosque – and decided in Europe, not here in Britain?"

Last night the Government was defeated in three key votes on the Equality Bill. The Bill is not all bad. It consolidates into one Bill a lot of anti-discrimination law (some good, some not so good) that is at present scattered across several Acts, making it easier to read and understand. However, there are within it some really nasty Harmanesque capsules of authoritarian poison, and a prime example of European judicial Imperialism. Last night it was the Churches who were to be the victims, but in a packed House things did not go the way of the Government.

Before the main clash between the Government and the largely religious lobby, the prominent homosexual Labour peer Lord Ali moved some amendments which posed some awkward questions for those of us who do not believe that the state should look into men’s heads and seek to criminalise their thoughts, rather than their actions. Fortunately in the face of the Government’s opposition he did not push his amendments to a vote, although he might do at a later stage.

The big argument was over the extent to which churches, mosques, temples or synagogues may refuse to employ people whose actions or lifestyles contradict the teachings of the religions concerned. The charge was led by Baroness O’Cathain, with formidable support from a battery of bishops including the formidable Archbishop Sentamu and the retired judge Baroness Butler-Sloss.

I think that they were always going to win the vote as well as the argument, but government defeat turned almost to a rout when some of its friends pointed out that it really did not matter a scrap which way the vote went as the law governing who the Church of England may, or may not employ, is not the law enacted here in England by our Parliament, but the law of Europe as dictated by our masters in Brussels. That put up the backs of a good many peers, who voted for the Churches rather than Brussels.

The Government now has a problem. Should it ask the Commons to vote for the European authorities against freedom of conscience and religion or risk a case being brought against a church – or God forbid, a mosque – and decided in Europe, not here in Britain? The only comfort for Gordon Brown is that it is more likely to land in David Cameron’s lap than his.

What a gift this could all be to David Cameron – not just the Royal Navy prevented from dealing with pirates by human rights laws imposed by Europe, but even the Church of England falling victim to foreign control after all these years. The questions is whether Mr Cameron or Mr Farage will take up the challenge. What is certain is (to coin a phrase) that we cannot go on like this.

I will be interested to read what the Euro-apologists make of it all. In the meantime, however, I should take up a few of the points raised by others commenting on earlier blogs. First of all I should say to Pragmatist that I do regret that I was not able to prevent the demise of selective education during my time in Government. However, I was never an Education Minister and it is not easy, in fact it is almost impossible, for a minister in one department to make the policy of another. The Prime Minister did ask me to return to the Cabinet in 1990 as Secretary of State for Education and perhaps I should have done so, but that is another story.

I think it was Archie 23 who told me not to imagine that Magna Carta was the source of our fundamental freedoms. I thought I had made it plain that Magna Carta required King John not to grant freedoms but to acknowledge that he had no authority to deny those freedoms which were granted by birth.

thorny question eh?

Furunculus

01-30-2010, 13:21

Perhaps we are about to finally find out if EU solidarity actually means anything, if that sense of shared family connection means that europe really will bail out the drunk uncle once again, and whether that same family bond will shame siad drunk uncle into mending his ways for the betterment of the 'family':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/7105916/Greece-is-the-word-that-should-strike-fear-into-all-those-who-love-the-euro.html

Greece is the word that should strike fear into all those who love the euro
The debt crisis engulfing Greece has dominated financial markets all week. Alistair Osborne gives his take.

By Alistair Osborne
Published: 8:53PM GMT 29 Jan 2010

Time for another sequel, surely. You remember. John Travolta and all that. "I got chills, they're multiplyin', and I'm losin' control."

Amazingly prescient, that song – even if some muppet spelt the film title wrong. Luckily, there would be no chance of that with Greece 3, with the country's prime minister George Papandreou in the Travolta role. He knows his nation had "better shape up" PDQ. Or risk bringing down the euro.

That much has been clear from the markets this week. The power they're "supplyin', it's electrifyin", is how Papandreou almost put it on Thursday, as the yield on 10-year Greek bonds shot to 7.15pc – with the spreads over German bunds topping 4 percentage points, the highest since Greece joined the euro. Papandreou actually said: "We are being targeted, particularly by those with an ulterior motive." But you get the picture.

Frankly, you don't need any ulterior motive to spot why market traders have identified ouzoland as the weak link in the chain tying 16 European countries to a single currency. The eurozone looked a heroic enough proposition anyway – before the financial crisis drove home the nonsense of having so many countries locked together through thick and thin, unable to devalue or set their own interest rates. Not least for the PIGS – Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain – which need a different curative to Germany.

So now the real fun begins. Traders scent blood. Greece must raise €54bn (£47bn) this year, half of it in the second quarter, or face defaulting on its debts. The sum alone brings more tears to your eyes than the national tipple – and that's before you consider Papandreou's weak hand.

Greece is reeling from a runaway budget deficit, estimated at a Herculean 12.7pc of GDP. To attract the foreign capital he needs, Greece's PM has pledged to cut the deficit by 4 percentage points this year alone. Traders are betting that he can't, potentially leaving the eurozone with the nasty choice of bailing out its weakest member – or seeing its beloved single currency implode.

It may just be the markets having a punt, but Britain knows better than most how tough it is to take them on. Just recall Black Wednesday in 1992, when John Major's government was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism – an event that had the salutary lesson of keeping us out of the euro.

Like Major before him, Papandreou hid behind all sorts of theories for the markets' behaviour – not least that "hot money" bought into Greece's €8bn debt-raising this week on rumours it had been backed by China, only to rush for the exit when the story was denied.

Whatever the truth of these Chinese whispers, Papandreou can hardly rule out chasing the dragon. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao is no Olivia Newton-John, but let's face it, we've been here before. How did the song put it? "You're the yuan that I want, ooh ooh ooh, honey." Just remember, euroland: Greece is the word.
interesting times, huh?

Furunculus

02-01-2010, 09:29

will this be a measure by which we can judge the success of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group; their commitment and ability to scupper euro-just?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7125259/The-very-moment-to-put-Europe-in-its-place.html

The very moment to put Europe in its place
The Tories must scupper plans for an EU legal system or live to regret it, says Philip Johnston.

By Philip Johnston
Published: 6:36AM GMT 01 Feb 2010

More than 12 years have passed since this newspaper first reported on how the European Union was developing a common criminal and judicial system known as Corpus Juris. Ostensibly, this was designed in the first instance to deal with offences against the EU's financial interests; but it was envisaged that, once instituted, it could be extended to other walks of life, too, and become the template for a European-wide justice system.

This was especially problematic for the United Kingdom, which, together with Ireland, has a legal system that is fundamentally different from the rest of the EU and would therefore be required to adopt a wholly new approach.

Underpinning Corpus Juris would be a new office of European Public Prosecutor (EPP) with a director and deputies in each member state. The EPP would have investigative powers and be responsible for bringing cases before national courts. It would be able to "request" detention without trial for up to six months, renewable for three months at a time, with no maximum limit, and underpinned by the European arrest warrant.

The publicity given to this plan caused some consternation at the time and the Government made it clear that it did not intend to support it. A House of Lords committee also came out against the concept, calling it unrealistic and adding: "The benefits of creating another body and in particular an EPP, whose existence and processes cut across national criminal laws and procedure and which might not be accountable to democratically elected representatives, have yet to be clearly and convincingly demonstrated."

For a few years, it appeared to have died a death. But, as is so often the case with EU ambitions, it should have had a stake driven through its heart; because it is back – and this time it has the wind of the Lisbon Treaty in its sails.

The treaty gives the power for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor along the lines outlined in Corpus Juris. The EPP's office, backed up by Eurojust, a body that is supposed to help co-ordinate cross-border crime investigations, would be responsible for "investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests". The Treaty provides for its remit to be extended to cover "serious crime having a cross-border dimension".

In the European Parliament earlier this month, Algirdas Semeta, the new EU tax commissioner, said that since the Treaty provided for the role then they might as well go ahead with it. His problem, and it is a big one, is this: it is one of the dwindling number of areas that requires a unanimous decision by the EU before it can proceed. In other words, we have a veto.

Here, then, is a great opportunity for an incoming Conservative government to take a stand on Europe that does not require a referendum, does not put at risk Britain's membership, does not re-open old Tory Euro-wounds and cannot be denounced as anti-European because the rules of the club allow for it to be taken.

My understanding is that the Tories do intend to veto the EPP – though why they have not made a bigger song and dance about it beats me. It is inconceivable, surely, that presented with an opportunity to block such an extension of EU powers the party would not take it. But since the polls suggest the Tories are by no means certain to win the election outright, there has to be a pledge from Labour and the Lib Dems that they will veto the EPP idea as well.

If the Conservatives end up shy of a parliamentary majority and have to do deals with the Lib Dems to stay in office, this is just the sort of stitch-up that happens. Similarly, if by some miracle Labour gets back into office – possibly with the help of the Lib Dems – they might be tempted to let the plan through on the nod to avoid falling out with EU bosses who have been pushing this plan for years.

The EPP is a classic example of something we were told would never happen as a result of the Lisbon Treaty: a direct threat to our centuries-old judicial system and the laws and liberties that underpin it.

On what possible basis would the EPP office be able to pursue cross-border prosecutions under UK law when most EU countries follow a different legal code and do not practice habeas corpus? The creation of an EPP would inevitably lead to calls for the harmonisation of criminal procedural law to ensure defendants received a fair trial.

It is being promoted as a practical measure to bolster the campaign against fraud. But the EPP is the final piece in the jigsaw needed to establish the basis for a pan-European judicial system. In truth, even if we stay out, other EU countries could go ahead with the plan; but let them. We don't have to take part. If our party leaders are at all honest about wanting to halt the leeching of UK sovereignty, here is somewhere they can take a stand.
or will they have to do a lot more?
I lean to the latter opinion.

Meneldil

02-01-2010, 14:50

So much outdated nationalism in this topic hurts my eyes. Norman Tebbit would have been a great author in 1890. Nowadays he just deserves to be laughed at.

It looks like Renan's writtings about the inherent greatness of the French nation, except that Ernest Renan wrote in 1882, not in 2010.

Do you seriously think the British law system is fundamentaly different (and better, because that's ultimately the conclusion of Tebbit), because some king granted rights to the nobility centuries ago? Do you seriously think the UK is freer than continental Europe because of the Magna Carta?

That would be akin to claiming that France justice is fairer because Philippe Auguste used to favor peasants over nobles in his court. Or because Charlemagnes dispatched Missi Dominici to promote justice in his lands. Or for what it's worth, because some gallic tribes had pretty modern and fair justice systems.
That's all myth. Bollox. Nationalist propaganda to underline a supposed historical and inherent difference between the Great Nation (TM) and the others (TM).

Truth is, the UK is not a liberal country. It has no check and balance system, little separation of powers, and it's actually one of the European country where civil liberties are the more threatened, under the false pretense of the War on Terror (TM).

The Will of the People (TM) does not exist, none cares about King John and his barrons. You only get rights because the State is nice enough to grant them, not because God granted Britishmen some inherent rights to Freespeech (TM). The day your government will decide to take back these rights, you will have to fight back or to submit, just like any other people in Europe. Because Tebbit's God-given right is nothing but a fantasy, a national myth based on dreams and an outdated view of history.

That being said, the ECHR is ultimately the last legal way a citizen can oppose his government and fight for its rights. Given that you're usually the first one to get outraged over the antidemocratic, tyrannical EU-SSR, I would have thought you'd support an institution that protect citizens against their undemocratic governments and that is not part of the EU. But I guess your hatred for everything which uses the word euro acts as a blindfold of some sort.

Subotan

02-01-2010, 14:54

Sums up my feelings exactly. Different != Better.

Furunculus

02-01-2010, 15:02

Do you seriously think the British law system is fundamentaly different (and better, because that's ultimately the conclusion of Tebbit), because some king granted rights to the nobility centuries ago? Do you seriously think the UK is freer than continental Europe because of the Magna Carta?

That being said, the ECHR is ultimately the last legal way a citizen can oppose his government and fight for its rights. Given that you're usually the first one to get outraged over the antidemocratic, tyrannical EU-SSR, I would have thought you'd support an institution that protect citizens against their undemocratic governments and that is not part of the EU. But I guess your hatred for everything which uses the word euro acts as a blindfold of some sort.

yes, common law is different to civil law.

doesn't matter, i don't need it, and anyway i believe that abdicating responsibilty will only breed irresponsibility so it better to keep affairs in-house.

hannan has a lovely article on international jurisdiction:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100024631/the-case-against-international-jurisdiction/
If these brutes won’t get justice in their own countries, runs the argument, surely they should get justice somewhere. It’s not an easy argument to refute in a short blog. I did my best to address it in a lecture last week hosted by a splendid organisation called the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, to which I’ll post a link when I can.

My choice of Jerusalem as a venue was not accidental. Last month, when a writ was served by a British court on the Israeli opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, we saw exactly what is wrong with the growing corpus of global human rights law: dictators and paramilitaries ignore it, while democratic politicians find themselves targeted.

Let me do my best to concertina what deserves to be a much longer and more subtle thesis.

1. Territorial jurisdiction has been a remarkably successful concept. Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, it has been broadly understood that crimes are the responsibility of the state where they are committed. Untune that string and hark what discord follows! Western liberals might say: “Since Karadzic won’t get justice in Serbia, he should get it at The Hague.” But an Iranian judge might apply precisely the same logic and say: “Adulterers in Western countries are going unpunished: we must kidnap them and bring them to a place where they will face consequences”.

2. International jurisdiction breaks the link between legislators and law. Instead of legislation being passed by representatives who are, in some way, accountable to their populations, laws are generated by international jurists. We are, in other words, reverting to the pre-modern notion that law-givers should be accountable to their own consciences rather than to those who must live under their rulings.

3. In consequence, as Robert Bork has argued in Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges, an agenda is being advanced which has been rejected at the ballot box. Courts make tendentious and expansive interpretations of human rights codes which go well beyond what any reasonable person would take the text to mean.

4. With no meaningful scrutiny, international lawyers are able to suit themselves, meandering their way through gargantuan budgets, changing their own rules when they become inconvenient. As John Laughland showed in his study of the Milosevic trial, the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia admitted hearsay evidence, repeatedly amended its rules of procedure and, when the old brute proved surprisingly eloquent in his own defence, took the extraordinary step of imposing counsel on him. Eight years and $200 million later, with the court no closer to a verdict, both judge and defendant were dead.

5. Indicting a head of state – as the ICC did last year when it served a writ against the Sudanese President – amounts to declaring a war which one has no intention of fighting. The only way to bring President Bashir to trial would be to conquer his country and transfer sovereignty from him to the occupying powers: the basis of the Allies’ jurisdiction at the Nuremberg trials. Without such a determination, international arraignments are declamatory: a way for those who serve them to feel good about themselves, even though their practical effect is to make tyrants dig in more deeply.

6. Which brings us back to the main objection. While tyrants ignore international rulings, democracies – or, more precisely, judges within democracies – don’t. Courts in Western countries increasingly use international conventions to challenge the decisions of their elected governments. Four successive Labour Home Secretaries have tried unsuccessfully to repatriate the Afghan hijackers who diverted a flight at gunpoint to Stansted. Despite the nature of their crime, and despite the removal of the Taliban regime from which they claimed to be fleeing, they have been granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom through, in effect, judicial activism.

7. The politicisation of international jurisprudence seems always to come from the same direction: a writ was served against Ariel Sharon, but not against Yasser Arafat. Augusto Pinochet was arrested, but Fidel Castro could attend international summits. Donald Rumsfeld was indicted in Europe, but not Saddam Hussein.

Labour ministers, stung by l’affaire Livni, are now talking about changing the statutes so that a senior law officer, possibly the Attorney General, would get to strike down writs of a politically sensitive nature. If this happened in any other context, we should be outraged. Imagine if, say, Robert Mugabe decided that one of his ministers would arbitrarily decide which foreign leaders might be hauled before the Zimbabwean courts. (Mugabe, come to think of it, is another leader whom the international human rights crowd seem not to have got round to indicting.)

The answer is not to politicise these wretched rules, but to return to the well-tried and understood concept of state sovereignty, which operated effectively enough between 1648 and the 1990s. When was the internationalisation of jurisdiction agreed? When was it even discussed? To quote Judge Bork again: “What we have wrought is a coup d’état: slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d’état none the less.”

Furunculus

02-03-2010, 16:00

weenopeans worry that their euro-pygmies don't have enough clout to maintain the interest of St Obama:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,675738,00.html
Obama's No-Show Disappoints Europe
US President Barack Obama is not coming to a planned EU-US summit in May.

US President Barack Obama's decision not to attend an EU-US summit in Madrid in May has left many on this side of the Atlantic worrying that the European Union has lost clout in Washington.

When Washington announced this week that US President Barack Obama had no intention of attending an EU-US summit in Madrid this May, it was the first the Spanish government had heard of it. While White House officials insist that the refusal of the invitation is merely because Obama is concentrating on the domestic agenda and cutting down on foreign travel in 2010, it is hard for Europeans, and Spain in particular, not to view the decision as a snub and to question whether the European Union has any clout left in Washington.

The president's decision was announced on Monday, just days before Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, was to arrive in Washington on a two-day visit. Zapatero is not scheduled to meet with Obama, though he may speak to him at the annual National Prayer Breakfast where the Spanish leader is due to give a Bible reading.

Madrid, for its part, had assumed that Obama was coming to the summit in May, which was to be the highlight of its six-month rotating presidency of the EU. Now the EU is considering scrapping the meeting altogether. A spokesman for the European Commission said that efforts were being made to agree to a date for the summit but EU diplomats told Reuters privately that the May meeting was not likely to take place if Obama does not attend. "If there is no Obama, there is no summit," the official said. "We will organize a new meeting at the highest level when the political situation and the agenda make it possible."

The indications now are that the summit will be postponed, most likely to concide with a NATO meeting in Lisbon, Portugal in November.

Brussels Plays Down Obama Decision

In Brussels there has been an attempt to play down Obama's decision not to attend the Madrid summit. In an interview with the Financial Times, Catherine Ashton, the EU's new foreign policy chief, said that the relationship with the US was in good shape. She said that she had discussed the matter of Obama's decision not to attend the summit with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her trip to Washington last month. "The issue for him was partly that he's coming to Lisbon in November for a NATO summit … and secondly, that we'd had a summit with him not so long ago."

Meanwhile, US officials have pointed out that Obama had visited Europe six times last year and had met with Zapatero twice in 2009. Yet the summit was supposed to be the first since the EU ratified the Lisbon Treaty on Dec. 1, 2009, creating the posts of president and foreign policy chief, aimed at making the 27-member bloc a strong global player. However, the choice of two little known figures in former Belgian Prime Minister Harman Van Rompuy as president and the Briton Catherine Asthon as foreign policy chief may have proved a mistake in raising the EU's profile.

The EU has also failed to impress by taking five months since the reappointment of Jose Manuel Barroso as European Commission president to appoint a new executive. And the continuation of the six-month rotating presidency may well have simply added to the confusion about the bloc's seemingly Byzantine power structures, failing yet again to answer Henry Kissinger's famous question, "If I want to call Europe, who do I call?"

Frustration with Europe's Confusing Structures

While it is certainly plausible that Obama's prime motivation is to focus his attention on his difficult domestic agenda, there are some indications of a frustration in Washington with the EU's confusing structures.

State department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Tuesday that the EU leadership was part of the problem, indicating there was a lack of clarity on both sides as to where and how the annual summits would be held. "We are working through this, just as the European are working through this," he said.

"The very fact that the summit is taking place in Spain, after the establishment of a more permanent presidency and a high representative is indicative of the fact that the EU is still in institutional limbo," Charles A. Kupchan, a senior fellow for European studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Associated Press.

Spain's center-right newspaper El Mundo, quoting US sources, reported on Tuesday that Obama had been unhappy with the last US-EU summit in Washington in November. "There were so many voices and so little results that the president cut short the meeting and sent Vice President Joe Biden to the official meal." Meanwhile, the center-left daily El Pais ran the headline "Obama Turns His Back on Europe."

While Obama's election was widely welcomed across the Atlantic in 2008 after the often fraught dealings with his predecessor George W. Bush, relations have not been particularly smooth with the new White House. After the EU was effectively sidelined during the Copenhagen climate talks by the US and China, and following the scrapping of the missile defense project in Eastern Europe, many Europeans are wondering if the bloc is a priority for the Obama administration. "He does not always seem as interested in Europe as Europe is in the United States," an EU diplomat told Reuters.

Hugo Brady, senior research fellow at the Center for European Reform, writes in Wednesday's Independent newspaper that "Europe's decline seems to be accelerating." "The reality is that the Lisbon Treaty is just a piece of paper. It cannot by itself cure the Europeans of their weakness for circuitous arguments and tendency to offer up process as product," he argues. "Depressingly the Europeans probably need to accept that they have missed the opportunity that Obama's election represented."

On Wednesday, German papers mull what exactly Obama's lack of enthusiasm for a trans-Atlantic trip in May means for EU-US relations.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"There is a certain irony in the Americans using the Lisbon Reform Treaty of all things as an excuse for declining to come. During the 10 years that the Europeans spent arguing over reform, one argument was repeatedly used: If we want to be heard in the world, then we have to speak with one voice. Now the reform may have come into affect, but instead of speaking with one voice, the EU speaks with at least four: A permanent European Council president, the six-month rotating EU presidency, a foreign minister and a president of the EU Commission all jockeying for competencies and power. Added to that are the leaders of the member states. It is understandable that the Americans no longer have any desire to get involved bizarre inner-European affairs."

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero wanted to stage the Obama visit as the highlight of the Spanish EU presidency. It would have been wonderful to show his government's sympathy for Obama's America and to bask in its glow."

"The economic situation (in Spain) is desperate. The IMF is predicting stagnation for this year, if not a shrinking of the Spanish economy, the financial industry assesses the country as nearing the situation of troubled economies like Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Unemployment is close to 20 percent. Because Spain relied too heavily on the real estate market, there are no other potential areas for growth."

"Zapatero's call for a new European economic policy was not coordinated with his EU partners and has not been greeted with enthusiasm. Spain's credibility will be decided by whether Madrid gets down to work sorting out its problems."

"As for Europe: Obama's refusal of the invitation is a pity but it won't affect the core of the US-European relations. This doesn't need the big show of a summit meeting, but rather concrete agreements about how to reform international financial transactions."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero would have been delighted to act as host to President Obama -- in the difficult times that Spain and its government are experiencing, a bit of glamor would have been welcome. But Obama won't be there to present Zapatero with some nice photo-ops, because he won't be attending the EU-US summit. The Europeans now have their dream president, and he obviously has better things to be doing than jet across the Atlantic to spend a few hours chatting with them. That was something he was forced to do several times last year, in particular because of Chicago's Olympics bid."

"But seriously: Does Obama have nothing to discuss with the EU that is important to him and that might be worth the flight over? Or does he not even consider the EU as that relevant? One shouldn't make a big song and dance out of his refusal to come to the summit. But perhaps it will now dawn on the Europeans that they are not the center of this president's attention."

-- Siobhán Dowling

al Roumi

02-03-2010, 16:50

yes, common law is different to civil law.

doesn't matter, i don't need it, and anyway i believe that abdicating responsibilty will only breed irresponsibility so it better to keep affairs in-house.

Sorry but I think the Telegraph has addled your mind mate.

You dream on about the "will of the people" being the ultimate check against corrupt and abusive governance, even oppression. I'd agree that in the priciples of democracy it should be, but you seem naively idealistic when it comes to the actual realities of how things work in practice -and how easy it is to distract, circumvent and exploit.

In any case, how is adding a superior layer of legislative protection abdicating responsability? If the UK system were to work as well as you would like, there would be no need for the EU get involved. That does not constitute the EU usurping responsability, it represents the UK's lack of provision for it. Don't then blame that on the EU!

Furunculus

02-03-2010, 17:03

IMO it is the peoples job to ensure their democracy is healthy, therefore i disagree with moving the institutions of governance further away from the people, its that simple.

The EU does not need to get involved, there is no solution that can only be produced by the EU, the fact that we are subscribed to the jurisdiction of the European Courts is a fact of politics, not a socio-cultural band-aid for the deficiencies of the British state.

al Roumi

02-03-2010, 18:06

IMO it is the peoples job to ensure their democracy is healthy, therefore i disagree with moving the institutions of governance further away from the people, it's that simple.

Great, good idea. But, even HMG is to an extent far from "the people". I also agree the EU could do more to be in touch with it's citizens. Perhaps my ambivalent view of both is why I don't share your revulsion to one...

The EU does not need to get involved, there is no solution that can only be produced by the EU, the fact that we are subscribed to the jurisdiction of the European Courts is a fact of politics, not a socio-cultural band-aid for the deficiencies of the British state.

Fair point, the UK may be in the EU for political and economic reasons (which can be debated seperately), but this issue -where the EU provides added protection (a tangible benefit to individuals in the UK)- is not the best ammunition for your cause against the UK being an EU member. The UK's legislative system should be making the EU's irrelevant, it doesn't, so the EU effectively covers that gap -how is that the EU's fault?

Furunculus

02-03-2010, 18:43

Great, good idea. But, even HMG is to an extent far from "the people". I also agree the EU could do more to be in touch with it's citizens. Perhaps my ambivalent view of both is why I don't share your revulsion to one...

Fair point, the UK may be in the EU for political and economic reasons (which can be debated seperately), but this issue -where the EU provides added protection (a tangible benefit to individuals in the UK)- is not the best ammunition for your cause against the UK being an EU member. The UK's legislative system should be making the EU's irrelevant, it doesn't, so the EU effectively covers that gap -how is that the EU's fault?

perhaps so.

it only covers a gap, as you descibe it, because it exists. if we were not part of the jurisdiction of the european court then the competance would have to be assumed by a british institution. given that believe the former point, the justification for implementing the latter is self-evident............ to me.

al Roumi

02-04-2010, 14:24

perhaps so.

it only covers a gap, as you descibe it, because it exists. if we were not part of the jurisdiction of the european court then the competance would have to be assumed by a british institution. given that believe the former point, the justification for implementing the latter is self-evident............ to me.

Who believes what? And which is the former to which later??

Could you clarify this sentence please? I may just be thick, but I don't get it.

Furunculus

02-04-2010, 14:41

sorry, it was not as clear as it could be.

perhaps so.

it only covers a gap, as you descibe it, because it exists. if we were not part of the jurisdiction of the european court then the competance would have to be assumed by a british institution. given that believe the former point*, the justification for implementing the latter** is self-evident............ to me.

* Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
IMO it is the peoples job to ensure their democracy is healthy, therefore i disagree with moving the institutions of governance further away from the people, it's that simple.

** Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
The EU does not need to get involved, there is no solution that can only be produced by the EU, the fact that we are subscribed to the jurisdiction of the European Courts is a fact of politics, not a socio-cultural band-aid for the deficiencies of the British state.

Furunculus

02-08-2010, 09:30

french diplomats think Baroness Ashton is lazy and useless:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100025339/why-pick-on-baroness-ashton/

Why pick on Baroness Ashton?

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: February 7th, 2010

29 Comments Comment on this article

French diplomats, we read, are seeking to destabilise Baroness Ashton. She is, they insinuate, under-qualified, lazy and in the pocket of the British Government. Worst of all – choc! horreur! - she doesn’t speak French.

As they say in France: et alors? Of course Baroness Ashton is under-qualified: she was appointed, not because of any particular aptitude for her post, but as a kind of compensation to Labour for Tony Blair not being given the presidency. Then again, the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of every other Commission nominee. These jobs are always treated as sinecures: a handy way to pension off rivals or reward stooges.

Lazy? Well, I suppose her failure to learn a single language in two years in Brussels points to a certain indolence. But, as this blog never tires of pointing out, British Europhiles generally have atrocious language skills. If they were a little bit more comfortable with other European cultures, they wouldn’t feel the need to over-compensate by backing Brussels all the time.

Far be it from me to defend Lady Ashton, whose original nomination I opposed. But it is hard to see what makes her any worse than her colleagues. The real question is this: why is it that, on Tuesday, MEPs will almost certainly vote by a huge majority to endorse a Commission which – no one truly denies it – is filled with mediocrities and dullards?

i give a very gallic shrug and say; "so what, you expected more?"

Furunculus

02-09-2010, 13:29

Interesting article on the Euro from Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,676507,00.html
An EU Protectorate
How Brussels Is Trying to Prevent a Collapse of the Euro

By Armin Mahler, Christian Reiermann, Wolfgang Reuter and Hans-Jürgen Schlamp

The problems facing Greece are just the beginning. The countries belonging to Europe's common currency zone are drifting further and further apart with national bankruptcies a distinct possibility. Brussels is faced with a number of choices, none of them good.

Men like Wilhelm Nölling, former member of the German Central Bank Council, and Wilhelm Hankel, an economics professor critical of the euro, have been out of the spotlight for years. In the 1990s, they fought against the introduction of the common currency, even calling on Germany's high court to prevent the creation of the euro zone. But none of it worked.

Now both men are in demand again, and the old euro critics' beliefs are more relevant than ever. Were the skeptics right back then, when they said Europe wasn't ready for the euro zone? Were the differences too great and the politicians too weak to ensure a strict and stable course?

"The euro should really be called the Icarus," Hankel suggested back then. He predicted the currency would meet the same end as the hero of Greek legend, who paid for his dream of flight with his life.

Is the euro's high flight over now too? The news these days is alarming. It's causing a commotion on financial markets and intense discussion in capitals across Europe, as well as in Frankfurt, seat of the European Central Bank (ECB).

Brussels took a hard line with Athens last week. Greece must cut costs drastically under close European Union supervision, a sacrifice of a share of its sovereignty. Risk premiums for Greek government bonds have risen drastically and the country has to pay higher and higher charges.

The Possibility of State Bankruptcies

Accruing debt is becoming increasingly expensive for other countries in the euro zone as well, among them Portugal and Spain. The southern members of the euro zone especially are being eyed with mistrust. Speculators are betting that bonds will continue to fall and that, eventually, the countries won't be able to borrow any more money at all. State bankruptcies are seen as a possibility.

"We've reached a point where it's possible to deal individual countries a lethal blow by downgrading their credit and boycotting their government bonds," Nölling warns.

Many are now wondering how the stronger euro zone countries should react -- whether it's possible to help the weaker ones without jeopardizing themselves and the common currency. Furthermore, there is a risk that euro zone members will continue to grow apart economically, a trend that could cause the monetary union to eventually collapse.

Doing nothing is not an option. In light of the national debt in Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland, the euro zone is in danger of transforming from a "common destiny to a common liability," Nölling says.

And so it won't be any ordinary meeting when finance ministers from the 16 euro zone countries meet for a regularly scheduled get-together in Brussels next Monday. The European Commission plans to assign each country homework to be completed in the coming years.

Cohesion and Stability

The Commission doesn't hold Greece alone responsible for the current euro woes. Experts close to Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquín Almunia say nearly every participating country is compromising the cohesion and stability of the common currency.

"The combination of decreasing competitiveness and excessive accumulation of national debt is alarming," the experts wrote in a recent report, adding that if the member countries don't get their problems under control, it will "jeopardize the cohesion of the monetary union."

Differing economic development within the euro zone and a lack of political coordination are to blame, they say. In the more than 10 years since the euro was introduced, the Commission states, it has become clear that simply controlling the development of member states' budgets is not enough. What that means, more concretely, is that the stability provisions stipulated in the Maastricht Treaty to regulate the common currency aren't working and member states need to better coordinate their financial and economic policy measures.

That is precisely what euro skeptics have said from the beginning -- that a common currency can't work in the long run without a common economic and financial policy. The member countries' governments ignored these objections, unready to give up a further aspect of their national sovereignty.

Now politicians are facing a difficult decision: Should they continue as they have, thus potentially undermining the euro's ability to function? Or should they yield a portion of their national sovereignty to Brussels?

Without common policies, the individual countries drift further and further apart. Before the euro was introduced, exchange rate adjustments served to dispel tensions. Now the common currency zone lacks the option of adapting by revaluing currencies.

Watching with Alarm

EU officials are watching with alarm as the various euro zone countries' competitiveness diverges sharply. The differences are especially large between countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, which are characterized by current account surpluses, and countries with high budget deficits. Along with Greece, this second category includes especially Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.

These countries' competitiveness has dropped steadily since the euro was introduced. They lived on credit for years, seduced by the unusually low interest rates within the euro zone, and imported far more than they exported.

When demand collapsed in the wake of the global financial crisis, governments jumped in to fill the gap, with serious consequences -- debt skyrocketed. Spain's budget deficit was at 11 percent last year, while Greece's was nearly 13 percent. Such high debt is simply not sustainable in the long term.

In the past, the solution for these countries would have been to devalue their currency, which in turn would make imports more expensive and exports cheaper. Such a move would stimulate their national economies and strengthen their competitiveness.

Now, however, these countries must submit to a drastic cure at the hands of the European Commission. They need to balance their budgets, while simultaneously creating more competition on the labor market and on the goods market.

The guidelines from Brussels translate to difficult sacrifices for the citizens of those countries affected. Employees will have to scale back wage demands for years and civil servants will see their salaries cut. Ireland has already embarked on this path -- Greece and Spain will follow.

Part 2: Is Germany to Blame?

The Commission has recommended that Spain, booming until recently, radically restructure its economy. Spain must significantly shrink its bloated construction sector and focus on economic sectors with higher productivity.

France and Italy have been given homework assignments of their own. Both countries are being asked to apply austerity packages and increase labor-market flexibility. France must also get its significant welfare and unemployment expenses under control.

Resentment is growing in the countries most directly affected. But that frustration is not directed, as might be expected, toward the Commission. Instead, it is increasingly surplus countries coming under fire -- with Germany at the forefront.

Representatives from Spain and Portugal especially -- but also from France -- hold Germany accountable for their current woes. They aren't alone in that opinion either. "The Greek crisis has German roots," says Heiner Flassbeck, chief economist at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in Geneva. It was German wage dumping that got the country's European neighbors in trouble, he says.

At Its Neighbors' Expense

EU officials don't phrase it quite so strongly, but they still accuse Germany more than any other country of gaining advantages for itself at its neighbors' expense, using its policy of low wages to make German products increasingly attractive relative to those from other countries.

As a precautionary measure, officials at Berlin's Finance Ministry have gathered arguments that Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble can put forward in the country's defense. Germany's position is that the countries now in crisis are themselves at fault for their situation. They lived beyond their means for years, the German government says, financing their economic boom on credit. Now the financial crisis has revealed their weaknesses.

Germany didn't have it easy with the euro in the beginning either, continues the argument, because the country wasn't competitive compared to other member countries -- but it regained its strength with a great deal of trouble and effort, through reforms.

German officials point to the fact that the country made its labor market more flexible through the Hartz package of welfare reforms and say that state finances are more stable than before, despite the crisis. They add that taking this same path would lead the currently troubled countries out of the crisis. And, they continue, the federal government is not responsible for lagging wage growth because, in Germany, salaries and wages are negotiated between employers and unions rather than being imposed by the government.

The German government also claims no responsibility for the country's export surplus. German firms are competitive not because of government policy, it says, but because of entrepreneurial decisions and the preferences of customers around the world.

Create More Competition

When this debate flared up recently within the euro-zone countries, Schäuble received support from the top for his position. The southern members of the euro zone shouldn't be ungrateful, warned ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet. After all, he reasons, Germany funded the deficits with its surpluses. Nonetheless, the Commission called on Germany to make further changes as well. The country should boost domestic demand, increase investment in infrastructure and create more competition in the service sector.

The Commission believes the currency union can exist in the long term only if member countries' governments implement reforms and coordinate their economic policies. Schäuble's experts agree. They are proposing -- partly with an eye toward mollifying France -- a common German-French initiative.

Both countries' governments should work toward better coordination, the German financial experts say. Merely monitoring deficits has turned out to be inadequate. In the future, they suggest, euro-zone governments should also focus on combating differing inflation rates and step in early when capital bubbles develop.

France, no doubt, would gladly accept such a proposal. Paris, after all, has long called for Europe-wide financial governance. Until now it was Germany that opposed the idea.

The euro-zone governments have started to rethink their positions, but will action necessarily follow? The past never lacked in good intentions either, but political calculation always won out in the end. How else would Greece have managed to become a member of the common currency zone? Why else would Brussels stand by for so long without taking action? It was far from secret that Greece had been cooking its books for years.

Financial Trickery

Back in the fall of 2004, Eurostat, the EU body in charge of statistics, calculated that Greece's officially announced debts of between 1.4 percent and 2.0 percent of gross domestic product between 2000 and 2003 were incorrect. In reality, the amount was nearly three times as high, falling between 3.7 percent and 4.6 percent. The statisticians surmised that Athens had whitewashed its finances in previous years, too. Greece, in fact, would never have met the conditions for membership in the common currency without such trickery.

But the country was not immediately banned from the euro zone, nor were other sanctions imposed. Instead, member countries discussed how the statistics could be improved and made more accurate. Not much emerged from all the talk.

Outgoing European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Günter Verheugen remembers all too well that, for a long time, the problem with Greece was simply not something that was talked about. He finds it hard to believe that this "disproportionate regard" for Greece had nothing to do with that fact that conservative allies of European Commission President José Manuel Barroso governed in Athens for five years.

Not until last fall's elections brought Greece's socialist opposition to power did new data arrive from Athens -- and new questions and accusations from Brussels.

The Greek parliament and government are now virtually stripped of power. They're not allowed to decide on any new expenditures without EU approval. Finance Minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou is required to report every four weeks on progress made in budget restructuring.

An EU Protectorate

Brussels, not Athens, now controls whether and how the austerity program takes effect. If "detailed and ongoing inspection" shows that the actual results fall short of those predicted, Almunia says, then Brussels' watchdogs will demand additional measures. There were even calls at the European Parliament last week to send a special EU representative with extensive authority to Greece. The small country has become little more than an EU protectorate.

The EU Commission and the euro-zone leaders hope these compulsory measures will steady markets. They also hope Greek unions and associations, from farmers to taxi drivers, won't mobilize against the reduction in the country's standard of living that will accompany these new measures.

German Finance Minister Schäuble and German Federal Bank President Axel Weber rule out giving aid to the struggling country. Indeed, EU treaties strictly forbid any such aid. The message is that Greece must help itself.

As a precautionary measure, though, both German officials, along with their colleagues in other EU countries, are keeping open the possibility of lending a hand anyway. The EU can't afford for a member state to go bankrupt, either politically or economically.

Out of the Question

The experts always debate the same possibilities. The first would be a common euro-zone bond, which would be placed at Greece's disposal. The advantages for Greece are obvious -- the country would receive funds more cheaply than it currently does because the euro zone as a whole wouldn't have to pay as high a risk premium as Greece alone does. The disadvantage is that countries with good credit, like Germany, would have to pay higher interest rates. Consequently, the German government insists that such a loan is out of the question.

An alternative would be bilateral financial aid. Solvent countries, such as Germany, would take out loans on the financial market at good rates and pass these on to Greece. But euro-zone governments are also reluctant to take this path.

The last option is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which could use its resources to help Greece out of its credit crunch. It would likely impose much stricter conditions on its aid money than the EU would. But the IMF's involvement would also mean a loss of face for the entire euro zone and a triumph for the Washington-based institution, which was always skeptical of the euro.

If Greece doesn't stabilize in the coming weeks, the euro-zone's leaders will be left facing a choice between a rock and a hard place, with the third option being even worse.

Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein

Why does monetary-union matter in a discussion of european politics............. because as has been said all along; a monetary-union will not work without economic-union, and that requires political-union.

So a question for us Brits: Why would we want this again?

Furunculus

02-16-2010, 18:14

and here we start to see the opportunity in the crisis, the federalistas begin to argue for economic union to stabilise the absurdities of monetary union, and the EU's second vassal state is created:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,678205,00.html
'Lies, Damned Lies and Greek Statistics'
Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou is facing intense pressure from his European Union colleagues to get his country's finances back on track.

European Union finance ministers on Monday accepted Greece's austerity package, aimed at radically shrinking its budget deficit by the end of the year. But many would like to see Athens do more. German commentators doubt whether the correct strategy has been found.

European finance ministers, meeting in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday, have rubberstamped a package of deep budget cuts and strict savings measures proposed by Greece in an effort to slash its budget deficit from its current level of 12.7 percent of gross domestic product to 8.7 percent by 2011.

Nevertheless, the agreement has done little to quell the ongoing debate in the European Union as to how best to deal with Greece and the dangers the country is posing to the common European currency, the euro. In a Tuesday interview with German radio, Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who heads the Eurogroup -- a body made up of finance ministers from countries in the euro zone -- said that the EU will impose further savings measures on Greece should the country fail to meet its budget deficit reduction targets.

Others, though, were more pointed in their comments about Greece's savings package. Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg demanded stricter measures, saying that "if (Greece) wants to build credibility in the market, they must surpass expectations and they have not done that so far."

Borg also called for a greater surveillance role for the International Monetary Fund in Athens -- an idea rejected by Juncker. Juncker called the proposal "absurd" and said it was "fuelled by Anglo-Saxon voices."*

Restless Populations

Greece had been hoping that the meeting would provide details of the safety net agreed to by European Union leaders last week. So far, though, the EU has declined to outline exactly how it proposes to help should Greece prove unable to withstand speculators currently zeroing in on the country's weak finances. Greek finances have been placed under strict EU surveillance with a progress report due next month. Greece's public debt has ballooned in the last year and now stands at €300 billion, or 113 percent of GDP.

Just how aggressively the country will be able to pay down that debt, however, remains to be seen. A number of unions in Greece have called for strikes to protest the austerity measures announced by Athens, with the Greek customs workers' union staging a three-day walkout starting on Tuesday.

Many countries in the European Union, though, are likewise facing restless populations, unimpressed with the apparent need to bail out Greece. The news that Athens worked together with American investment banks to hide state debt from the European Union has further angered Europeans. Fully 71 percent of Germans are against sending EU funds to Greece, according to a survey by the research group Emnid. A survey conducted for the tabloid Bild am Sonntag found that just over half of Germans would like to see Greece thrown out of the euro zone altogether. **

German commentators on Tuesday take a look at how the crisis currently facing the euro might best be solved.

Financial daily Handelsblatt writes:

"The debt crisis has developed a dangerous dynamic. Austerity measures have become the favored strategy for confronting threatening mountains of debt. It seems to have been forgotten, however, that savings is not a cure-all -- the economy must find its way back onto the path of growth. It wasn't all that long ago that politicians and economists were searching desperately for a strategy to scale back the state's role in the economy without disrupting fragile growth. This careful exit strategy, however, has now given way to mindless panic: Get out and save, is the new motto."

"Despite examples to the contrary, one cannot deny that a conflict exists between savings policies and growth strategies. The only way to get around that conflict is by coupling austerity measures with structural reforms aimed at improving economic efficiency. Competitive products must, however, find buyers. The Club Med of debt would be served better in the long term were Germany to buy their products instead of sending tax money."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Historical revisionism related to the financial crisis is in high gear. Higher powers are blamed, Wall Street is ascribed supernatural influence and bankers have been credited with omnipotence. Indeed, high finance is now said to have lured Greece with a siren song of concealed debt, to Europe's vexation."

"But this mystification conceals reality. Those responsible for the Greek debt crisis can be found in Athens. The Greek government made promises to the country that it couldn't afford. That is why they worked with the investment bank Goldman Sachs to conceal the true dimensions of public debt from the European Union budget watchdogs. The adage currently circulating in Brussels is true: There are lies, damned lies and Greek statistics. Yes, Goldman helped in the deception and even profited from it. But the bankers weren't sirens. Competition mandated that they offer all of their financial products to those who were willing to pay for them -- including governments who were only interested in cheating."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The European common currency zone was not created to guarantee peace in Europe, despite what former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl liked to tell his citizenry. Rather, it was designed to insulate industry and trade from the unpredictable ups and downs of international currency markets. How should German automakers find success in the Italian, Spanish and French markets when they were constantly confronted with the drastic devaluation of the lira, peseta and franc? Without a currency union, it would have been impossible. But a common currency among countries that follow radically different economic policies cannot go well. That was clear even to Kohl and his Finance Minister Theo Waigel."

"They devised the trick of placing euro zone countries in shackles. Governments were required to strictly limit their influence over the economy and a public debt ceiling was mandated.... In addition, economic policies were aligned.... But the real economies of euro zone countries have drifted apart. The actual purpose of the euro -- the creation of an economic and currency zone insulated from the vagaries of the financial markets -- was counteracted."

"In order to save the euro, (politicians) in Berlin and Brussels could do two things -- both of which contradict market principles. The simplest, though merely temporary in nature, would be to provide a nice large loan or loan guarantee to Greece (and other problem countries). Better, however, would be coordinated, expansive economic policies in the problem countries in order to spur investment. Following both paths would be the best of all strategies."
ah, my oft asked question; what does Britain want from this shabby affair?

* damn those anglos! oh, wait, i'm one of those damned anglo-saxons......... seems like Junker doesn't trust his compatriots across the channel, fine family we are. :(
** and what are the chances of this happening? snow-flakes chance in hell i say.

Furunculus

02-21-2010, 11:49

Subotan

02-21-2010, 12:49

Zana and Max: the £200,000 comic book Eurocrats saving the world:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7278919/Zana-and-Max-the-200000-comic-book-Eurocrats-saving-the-world.html

Haha, yet again we are paying to have our own children indoctrinated into the cult of transnational progressivism, rock on!
So? I think it's a great idea. Of course, I haven't read the book, so I have no idea how progressive it is, but £200,000 isn't a huge waste of money for 300,000 books.

***

In other news, the best solution for Eurozone Financial Woes? A European Monetary Fund. (http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/economicsfocus/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15544302)

[spoil]Disciplinary measures

In a guest article, Daniel Gros of the Centre for European Policy Studies (pictured left) and Thomas Mayer of Deutsche Bank argue the case for a European Monetary Fund

Feb 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
CEPS/Deutsche Bank
THE difficulties facing Greece and other European borrowers expose two big failures of discipline at the heart of the euro zone. The first is a failure to encourage member governments to maintain control of their finances. The second, and more overlooked, is a failure to allow for an orderly sovereign default. To address these issues, we propose a new euro-area institution, which we dub the European Monetary Fund (EMF). Although the EMF could not be set up overnight, it is not too late to do so. Past experience (with Argentina, for instance) suggests that the road to eventual sovereign insolvency is a long one.
The EMF could be run along similar governance lines to the IMF, by having a professional staff remote from direct political influence and a board with representatives from euro-area countries. Just as the existing fund does, the EMF would conduct regular and broad economic surveillance of member countries. But its main role would be to design, monitor and fund assistance programmes for euro-area countries in difficulties, just as the IMF does on a global scale.
Guilt payments

For its initial funding the EMF should be given authority to borrow in the markets with the full and joint backing of all its member countries. Going forward, however, a simple funding mechanism would also limit the moral hazard that potentially results from the creation of the fund. Only those countries in breach of set limits on governments’ debt stocks and annual deficits would have to contribute, giving them an incentive to keep their finances in order. (Basing contributions on market indicators of default risk does not seem appropriate since the existence of the EMF would itself depress credit-default-swap spreads and yield differentials among the members.)
Countries could, for instance, be charged an annual contribution of 1% of their “excess debt”, the difference between their actual level of public debt and the limit of 60% of GDP agreed on as one of the Maastricht criteria for euro entry. A similar charge could be levied on governments’ excess deficits, the amount exceeding the Maastricht limit of 3% of GDP. Under these parameters the EMF would have accumulated about €120 billion ($163 billion) over the past decade, enough to cover the likely costs of rescuing Greece. These levies are not so big that they make it impossible for offenders to get to grips with their finances. Under this scheme the Greek contribution to an EMF would have been 0.65% of GDP in 2009.
Any member country could call on the funds of the EMF up to the amount it has deposited in the past (including interest), provided its fiscal-adjustment programme has been approved by the Eurogroup of euro-area finance ministers. Any call on EMF funds above this amount would be possible only if the country agreed to a tailor-made adjustment programme supervised jointly by the European Commission and the Eurogroup, and on condition that the EMF ranked ahead of all other creditors.
The EMF’s other job would be to deal with the aftermath of a sudden withdrawal of market funding from a euro-zone government. The strongest negotiating asset of a big debtor is always that default cannot be contemplated because it would bring down the financial system. Few now doubt that euro-area countries would step in and pick up the bill were Greece’s deficit-reduction programme to fail. To eliminate the moral hazard this presumption creates, among profligate governments and reckless investors alike, it is crucial to create mechanisms that minimise the disruptions caused by a default.
One simple answer is to draw on the successful experience of the Brady bonds that were used to deal with the impaired debt of Latin American countries in the 1980s. A default creates ripple effects throughout the financial system because all debt instruments of a defaulting country become, at least temporarily, worthless and illiquid. If a euro-area country loses access to market financing, the EMF could step in and offer all holders of debt issued by the defaulting country an exchange against new bonds issued by the EMF. The fund would require creditors to take a uniform “haircut”, or loss, on their existing debt in order to protect taxpayers. The EMF could, for example, tie its guarantees to the 60%-of-GDP Maastricht limit on debt, so that creditors of a country with a debt stock of 120% of GDP would face a 50% haircut. The losses to financial institutions would be limited and certain, reducing the risk of contagion. The EMF would only exchange debt instruments that had been registered with it beforehand. That would provide a strong incentive for transparency, because the counterparties of derivatives designed to conceal the true state of public finances would not have the option of converting their claims.
Having acquired bondholders’ claims against the defaulting country, the EMF would allow the country to receive additional funds only for specific purposes that the EMF approved. The new institution would provide a framework for sovereign bankruptcy comparable to the Chapter 11 procedure for bankrupt companies in America. Without such a process for orderly bankruptcy, the euro area will remain hostage to any country that is unwilling to adjust and threatens a systemic crisis if help is not forthcoming.
In-house solution

Setting up a European Monetary Fund is superior to the option of either calling in the IMF or muddling through on the basis of ad hoc interventions. The IMF has no mechanism for allowing orderly default, and ad hoc decisions typically have to be taken hurriedly, often over a weekend when the pressure in markets has become unbearable. It should not come to that with an EMF.
Closer surveillance (supported by pre-funding requirements based on the laxity of public finances) should lead to sounder fiscal policies. Perhaps more importantly, there would be less reason for turbulence in financial markets as the procedure for an orderly sovereign bankruptcy would be known in advance. Of course, a defaulting country may regard such intrusions as an unacceptable violation of its sovereignty. A euro-zone country that refused to abide by the decisions of the EMF could choose to leave the EU, and with it the euro, under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. But the price of doing so would be very great. That is another reason to think that the EMF would address today’s moral-hazard problem, whereby bond markets and Greece are both assuming that they can count on a bail-out in the end.[spoil]

Fragony

02-21-2010, 12:58

Furunculus

02-21-2010, 19:00

So? I think it's a great idea. Of course, I haven't read the book, so I have no idea how progressive it is, but £200,000 isn't a huge waste of money for 300,000 books.

***

In other news, the best solution for Eurozone Financial Woes? A European Monetary Fund. (http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/economicsfocus/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15544302)

[spoil]Disciplinary measures

In a guest article, Daniel Gros of the Centre for European Policy Studies (pictured left) and Thomas Mayer of Deutsche Bank argue the case for a European Monetary Fund

Feb 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
CEPS/Deutsche Bank
THE difficulties facing Greece and other European borrowers expose two big failures of discipline at the heart of the euro zone. The first is a failure to encourage member governments to maintain control of their finances. The second, and more overlooked, is a failure to allow for an orderly sovereign default. To address these issues, we propose a new euro-area institution, which we dub the European Monetary Fund (EMF). Although the EMF could not be set up overnight, it is not too late to do so. Past experience (with Argentina, for instance) suggests that the road to eventual sovereign insolvency is a long one.
The EMF could be run along similar governance lines to the IMF, by having a professional staff remote from direct political influence and a board with representatives from euro-area countries. Just as the existing fund does, the EMF would conduct regular and broad economic surveillance of member countries. But its main role would be to design, monitor and fund assistance programmes for euro-area countries in difficulties, just as the IMF does on a global scale.
Guilt payments

For its initial funding the EMF should be given authority to borrow in the markets with the full and joint backing of all its member countries. Going forward, however, a simple funding mechanism would also limit the moral hazard that potentially results from the creation of the fund. Only those countries in breach of set limits on governments’ debt stocks and annual deficits would have to contribute, giving them an incentive to keep their finances in order. (Basing contributions on market indicators of default risk does not seem appropriate since the existence of the EMF would itself depress credit-default-swap spreads and yield differentials among the members.)
Countries could, for instance, be charged an annual contribution of 1% of their “excess debt”, the difference between their actual level of public debt and the limit of 60% of GDP agreed on as one of the Maastricht criteria for euro entry. A similar charge could be levied on governments’ excess deficits, the amount exceeding the Maastricht limit of 3% of GDP. Under these parameters the EMF would have accumulated about €120 billion ($163 billion) over the past decade, enough to cover the likely costs of rescuing Greece. These levies are not so big that they make it impossible for offenders to get to grips with their finances. Under this scheme the Greek contribution to an EMF would have been 0.65% of GDP in 2009.
Any member country could call on the funds of the EMF up to the amount it has deposited in the past (including interest), provided its fiscal-adjustment programme has been approved by the Eurogroup of euro-area finance ministers. Any call on EMF funds above this amount would be possible only if the country agreed to a tailor-made adjustment programme supervised jointly by the European Commission and the Eurogroup, and on condition that the EMF ranked ahead of all other creditors.
The EMF’s other job would be to deal with the aftermath of a sudden withdrawal of market funding from a euro-zone government. The strongest negotiating asset of a big debtor is always that default cannot be contemplated because it would bring down the financial system. Few now doubt that euro-area countries would step in and pick up the bill were Greece’s deficit-reduction programme to fail. To eliminate the moral hazard this presumption creates, among profligate governments and reckless investors alike, it is crucial to create mechanisms that minimise the disruptions caused by a default.
One simple answer is to draw on the successful experience of the Brady bonds that were used to deal with the impaired debt of Latin American countries in the 1980s. A default creates ripple effects throughout the financial system because all debt instruments of a defaulting country become, at least temporarily, worthless and illiquid. If a euro-area country loses access to market financing, the EMF could step in and offer all holders of debt issued by the defaulting country an exchange against new bonds issued by the EMF. The fund would require creditors to take a uniform “haircut”, or loss, on their existing debt in order to protect taxpayers. The EMF could, for example, tie its guarantees to the 60%-of-GDP Maastricht limit on debt, so that creditors of a country with a debt stock of 120% of GDP would face a 50% haircut. The losses to financial institutions would be limited and certain, reducing the risk of contagion. The EMF would only exchange debt instruments that had been registered with it beforehand. That would provide a strong incentive for transparency, because the counterparties of derivatives designed to conceal the true state of public finances would not have the option of converting their claims.
Having acquired bondholders’ claims against the defaulting country, the EMF would allow the country to receive additional funds only for specific purposes that the EMF approved. The new institution would provide a framework for sovereign bankruptcy comparable to the Chapter 11 procedure for bankrupt companies in America. Without such a process for orderly bankruptcy, the euro area will remain hostage to any country that is unwilling to adjust and threatens a systemic crisis if help is not forthcoming.
In-house solution

Setting up a European Monetary Fund is superior to the option of either calling in the IMF or muddling through on the basis of ad hoc interventions. The IMF has no mechanism for allowing orderly default, and ad hoc decisions typically have to be taken hurriedly, often over a weekend when the pressure in markets has become unbearable. It should not come to that with an EMF.
Closer surveillance (supported by pre-funding requirements based on the laxity of public finances) should lead to sounder fiscal policies. Perhaps more importantly, there would be less reason for turbulence in financial markets as the procedure for an orderly sovereign bankruptcy would be known in advance. Of course, a defaulting country may regard such intrusions as an unacceptable violation of its sovereignty. A euro-zone country that refused to abide by the decisions of the EMF could choose to leave the EU, and with it the euro, under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. But the price of doing so would be very great. That is another reason to think that the EMF would address today’s moral-hazard problem, whereby bond markets and Greece are both assuming that they can count on a bail-out in the end.[spoil]

hmmm, revenue raising powers for europe, and thus the start of economic union in addition to monetary union, wonder how that will go down with UK voters.......... :D

IMF would do the job quite adequately, the EU simply doesn't want its dirty laundry aired in front of the yanks.

Louis VI the Fat

02-22-2010, 21:36

Subotan

02-23-2010, 00:05

[/ex]

hmmm, revenue raising powers for europe, and thus the start of economic union in addition to monetary union, wonder how that will go down with UK voters.......... :D
Bah, once we all learn Esperanto, they'll be more partial to it.

IMF would do the job quite adequately, the EU simply doesn't want its dirty laundry aired in front of the yanks.
Maybe. But then we all want European integration and ever closer ties, right?

Louis VI the Fat

02-24-2010, 19:31

Dear of dear. The self-proclaimed defender of British values shows his class:

A British Eurosceptic MEP has unleashed a volley of insults against the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy.
Nigel Farage, UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader, said Mr Van Rompuy had "the charisma of a damp rag".
He compared the former Belgian prime minister to a "low-grade bank clerk" and said he came from a "non-country".
The attack, which stunned the chamber, came as Mr Von Rompuy made his maiden appearance in parliament in Brussels.
"I don't want to be rude," Mr Farage began, before launching into a personal attack lasting several minutes.

"I have no doubt that your intention is to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of European nation states," he said.
Mr Farage's party, UKIP, campaigns for the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union.
"You seem to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states," he continued, adding: "Perhaps that's because you come from Belgium, which is pretty much a non-country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8535121.stm

Beskar

02-24-2010, 19:37

Subotan

02-24-2010, 19:41

Of course, if A Belgian had said similar things about the Queen and her role in the Commonwealth, then the tabloid press would have gone into meltdown. I wonder if we will witness the same outrage about this comparable insult.

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 09:21

Why are the three main parties europhile?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100027561/all-three-main-parties-are-europhile-havent-they-noticed-that-the-public-is-eurosceptic/

All three main parties are Europhile. Haven't they noticed that the public is Eurosceptic?

I remember still the amusement of that great German statesman Otto von Lambsdorff when at a European Council meeting I warned him to beware of Greeks when they come demanding gifts. Alas, Otto is now dead, but if he were still alive today he might remember those words.

The explosion of anti-German feeling in Greece is simply a result of that country entering the euro bloc on openly and blatantly falsified statisics, assuming that someone, in the name of European solidarity, would bale them out with gifts bought at the expense of the Germans.

The predicament of both German and Greek political leaders is painful to see, and it makes the question posed on this blog by “robbydot” all the more pertinent. Why are all three major parties Europhile?

That was a far easier question to answer in the 1960s. The Tories were still in a mood of postwar funk. They feared that Labour was becoming the natural party of government in an inevitable Leftwards march of politics. The consensus view in the leadership was that the role of Conservative governments was not to undo the follies of socialism but to ameliorate their consequences. That is, not to denationalise business taken into state ownership, but to run them rather better. Nor did they have the guts to take on the trades union leaders.

For them, the prohibition of state subsidies to industry in the Treaty of Rome was a godsend that would rule out the restrictive practices and wild pay demands in the public sector and possibly force denationalisation without the hazards of arguing the case for it. It would be simply a case of force majeure.

Labour opposed entry into the EEC for exactly those same reasons.

The Tories also rather liked the idea of proctectionism and subsidies to benefit agriculture and their voters in the shires, whilst Labour wanted cheap food imports from abroad to benifit their supporters.

It was not until Jacques Delors came to explain to the TUC that the EU is a corporate state in which things would be carved up in private between the big unions, the big businesses and the big politicans (overwhelmingly from the Left) and promised them that European law would neuter British employment law that the Labour Party become Europhile..

As for the Liberals… well, being nice to foreigners and liking European food and wines just made it natural to support an international order based on ever-shifting coalitions in which centre Left minor parties would always have a place at the table.

Perhaps the bigger question is for how much longer can the leaders of the main parties remain Europhile as their natural supporters become more and more Eurosceptic?

Yesterday the Telegraph reported how Our Masters in Brussels have prohibited our security services from applying our “watch list” and “no-fly list” of individuals suspected of terrorist connections coming here on flights from the EU. Our grovelling Government has even performed a pre-emptive cringe by promising that it will not collect information by, or use, its proposed Passenger Name Record Information (PNI) scheme unless Our Masters implement a similar system.

On Wednesday I heard on the BBC (so it must be true) that it looks as though Our Masters will shortly ban the use of pet passports and compulsory inoculation of dogs from the EU. That, according to the doctors and vets, will make it certain that a particularly foul parasite will infect our dogs, foxes and small wild mammals, and then humans with a potentially fatal liver parasite. That apparently is one of the benefits of membership of the EU. The extraordinary common feature of these two outrages is that whilst they will damage us, in these islands, they will bring no worthwhile benefits to other Europeans.

When will our political leaders come to the rescue of the British people?

No doubt the automated NuLab response system calling itself “A future fair for all” (AFFFA) which generates juvenile slogans from the NULab redoubt will tell us.

The other day the AFFFA wrote “I wish the Daily Mail could be shut down”. Imagine the shrieks if I had said: “I wish the Guardian could be shut down.” And it continued: “Europhobes make me sick.” Put in another category of human beings in the place of “Europhobes”. How about immigrants, lesbians, welfare junkies, or any other group beloved by the Left? There is something contemptably mini-minded about the AFFFA automated response system which puts it outside rational debate. It will be ignored from here on.

I was asked by tom fairbrother how we might sort out welfare. That deserves a blog post to itself at some time in the future. Nor have I fogotten Archie23’s concern about selling council houses or those who hope that the polls this year are as misleading as they were in 1992.

But I have had a busy week in the Lords, so I’ll leave it there for a day or two.

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 09:23

"You seem to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states," he continued, adding: "Perhaps that's because you come from Belgium, which is pretty much a non-country."

Poor Andres, he doesn't deserve such attacks.
probably not, and while tasteless it is a valid question, given that european nations have generally made of hash of running sovereign nation states in peaceful co-existance with their neighbours.

Kralizec

02-26-2010, 12:24

Why are the three main parties europhile?

I'll answer this question.

You'd have to be ignorant to be blind for the advantages and perks of being an EU member state. Britain's political system, wich has endured for centuries and has garantued freedom and good governance for the majority of it's history, prevents idiots with misinformed and potentially harmful political convictions from being elected. As a consequense, all the mainstream parties are europhile.

How did I do? :book:

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 12:33

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2010, 12:42

I'll answer this question.

You'd have to be ignorant to be blind for the advantages and perks of being an EU member state. Britain's political system, wich has endured for centuries and has garantued freedom and good governance for the majority of it's history, prevents idiots with misinformed and potentially harmful political convictions from being elected. As a consequense, all the mainstream parties are europhile.

How did I do? :book:

Badly, we live on an island and the dictat that we cannot quarantine pets (if true) is absolutely moronic. We have no rabbies in the UK, you have it on the Continent.

Ergo, we quantine your pets.

Britain gave up her rebate on the understanding the French would allow reform of the CAP; didn't happen.

Why should we stay?

Right now I feel like our political class are the eqquivilent of battered wives who cringingly apolagise to their husbands when they spill the washing up water.

Louis VI the Fat

02-26-2010, 12:46

How did I do? :book:http://matousmileys.free.fr/anbet2.gif

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2010, 12:53

Kralizec

02-26-2010, 13:33

pretty badly, because this blind man isn't seeing the net benefit of membership of a federalising EU.

You didn't ask me to give reasons why Britain ought to stay in the EU. You asked for an explanation why the three main parties are in favour of it.

My answer is that Britain's tried-and-true system of representation and governance prevents debilitating forces from the fringes of politics from getting a hold on the country. If all mainstream parties in Britain agree on a single subject, it logically follows that to think otherwise is misguided. If you want to read up on how awesome Britain's political system is, I suggest you read some posts from this guy named Furunculus, starting with this thread.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2010, 13:37

You didn't ask me to give reasons why Britain ought to stay in the EU. You asked for an explanation why the three main parties are in favour of it.

My answer is that Britain's tried-and-true system of representation and governance prevents debilitating forces from the fringes of politics from getting a hold on the country. If all mainstream parties in Britain agree on a single subject, it logically follows that to think otherwise is misguided. If you want to read up on how awesome Britain's political system is, I suggest you read some posts from this guy named Furunculus, starting with this thread.

Except that the EU is a special case, because no one votes based on their opinion of it (they really should) and therefore not supporting it is not politically expediant.

Subotan

02-26-2010, 14:41

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 18:43

From the perspective of a Europhile, and I'm sure this is the same for many apathetics, Eurosceptism is a confusing ideology, as it covers so many different perspectives.

1. The first is anti-Europeanism, and states that we should ignore Europe and set out to forge our own destiny in the world, usually by latching on to the USA like a louse.

2. The second is anti-Integration, and although it recognises the value of trade with Europe, anti-Integrationists express sceptism about economic or political integration with Europe

3. The third is more difficult to sum up in a single word, but anti-Oligarchism will suffice for this post. This is a focus on the perceived "democratic deficit" of the EU, particularly institutions like the Commission and the Strassburg Parliament.

4. All of these fit snugly under the big cosy tent of Eurosceptism, and aspects of them probably appeal to all people, especially those right of centre and beyond. But let have a little thought experiment. Suppose the European Union suddenly came alive, and addressed al the problems that the anti-Oligarchs had. The Strassburg Parliament was blown up, the Comission assigned to the dustbin of history and elections for a President were held. After the dust had settled, how many Eurosceptics would be left?

5. It would be nice if a Eurosceptic could answer that, as I can't even begin to guess, because anyone who holds the opinions of the first or the second ideas I mentioned would nearly always agree with the ones below. Everyone who is an anti-Integrationist is an anti-Oligarch. And every anti-European is an anti-Integrationist and an anti-Oligarch. But it doesn't work the other way round, and yet Eurosceptism covers all of these different movements.

6. This leaves us asking, what does it mean to be a Eurosceptic, and what are you actually voting for when you vote for a Eurosceptic party? Euroscepticism is never given the tough analysis which an ideology as important as its followers say it is deserves. The result is a mish-mash of policies, and the ability of Eurosceptic parties to skip quite merrily between the three positions in order to appeal all voters. Scared you might lose some of the vote to the BNP? Then crank up the anti-European insults! Worried that your core vote is drifting back to the Tories? Then stress the importance of EFTA and your commitment to free trade! Need to expand your vote to the floating voters? Then pump out the leaflets plastered with words like "liberty", "democracy", "freedom", nice fluffy words that everyone agrees with.

7. Of course, the downside to this lack of consistency is confusion when parties like that gain power. But as nobody is interested in Europe, as it is weak, nobody cares, so that's alright then.

1. nothing anti-european about most euro-skeptics, we'd be just as dubious about political union tombuktu or russia.

2. why does trade integration have to lead to integration of politics? answer it doesn't, there is no necessity at all.

3. true, given that i see no european Demos I recognise no european Kratos. there is no european cultural unit therefore there will always be a yawning chasm of a democratic deficit.

4. i like the european commision, since i start at the point that there is no european Demos, then there is no point in having the EU as anything more than a forum for consensual cooperation between sovereign nation states.

5. it doesn't make sense to you only because you are torturing your definitions to fit your ideology, without realising that those paradigms simply don't apply to many of the rest of us.

6. what does being a euroskeptic mean to me? it means that i believe that a people are the result of their shared cultural and social history, which moulds the aims and expectations of that people into a coherent direction. by selecting your Kratos from among your Demos you are ensuring that the governance imposed upon you will be administered in a way that is sympathetic to the aims and objectives you hold dear. when there is no common Demos, there is no legitimacy for imposing a Kratos. so, to sum this up in a few choice words; sovereign nation states, such as exist in europe* are legitimate forms of governance, whereas the EU is not, therefore Britain should not allow its involvement with the EU to be anything more than consensual cooperation. that is what euro-skepticism means to me.

7. as has been said already, UKIP and its ilk will always be confusing in a political system that has evolved around 2.5 broadly representative parties, because it is a single issue party, but it like the green party and the BNP exist to warning indicators to the mainstream parties that they are losing relevance among the electorate. and should any of the main two parties slip too far from public grace, the opportunistic half party will move swiftly to fill the gap, just as labour did to the liberals a century ago. it is a very healthy political system, why are we trying to replace it with dross?

* Belgium excepted

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 18:47

The problem with European elections is, as they are pretty irrelevant nobody bothers voting for them, except for two types of people. These are the supporters of the opposition party and Eurosceptics. Since the opposition at the minute is Eurosceptic, we have an electorate made up of Eurosceptics.

Notice that I didn't say population. The European elections are not an accurate measure of the feelings of the nation about Europe as so few people vote in them. Instead, we have diehards electing extremists whose sole aim is to weaken the EU, so less people vote in it, so the extremists are stronger in Europe. Why else would the likes of Nigel Farage sit in that Temple of Bureaucracy, when they are the sworn defenders of Britishness, Independence and Bendy Bananas?

see previous post, mayhap people refuse to take it seriously because they have no connection with the polity-over-the-water, and they simply don't care. more to the point, people get narked when people who don't represent them attempt to impose governance on them, because it has no legitimacy. comes back to that whole will-of-the-people thing.

if the system does not have a healthy democratic mandate, then immediately you have a problem, why try to fix something that is fundamentally flawed.............. and totally unnecessary*?

* for Britain

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 18:49

amusing hannan video about the very issue which we have been talking about today; why can't we just have the free trade?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100027666/the-eu-can-be-an-uncomfortable-neighbour/

Subotan

02-26-2010, 19:29

You seem to have misunderstood my argument.

1. nothing anti-european about most euro-skeptics, we'd be just as dubious about political union tombuktu or russia.
I know that. I was referring mainly to extremist parties like the BNP when I said "anti-European". It's just parties like the BNP like to refer to themselves as Eurosceptic, and agree with the other two points I made below.

2. why does trade integration have to lead to integration of politics? answer it doesn't, there is no necessity at all.
Well, that's how the EU has developed. And like I said, that is just one interpretation of Euroscepticism, out of the three I mentioned, presumably one you agree with.

3. true, given that i see no european Demos I recognise no european Kratos. there is no european cultural unit therefore there will always be a yawning chasm of a democratic deficit.

This is evidence for the point I made in paragraph five, that a Eurosceptic who agrees with one of the above positions will agree with the others below it. I don't think I expressed that very clearly though.
And who knows, maybe we just haven't tried hard enough to create a popular European culture (As obviously, European culture does exist)

4. i like the european commision, since i start at the point that there is no european Demos, then there is no point in having the EU as anything more than a forum for consensual cooperation between sovereign nation states.
Hmm, that's interesting. Most Eurosceptics I've heard have gone on and on about the Commission. I suppose you Eurosceptics are a diverse bunch.

5. it doesn't make sense to you only because you are torturing your definitions to fit your ideology, without realising that those paradigms simply don't apply to many of the rest of us.

Exactly. I didn't mean "Hurr durr I no understands", but I was addressing the various definitions of the term Eurosceptic. They were intentionally brief and general, but I think they address the point quite well, even if I explained my ideas poorly in the fifth paragraph.For example, I challenge you to find me a Eurosceptic who is anti-European, hates economic and political ties with the Continent, yet is totally fine with the democratic structure of the EU as it stands . Yet on the other hand, there are many Eurosceptics who are wary of particular EU institutions and how they are handled, yet are totally cool with Europeans and closer economic and political integration (So long as it's democratic)

6. what does being a euroskeptic mean to me? it means that i believe that a people are the result of their shared cultural and social history, which moulds the aims and expectations of that people into a coherent direction. by selecting your Kratos from among your Demos you are ensuring that the governance imposed upon you will be administered in a way that is sympathetic to the aims and objectives you hold dear. when there is no common Demos, there is no legitimacy for imposing a Kratos. so, to sum this up in a few choice words; sovereign nation states, such as exist in europe* are legitimate forms of governance, whereas the EU is not, therefore Britain should not allow its involvement with the EU to be anything more than consensual cooperation. that is what euro-skepticism means to me.
So you would agree with positions two and three, correct?

And would you say that your version of Euroscepticism is applicable to the whole idea Euroscepticism as a whole, or just your personal opinion?

Btw, nations like India, the USA, Indonesia, have managed (With a few isolated exceptions) multi-ethnic nationalities just fine, by forging a new one, the legendary E Pluribus Unum. Is it impossible for Europe to achieve a similar goal?

7. as has been said already, UKIP and its ilk will always be confusing in a political system that has evolved around 2.5 broadly representative parties, because it is a single issue party, but it like the green party and the BNP exist to warning indicators to the mainstream parties that they are losing relevance among the electorate. and should any of the main two parties slip too far from public grace, the opportunistic half party will move swiftly to fill the gap, just as labour did to the liberals a century ago. it is a very healthy political system, why are we trying to replace it with dross?

If it works well, then shouldn't we be working within European Institutions to spread our wonderful system to the poor, PR-addicted savages on the continent? If we assume hypothetically that the march towards federalism is unstoppable (I know it isn't, but bear with me),then wouldn't it make more sense to preserve our political system by working with Europe rather than against it?

more to the point, people get narked when people who don't represent them attempt to impose governance on them, because it has no legitimacy. comes back to that whole will-of-the-people thing. iif the system does not have a healthy democratic mandate, then immediately you have a problem, why try to fix something that is fundamentally flawed.............. and totally unnecessary*?
A stronger, more democratic EU would have legitimacy. Electing Eurosceptic parties does nothing to make it accountable.

Beskar

02-26-2010, 19:31

3. true, given that i see no european Demos I recognise no european Kratos. there is no european cultural unit therefore there will always be a yawning chasm of a democratic deficit.

Yet you are deliberately against any democratic reform and democratic reform gets hindered by the sceptics who won't allow it, then complain that it doesn't have it. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

amusing hannan video about the very issue which we have been talking about today; why can't we just have the free trade?

Because trade is political and a true common free trade requires economic harmonisation on the political side. So the question of "why can't we have the free trade?" is sheer oversimplification.

Subotan

02-26-2010, 20:31

Oh, and thanks for replying to this in the EU thread.

Louis VI the Fat

02-27-2010, 04:57

democratic reform gets hindered by the sceptics who won't allow it, then complain that it doesn't have it. :yes:

I would love for the EP to finally be granted proper democratic control.

Furunculus

02-27-2010, 11:25

1. I was referring mainly to extremist parties like the BNP when I said "anti-European". It's just parties like the BNP like to refer to themselves as Eurosceptic, and agree with the other two points I made below.

2. Well, that's how the EU has developed. And like I said, that is just one interpretation of Euroscepticism, out of the three I mentioned, presumably one you agree with.

3. This is evidence for the point I made in paragraph five, that a Eurosceptic who agrees with one of the above positions will agree with the others below it. I don't think I expressed that very clearly though.
And who knows, maybe we just haven't tried hard enough to create a popular European culture (As obviously, European culture does exist)

4. Hmm, that's interesting. Most Eurosceptics I've heard have gone on and on about the Commission. I suppose you Eurosceptics are a diverse bunch.

5. I was addressing the various definitions of the term Eurosceptic. They were intentionally brief and general, but I think they address the point quite well, even if I explained my ideas poorly in the fifth paragraph.For example, I challenge you to find me a Eurosceptic who is anti-European, hates economic and political ties with the Continent, yet is totally fine with the democratic structure of the EU as it stands . Yet on the other hand, there are many Eurosceptics who are wary of particular EU institutions and how they are handled, yet are totally cool with Europeans and closer economic and political integration (So long as it's democratic)

6. So you would agree with positions two and three, correct?
And would you say that your version of Euroscepticism is applicable to the whole idea Euroscepticism as a whole, or just your personal opinion?
Btw, nations like India, the USA, Indonesia, have managed (With a few isolated exceptions) multi-ethnic nationalities just fine, by forging a new one, the legendary E Pluribus Unum. Is it impossible for Europe to achieve a similar goal?

7. If it works well, then shouldn't we be working within European Institutions to spread our wonderful system to the poor, PR-addicted savages on the continent? If we assume hypothetically that the march towards federalism is unstoppable (I know it isn't, but bear with me),then wouldn't it make more sense to preserve our political system by working with Europe rather than against it?

8. A stronger, more democratic EU would have legitimacy. Electing Eurosceptic parties does nothing to make it accountable.
1. ok, just so as we recognise that euro-skepticism is far more massive as a percentage of the population that voted BNP at the lest euro elections (~1m), and that most BNP voters define their allegience based on immigration rather than anti-EU sentiment. so whatever position they have is unlikely to representative of 'British' thought on the EU.

2. It is not what we were offered, as IA brilliantly explained elsewhere, i cannot find the post now but if someone would link me i would be very grateful.

3. Why do we need to create, at great risk, a popular european culture, Britain is doing just fine without one?

4. You mean that you recognise that some of us object to euro-federalism from principled and coherent stand-points, why thank you. :)

5. I see what you are saying, but that has yet to be demonstrated either way by statistical analysis. I would like to see it investigated.

6. Yes i personally agree with 2 & 3, but i won't attempt to speak on behalf of anyone else, as we have already ascertained that euro-skepticism is a big-tent.
It is not that it may not in the end be possible to achieve a european Demos, though i personally doubt it could ever be forged in my lifetime, but the fact of the attempt to create such a thing will in itself cause strife, strife which is totally unnecessary given that we don't need a euro identity in Britain. So why bother at all? I fully understand that our continental friends quite like the idea because they are sick of the endless cycle of blood as time and again nations try to grind each other into the dust, but that is not Britains problem.

7. It works well because it is a system that has evolved, in stability, in response to the social and cultural history of Britain, it isn't necessarily the answer that other peoples are looking for, because their goals and aspirations have been forged by their own history. FPTP is a high risk strategy where you give the ruling party carte-blanche to enact change, it requires a lot of trust which necessitates a long a stable polity which has bred a stable and acceptably representative political class. Other nations have different priorities.

8. But there is still no euro Demos, so i am not interested in there ever being a euro Kratos, as far as Britain is concerned, and until there is a two-speed europe with us on the outside I will support a strong EC, because that is both the correct forum for cooperation between sovereign states, and it is visibly lacking a democratic mandate which makes it easier for Britain to resist being sucked further in.

Oddly enough, we are not that far from creating a two-speed europe de-facto if not de-jure.
Britain is outside Schengen
Britain is outside the Euro
Britain is outside the any future economic union necessary to make monetary union
If Cameron does anything useful we will be outside employment and social legislation
If Cameron does anything useful we will be outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR
According to Krazliec we are outside the optional protocols on human rights

Taken together we have created a template that other sovereign nations will be able to pick-n-mix from, if it works it will be glorious; those who want federalism can have it whilst the rest stick with free-trade and cooperation.

Oh, and thanks for replying to this in the EU thread.
my pleasure :)

Furunculus

02-27-2010, 11:27

Yet you are deliberately against any democratic reform and democratic reform gets hindered by the sceptics who won't allow it, then complain that it doesn't have it. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Because trade is political and a true common free trade requires economic harmonisation on the political side. So the question of "why can't we have the free trade?" is sheer oversimplification.
their is no european Demos so no, I am not interested in democratic reform because i don't recognise it as legitimate.

policy harmonisation does not equal the need for federalism.

Beskar

02-27-2010, 14:40

their is no european Demos so no, I am not interested in democratic reform because i don't recognise it as legitimate.

policy harmonisation does not equal the need for federalism.

Wouldn't the Demos obviously mean all the cizitens of the states that make up Europe? Aka, me, you, Louis and co? Thus, wouldn't democratic reform actually allow you to voice your opinions more in Europe? Such as Lisbon actually makes it able for Member States to leave the Europe Union?

I am glad you agree with policy harmonisation, otherwise if you didn't, it would make us actually trying to discuss anything irrelevant.

So wouldn't policy harmonisation means European wide trading standards (So you know it is of a certain standard, anywhere you go and trade) ?
Possibly expand this is free access within Europe in Continental countires especially, which makes the transport of goods easier and faster?
Possibly use the same currency, which means you know exactly what value it is and businesses and personal interests don't get robbed due to exchanging currency rates?
As a foriegn power threatening a few of the nations in your trade block, also affects you, wouldn't doing a common defense policy and maybe even harmonisation of the armed forces bring mutual benefits and bring down costs?

In total, these quickly start to equal into a federal like state, and if so, wouldn't make political reforms and changes actually make everyone and everything more benefitical for everyone? Bring in real elections in the member states, bring in real european elections, bring in what is ultimately the best for us all?

Furunculus

02-27-2010, 15:08

Wouldn't the Demos obviously mean all the cizitens of the states that make up Europe? Aka, me, you, Louis and co? Thus, wouldn't democratic reform actually allow you to voice your opinions more in Europe? Such as Lisbon actually makes it able for Member States to leave the Europe Union?

I am glad you agree with policy harmonisation, otherwise if you didn't, it would make us actually trying to discuss anything irrelevant.
So wouldn't policy harmonisation means European wide trading standards (So you know it is of a certain standard, anywhere you go and trade) ?
Possibly expand this is free access within Europe in Continental countires especially, which makes the transport of goods easier and faster?
Possibly use the same currency, which means you know exactly what value it is and businesses and personal interests don't get robbed due to exchanging currency rates?
As a foriegn power threatening a few of the nations in your trade block, also affects you, wouldn't doing a common defense policy and maybe even harmonisation of the armed forces bring mutual benefits and bring down costs?

In total, these quickly start to equal into a federal like state, and if so, wouldn't make political reforms and changes actually make everyone and everything more benefitical for everyone? Bring in real elections in the member states, bring in real european elections, bring in what is ultimately the best for us all?
no, because there is no european demos, forged from a shared social and cultural history, with a consequent convergence of goals and aspirations, thus allowing a trust within the polity that the governance will be representative of their needs.

no, free trade does not necessitate or require:
> monetary union (by all means let the continent go ahead with it, but Britain doesn't want or need it)
> economic union (by all means let the continent go ahead with it, but Britain doesn't want or need it)
> ECHR (by all means let the continent go ahead with it, but Britain doesn't want or need it)
> common social policy (by all means let the continent go ahead with it, but Britain doesn't want or need it)
> common foriegn policy (by all means let the continent go ahead with it, but Britain doesn't want or need it)
you seeing a trend yet?

no, they equal a federal state.......................... if that is what you want it to equal, however, it is not pre-destined for Britain, it is not needed for Britain, it is not wanted by Britain. how can i make this more clear?

Furunculus

02-28-2010, 13:01

ROFLMAO!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/7332870/Baroness-Ashton-the-fall-guy-of-Europe.html

Baroness Ashton, the fall guy of Europe
The EU High Representative for foreign affairs has become the "mediocrity everybody loves to hate" as Brussels is torn by bureaucratic turf-wars

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 9:00AM GMT 28 Feb 2010

Brussels is at war with itself and Baroness Ashton of Upholland is losing on every front. It is just three months into her job as the EU's first ever foreign minister and Lady Ashton has "travelled the distance from being the nobody, that everybody loved to mock, to becoming the mediocrity, that everybody loves to hate".

That acid assessment, made by an official from a rival Brussels camp, is hostile but expresses a widely held belief that Lady Ashton has become the "fall guy" in unprecedented bureaucratic warfare unleashed by the Lisbon Treaty.

Europe teeters on the brink of a sovereign debt, Greek default, or worse, crisis and is struggling to assert itself in a G2 world dominated by the US and China. But rather than facing outwards, Brussels is gloomily gazing inwards and increasingly blaming Lady Ashton for the EU's marginalisation on the global stage.

"We have fought tooth and nail for nine years to get the Lisbon Treaty, or some form of EU Constitution. Can this really be what it is about?" said a French official.

In the last seven days simmering unease and unrest at Lady Ashton's performance as EU High Representative for foreign affairs has erupted into the open.

On Thursday and Friday, French, Spanish and Dutch defence ministers lined up to attack her for missing a gathering of defence ministers, joined by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato chief, in Majorca.

"Isn't it rich that, to display the ties between Nato and the EU, we have the Nato Secretary General here but not the High Representative for the first meeting since the Lisbon Treaty came into effect," opined Hervé Morin, the French defence minister.

Jack de Vries, his Dutch colleague, lamented that "Madame Ashton was notable by her absence" while her predecessor, Javier Solana, had always found the time to show up to defence meetings. Carme Chacón, Spain's defence minister, hosting the talks under the EU's much diminished rotating president, also chipped in to express her disappointment.

In fact, as her officials and British diplomats have since observed, Lady Ashton had changed her plans, switching from Spain to visit Ukraine for the inauguration of President Yanukovych in Ukraine, on the explicit instruction of EU foreign ministers on Monday. Setting her up for the fall, both Herman Van Rompuy, the EU President and Jose Manuel Barroso, the Commission President, who would usually carry out such duties, had declined to travel to Kiev.

Ironically, Mr Van Rompuy's excuse was a Thursday night speech on EU foreign policy to the eurocrat training university, the College of Bruges. Mr Barroso begged off because he had a Brussels lunch date with Kenneth Clarke, the pro-EU shadow Business Secretary. Mr Morin, the Frenchman who led the criticism, had himself only turned up for a few hours of the two day defence meeting because he was trying to avoid an angry backlash from Eastern European countries furious at the French sale of a high-technology Mistral class warship to Russia, their old enemy.

"She has become the scapegoat for other people's failing or inadequacies, whether it is her fault or not and that is very dangerous development for her future," admitted a sympathetic official. "Some of these people should show a little more collective responsibility."

But the hole Lady Ashton finds herself in has been largely dug by herself. On Monday, she came under fire for her most serious blunder since taking the job by allowing the Commission to seize control of the EU's most important diplomatic post without consulting national governments.

Mr Barroso, who along with Mr Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton is jockeying for supremacy in the Brussels pecking order, succeeded in imposing one of his aides as the EU's ambassador to Washington until 2015.

The resulting row has further damaged Europe's standing with the US, at a 18-year low point after Barack Obama pulled of a planned EU-US summit this spring precisely because of Washington's confusion over who was in charge of European foreign policy.

Carl Bildt, Sweden's well respected foreign minister, angrily denounced the appointment of Joao Vale de Almeida, a Portuguese who served as Mr Barroso's chief of staff for five years until last November, as a "downgrade", comments that will not help him represent the EU in Washington.

However, Mr Bildt reserved his greatest venom for Lady Ashton, who has got off to a disastrous start in the turf wars on her mission to lay the foundations of a new EU diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service (EEAS), this spring.

"This nomination has been done without applying the very principles now under discussion where transparency, member states involvement and, above all, your roles as appointing authority are key elements," Mr Bildt wrote in a confidential letter to Lady Ashton.

"Member states' participation in the staffing of the EEAS, at all levels, is crucial, not only for reasons of legitimacy abut also in order to create an esprit de corps of its won."

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that the first known by Lady Ashton, or any national government, of Mr Vale de Almeida's appointment to replace John Bruton, a former Irish premier, as Washington ambassador followed American leaks and press inquiries just 24 hours before the official decision was taken.

As foreign minister, Lady Ashton is supposed to preserve the control of the Council of the EU, which represents national governments, over the new European diplomatic service.

Not only had she lost to Mr Barroso but she had failed national governments. "Understandably member states wanted to be more involved," she awkwardly admitted.

EU diplomats have warned that the Commission's "coup d'etat" has deeply undermined Lady Ashton's credibility.

A big part of the problem has been that Lady Ashton lacks a political personality, a product of her rise behind closed doors, via administrative appointment and the House of Lords, rather than the open cut and thrust of democratic contest for public office.

Visibly uneasy at press conferences, where she is surrounded by rivals, former prime ministers such as Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso, whose careers have been based on hogging publicity, Lady Ashton has claimed that her strong suit is "quiet diplomacy".

"Let's get out of the limelight first," she said, earlier this week, when challenged over the EU infighting during an interview. "Someone asked if I would be able to stop the traffic in Washington, but in fact my job is to keep the traffic moving. I'm not interested in the limelight. I'm interested in what we can actually do."

But her claims, also repeated by defensive British officials, that, while she is not a "traffic stopper", she is an able technocrat fixer are ringing hollow.

"God knows she has little charisma, but the British keep telling us she has great powers of negotiation and horse trading," said one dismayed European diplomat on Wednesday.

"The French, Spanish, Barroso, Van Rompuy, everybody it seems, can pull a fast one and Ashton does not have the authority to stand up to them. The argument that she might be boring but has powers of quiet persuasion simply do not wash any more. If this is the best Britain can offer then your country is in deep trouble."

France, a supporter of a strong EU foreign minister, is particularly disappointed with Lady Ashton's performance, a position that galls British Foreign Office officials, who are unable themselves to give a ringing endorsement to a Labour life peer with little or no diplomatic experience.

"It does annoy me," said a senior British diplomat. "After all we offered them Lord Mandelson. It was the Elysee that said No. France helped choose her, it's a bit rich to start complaining now."

In contrast to Lady Ashton's stumbling, the Machiavellian manoeuvring of Mr Van Rompuy, previously unknown on the international stage as Belgium's prime minister for just 11 months, has startled Brussels.

As the Franco-German backed President of the European Council, the regular summits of EU leaders, Mr Van Rompuy was expected to be a safely dull chairman. But, defying his "grey mouse" image, the Belgian has proved adept at using post-Lisbon Treaty confusion over who is in charge to extend his power.

Normally complacently powerful German and Commission officials have been wrong footed as Mr Van Rompuy has used the Greek crisis to grab control of EU economic policy away from national governments and Mr Barroso.

Behind the manufactured Brussels outrage at Nigel Farage's insulting comment on Thursday that Mr Van Rompuy had the "charisma of a damp rag" were many rueful smiles and nodding heads.

"As well as the dumb dish rag comment, Farage called Van Rompuy the 'quiet assassin'. He was right and many of us have the knives in our back to prove it," said a Commission official.

Diplomats and officials now openly admit that the Lisbon Treaty, billed as equipping Europe to be a united global power bestriding the world stage, has failed as the EU turns in on itself at a moment when it faces real existential political challenges.

"We cannot blame battles between political pygmies for our problems. They are symptoms not causes of the EU's decline or even decay," said a depressed Europe minister last Monday.

Lady Ashton's failure is the Lisbon Treaty's and last week Europe began to wake up to that fact.

who could ask for a more satisfying result.

france was crowing over getting the premier economic position, but i wonder how much headway the fellow is making in reversing the free market agenda after Britain has spent the last decade stuffing that wing of Brussels with its appointees?

lol.

Furunculus

03-01-2010, 10:02

Also, the Icelandic parliament is voting about a future EU application as we speak. Oh please, oh please.
Despite their recent flirt with uncontrolled neo-liberalism that left the country bankrupt, Iceland is still a sober, sensible nation. It would make for a great addition. Give us another Luxembourg!
ah Louis, for shame, it would appear that EU membership is falling out of favour in Iceland:
http://eunews.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-poll-on-eu-membership-in-iceland.html

just as daniel hannan said it would:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003888/iceland-votes-to-begin-eu-accession-negotiations/

:p

Meneldil

03-01-2010, 12:40

yes, common law is different to civil law.

doesn't matter, i don't need it, and anyway i believe that abdicating responsibilty will only breed irresponsibility so it better to keep affairs in-house.

Pedantic distinction that bears absolutely no weight in real life.
The average Mike's relationship with your common law is absolutely the same as my average Michel's relationship to civil law. Ie. he doesn't understand anything, he is in an obvious situation of inferiority. Judges decide whatever they want by twisting the written law or the precedent, or by giving a new interpretation.

Now, you refused to adress my two main concerns, namely that:

1 - UK is not any freer than continental Europe, and is in fact dangerously slipping on the "we take your rights away to protect you against terrorism" slope (position that you advocate, IIRC).
2 - the ECHR is an independant court that allows any citizen to protect his freedom and his rights against governements and states.

It's kind of cheap to blame the EU for its lack of accountability to citizens, and then blame the ECHR for its lack of accountability to your state. My personnal opinion is that you somehow confuse "citizens and Demos" with "the UK". You actually don't give a rat's ass about your countrymen freedom, and only feel bad because a supranational autority might blame the UK for various things.

Beskar

03-01-2010, 16:40

Dan Hannan is the only EMP in Europe by the sounds of things, his videos often demostrate this case too.

Furunculus

03-01-2010, 20:17

Pedantic distinction that bears absolutely no weight in real life.
The average Mike's relationship with your common law is absolutely the same as my average Michel's relationship to civil law. Ie. he doesn't understand anything, he is in an obvious situation of inferiority. Judges decide whatever they want by twisting the written law or the precedent, or by giving a new interpretation.

Now, you refused to adress my two main concerns, namely that:
1 - UK is not any freer than continental Europe, and is in fact dangerously slipping on the "we take your rights away to protect you against terrorism" slope (position that you advocate, IIRC).
2 - the ECHR is an independant court that allows any citizen to protect his freedom and his rights against governements and states.

It's kind of cheap to blame the EU for its lack of accountability to citizens, and then blame the ECHR for its lack of accountability to your state. My personnal opinion is that you somehow confuse "citizens and Demos" with "the UK". You actually don't give a rat's ass about your countrymen freedom, and only feel bad because a supranational autority might blame the UK for various things.
you wanted a difference, i gave you one, now you claim the difference is invalid, andi claim it isn't, where do we go from here? as far as i am concerned, ever-deeper-union has zero or less net benefit to the UK, so even if one of the many differences is hard to define or quantify it does not signify much of anything.

1. I'm not convinced that Britain is more free in the legal sense...............?
2. The ECHR abbrogates responsibility from the member nation to act responsibly itself in the provision of justice. There is no need for a final legal authority to exist in Brussels.

no, i'm quite clear; where their is no Demos there should be no Kratos. this in no way means that i wish Britain to isloate itself from the continent, and it in no way means that i do not support the EEC/EU as a useful forum for inter-governmental cooperation. but i do not support, or want, or see the need for, political union between Britain and the EU. if you guys on the continent come to a different conclusion, more power to you.

Dan Hannan is the only EMP in Europe by the sounds of things, his videos often demostrate this case too.
it is a rather sad indictment of the vitiated reality of european democracy that Daniel Hannan usually addresses an empty chamber of parliament, to me it is evidence that their is no connection between MEP's and national electorate; the MEP's don't care to work on behalf of a distant electorate that never even voted for them, and electorates simply don't care enough about european governance to take an interest in what 'their' MEP's are doing on their behalf. Demos-Kratos

Furunculus

03-01-2010, 20:25

ah, twas only a few years ago when people used to sneers at euro-skeptics about their thin-end-of-the-wedge worries about the Euro, saying; "you really do worry to much, no-one has said anything about full economic union, the EMU will be just fine without it, and you are worrying about baseless fears"
oh how different the world seems today!

Plans for European Economic Government Gain Steam:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,680955,00.html
More Teeth for Brussels
Plans for European Economic Government Gain Steam

With Greek finances dragging down the euro, calls for coordinated fiscal policy within the common currency zone have become more frequent. Now, Germany and France have presented a paper outlining what such a regime might look like. Increased monitoring is at the top of the priority list.

Up until just a few months ago, it wasn't easy to find people on the Continent who were seriously skeptical about the euro. The European common currency had performed well during the financial crisis and had steadily strengthened against the dollar. Indeed, the only concern was that the dollar would become too weak, thus making euro zone exports unaffordable.

With Greek finances a shambles, however, the weaknesses of the common currency regime have been exposed for all to see this winter. First among them: there is no policy tool to mandate fiscal responsibility in the 16 countries that use the euro -- a significant Achilles' heel for the currency's stability.

With Greece dragging the euro down, however, the concept of an economic government for the euro zone is gaining momentum. Indeed, the German and French Finance Ministries have developed a draft plan that would significantly strengthen financial policy cooperation in the EU.

The plan, which has been seen by SPIEGEL, calls for increased monitoring of individual member states' competitiveness so that action can be taken early on should problems emerge. States which have pegged their currencies to the euro -- like Denmark or the Baltic countries -- will likewise be monitored.

'Candid and Serious'

The plan also calls for the European Commission to ensure that the euro group spends more time addressing the finances of its member states. In particular, the paper demands that euro group finance ministers "take more time for candid and serious discussions on the goal of a functioning currency union." German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde have sent their plan to Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who chairs the euro group. The idea is to be discussed at the next meeting of euro zone finance ministers in mid-March.

In a Monday interview with the German business daily Handelsblatt, Juncker voiced support for the idea of greater economic oversight of euro zone members. "We need a European economic government in the sense of strengthened coordination of economic policy within the euro zone," he said. "The Greece case makes it clear."

Juncker said that the euro group will examine divergences in the competitiveness of euro zone countries in March. Recommendations for reform will then be transmitted to each country with the expectation that national governments will formulate proposals to eliminate those divergences. The euro zone, Juncker said, will closely monitor the process.

Many have pointed to a lack of common financial policy among countries belonging to the European common currency as a significant weakness for the euro. Indeed, Greece's current problems, which include a budget deficit of 12.7 percent of gross domestic product and €300 billion in sovereign debt, have led to a significant weakening of the euro against the dollar. Furthermore, after years of at times painful social reforms in countries like Germany, the willingness in Europe to come to Greece's aid is tepid at best.

Assert Control

An early idea for a common European economic policy, voiced by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in early February, called for forcing countries to institute structural reforms under pain of financial sanctions. Greece currently finds itself in a comparable position, with the EU closely monitoring Greek reforms and demanding deep spending cuts. Greece aims to cut its budget deficit by four percentage points this year with the eventual goal of dropping below the euro zone ceiling of 3 percent by 2012.

In a syndicated column, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer also threw his support behind a European economic government. "The euro, which turned out to be the critical tool for defending European interests in this crisis, will now be subjected to an endurance test directed at the soft political heart of its construction," Fischer wrote. He urges that the French and German governments establish a financial oversight body with the teeth to assert control over the finances of member states.

"What is necessary now," he writes, "is statesman-like leadership -- and even more so stateswoman-like leadership. Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are facing the defining challenge of their respective terms in office."

cgh/SPIEGEL

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 20:53

Daniel Hannan usually addresses an empty chamber of parliamentIf I were a MEP, I'd be out lunching too when Hannan embarks on one of his 'Hugo Chavez' speeches again. :wink:

Sarmatian

03-01-2010, 21:40

Demos-Kratos[/i]

You know, if some Greek had patented those words, he would have made a fortune out of you alone.

Furunculus

03-01-2010, 22:14

You know, if some Greek had patented those words, he would have made a fortune out of you alone.

not just me you know, i'd say a fair proportion of the western world would happily give thanks to the ancient Greeks, we have benefitted massively from them.

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 22:18

You know, if some Greek had patented those words, he would have made a fortune out of you alone.A fortune large enough to almost pay to bail fraudulent Greece out and save our currency.

Pannonian

03-01-2010, 22:33

A fortune large enough to almost pay to bail fraudulent Greece out and save our currency.

According to some scathing Greek posters at TWC, Greece makes France look like an ultra-liberalised economy, entirely free from bloc interests.

Sarmatian

03-01-2010, 23:05

A fortune large enough to almost pay to bail fraudulent Greece out and save our currency.

Well, in Yugoslavia in the seventies, when someone was heavily indebted, the phrase "indebted like Greeks". It's catching on again rather quckly nowadays. Nothing new under the sun...

Beskar

03-01-2010, 23:25

it is a rather sad indictment of the vitiated reality of european democracy that Daniel Hannan usually addresses an empty chamber of parliament, to me it is evidence that their is no connection between MEP's and national electorate; the MEP's don't care to work on behalf of a distant electorate that never even voted for them, and electorates simply don't care enough about european governance to take an interest in what 'their' MEP's are doing on their behalf. Demos-Kratos

I do want reform at both home and in Europe and I have constantly said that and you know I have. :cry:

Furunculus

03-02-2010, 01:35

I do want reform at both home and in Europe and I have constantly said that and you know I have. :cry:

you and whose army..............................................?

exactly.

Beskar

03-02-2010, 02:39

you and whose army..............................................? exactly.

Well, could always do it this way. Get you, your friends and everyone else to elect me. :beam:

One of the first things I will do is democratic reforms too.

Win-Win.

Furunculus

03-03-2010, 17:10

i understand why the EUro-project is so important to transnational progressivists now, in their eyes it is the only escape from genocide:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100028226/when-is-it-ok-to-call-people-nazis-when-theyre-euro-sceptics/

When is it OK to call people Nazis? When they're Euro-sceptics

According to Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian Prime Minister who now leads the Liberals in the European Parliament, “The ultimate consequences of identity thinking are the gas chambers of Auschwitz“.

Politicians should be careful about dragging Holocaust references into everyday arguments. Even Churchill – who arguably had more right to make such references than the rest of us – suffered when he tried to draw a parallel between socialism and the Gestapo during the 1945 election campaign. Yet Euro-integrationists make the link so habitually and so matter-of-factly that they no longer realise what they’re doing.

During the last session of the European Parliament, both the Liberal and Socialist leaders said that Euro-sceptic MEPs made them think of the Nazis (see here). And who can forget the words of Margot Wallström, then Sweden’s European Commissioner, at the anniversary of the liberation of the Theresienstandt concentration camp: “There are those today who want to scrap the supra-national idea. They want the EU to go back to the old purely intergovernmental way of doing things. I say those people should come to Terezin and see where that old road leads.”

I am uncomfortable drawing contemporary political lessons from the Nazi genocide: I still can’t get this photograph out of my mind. But, if we must, let us consider the Wallström-Verhofstadt theory that nationalism causes genocide. Something that struck me, both at Yad Vashem and when reading Robert Wistricht’s brilliant factual chronicle, Hitler and the Holocaust, is that national sovereignty was often the only defence against the murderers. Almost every state in Europe, including fascist and Quisling regimes, recognised their responsibility to their own passport-holders. The Jews who were most at risk of deportation were those who had arrived as refugees. The Nazis recognised this which is why one of their first acts, on occupying a country, was usually to declare all Jews stateless.

Nation-states have, over the years, been a pretty sturdy defence against totalitarian ideologies, whether fascism, Soviet Communism or jihadi fundamentalism. Rooted as they are in organic loyalties, nations are a naturally democratic unit. This is not to say that all nation-states are liberal democracies; simply that ideologies which claim to be bigger than national allegiances can be dangerous. They can even lead, as Mr Verhofstadt really ought to know, to mass murder.

silly billies!

Beskar

03-03-2010, 20:21

silly billies!

It is pretty true though, in many ways. Might not be as overt as Auschwitz, but that is just an extreme of a very real issue. You have to go back to the formation of the nation states, they were all these areas who they identified with, then they identified through the formation of the nation state and thus, they became French for example. So anyone in france become "common" with the next person from france, like a big extended family.

So getting rid of national identities for a more universal identity would therefore decrease hostities and otherthings quite significantly, opposed to huffing and puffing over imaginary lines seperating us.

cegorach

03-03-2010, 21:23

You know, if some Greek had patented those words, he would have made a fortune out of you alone.

Pragmatism says we would just use another word. ;)

Anyway the Greek problem should force some changes in the EU, accessing the Eurozone shouldn't be so easy as before.

Interesting that I've read recently about Germany thinking about expanding the zone to more reliable countries in the CEE - Poland, Czech Republic and, I hear, Estonia to counterbalance the influence of southerneuropean states somehow.

Frankly I don't know what to think about it, besides those countries should be ready to join the Euro in time of next 5 years anyway.

Furunculus

03-03-2010, 21:59

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-04-2010, 02:04

It is pretty true though, in many ways. Might not be as overt as Auschwitz, but that is just an extreme of a very real issue. You have to go back to the formation of the nation states, they were all these areas who they identified with, then they identified through the formation of the nation state and thus, they became French for example. So anyone in france become "common" with the next person from france, like a big extended family.

So getting rid of national identities for a more universal identity would therefore decrease hostities and otherthings quite significantly, opposed to huffing and puffing over imaginary lines seperating us.

It's not about lines on a Map Beskar, it's about common experience. The modern Nation-State arose out of the need to define a people by something other than who ruled them, (arguably, the EU seeks to reverse this). In order to break free of both secular and religious tyrannies people grouped together and formed communities of thought. Common identies were built on commonalities.

You can't have a "world" or "human" identity because there is no external fressure to forge it and no coherent internal idea around which to build it.

For example, how would you integrate African witches who practice female genital mutilation?

Pannonian

03-04-2010, 02:07

For example, how would you integrate African witches who practice female genital mutilation?

Shoot them then bury them?

Edit: Never mind. Why not burn them? Isn't that what we traditionally do with witches?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-04-2010, 02:08

Shoot them then bury them?

Which demonstates, does it not, that any identity (even a theoretically "universal" one) needs an Other to beat on.

Furunculus

03-04-2010, 15:16

interesting take on some inherent flaws in the system of Euro currency governance:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100004157/how-the-ecb-has-contributed-to-the-greek-debt-crisis/
Greek debt crisis: spotlight falls on the ECB's role

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have announced they are investigating trades in the euro and the market in sovereign credit default swaps (CDS), while on a flying visit to London, Michel Barnier, the European internal markets commissioner, has this week promised a regulatory crackdown on the CDS market.

At the very least M. Barnier wants to know who’s buying and for what purpose. He then wants the supposed speculators publicly to account for their actions. European Commission officials are meeting with bankers today (thursday, 4 March) to decide what shape this crack down should take. If they are going to bail-out Greece, they want to know who stands to benefit and who to lose.

The first principle of regulatory interference in markets must be that there is evidence of public interest damage. In my view, the CDS market passes this test, and indeed always has done, only as with so much else, regulators were so busy with the trivia that they failed to notice the really important stuff. A CDS is a form of insurance, in that it insures against the risk of default, and yet it disobeys two of the most fundamental rules governing insurance.

The first is that the insured must own the assets being underwritten, this for the obvious reason that if he doesn’t the existence of the insurance provides an incentive to induce a loss. If I’ve got an insurance policy on your house, then I might want to burn it down. The second is that you are only allowed to insure the asset once, this for the same reasons. A CDS allows you to insure an asset, such as Greek sovereign bonds, that you don’t own, and what’s more it allows you to double up your bet many times over. It therefore provides a positive incentive to bring the house down. In any case, it has been heavily used in the short trade against sovereigns thought to be at some risk of default.

Yet I’ve got no sympathy whatsoever for the whingeing eurocrats who complain that evil speculators – who by presumption are always said to hail from London – have ratcheted up the crisis by deliberately seeking to undermine confidence in sovereign debt through use of CDS’s. I’ve written in general terms about the dangers of blaming speculators for market movements driven by economic fundamentals in this morning’s column in The Daily Telegraph. But here’s an example of how the eurocrats themselves have helped feed the mayhem.

In supporting the eurozone economy through the crisis, the European Central Bank has provided some €400bn of extra liquidity to the European banking system. Some while back it eased the minimum credit rating for required collateral to only just above junk so as to allow for the acceptance of security such as Greek sovereign bonds.

Nobody outside the ECB knows quite how much Greek government debt the ECB now holds. It has been less than transparent on this issue. What we do know is that Jean-Claude Trichet, the ECB president, plans to revert to the old criteria in the Autumn as part of a phased exit strategy from financial system support. What’s more, there’s a strong possibility that Greek sovereign debt would cease to count as acceptable collateral before then, as it would only require Moody’s to downgrade from its existing rating to break even the watered down criteria.

This is one of the main factors unsettling the Greek bond market right now, and it has very little to do with Mayfair hedge fund managers, even though they are plainly taking full advantage of the hole the ECB has dug for itself. It’s all very well to accuse the CDS market of lack of transparancy, but by comparison with the ECB, it’s as clear as a summer’s day. I’m pausing now to listen to the ECB press conference, which ought to bring further news on “exit strategies” and quite how the ECB is going to unwind all that collateral.

It’s certainly not going to be easy. Some ECB council members have berated the rating agencies for daring to think about downgrades, and threatened to apply their own assessments of what counts as acceptable collateral. But if they do that it will look like a political fudge, and will therefore undermine the ECB’s supposed independence as a monetary authority. As I say, not easy, but then M. Trichet should be thankful for small mercies. At least today’s Greek government bond issue seems to have got away smoothly, albeit at a cripplingly high interest rate.

and the other side of the coin, how sound is the pound:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,681597,00.html
How Safe Is Britain's Proud Pound?

By Carsten Volkery in London
London's Canary Wharf district: Speculators have set their sights on the British pound.

First the euro, now the pound. Britain's currency is coming under massive pressure as speculators bet that the UK's national debt will soon get out of hand. Like Athens, London has its share of problems -- and the Brits don't have any euro zone partners to back them up.

Schadenfreude may be a German word, but it has never been a foreign concept in Great Britain -- particularly in recent months as the British watch the trials and tribulations of the European common currency, the euro. The budgetary and debt problems facing Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain have merely reinforced their conviction that staying out of the euro zone was the right decision. Unlike Berlin, London is not under pressure to come to the aid of Athens.

But speculators have not just taken aim at the euro in recent days. The British pound, too, has become a favored target -- showing Brits how vulnerable their own currency may actually be. At the beginning of the week, the pound slid to a 10-month low of just $1.4781. Since then, the pound has staged a mini-recovery, moving back above $1.50 on Wednesday. But market pressure on the British currency is not likely to disappear overnight.

Alarm on the Markets

The most immediate trigger for the recent currency swoon came in the form of political surveys which indicated that a Conservative victory in general elections (which will likely be held in early May) may not be a foregone conclusion. Markets were alarmed out of fear that a close election could make it difficult for parliament to pass a strict package of savings measures.

Such political concerns are temporary. Given the British electoral system, a Conservative victory remains likely -- nor is it clear that a minority government would be unable to cap spending.

More permanent, however, are the fundamental economic indicators that are becoming the pound's Achilles heels -- debt and budgetary problems that have fuelled the British currency's downward trend since October 2008.

The problems start with the size of the country's budget deficit. With a budget deficit of 13 percent of GDP this year -- Greece's is 12.7 percent -- Britain is by far the deficit champion of the G-20 states. Britain has so far avoided an Athens-style crisis primarily by virtue of the fact that its economy is much more flexible and competitive than Greece's. Furthermore, most still believe that the country is capable of shrinking its debt without outside help. Also, unlike Greece, which is facing the need to immediately refinance €20 billion in debt, most British debt won't come due until 14 years from now.

Losing their Patience

But international financiers are beginning to lose their patience. Since the beginning of the year, the share of foreign investors in British bonds has dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent. Returns on 10-year bonds, one measure of the risk associated with them, have climbed to above 4 percent -- almost a percentage point above the German benchmark. The number of short positions on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange betting on a further loss of pound value has spiked upwards recently. The numbers reflect the market's growing skepticism.

In recent months, the British have proudly pointed out the advantages of having their own currency in the midst of the crisis. Through the devaluation of the pound, exports have been made cheaper and investments in the country more attractive. The domestic economy has profited, too. Growth of around 1 percent is predicted for the first quarter of 2010 -- the first since 2008.

It has also enabled the Bank of England to intervene in grand style, holding down interest rates so that money is available cheaply to both the government and consumers. Attractive mortgage interest rates have also helped to revive the real estate market, which has in turn buoyed the general mood of the British.

Whitewashing the Crisis

The downside of these monetary policies, though, is that they conceal the true scope of the crisis. The most recent bonds issued by the British government were fully subscribed because the Bank of England purchased the majority of them. That may enable the government to finance its deficit under favorable conditions, but the move risks jeopardizing the trust of the markets.

Mass consumer debt in Britain is whitewashed in a similar manner. With an average personal debt of 170 percent of annual income, British households are even further indebted than the Americans. And interest rates kept artificially low by the Bank of England are still feeding this bubble. Sooner or later, a rise in interest rates is inevitable -- at which point domestic demand could take a nose dive.

If Britain had joined the euro zone when it was established, at least some of these excesses could have been prevented. The fiscal policy guidelines of the common currency would have ensured that. The average annual deficit of the euro-zone countries is currently only 6 percent. Great Britain also could have hid behind the reputation of more solid euro-zone members, just as the Greeks are now doing. As a relatively small country with its own currency, however, Britain is more vulnerable.

Currency Remains Weak

But in Britain, the opinion still prevails that the country is better off staying alone. Hope for a upswing is being nourished by a series of positive economic indicators. On Wednesday, the Markit Service Index, which measures the mood of British service providers, rose to its highest level in two years. It also helped to rally the pound again.

Still, the currency remains weak. And though it is unlikely at this point that the rating agencies will downgrade Britain's creditworthiness, the possibility cannot be ruled out. In May 2009, Standard and Poor's cut its view of British bonds from stable to "outlook negative." If Britain were to actually lose its AAA rating, it could have disastrous consequences for the pound. And there would be no holding the speculators back.

I would submit that recent speculation on the pound has not been due to structural weakness, but market uncertainty regarding the seriousness of the British electorate with regards to deficit reduction. the possibility of a hung parliament means the electorate as a collective are not serious enough about deficit reduction, and the market is absolutely correct to speculate on the sustainability of Sterling.

If we are stupid enough to vote labour back in, or even to let them hang around a future governments neck like a mill-stone as the result of a hung-parliament, then my guess is that we might indeed join the euro because we will have destroyed the certainty of Sterling and hence the British economy, and we will deserve every second of the pain!

Beskar

03-04-2010, 23:15

The comments are hilarious.

Of course

But these SIV were designed specifically to explode and the taxpayer was always in line to pick up the pieces.

It’s like the carbon trading scam. The people are being looted on a truly eyewatering scale and thus far, they don’t realize it.

The entire credit bubble and the subsequent economic crisis was deliberately contrived to destoy the middle class in the developed economies and to return everyone to serfdom. We are heading rapidly towards a technologically controlled global, feudal fascist state. This is nothing less than WW3. It’s being fought with financial and economic weapons of mass wealth destruction.

The sheeple. institutionalised by decades of welfarism and socialism have been reduced to babies, sucking on the nipple of the state. They’ll always clamour for the safety of the state even though it is the state that is waging war against them. Hitler and Goebells would have been most impressed.

Furunculus

03-05-2010, 10:57

Beskar

03-05-2010, 11:08

europe wants a pan-european carbon tax to fund itself, wonder how that will go down with various national electorates ight now?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7370614/EU-draws-up-plans-for-first-direct-tax-with-fuel-levy.html

Only because the companies will take advantage of the tax, raising up the price over that of the tax in the first place, to slice off more of a profit. Just like how they never dropped the prices after oil and gas price decreased by half, we the customer never saw any of it and the only reason petrol at the pump dropped was because Tesco actually cut the prices, which completely undercut the competition, who was exploiting their customers.

Furunculus

03-05-2010, 11:17

..................... we the customer never saw any of it and the only reason petrol at the pump dropped was because Tesco actually cut the prices, which completely undercut the competition, who was exploiting their customers.
ooh, a lesson in free market economics as 10:00am, i think you just answered your own dilemma.

Beskar

03-06-2010, 01:43

ooh, a lesson in free market economics as 10:00am, i think you just answered your own dilemma.

Hah, fortunately, as Tesco has a monopoly on the British pound as in owning 1 in 5 (or was it 1 in 6) of every pound, it made sense due to having the cheaper gas got everyone to shop in Tesco', thus they made the money back from what they would have lost anyway.

Then this begs the question, because of the economics of scale that Tesco can muster, due to having virtual monopolies. Does this mean that monopolies is the solution, even though it will force more specific retailers out of business, simply because they cannot compete? And thus, by being a virtual monopoly, they are not infact a "freemarket enterprise" as in sugar mountain picture of Capitalism paints it as it would simply turn into a battle between big corperations and cartels, etc, not small business.

So yes, many lessons to be learnt.

Also, as this isn't happening in the Energy industry, it would never occur, as they artificially inflate the price since people need electricity, they aren't going to simply stop using it.

Furunculus

03-08-2010, 16:42

Hah, fortunately, as Tesco has a monopoly on the British pound as in owning 1 in 5 (or was it 1 in 6) of every pound, it made sense due to having the cheaper gas got everyone to shop in Tesco', thus they made the money back from what they would have lost anyway.

Then this begs the question, because of the economics of scale that Tesco can muster, due to having virtual monopolies. Does this mean that monopolies is the solution, even though it will force more specific retailers out of business, simply because they cannot compete? And thus, by being a virtual monopoly, they are not infact a "freemarket enterprise" as in sugar mountain picture of Capitalism paints it as it would simply turn into a battle between big corperations and cartels, etc, not small business.

So yes, many lessons to be learnt.

Also, as this isn't happening in the Energy industry, it would never occur, as they artificially inflate the price since people need electricity, they aren't going to simply stop using it.

monopolies are virtually never a good idea.

Tellos Athenaios

03-08-2010, 19:20

Reminds me of: World food supply. Controlled by about 8 companies.

Beskar

03-09-2010, 06:45

monopolies are virtually never a good idea.

Yet in a unregulated 'free market' they would get even worse. Though for some reason, this seems to pass peoples attention when they advocate it.

Furunculus

03-09-2010, 09:25

Yet in a unregulated 'free market' they would get even worse. Though for some reason, this seems to pass peoples attention when they advocate it.

there is never going to be an unregulated free-market, we have always had a monopolies and mergers commission.

gaelic cowboy

03-09-2010, 14:20

Thats because markets do not have perfect information however many economist's, banks and poloticians have been acting like there is perfect information. If everyone knows the true value then that value will tend to stagnate or even reduce because the amount you can leverage said product later is fully known

Furunculus

03-09-2010, 15:04

gaelic cowboy

03-09-2010, 15:14

very true in and of itself, but none of which debunks the basic precept that in a freemarket if you overprice a commodity like petrol, to use Beskars example, someone else will come along and undercut you, forcing you too to provide lower prices in order to remain competitive.

Well of course thats because Beskar tends to betray a slight thinking that things have a natural price or a bedrock they cannot breach. No object has a natural price only the price somone is willing to pay and the price somone is willing to accept the difference is the profit or loss depending on the situation.

Beskar

03-09-2010, 16:03

Well of course thats because Beskar tends to betray a slight thinking that things have a natural price or a bedrock they cannot breach. No object has a natural price only the price somone is willing to pay and the price somone is willing to accept the difference is the profit or loss depending on the situation.

There is a natural price of production. In order to get that oil out of the ground, and in a barrel and delivered to your house, all of that has a cost to it. For sake of argument, lets say this is the Labour cost. Then you got the cost which the company is selling it at, which is generally greater than the labour cost to create what we call "profit". This is the artifical cost to the consumer.

In areas of a virtual cartel such as the Energy Industry. They can set this price to anything they want, and simply get away with it, as it is a fundamental requirement of modern life. So they can easily sell it on for 300% of the labour cost which goes into the bank accounts of shareholders and those at the top of the corperate foodchain at deterimental cost to everyone else. (Other such things are Water supply, etc.)

This is why I am in the line of thinking which believes energy should be a state/community/people/consumer owned infrastructure and should not be in the profitteering hands of the Greed Market. The cost should be the labour cost, plus money needed for research, insurance, and other necessaries to ensure a very healthy system. This would be lower price for the consumers, would be far more efficient, and with funding in areas such as research, you would be getting the best quality, and get access to future-tech(tm) energy supply. Big advantage of this, it cuts out the "middlemen" who are the main ones who line their pockets with the money.

Furunculus

03-09-2010, 16:17

There is a natural price of production. In order to get that oil out of the ground, and in a barrel and delivered to your house, all of that has a cost to it. For sake of argument, lets say this is the Labour cost. Then you got the cost which the company is selling it at, which is generally greater than the labour cost to create what we call "profit". This is the artifical cost to the consumer.

In areas of a virtual cartel such as the Energy Industry. They can set this price to anything they want, and simply get away with it, as it is a fundamental requirement of modern life. So they can easily sell it on for 300% of the labour cost which goes into the bank accounts of shareholders and those at the top of the corperate foodchain at deterimental cost to everyone else. (Other such things are Water supply, etc.)

This is why I am in the line of thinking which believes energy should be a state/community/people/consumer owned infrastructure and should not be in the profitteering hands of the Greed Market. The cost should be the labour cost, plus money needed for research, insurance, and other necessaries to ensure a very healthy system. This would be lower price for the consumers, would be far more efficient, and with funding in areas such as research, you would be getting the best quality, and get access to future-tech(tm) energy supply. Big advantage of this, it cuts out the "middlemen" who are the main ones who line their pockets with the money.

see how well the USSR did at exploiting its oil reserves in the 80's as compared to now.

besides which, we are getting a little off topic.......

Beskar

03-09-2010, 16:45

see how well the USSR did at exploiting its oil reserves in the 80's as compared to now.

besides which, we are getting a little off topic.......

But Gazprom is owned and run by the government?

Furunculus

03-09-2010, 17:08

But Gazprom is owned and run by the government?

and how much western investment and expertise did it need?

Beskar

03-09-2010, 17:13

and how much western investment and expertise did it need?

Because they failed miserably doesn't mean if I did it, it would.

gaelic cowboy

03-09-2010, 17:37

There is a natural price of production. In order to get that oil out of the ground, and in a barrel and delivered to your house, all of that has a cost to it. For sake of argument, lets say this is the Labour cost. Then you got the cost which the company is selling it at, which is generally greater than the labour cost to create what we call "profit". This is the artifical cost to the consumer.

In areas of a virtual cartel such as the Energy Industry. They can set this price to anything they want, and simply get away with it, as it is a fundamental requirement of modern life. So they can easily sell it on for 300% of the labour cost which goes into the bank accounts of shareholders and those at the top of the corperate foodchain at deterimental cost to everyone else. (Other such things are Water supply, etc.)

This is why I am in the line of thinking which believes energy should be a state/community/people/consumer owned infrastructure and should not be in the profitteering hands of the Greed Market. The cost should be the labour cost, plus money needed for research, insurance, and other necessaries to ensure a very healthy system. This would be lower price for the consumers, would be far more efficient, and with funding in areas such as research, you would be getting the best quality, and get access to future-tech(tm) energy supply. Big advantage of this, it cuts out the "middlemen" who are the main ones who line their pockets with the money.

Your claiming costs influence price to such an extent that there is a natural price for a product that is incorrect my friend oil is a scarce resource it is scarcity and the fear of future price rises that affects the price of oil and loads of other factors like tax business cost etc etc. I will show you a much simpler example one you actually can check food is often produced by farmers at cost or even below cost due to greater leverage by the large processors and supermarket multiples the loss is often made up by subsidy from CAP. Here the natural price you believe in is distorted by all concerned to ensure consumers have plenty food

Furunculus

03-09-2010, 17:41

The biggest objection to Camerons six point plan to repatriate powers from Brussels was that it was in effect renegotiating Lisbon, a treaty in effect that no-one on the continent would be willing to reopen. Further, considering that Lisbon was supposed to be the last constitutional tinkering for a decade Cameron simply wouldn't have any cracks into which to apply leverage.

Now we do. The EU has a Eurozone crisis, Merkel is demanding stronger economic controls to ensure that the Euro has a future, and she wants a treaty to do it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b0933f4-2b1a-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0.html
EMF plan needs new EU treaty, says Merkel

By Quentin Peel in Berlin, Ben Hall in Paris and Tony,Barber in Brussels

Published: March 9 2010 02:00 | Last updated: March 9 2010 02:00

Radical plans for a European version of the International Monetary Fund to bail out crisis-hit countries would need a new treaty and the agreement of all European Union member states, Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, has warned.

Throwing her weight behind the proposals from Wolfgang Schäuble, her finance minister, Ms Merkel admitted that the European Union had lacked the tools to deal with the Greek debt crisis: "The sanctions we have were not good enough."

But she added that a full-scale negotiation of the EU's 27 member states would be needed to set up a European Monetary Fund, which would be able to bail out eurozone members subject to strict budgetary conditions. "Without treaty change we cannot found such a fund," Ms Merkel told foreign correspondents in Berlin yesterday.

Any new Europe-wide treaty risks being hugely divisive so soon after the lengthy and painful ratification of the Lisbon treaty, which was initially rejected by a referendum in Ireland and only came into effect in December.

Paris and Berlin were struggling to come up with a common line on the German initiative and the question of the need for treaty change has exposed differences between them.

French officials welcomed the proposal for an EMF in principle, but warned it would probably require an overhaul of existing treaties, for which there is no desire in Paris. They see it as a long-term project.

Ms Merkel insisted that it would be wrong to shy away from treaty change. "We want to be able to solve our problems in the future without the IMF," the German chancellor said.

Any bail-out within the eurozone is banned by the Maastricht treaty, which was the reason why a treaty change was necessary, she said.

The Berlin initiative was welcomed in Brussels, where the European Commission signalled its willingness to swing into action with a plan for a monetary fund to assist highly indebted nations such as Greece in the future.

But Jürgen Stark, Germany's representative on the executive board of the European Central Bank, condemned the idea. He said an EMF would breach the treaty rules of the eurozone and undermine public support for the euro and the EU.

Mr Stark wrote in Handelsblatt that "instead of a European monetary fund, budget rules must be strengthened and implemented with the help of a stringent supervisory mechanism". The ECB said that Mr Stark's views were personal.

Additional reporting by Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt

So now we have a venue where we can be bargain with the continent to get our demands, and its a no lose situation as the greater integration will be centered around the Eurozone members, of which we are not.

So what were those six demands again?
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." (LOL)

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. (LOL)

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. (LOL)

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. (LOL)

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.
The best bit is this; not only does this allow Cameron to repatriate powers from Brussels, but in bargaining with the EU to give them what they want, he will further entrench the reality of a two-speed EUrope!

I like it.

Furunculus

03-10-2010, 16:28

the EU parliament votes itself the ability to help itself to the wealth of sovereign member states, how nice of them:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100029418/meps-vote-overwhelmingly-for-an-eu-tobin-tax/

MEPs vote overwhelmingly for an EU Tobin Tax

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: March 10th, 2010

2 Comments Comment on this article

As predicted, the European Parliament has voted for a tax on financial transactions, to be levied directly by Brussels. The vote went through by 536 to 80: only my own group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, voted solidly against the measure, although we had some support from UKIP and its allies as well as two Danish liberals and two Portuguese conservatives.

Anyone wondering why David Cameron broke with the palaeo-federalist EPP need only look at its automatic support for such measures as this. With a handful of exceptions – such as those two heroes from our oldest ally - the Christian Democrats invariably vote for higher taxes, greater state intervention and Euro-corporatism. I do wish British journalists would stop lazily refering to the EPP as “Centre-Right”; the EPP itself angrily insists that it is “a party of the Centre”.

The Tobin Tax might well be vetoed by one or other of the national governments. But the campaign for pan-European taxation is only just beginning. This will be the big battleground of the next five years. It’s time for a European Tea Party.

with the exceptiopn of the European Conservatives & Reformists party!

Subotan

03-10-2010, 19:29

Aww, I think I might send my comfort blankie to poor Daniel Hannan since his group lost the vote. Poor party being bullied by those big nasty "paleo-federalists" and "Euro-corporatists" whatever the Hell those are...

Subotan

03-10-2010, 19:32

HAHA, I didn't see this before my earlier post:

It’s time for a European Tea Party.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Furunculus

03-12-2010, 12:04

Brussels is run by and for lobby groups :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100029584/brussels-is-run-by-and-for-lobby-groups/

Nearly two years after the European Commission introduced a register for lobbyists, only 40 per cent of Brussels lobbying firms have signed up (hat-tip, EUObserver). Forty per cent, that is, of the 286 companies that explicitly market themselves as Brussels political consultants. We’re not talking here about the in-house lobbyists of the big corporations, nor of trade and professional associations, nor yet of the lobbying-at-one-remove that can be undertaken through proxies, so as to avoid having to declare meetings.

Nor, needless to say, are we talking about lobbying by green pressure groups which, as we discovered earlier this week, often fund their activism with grants that have come from the EU. Nor yet about lobbying by the mega-charities, which also receive tens of millions of euros from Brussels. Include all these, and the register would start to look like a Yellow Pages.

Lobbying is not intrinsically wrong. Indeed, three of my oldest and dearest friends have become lobbyists, and I can’t imagine them ever behaving unethically. The trouble is that the Brussels system cuts out the voter, concentrating power in the hands of unelected functionaries and, to a lesser extent, anonymous Euro-MPs. Lobbyists, naturally enough, have filled the vacuum.

Perhaps the best option is to do a John Redwood: that is, to refuse to deal with any lobbyists, however benign their motives. This attitude is doubtless unfair to many wholly innocent public affairs people; but it avoids any appearance of conflict of interest. And here’s the thing: if you have a problem, you can write directly to your elected representative. Nine times out of ten, he or she will take up your case for nothing.

Subotan

03-12-2010, 23:44

Dawn of a new EU - European Bailout Plan for Greece springs into life (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/12/eu-agrees-greece-bailout)

Furunculus

03-12-2010, 23:50

"The Greek case is a potential turning point for the eurozone," said Rehn in the interview. "If Greece fails and we fail, this will do serious and maybe permanent damage to the credibility of the European Union. The euro is not only a monetary arrangement, but a core political project of the European Union … In that sense, we are at a crossroads."

did we sign up to this?

and is this not an opportunity for Cameron?

Subotan

03-13-2010, 00:04

No we didn't. But it's only a matter of time.

And it's also an opportunity for Brown, whose wise economic leadership kept us out of the Monetary Union that is wrecking havoc on the continent. All glory to the helmsman who kept our economy and our currency afloat!

Furunculus

03-13-2010, 00:12

so it is only a matter of time before britain gets sucked into a federal europe.............. against its will.

but it is also, at the same time, a self evident glory of brown that he kept us out of the Euro, that is wrecking havoc on the continent. ................

i'm not sure i get it?

Subotan

03-13-2010, 00:21

I was being mildly satirical, yet making a serious point. If Cameron can use this to his advantage, than so can Brown.

Furunculus

03-13-2010, 10:52

sure, from an electoral point of view it can work either way, but i don't see how it advances the holy cause of awakening the sensitive european inside the brutish british heart.

Furunculus

03-18-2010, 09:47

But i thought we were all the same, with the same hopes and ambitions, the same goals and ideals, and now you tell me it is not so! *tantrum*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7467198/Angela-Merkel-defies-IMF-and-France-as-anger-rises-over-export-surplus.html

Angela Merkel defies IMF and France as anger rises over German export surplus
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has defied France and the IMF, refusing to modify Germany’s strategy of export reliance or boost growth to help alleviate the deep crisis sweeping Southern Europe.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 7:05PM GMT 17 Mar 2010

"Where we are strong, we will not give up our strengths just because our exports are perhaps preferred to those of other countries," she told the German Bundestag.

Mrs Merkel swept aside criticisms that Germany and other surplus countries are partly to blame for the widening North-South rift that has led to Euroland’s worst crisis since the launch of monetary union.

"The problem has to be solved from the Greek side, and everything has to be oriented in that direction rather than thinking of hasty help that does not achieve anything in the long run and merely weakens the euro even more," she said.

Instead she called for EU treaty chnges so that serial violators of EMU rules could be expelled from the euro, and insisted Germany would stick to its own path of hairshirt austerity.

The tough words came as the IMF’s chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn said it was time for Berlin to rethink its single-minded pursuit of exports, warning that both Germany and China need to play their part in rebalancing the global system rather than relying on huge structural surpluses. "This must change. Internal demand must be strengthened with more consumption," he told the European Parliament.

French finance minister Christine Lagarde infuriated Berlin earlier this week by suggesting that Germany’s relentlesss wage squeeze was making it impossible for Club Med states to claw back lost competitiveness within monetary union, forcing them into a deflation policy that must ultimately rebound against everybody.

"Clearly Germany has done an awfully good job in the last 10 years or so improving competitiveness. When you look at unit labour costs, they have done a tremendous job in that respect. I’m not sure it is a sustainable model for the long term and for the whole of the group. Clearly we need better convergence. While we need to make an effort, it takes two to tango," she told the Financial Times. Mrs Lagarde said yesterday that Germany should cut consumption tax to lift imports and help do its part to narrow the North-South gap.

Her comments have prompted fierce criticisms in Germany. "Mrs Lagarde must take back her outrageous assertions: jealousy should not be a factor in the politics of European neighbours. This is the behaviour of a bad loser," said Alexander Dobrindt, general secretary of Bavaria’s Social Christians (CSU) in the Merkel coalition.

Germany has gained some 30pc to 40pc in cost advantage against Italy and Spain since the mid 1990s, and over 20pc against France, according to EU data. Germany’s current account surplus is expected to reach $190bn this year, or 6pc on GDP.

The achievement is remarkable, but is also upsetting the structure of monetary union. David Marsh, author of `The Euro: the Politics of the New Global Currency", said the Germans never faced up to the political implications of EMU. "They thought everybody else should become more German. You can’t blame them for having a desire for a competitive industry and surpluses built into their genes, but they are not thinking holistically," he said.

EMU rules are forcing Club Med states to tighten fiscal policy by 10pc of GDP for Greece, 8pc for Spain, and 6pc for Portugal over three years without any offsetting monetary or exchange stimulus, an unprecedented demand that may cause such deep economic damage that it proves self-defeating in the end.

Charles Dumas from Lombard Street Research said the Club Med states and Ireland cannot deflate wages below German levels without causing havoc to their economies, so the EU policy creates a profound bias towards a deflationary slump for the whole system.

"The Germans are not very good at arithmetic. If they want to run surpluses near $200bn (£130bn), others must run deficits near $200bn. It is not appropriate that Germany’s dismal growth peformance be exported to the whole of Europe, but that is what is going to happen," he said.

"There has been this massive self-righteousness in Germany. They have been leeching off the demand of countries for the last decade, and now they too are going to suffer until they change their ways. German industrial production is down 17pc from the peak and has been flat for four months, so Mittelstand bosses are soon going to draw the obvious conclusion and downsize in style," he said.

Mr Dumas said the trade surplus of the German bloc of Northern states is as great as the combined surplus of China and Asia’s tigers. They are central players in the story of global imbalances.

Holger Schmieding, chief Europe economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said attacks on Germany were deeply misguided. The country suffered a long slump after digesting East Germany in the 1990s and was forced to retrench. It did not take part in the global credit boom, acting as a counterweight to excess. Once the bust began it had sufficient fiscal reserves to cushion the shock with large stimulus measures, again acting as a bullwark of stability.

"I am still waiting hear the world say `thank you Germany’," he said.

The Germans should be free to be competitive if that is there wish.

The French should be honest about what they mean when they say; "I’m not sure it is a sustainable model for the long term and for the whole of the group." and admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans, and resent the fact that the single currency is pricing them out of the market.

The Greeks should have it pointed out to them that in twenty years time their living standards are going to resemble that of an albania peasant more than western europe middle-class, unless they decide they have got it in them to start doing more than electing communists and throwing stones through shop windows.

Where is that transnational progressive pan-european dream now, eh?

Louis VI the Fat

03-18-2010, 14:49

But i thought we were all the same, with the same hopes and ambitions, the same goals and ideals, and now you tell me it is not so! *tantrum*I read that all Eurosceptics are simply biding their time to start a new pan-European conflagration and plunge us all into a new world war. It is only owing to the EU that we again managed this year to prevent renewed industrial warfare, which proves we have been right all along.

In other words, strawman. There's no point in putting up a grossly distorted caricature and then thump one's chest in a celebration of 'we've been correct all along' whenever this caricature of reality is shown - surprise! - to be incorrect.

There is a lot of US criticism about China's export orientated economic policy. Nobody will accuse the US of being communists who are too lazy to work. Nor are the imbalances between the US and China the result of political adn economic integration.
Rather, the world is economically intertwined anyway. What the EU does, is grant power to the people to shape this integration into the form they desire, rather than be powerless onlookers.

The criticism about Germany's economic policy has two origins:
- Envy. Yes.
- Criticism about Germany's policy of stimulating export, and destimulating consumption.
For a fun fact: surprisingly, the purchasing power of a German is only ten percent higher than that of a Greek.
This is what you get when a German rightwing government has a policy that benefits German industry over German consumers by a combination of low wages and high consumption tax to stimulate export surplus.
The criticism is not that Germany should produce less, or less succesfully, but that it should balance this with more internal investment and consumption.

gaelic cowboy

03-18-2010, 15:15

This is what you get when a German rightwing government has a policy that benefits German industry over German consumers by a combination of low wages and high consumption tax to stimulate export surplus.
The criticism is not that Germany should produce less, or less succesfully, but that it should balance this with more internal investment and consumption.

Yes of course there following this policy due to the fact they know there demographic potential will be downward soon enough. Allowing migrants entrance to Germany is off the table after the experience it has had and has with say the turks in Germany. By stimulating exports and holding wages down they can hope to reduce the need to grow the economy to compete in an enviroment where more exports would endanger jobs but also crate new ones. The most extreme example of this is Japan does anyone think its a coincidence they are investing heavily in china and robotics two things that could potentially hold there economy but with less people

Furunculus

03-22-2010, 14:24

interesting Strat-For article detailing how the Euro might actually break ever-deeper-union, because Germany is at long last beginning to act as a sovereign nation state in the advancement of its own interest:
http://ukdf.blogspot.com/2010/03/germany-mitteleuropa-redux.html

Germany: Mitteleuropa Redux

By Peter Zeihan

The global system is undergoing profound change. Three powers — Germany, Iran and China — face challenges forcing them to refashion the way they interact with their regions and the world. We will explore each of these three states in detail in our next three geopolitical weeklies, highlighting how STRATFOR’s assessments of these states are evolving. We will examine Germany first.

Germany’s Place in Europe

European history has been the chronicle of other European powers struggling to constrain Germany, particularly since German unification in 1871. The problem has always been geopolitical. Germany lies on the North European Plain, with France to its west and Russia to its east. If both were to attack at the same time, Germany would collapse. German strategy in 1871, 1914 and 1939 called for pre-emptive strikes on France to prevent a two-front war. (The last two attempts failed disastrously, of course.)

As much as Germany’s strategy engendered mistrust in Germany’s neighbours, they certainly understood Germany’s needs. And so European strategy after World War II involved reshaping the regional dynamic so that Germany would never face this problem again and so would never need to be a military power again. Germany’s military policy was subordinated to NATO and its economic policy to the European Economic Community (the forerunner of today’s European Union). NATO solved Germany’s short-run problem, while the European Union was seen as solving its long-run problem. For the Europeans — including the Germans — these structures represented the best of both worlds. They harnessed German capital and economic dynamism, submerged Germany into a larger economic entity, gave the Germans what they needed economically so they didn’t have to seek it militarily, and ensured that the Germans had no reason — or ability — to strike out on their own.

This system worked particularly well after the Cold War ended. Defense threats and their associated costs were reduced. There were lingering sovereignty issues, of course, but these were not critical during the good times: Such problems easily can be dealt with or deferred while the money flows. The example of a European development that represented this money-over-sovereignty paradigm was the European Monetary Union, best represented by the European common currency, the euro.

STRATFOR has always doubted the euro would last. Having the same currency and monetary policy for rich, technocratic, capital-intensive economies like Germany as for poor, agrarian/manufacturing economies like Spain always seemed like asking for problems. Countries like Germany tend to favour high interest rates to attract investment capital. They don’t mind a strong currency, since what they produce is so high up on the value-added scale that they can compete regardless. Countries like Spain, however, need a cheap currency, since there isn’t anything particularly value-added about most of their exports. These states must find a way to be price competitive. Their ability to grow largely depends upon getting access to cheap credit they can direct to places the market might not appreciate.

STRATFOR figured that creating a single currency system would trigger high inflation in the poorer states as they gained access to capital they couldn’t qualify for on their own merits. We figured such access would generate massive debts in those states. And we figured such debts would contribute to discontent across the currency zone as the European Central Bank (ECB) catered to the needs of some economies at the expense of others.

All this and more has happened. We saw the 2008-2009 financial crisis in Central Europe as particularly instructive. Despite their shared EU membership, the Western European members were quite reluctant to bail out their eastern partners. We became even more convinced that such inconsistencies would eventually doom the currency union, and that the euro’s eventual dissolution would take the European Union with it. Now, we’re not so sure.

What if, instead of the euro being designed to further contain the Germans, the Germans crafted the euro to rewire the European Union for their own purposes?
Germany and the Current Crisis

The crux of the current crisis in Europe is that most EU states, but in particular the Club Med states of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy (in that order), have done such a poor job of keeping their budgets under control that they are flirting with debt defaults. All have grown fat and lazy off the cheap credit the euro brought them. Instead of using that credit to trigger broad sustainable economic growth, they lived off the difference between the credit they received due to the euro and the credit they qualified for on their own merits. Social programs funded by debt exploded; after all, the cost of that debt was low as the Club Med countries coasted on the bond prices of Germany. At present, interest rates set by the ECB stand at 1 percent; in the past, on its own merits, Greece’s often rose to double digits. The resulting government debt load in Greece — which now exceeds annual Greek gross domestic product — will probably result in either a default (triggered by efforts to maintain such programs) or a social revolution (triggered by an effort to cut such programs). It is entirely possible that both will happen.

What made us look at this in a new light was an interview with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble on March 13 in which he essentially said that if Greece, or any other eurozone member, could not right their finances, they should be ejected from the eurozone. This really got our attention. It is not so much that there is no legal way to do this. (And there is not; Greece is a full EU member, and eurozone membership issues are clearly a category where any member can veto any major decision.) Instead, what jumped out at us is that someone of Schauble’s gravitas doesn’t go about casually making threats, and this is not the sort of statement made by a country that is constrained, harnessed, submerged or placated. It is not even the sort of statement made by just any EU member, but rather by the decisive member. Germany now appears prepared not just to contemplate, but to publicly contemplate, the re-engineering of Europe for its own interests. It may not do it, or it may not do it now, but it has now been said, and that will change Germany’s relationship to Europe.

A closer look at the euro’s effects indicates why Schauble felt confident enough to take such a bold stance.

Part of being within the same currency zone means being locked into the same market. One must compete with everyone else in that market for pretty much everything. This allows Slovaks to qualify for mortgage loans at the same interest rates the Dutch enjoy, but it also means that efficient Irish workers are actively competing with inefficient Spanish workers — or more to the issue of the day, that ultra efficient German workers are competing directly with ultra inefficient Greek workers.

The chart below measures the relative cost of labour per unit of economic output produced. It all too vividly highlights what happens when workers compete. (We have included U.S. data as a benchmark.) Those who are not as productive try to paper over the problem with credit. Since the euro was introduced, all of Germany’s euro partners have found themselves becoming less and less efficient relative to Germany. Germans are at the bottom of the graph, indicating that their labour costs have barely budged. Club Med dominates the top rankings, as access to cheaper credit has made them even less, not more, and efficient than they already were. Back-of-the-envelope math indicates that in the past decade, Germany has gained roughly a 25 percent cost advantage over Club Med.

The implications of this are difficult to overstate. If the euro is essentially gutting the European — and again to a greater extent the Club Med — economic base, then Germany is achieving by stealth what it failed to achieve in the past thousand years of intra-European struggles. In essence, European states are borrowing money (mostly from Germany) in order to purchase imported goods (mostly from Germany) because their own workers cannot compete on price (mostly because of Germany). This is not limited to states actually within the eurozone, but also includes any state affiliated with the zone; the relative labour costs for most of the Central European states that have not even joined the euro yet have risen by even more during this same period.

It is not so much that STRATFOR now sees the euro as workable in the long run — we still don’t — it’s more that our assessment of the euro is shifting from the belief that it was a straightjacket for Germany to the belief that it is Germany’s springboard. In the first assessment, the euro would have broken as Germany was denied the right to chart its own destiny. Now, it might well break because Germany is becoming a bit too successful at charting its own destiny. And as it dawns on one European country after another that there was more to the euro than cheap credit, the ties that bind are almost certainly going to weaken.

The paradigm that created the European Union — that Germany would be harnessed and contained — is shifting. Germany now has not only found its voice, it is beginning to express, and hold to, its own national interest. A political consensus has emerged in Germany against bailing out Greece. Moreover, a political consensus has emerged in Germany that the rules of the eurozone are Germany’s to refashion. As the European Union’s anchor member, Germany has a very good point. But this was not the “union” the rest of Europe signed up for — it is the Mitteleuropa that the rest of Europe will remember well.

(c) Stratfor http://www.stratfor.com/ Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved
*cries of "we are all the same, with exactly the sames goals and ambitions......" echo mournfully in the distance*

Louis VI the Fat

03-22-2010, 15:15

An interesting geo-strategical perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it.

If the euro is essentially gutting the European — and again to a greater extent the Club Med — economic base, then Germany is achieving by stealth what it failed to achieve in the past thousand years of intra-European struggles.
Would it be an awful insult if I said that maybe these guys need a history book?

*cries of "we are all the same, with exactly the sames goals and ambitions......" echo mournfully in the distance*These cries are not in the distance, they are shouted loud and clearly every day by the Eurosceptics. They raise a new strawman every day, attack it with pitchforks and torches at night, and the next day triumphantly cheer its demise 'as they had always predicted it would'.

The Germans should be free to be competitive if that is there wish.

The French should be honest about what they mean when they say; "I’m not sure it is a sustainable model for the long term and for the whole of the group." and admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans, and resent the fact that the single currency is pricing them out of the market.

The Greeks should have it pointed out to them that in twenty years time their living standards are going to resemble that of an albania peasant more than western europe middle-class, unless they decide they have got it in them to start doing more than electing communists and throwing stones through shop windows.
Oh, I nearly forgot. Do you know which two EU countries are second and third behind fraudulent Greece in budget deficit? You know - countries that should admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans?

That's right, it's Ireland and the UK. :book:

Furunculus

03-22-2010, 18:33

An interesting geo-strategical perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it.

If the euro is essentially gutting the European — and again to a greater extent the Club Med — economic base, then Germany is achieving by stealth what it failed to achieve in the past thousand years of intra-European struggles.
Would it be an awful insult if I said that maybe these guys need a history book?

These cries are not in the distance, they are shouted loud and clearly every day by the Eurosceptics. They raise a new strawman every day, attack it with pitchforks and torches at night, and the next day triumphantly cheer its demise 'as they had always predicted it would'.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Do you know which two EU countries are second and third behind fraudulent Greece in budget deficit? You know - countries that should admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans?

That's right, it's Ireland and the UK. :book:

but why Louis, why is all this strife necessary? we have already created and achieved a tranquil europe, what is this great benefit that is worth all this strife in the mean time?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,684598-2,00.html

all this 'integration' is actually destroying the tranquility of europes peoples!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at a time when everyone else is tightening their belts europe breaks a pledge not to spend one fifth of its revenue on its own administration, by asking for more money:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7494108/Britain-vows-to-block-EU-Parliament-record-breaking-budget.html

Furunculus

03-27-2010, 10:39

surely the German constitutional court will have something to say about this, not to mention the putative referendum lock if cameron actually makes it into power:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7528593/Herman-Van-Rompuy-coins-new-EUphemism.html

Herman Van Rompuy coins new 'EUphemism'
"Asymmetrical translation" is an new European Union phrase coined by its President to spare Gordon Brown's political blushes.

Published: 7:00AM GMT 27 Mar 2010

Herman Van Rompuy came up with the idea, early on Friday morning, after a Franco-German call for an "economic government" horrified the Prime Minister.

"We consider that the European Council should become the economic government of the EU," said the Franco-German text.

To get around the G-word, "ideologically unacceptable" to Britain, but insisted on by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, Mr Van Rompuy came up with a novel solution to keep everyone happy.

As a result, the French version of the binding summit text, agreed on Thursday, used the original words "le gouvernement économique".

To spare Mr Brown's feelings, the English text used the more innocuous and less controversial term "economic governance".

"There is no fundamental difference of view, but rather a sensitivity to certain words which has led to an asymmetrical translation," remarked the EU president.

A British official tied to explain it: "Governance is about the way you do things, government is about new institutions or structures."

Another senior EU official noted that linguistic tricks were a specialty of Mr Van Rompuy, the former leader of Belgium, a country divided by bitter political disputes between Flemish Dutch and Walloon French speakers.

"I find it effective in a Europe with different political cultures. The words government or governance can be used for the same thing. We all know what is meant politically," he said.
don't they realise that this is exactly the kind of rank dishonesty that breeds suspicion and distrust of EU institutions?

Banquo's Ghost

03-27-2010, 15:45

Oh, I nearly forgot. Do you know which two EU countries are second and third behind fraudulent Greece in budget deficit? You know - countries that should admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans?

That's right, it's Ireland and the UK. :book:

At least Ireland is trying to address the state of affairs by swingeing public sector cuts. Unlike the UK. And without the burning cars of Athens.

gaelic cowboy

03-27-2010, 16:07

At least Ireland is trying to address the state of affairs by swingeing public sector cuts. Unlike the UK. And without the burning cars of Athens.

Aye and I reckon there will be even worse cuts in the next Irish budget.

Furunculus

03-28-2010, 11:31

but rapid action now will preserve the confidence of the markets in ireland, and ensure that any pain later is much less severe.

Furunculus

03-30-2010, 08:30

EU laws cost twice as much as British ones to enforce, says report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7535352/EU-laws-cost-twice-as-much-as-British-ones-to-enforce-says-report.html

European Union regulations cost more than twice as much to enforce as home-grown British laws, a new report has found.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 7:00AM BST 30 Mar 2010

A study by Open Europe, found Brussels legislation has cost the British economy £124 billion, accounting for 71 per cent of the total cost of all red tape, both national and European, implemented in Britain since 1998.

The think tank studied thousands official impact assessments to find that EU regulation is 2.5 times less cost effective than domestic laws.

The high cost of EU directives and regulations is blamed for the failure of the government's "Better Regulation Agenda", launched five years ago, to reduce the burden of red tape on business.

"This is in no small part due to a failure to stem the flow of new, costly EU regulations," concluded the report.

Sarah Gaskell, author of the study, said: "Our research clearly shows that it's far more cost-effective to regulate domestically than is it is to legislate through the EU. This means that passing laws as close as possible to the citizen is not only more democratic, but also vastly cheaper."

Out of all Whitehall departments, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is the country's main regulator, accounting for £73.5 billion or 42 per cent of the cumulative cost of regulation over the last 12 years.

According to Open Europe, two thirds of the BIS regulation stemmed from EU legislation at a cost to the economy of £49.2 billion.

A Department for Business spokesperson said: "The figures presented in this report are out of context as they take little or no account of the wider economic benefits that regulation can deliver. European regulation has helped open up new markets for UK businesses across Europe and provided important new rights and protections."

The Conservatives have pledged to reduce the EU's power to legislate on employment issues if they win the general election this spring.

Mark Francois, the Tory spokesman on Europe, said: "While Gordon Brown and his MEPs sign up to more and more regulations a Conservative government would seek to reduce the costs of EU regulation by restoring Britain's opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services."

hmm, strange that, regulation tailored specifically to the demos in question, rather than people in general, has much greater effect and lesser cost to enforce! who'da thunk it?

Subotan

03-30-2010, 09:34

International legislation is somewhat harder to enforce on a national level, by it's very definition.

Furunculus

03-30-2010, 10:43

this isn't internation legislation, it is domestic regulation trying to be applied supra-nationally. its stupid. and there is no need for it.

Subotan

03-30-2010, 13:11

Hm. Let's take a closer look at what the article is saying:

A study by Open Europe, found Brussels legislation has cost the British economy £124 billion, accounting for 71 per cent of the total cost of all red tape, both national and European, implemented in Britain since 1998.
Assuming that these figures are accurate (Which isn't likely, given the weasely ways of this thinktank ), this means that £174.67 billion has been spent on regulations. This in turn means that about 50 billion is domestic regulation.

The think tank studied thousands official impact assessments to find that EU regulation is 2.5 times less cost effective than domestic laws.
Wow Daily Torygraph, that takes sloppy journalism on the EU to a new low. That's either gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the figures, or your journalists don't have Year Nine maths skills. 124 billion is 2.5 times more than 50 billion, yes, but that has nothing to do with efficiency or cost effectiveness.

Furunculus

03-30-2010, 13:33

Hm. Let's take a closer look at what the article is saying:

Assuming that these figures are accurate (Which isn't likely, given the weasely ways of this thinktank ), this means that £174.67 billion has been spent on regulations. This in turn means that about 50 billion is domestic regulation.

Wow Daily Torygraph, that takes sloppy journalism on the EU to a new low. That's either gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the figures, or your journalists don't have Year Nine maths skills. 124 billion is 2.5 times more than 50 billion, yes, but that has nothing to do with efficiency or cost effectiveness.
that isn't the torygraphs claim, it is a claim made by the openeurope research paper, try reading it:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/stilloutofcontrol.pdf

Furunculus

04-04-2010, 08:29

ooh, life in EUrope under cameron is definately looking like it would be an improvement:

In his interview, Mr Hague promised that the Tories would end British participation in the EU’s scheme for a European Public Prosecutor.

As it stood, the scheme would allow the prosecutor to issue European arrest warrants to force British citizens to face prosecution in another member state, without asking the permission of either the Government or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"Other countries could go ahead with that if they wished but [if we were in government] the European Public Prosecutor would not have jurisdiction in Britain," said Mr Hague

He also said that any further moves by the EU under the Lisbon treaty to end national vetoes over key areas of policy would trigger referendums in Britain if the Tories were in power.

In addition, all preparatory work by Whitehall for Britain to give up the pound and join the euro would be stopped on day one of a Tory administration.

"A Conservative government will not join the euro," said Mr Hague.

Subotan

04-04-2010, 11:33

Banquo's Ghost

04-04-2010, 11:39

Tellos Athenaios

04-04-2010, 11:40

Mr Cameron/Hague et all obviously have been hiding in their comfy British built cave for far too long. De facto this is already the case; they formalize the bilateral extradition agreements between separate memberstates as a single EU wide agreement. And anyway there is interpol. British subjects are not immune to that either.

Tell me, will the Tories quit that too?

Tellos Athenaios

04-04-2010, 11:44

It's rather amusing that Mr Hague is so vehemently against the European arrest warrant while the rather harsher agreement with the USA already allows British citizens to be extradited at the whim of the US government. Whilst this latter treaty is entirely Labour's fault, I don't see Mr Hague threatening to repeal it either. Clearly, it's not about protecting rights, just basic anti-European rhetoric.

Exactly. De facto the USA asks the Brits to hand over the suspects; and Britain time and again obliges. The only case it could not was because the suspect hurriedly filed suit. Presumably that option is not available under the newer EU wide agreement; but then again in practice such suits would have little chance anyway if the request was lodged from Paris or Germany or Belgium.

Furunculus

04-04-2010, 12:37

I'd like to see him try.

He would be better off trying to get opt outs from thingS which are useful and actually matter (e.g the working time directive) rather than having his cake and eating it in an attempt to please myopic Little Englanders.

what do you mean? he is going to have lots of leverage when the EUrozone attempts to de-shaft the Euro resulting from its stupid lack of economic governance, because they will have to ask all EU members permission to make the change, and that will require traety ammendments subject to Daves referendum lock.
if dave is going to sell a yes vote to the british public then there is going to have to be some sweet payback from the federasts in brussels.

a two-speed europe is coming, and i for one welcome the expulsion of our tentacle-sex overlords!

Subotan

04-04-2010, 12:57

For a referendum to be justifiable, there would have to be a turn out quota of at least 50%, which is doubtful given the public's interest in the EU.

Besides, the reason there has been bad economic governance is because there has been no Eurozone wide fiscal policy, leading to mistakes such as Greece and penalising the Germans.

Furunculus

04-04-2010, 13:18

so you are prejudging the interest of the electorate and not giving the public a referendum on who governs them, even though the election manifesto will promise exactly that...........?

quite, economic governance is essential for a currency union to be successful, but it will be a treaty decision which means we will have to assent, and given we aren't even in the euro that gives britain the whip-hand.

all of a sudden camerons pledges look very achievable:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6521619/David-Camerons-plan-to-save-Britain-from-the-EUs-clutches-will-it-work.html

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.

four five and six were deemed very difficult because we would be asking europe to do us a favour, but since Greece tanked the position is reversed and it will now be them asking us for a favour!

Tellos Athenaios

04-04-2010, 14:08

four five and six were deemed very difficult because we would be asking europe to do us a favour, but since Greece tanked the position is reversed and it will now be them asking us for a favour!

Not so fast. Or: I would not at all be surprised if the usual British attitude towards the EU would mean that his comfortable position is taken by Germany and France. Itching to flex their muscles a bit; those might very well snatch away this position from Cameron as he attempts to eat his cake and have it too.

And I for one would not be surprised if the big surveillance-fest known as UK (name a country that has closer government surveillance of its citizens within the EU; pretty please) will soon find those who are concerned about privacy wishing they had taken the EU a little more seriously... So far the best safeguard against overzealous abusive government fingering of your personal details and circumstances has not exactly been British watchdogs or parliament. Rather it has been the EU courts in Strasbourg and legislation from Brussels.

Furunculus

04-04-2010, 14:38

Not so fast. Or: I would not at all be surprised if the usual British attitude towards the EU would mean that his comfortable position is taken by Germany and France. Itching to flex their muscles a bit; those might very well snatch away this position from Cameron as he attempts to eat his cake and have it too.

And I for one would not be surprised if the big surveillance-fest known as UK (name a country that has closer government surveillance of its citizens within the EU; pretty please) will soon find those who are concerned about privacy wishing they had taken the EU a little more seriously... So far the best safeguard against overzealous abusive government fingering of your personal details and circumstances has not exactly been British watchdogs or parliament. Rather it has been the EU courts in Strasbourg and legislation from Brussels.
what does that actually mean insomuch as the strength of camerons bargaining position?

you are dreaming.

Louis VI the Fat

04-04-2010, 16:26

I, for one, welcome abolishing the many legal obstacles criminals and crafty lawyers can invoke to protect criminals at great expense to the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. When a Frenchman travels to the UK to rob and kill, then hides in Germany, I want him to face justice in Britain without further ado, without two years of excruciating and very costly national laws and regulation getting in the way.

Laws are meant to protect law-abiding citizens, not the criminals.

Beskar

04-04-2010, 21:13

a two-speed europe is coming, and i for one welcome the expulsion of our tentacle-sex overlords!

Now I got the image of Furunculus under the whip of a Japanese Hentai character with Tentacles called "Van Rompuy"

Furunculus

04-04-2010, 21:31

its a beautiful image, no doubt............. :p

Furunculus

04-10-2010, 10:26

cegorach

04-10-2010, 13:01

When is it alright to be a Right-wing extremist? When you're pro-EU, apparently:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100033702/when-is-it-alright-to-be-a-right-wing-extremist-when-youre-pro-eu/

Hungarian politics are in terrible shape - two major blocks which are fighting each other attracting also extremists. And it continues for almost two decades...
Now there is Jobbik which is of course an abomination and their popularity rather scary. The fact that Fidesz is attempting to steal some of their voters is not a suprise in so fierce and divided political landscape.

Anyway I was against the entire 'Tories ally themselves with far-right' nonsense because of its grotesque exaggeration (reading the Guardian was a torture those days), but Fidesz both crossed some lines and is in such a situation they really have little choice.
Not that it didn't happen also thanks to their actions, of course. They are literally consuming the fruits of their labour - disgusting, similar to certain brownish substance but something they have to do, apparently. Live and learn.

That doesn't change the fact that in my opinion the entire 'reformist' group is in my opinion a joke. Not my problem - let the Tories worry about they are siding with not really extremists (wierd and stupid - not extremists), but political losers.

Good work.

Furunculus

04-10-2010, 14:14

Hungarian politics are in terrible shape - two major blocks which are fighting each other attracting also extremists. And it continues for almost two decades...
Now there is Jobbik which is of course an abomination and their popularity rather scary. The fact that Fidesz is attempting to steal some of their voters is not a suprise in so fierce and divided political landscape.

Anyway I was against the entire 'Tories ally themselves with far-right' nonsense because of its grotesque exaggeration (reading the Guardian was a torture those days), but Fidesz both crossed some lines and is in such a situation they really have little choice.
Not that it didn't happen also thanks to their actions, of course. They are literally consuming the fruits of their labour - disgusting, similar to certain brownish substance but something they have to do, apparently. Live and learn.

That doesn't change the fact that in my opinion the entire 'reformist' group is in my opinion a joke. Not my problem - let the Tories worry about they are siding with not really extremists (wierd and stupid - not extremists), but political losers.

Good work.
let me get this straight; when an EPP member adopts socially divisive populist policies to reduce the appeal of a more radical party it is sensible electoral positioning, but when the tories create a ant0-federal grouping of parties which include a few with populist tendancies then they are weird and stupid losers?

lol, that sounds like exactly the latent bias that Hannan was alluding too.

Good work.

cegorach

04-10-2010, 15:09

let me get this straight; when an EPP member adopts socially divisive populist policies to reduce the appeal of a more radical party it is sensible electoral positioning, but when the tories create a ant0-federal grouping of parties which include a few with populist tendancies then they are weird and stupid losers?

lol, that sounds like exactly the latent bias that Hannan was alluding too.

Good work.

Nope. They are siding with losers because parties such as nationalist-populist Law and Justice are losers. And in addition they are distasteful, even if the stupid accusations against Mr. Kamiński were never launched.

The fact that in Hungary Fidesz is hardly the best option anyone could dream about isn't questionable, but definetely they are important in Hungary.

If you are dealing with less than predictable people, less normal than true, civilised political parties it should be done for a purpose.

Why the Tories associate themselves with not only nutcases/extravagant people (reader's choice) but also with political pariahs tells a story either about their poor political experience, incompetence or lack of judgement and is a problem for their British voters. There must be something behind the alliance with a party hatred of which became a new national sport in Poland in 2006.

Apparently they thought it can work better this way. We will see what happens to the group when it loses some members and it is very likely to happen, most likely even more after the aircraft tragedy and earlier presidential elections in two months (instead of six).

Furunculus

04-10-2010, 15:32

in short; disagreed, and we'll see.

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

in other news, the economist suggest blackmailing greece over macedonia by threatening to withhold the bail-out:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15766873&source=most_commented

I think it is a great idea, and would second hannan's idea that turkey should offer greece cash in return for no opposition to its membership.

Subotan

04-12-2010, 17:37

in other news, the economist suggest blackmailing greece over macedonia by threatening to withhold the bail-out:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15766873&source=most_commented

I think it is a great idea, and would second hannan's idea that turkey should offer greece cash in return for no opposition to its membership.
That's a cool article, and sums up my feelings exactly. And the comments are just to die for:

What may look to many "outsiders" a "stupid" name dispute, to Greeks is part of an idealized, proud, and in contrast to our future, glorious raison d'être.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Furunculus

04-13-2010, 08:18

for your further amusement:

London bond trader creates JustGiving page to help Greece ... £398 down, £99,999,602 to go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7572042/London-bond-trader-creates-JustGiving-page-to-help-Greece-...-398-down-99999602-to-go.html

Good news at last for Greece. The heavily indebted country has found a saviour in the unlikely form London bond trader Jim Croft.

By Jonathan Russell
Published: 4:08PM BST 09 Apr 2010

The City worker has set up a charity appeal on donations website justgiving.com to raise £100m to bail the country out.

“Greece is in a deep financial crisis,” he explains on the site. “Donating here will go along way to helping these poor people who have lived beyond their means for the last 10 years and are now struggling to pay their bills."

“Please think of them as they avoid their taxes and then blame evil speculators rather than face up to the fact that lying about their national statistics was probably more of a factor."

"Please donate in pounds as all euro payments will soon be subject to a 50pc haircut.”

So far £398 has been raised.

Donations include £15 from someone calling themselves Angela Merkel with the touching comment “Greek swine”.

A certain Anthony Chisnall has promised £10 but only if they stop smashing all their crockery. Mr Turkey said he would donate £10 in return for an island.

Even the British Museum is reported on the site to have stumped up a tenner along with the message: “Have you lost your marbles.”

“I set it up as a bit of a giggle on a quiet Friday morning but then people started donating money, which is great," Mr Croft told Reuters. “It all goes to charity (Oxfam) in the end, so that's good.”

There is apparently no stipulation on donors giving their real names.

ROFLMAO!

Subotan

04-13-2010, 08:57

That's pretty excellent :D

Furunculus

04-13-2010, 13:36

Apparently , the massively arrogant leader of the EPP has offered to let the conservatives back in to their club:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election_2010/article7095795.ece
EU centre-right awaits return of Cameron
David Charter in Brussels

Europe’s centre-right politicians expect David Cameron to rejoin them if he wins the general election so that he can meet Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy regularly, the group’s organiser said yesterday.
Mr Cameron cut himself off from mainstream leaders in Europe by his alliance with “exotic” MEPs from Eastern Europe in the European Parliament, said Antonio López-Istúriz, secretary-general of the European People’s Party. This was also damaging Conservative relations with the Republican Party in the US, he claimed.

As prime minister, Mr Cameron would need to have regular contact in Britain’s interests with the EPP’s 13 EU prime ministers including those of France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.
The Conservative leader decided to pull his MEPs out of the EPP group to establish his Eurosceptic credentials during his leadership campaign. One of the group’s aims is the political union of the EU. Mr Cameron formed a new group last year with MEPs from right-wing Belgian, Czech, Polish, Latvian and Hungarian parties, none of which is presently in government.

Mr López-Istúriz said he expected Mr Cameron’s group to disintegrate, pointing to the failure of his Hungarian partners to win any MPs in that country’s elections on Sunday. He said Dan Hannan, an outspoken Tory MEP and supporter of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, had too much influence.
Mr Cameron is keen to keep Europe off the election agenda but opponents rarely miss a chance to highlight the homophobic views of the Tories’ Polish partners.
“We want David Cameron to win these elections,” Mr López-Istúriz said. “I believe that he will make a pragmatic choice after the elections [to return to the EPP]. I do not understand how European affairs can be left to people like Dan Hannan. He was the character behind this exotic group they have built in the European Parliament.
“They have some disturbing ideas, not only about Europe but also gay rights. Even people like Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard were participating in our meetings with prime ministers. They brought a critical voice but it was inside the family, part of an internal debate.”
He said the US presidential candidate John McCain, head of the International Republican Institute, had urged Mr Cameron to rejoin the federalist group or “lose their privileged position with the Republican Party”.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Given the many meetings and conversations David Cameron and William Hague have had with European heads of government and foreign ministers over the past few months, we do not feel particularly isolated.”
Is this man a complete blithering idiot, we'll see what happens after the election, and if call-me-dave doesn't go grovelling back to the EPP I think we can agree that the judgement of the leader of the EPP is DEEPLY questionable!

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

In other news, even the arch federalist Charlamagne of the Economist is getting thoroughly hacked off with the EPP's arrogance:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/04/pompous_conservative_grandees

EU Christian Democrats to David Cameron: apologise for your silliness, young man, and we might just let you back
Apr 13th 2010, 9:37 by Charlemagne
REGULAR readers will know that I think Britain's Conservatives made a mistake when they pulled their Euro-troops out of the largest centre-right group in the European Parliament, the European People's Party. Despite its Che Guevara name, this is an alliance of the continent's largest Christian Democrat and conservative parties, 13 of whom are currently in government, 14 assuming a right-wing win in the second round of the Hungarian elections.
I think the Tories lost influence by walking away from a group that includes not just the ruling parties of France, Germany and Italy, but also parties which are probably closest in world view to the leadership group of David Cameron, notably the ruling Moderates in Sweden. I think David Cameron offered to leave the EPP as a sop to the right of his party at a particular moment in his campaign to become party leader, under the misapprehension that all sorts of ideologically appealing partners would flock to his side in a new group. But I think he was being advised by colleagues who have a very different view of what makes an ideologically appealing partner. Thus they could see nothing very wrong with joining Law and Justice from Poland, despite members of that party with a record of nasty comments about gay rights and (in their youth) confused positions on the Holocaust. Indeed some Conservative MEPs involved in the hunt for new allies were keen to invite the People's Party from Denmark to join.
I wrote this after the last Euro-election, and stand by it:

"Mr Cameron has managed to avoid the extreme right, but he has broken with large mainstream parties.
In Poland, the governing centre-right party is the Civic Platform. To the far right sit fringe politicians with openly anti-Semitic views. Mr Cameron’s allies are in the middle, with wrong-headed opinions on gays and capital punishment. In Belgium, the Christian Democrats belong to the EPP. Mr Cameron has nothing to do with the anti-immigrant parties on the far right, but his allies are from the Lijst Dedecker, a populist outfit that wants independence for Dutch-speaking Flanders. In the Netherlands too, the largest party, the Christian Democrats, is in the EPP. Mr Cameron has eschewed the anti-Islamist Geert Wilders but his partners are from the tiny Christian Union, which favours government guided by biblical commandments. And the Tories’ sole Latvian chum is a mild-mannered economist, a wing of whose party annually honours Latvians who fought with the Waffen SS against Soviet forces.
Mr Cameron’s real problem is structural. Europe makes even centrist voters cross in Britain, yet centrists on the continent are overwhelmingly pro-EU. So to find allies who share their Euroscepticism, Tories have to seek out populists and angry nationalists. Mr Cameron’s new band of allies may be a symptom of Britain’s strained relationship with Europe rather than a solution to it."

So all in all, it is quite a surprise for me this morning to find myself, for the first time, in grudging sympathy with Mr Cameron in his rejection of the EPP. I have always found continental Christian Democrats slightly hard to love, to be honest. The EPP is a very broad church, whose French or Greek members are far to the left of the British Labour party when it comes to economic liberalism and globalisation, and whose Spanish and Italian members include some social conservatives whose views I find pretty repellent. Most of all, it is a power cartel, and it shows. The EPP holds party summits in castles, palaces and the like, and loves all that folderol of limousines crunching up gravel drives to drop off powerful men and women. EPP views on Europe are often the epitome of smug complacency: aren't we marvellous in Europe, and aren't the Americans rather ghastly etc etc.
And this morning? Well the press carries reports of a briefing by the secretary general of the EPP, Antonio López-Istúriz, graciously inviting Mr Cameron to accept the error of his ways and return to the EPP after the British elections, on condition that the Conservatives understand that they can only enter on the EPP's terms, and must sign up to all the EPP's values (which would, for example, involve the Tories dropping their previous opposition to the Lisbon Treaty). By way of incentive, Mr López-Istúriz noted that the new group formed by the Conservatives, the ECR, was full of "exotic" parties that were damaging their reputation, and was likely to break up for lack of members.
According to the Times:

Mr López-Istúriz said he expected Mr Cameron’s group to disintegrate, pointing to the failure of his Hungarian partners to win any MPs in that country’s elections on Sunday. He said Dan Hannan, an outspoken Tory MEP and supporter of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, had too much influence.
Mr Cameron is keen to keep Europe off the election agenda but opponents rarely miss a chance to highlight the homophobic views of the Tories’ Polish partners.
“We want David Cameron to win these elections,” Mr López-Istúriz said. “I believe that he will make a pragmatic choice after the elections [to return to the EPP]. I do not understand how European affairs can be left to people like Dan Hannan. He was the character behind this exotic group they have built in the European Parliament."

I have known Dan Hannan for years, and we disagree about a great deal. He is a supporter of withdrawal from the EU, for one thing, and we have clashed several times in public debates. But there is no denying he has a big following among the Tory grassroots, thanks to endless speaking gigs at constituency dinners up and down the country, a blog and high-profile speaking slots at party conferences. He had a public run-in a while ago with one of the biggest grandees in the EPP, Hans-Gert Pöttering, which I for one always thought looked a bit staged. Anyway, it got Mr Hannan expelled from the EPP which suited him down to the ground.
According to New Europe, a weekly published in Brussels, Mr Hannan's presence in the Tories might be an issue still.

Lopez-Isturiz said the EPP wanted a Conservative victory in the British general election on 6 May, and that he expected conservative leader, David Cameron to "be pragmatic" and apply to rejoin their group. However, he said that they would have to reapply and there was no chance that they would be able to negotiate, saying, that they would have to join on the EPP terms and sign up to the group's values and programme. An application to join, "would not be an easy dossier" for the party and he mentioned remarks by Hannan towards Hans Gert-Pottering, who is "not happy to have Hannan around".

The two pieces I have quoted were sent to me this morning by a kindly EPP press officer (I am in Paris today). In the interest of candour, here is my full email reply to that press officer:

You know I thought the Tory breakaway was a mistake. And I don't rule out the ECR could fall apart, but if the EPP thinks it is clever politics to criticise the Tories before an election while announcing they might be allowed to rejoin the EPP on terms set by a magnanimous EPP (including the ditching of a grassroots favourite, Hannan, at the request of a German grandee) then the EPP secretary general should find another line of work.
Right, so he IS a blithering idiot, if he believes that will be an attractive opportunity to a newly elected prime minister of a euro-skeptic party in a euro-skeptic country!

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

Dan's response to the two above, seeing as he is the centre of attention:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100034142/the-economist-epp-secretary-general-should-find-another-line-of-work/
The Economist’s Charlemagne column was, as you’d expect, sceptical when the Conservatives left the palaeo-federalist EPP. But the sheer mulishness of the Christian Democrats seems to be exasperating even their natural supporters. Here is Charlemagne’s latest blog:

The EPP is a very broad church, whose French or Greek members are far to the left of the British Labour party when it comes to economic liberalism and globalisation, and whose Spanish and Italian members include some social conservatives whose views I find pretty repellent. Most of all, it is a power cartel, and it shows. The EPP holds party summits in castles, palaces and the like, and loves all that folderol of limousines crunching up gravel drives to drop off powerful men and women. EPP views on Europe are often the epitome of smug complacency: aren’t we marvellous in Europe, and aren’t the Americans rather ghastly etc etc.

Charlemagne is irked by what he sees as the pomposity of the EPP Secretary-General, a Spanish MEP called Antonio López-Istúriz, who has grandly invited the Tories to rejoin. To be fair, I’m not sure it’s pomposity, so much as a failure to understand the dynamics of British politics. Some years ago, when he got wind of the idea that we might be leaving the EPP, Mr López-Istúriz came to see me in my office. The key issue, he said, was blocking German mastery of the EU. The Germans were naturally domineering, he added with a significant look, and would run everything if there were no Brits to counterbalance them.
He had picked the wrong person to say this to, of course. As regular readers will know, I am deeply Germanophile. “It never ceases to surpise me,” I told him coldly, “how many federalist colleagues expect me to share their prejudices about Germany”. He mumbled awkwardly, and the conversation came to an end.
Now I don’t think that the EPP Sec-Gen is a bigot. But he had assumed that British Euro-scepticism was simply a political expression of national antagonisms, and thought that the best way to appeal to British Tories was to pretend to share our imagined prejudices. He had made no effort to understand the economic, constitutional or democratic arguments which motivate British souverainistes: it was much easier simply to dismiss us all as xenophobes. And here’s the thing: his views are typical of many others in the EPP. Which is, of course, one of the many reasons we were right to leave.
And it is still the right decision, you want a federalist party in power come May 6th vote labour.

Furunculus

04-15-2010, 08:23

oops, the EU's planned solidarity bail-out may stumble at the first hurdle; the german constitutional court, hoorah for the germans:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7591027/Greek-aid-in-doubt-as-German-professors-prepare-court-challenge.html

Subotan

04-15-2010, 13:29

Is this man a complete blithering idiot, we'll see what happens after the election, and if call-me-dave doesn't go grovelling back to the EPP I think we can agree that the judgement of the leader of the EPP is DEEPLY questionable!.
I don't mind the Conservatives being a member of that oddball group. It dilutes Eurosceptic influence in mainstream European politics, which is fine by me

Furunculus

04-15-2010, 14:48

I don't mind the Conservatives being a member of that oddball group. It dilutes Eurosceptic influence in mainstream European politics, which is fine by me
i believe hannan has countered that by pointing out that the Cons didn't have much influence in the EPP anyway, seeing as they were one small fraction of a much larger federalist entity.

Subotan

04-15-2010, 20:14

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 08:07

Seeing as no-one is going to listen to Hannan regardless of what faction he is in, he would say that.

Now, the Eurocrats can ignore the Conservatives completely, thus saving the Union endless bureaucracy, meetings, consultation, haggling, debates, negotiations, rebates, Thatcherites etc, and continue with their job of building a European Super-State at peace.
lol, i believe you will find that the sovereign nation-state hasn't died just yet!

and that is a strange statement seeing as Hannan appears to be a driving force in the tory manifesto:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100034219/conservative-manifesto-david-cameron-proposes-a-benign-revolution/

Conservative manifesto: David Cameron proposes a benign revolution

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: April 13th, 2010

It’s happened: The Plan has taken form as the Tory manifesto. Elected police chiefs, local and national referendums, fewer quangos, fewer MPs, recall mechanisms, a thorough clean-up of Westminster expenses, a curtailment of Crown Prerogative powers, more rights for backbenchers, parental choice in education, more power for local government. Hurrah! In fact, I’ll go futher. Calloo, callay!

The Conservative Party’s prescriptions are based on an accurate diagnosis of what has gone wrong:

The top-down model of power that exists in Britain today is completely out of date. The argument that has applied for well over a century – that in every area of life we need people at the centre to make sense of the world for us and take decisions on our behalf – has collapsed. We now live in an age when technology can put information that was previously held by a few into the hands of the many. This is an age of personal freedom and choice, when culture and debate are shaped by a multitude of voices. But politics has not caught up with this new age. Instead of giving people more power over their lives, we have a government intent on taking it away.

As Paul Goodman observes: “It’s Hannan and Carswell as well as Cameron and Hilton”.

Of course, there’s a lot more to the Tory manifesto than direct democracy. It’s main emphasis is – quite rightly – on reducing Britain’s crippling debt. But its essential premises – that government is too remote, that ministers should seek to devolve power rather than snatching at the levers of state control, that reform comes from below, that politicians don’t have all the answers, that we should all get involved - are spot on.

This is a revolutionary manifesto. I use the word advisedly: this programme would amount to a turning of the wheel, a setting upright of that which has been placed on its head, so that the state becomes once again the servant of the citizen rather than the other way around. Don’t take my word for it: read the manifesto.

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

in other news, the EU destroys English cricket bat industry:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/7594995/English-cricket-bat-industry-under-threat-after-EU-directive-bans-export-of-willow.html

:p

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

and could it be germany that leaves the euro first?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7594859/Morgan-Stanley-fears-German-exit-from-EMU.html

Furunculus

04-20-2010, 15:07

*laughs uproariously to myself*
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,689764,00.html

EU Foreign Affairs Chief 'Out of Her Depth'
Doubts Increase about Catherine Ashton's Ability

Catherine Ashton is coming under increasing fire over her alleged unsuitability for the role of EU high representative for foreign affairs.
Members of the European Parliament are becoming increasing critical of Catherine Ashton, the EU's high representative for foreign affairs. Ashton is incapable of setting up the EU's new diplomatic service, they argue.
Four and a half months after Catherine Ashton took office as the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, doubts are increasing about her suitability for the post.

Ashton has no ideas and no plan, criticizes Inge Grässle, a member of the European Parliament for Germany's center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Ashton is "simply out of her depth" when it comes to setting up the EU's new diplomatic service, the European External Action Service (EEAS), Grässle told SPIEGEL. Things are "totally on the wrong track," she added.
Different EU institutions are engaged in a power struggle over what form the EEAS should take. Amidst the wrangling, the idea of an efficient European diplomatic corps with up to 7,000 staff has "fallen by the wayside," complains Green Party Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Franziska Brantner.

Elmar Brok, a CDU MEP who is the Parliament's official rapporteur on the EEAS, has even threatened a blockade. If the scramble for influence continues, there will be "no resolution" in the European Parliament and hence "no EEAS," he said.
The European Parliament released a statement on Friday that was critical of the proposed structure of the EEAS which Ashton unveiled last month, with their main objections including convoluted decision-making procedures in key areas and the fact that the EEAS is not accountable to the parliament. MEPs also want the position of EEAS secretary-general, which would be Ashton's deputy, to be a political appointee, not a civil servant.

The parliament has the power to block the EEAS budget if it does not like the structure of the service. EU foreign ministers are scheduled to discuss and possibly pass Ashton's proposal on April 26.

Lack of Experience
The Lisbon Treaty, which took effect in December 2009, calls for a diplomatic service to be set up but is vague about what form it should take. Supporters of the EEAS argue that Europe needs a diplomatic service to give it a stronger voice in the world.

Ashton, who with a basic annual salary of around €323,000 ($435,000) is probably the world's highest-paid female politician, was chosen by EU leaders as the bloc's first high representative for foreign affairs in November 2009. Many observers criticized the choice, given the British politician's low profile and lack of foreign affairs experience. Since then she has been the focus of repeated criticism.
According to sources in the European Parliament, current British Foreign Secretary David Miliband is already being discussed in Brussels as "a good substitute" and possible successor to Ashton.
dgs/SPIEGEL

Furunculus

04-23-2010, 11:13

the eurozone slides closer to the edge:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7621289/Escalating-Greek-default-fears-rock-Europes-debt-markets.html

be a shame if cameron doesn't get in, be a hell of a wasted opportunity.

Vladimir

04-23-2010, 12:49

I feel so sorry for Greece.

Oh and: "There has never been a default in Western Europe since World War Two and the whole financial system is depending on the assumption that it cannot be allowed to happen." doesn't make me feel good either.

Furunculus

04-26-2010, 08:32

Not the EU but the Council of Europe, but the point remains, who the hell are these guys to tell Britain how to act?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/familyadvice/7633552/Smacking-ban-delays-caused-by-unwelcome-government-policy-Europe-says.html

Smacking ban delays caused by 'unwelcome government intrusion', Europe says
Britain is one of the few countries in the world not to have completely banned smacking, European Union leaders say, as they called for a change in the law.

By Andrew Hough
Published: 8:00AM BST 26 Apr 2010
Hand smacking childs legs: Smacking ban delays caused by 'unwelcome government intrusion', Europe says

The British government’s “unwelcome” intrusion into family affairs was to blame for the delay in the complete ban of the practice, the Council of Europe warned.

The Council, a body which monitors compliance with the European convention on Human rights, also blamed traditional parenting practices that were based on “authority”.

The comments come ahead of a debate in Strasbourg on Tuesday where EU leaders and campaigners against the “corporal punishment of children” will criticise the UK government for not banning the practice completely.

Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe, said on Monday 20 countries had "formally abolished laws" against smacking since over the past three year.1998 ruling found it violated a child’s human rights.

"The UK is one of the countries that has not yet implemented a full ban," she said.

“In part, this is because the traditional parent-child relationship in the UK is one of authority [and] state intervention into family affairs is still not welcome.”

The government last month announced that the legal loophole allowing private tutors to smack children in their care was to be closed after recommendations from Sir Roger Singleton, the head of the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Under current rules, smacking is banned in England's state and private schools but the law does not cover part-time education institutions, such as Sunday schools, private tutors or madrassas or adults in the home.

Schools or teachers who take pupils for less than 12.5 hours a week are deemed to have the status of loco parentis, which allows them to administer a light smack under the defence of "reasonable punishment".

A recent study from the University of Tulane in New Orleans found that smacking disobedient three-year-olds were more likely to be aggressive by age five.

Ed Balls, the School’s Secretary, has indicated the government would not support a full ban, which he told The Guardian was a "sensible and proportionate approach".

In 2008 a cross-party group of MPs failed to force through a ban in England and Wales on smacking children after there was just four hours to debate legislation in the Commons.

Neither of the three parties has anything on smacking in their election manifestos.
remember, we're all the same.

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

germans are getting very dubious about bailing out greece:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,691168,00.html

hubris is a wonderful thing.

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

Our daniel is doing his best to rescue the london financial services industry:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100037026/meps-vote-to-asphyxiate-london/

Furunculus

04-30-2010, 09:41

The EU's high representative is doing a great job for Britain, here's hoping she lasts as long as possible dealing incompetence right and left:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7652438/Baroness-Ashton-expected-to-quit-EU-job-within-months.html

Furunculus

05-03-2010, 13:52

interesting article on the stark differences in expectations between the greek electorate and that of ireland, given their similar straits:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/7671505/Unlike-the-Greeks-the-Irish-are-facing-up-to-their-plight.html

seems like ireland has useful unions, we could do with some like that here, but again shows the difference between british expectations and irish, in the same way that french public services achieve much better efficiency than british counterparts probably because they hold public services and public service in much higher regard.

gaelic cowboy

05-04-2010, 14:34

Reading the comments after the article is more depressing than the article you know honest to god I think we should ban comments on newspaper and tv news websites talk about troll city.

Our unions are just as useless as British ones though Furunculus its just that in Ireland they take a day off for a strike and then run as fast as they can for the government tent to hammer a deal so both sides save face.

Furunculus

05-04-2010, 14:43

they just appear so much more............. constructive.... than the jumped up little commissars you find in britain, a true zoo of the inadequates of british society. i can only hope yours really are better, it seems unfair that more than one nation should have to suffer under such a burden.

gaelic cowboy

05-04-2010, 15:03

Our unions are calling for members to accept the deals on offer as the full horror of the crisis is laid bare before the people here. We even apparently have to borrow money for the Greeks thats borrow now mind you at a prohibitive interest rate to lend to Greece around 1.3 billion is the figure talked about and so far not a whimper from unions on it.

I predict we never see that money again but we will lend because our banks are in to Greece for supposedly 6billion and also to calm the markets and get them to drop our interest rate for borrowing. Lucky for us the goverment has 60% of the funds for the year so far.

Unions in Ireland are left wing in name only our country has never had a large working class union style economy. Labour in Irealnd is a public sector party hence in Ireland Labour traditionally serves in coalition with conservative parties small c and has no hang up about it.

Furunculus

05-04-2010, 15:53

cheers for the detail, and given your point about irish lending to greece you may be interested in this:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/02/weekinreview/02marsh.html?ref=weekinreview

Beskar

05-04-2010, 15:56

Furunculus

05-04-2010, 15:59

Hey Furunculus, this might be a stupid question.. but why don't they cancel eachothers debts with eachother, for example:

Spain owes Ireland $30, Ireland owes Spain $16, why don't they just make it so Spain owes Ireland $14?

As for the "Greek Bailout" why don't Germany+France+Britain just put an extension on their loan or similar or a temporary pause or at a reduced rate? Then there would be no need for the bail-out at all, or since the bail-out is basically giving Greece free money, why not just cancel part of the debt they owe instead?

All-in-all, why are they making it far more complicated then it needs to be?

because it is mostly private loaned debt, so each respective treasury would not only have to do a debt swap, they would also have to pay-out the private equity back to the lender in the country that lent the money in the first place, and i can well imagine that the larger creditor nation would be unwilling to transfer the additional risk inside their own economy, when really it belongs outside with the original debtor country.

Beskar

05-04-2010, 16:06

because it is mostly private debt, so each respective treasury would not only have to do a debt swap, they would also have to pay-out the private equity in their country that lent the money in the first place, and i can well imagine that the larger creditor would be unwilling to transfer the additional risk inside their own economy, when really it belongs outside with the original debtor country.

I am guessing this is government debt though, right? While not merge all the debt into the national bank (for example, Bank of Ireland and Bank of Spain), and where there is interest involved, make the required adjustments, to cancel out the lessers debt.

As it is the Euro-zone they could even take it a step-further, instead of interlending, they could establish the "Bank of Europe", where all debts get transferred to that. Then like banks in real-life, countries like Germany who did a lot of lending, does this through the "Bank of Europe". This means all the debt is also in the one place and not all over the show. Then these debts are transferred through the nations National Banks.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

gaelic cowboy

05-04-2010, 16:09

Yeah heard about that stuff Greece prob owes less outright but has less capacity to pay back Ireland owes more but has far greater ability to pay back in the medium to long term. Also we have borrowed a huge ammout on the bond markets to bail all our banks and no doubt thats reflected in the graphic I would imagine the EU/IMF deal is not represented in that graph for Greece yet.

Couple of things to note our greater investment led to our banks borrowing vast amounts from German, French and UK banks all above board as both parties chased greater returns. Sadly the apparently concrete the laws of thermodynamics fail when one gains an economics degree.

Oh my god just noticed Italy owes France a fifth of it's GDP thats running on fumes if ever I saw it

Furunculus

05-04-2010, 16:11

I am guessing this is government debt though, right? While not merge all the debt into the national bank (for example, Bank of Ireland and Bank of Spain), and where there is interest involved, make the required adjustments, to cancel out the lessers debt.

As it is the Euro-zone they could even take it a step-further, instead of interlending, they could establish the "Bank of Europe", where all debts get transferred to that. Then like banks in real-life, countries like Germany who did a lot of lending, does this through the "Bank of Europe". This means all the debt is also in the one place and not all over the show. Then these debts are transferred through the nations National Banks.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

it is the transfer of risk that is the problem, why should one nation internalise the risk of another by assuming the burden of their debt?

and are the private creditors will to have their debt restructured?

and are the national economies willing to effectively print another £200 to act as a guarantee on the debt now owed to private lenders?

Furunculus

05-04-2010, 16:13

Yeah heard about that stuff Greece prob owes less outright but has less capacity to pay back Ireland owes more but has far greater ability to pay back in the medium to long term. Also we have borrowed a huge ammout on the bond markets to bail all our banks and no doubt thats reflected in the graphic I would imagine the EU/IMF deal is not represented in that graph for Greece yet.

Couple of things to note our greater investment led to our banks borrowing vast amounts from German, French and UK banks all above board as both parties chased greater returns. Sadly the apparently concrete the laws of thermodynamics fail when one gains an economics degree.

britain is also pleasingly low on the list of creditors to the flakier mediteraenean nations.

Beskar

05-04-2010, 16:24

it is the transfer of risk that is the problem, why should one nation internalise the risk of another by assuming the burden of their debt?

Well, they owed money anyway, having that cancelled or reduced is always a good thing, isn't it? All my money is in savings and I have no loans outside of my Student Loan. If it turned out the Student Loan company owed me money, wouldn't it simply be easier just for them to reduce it out of the loan I got from them, which ultimately just means, I pay less on that loan, as ultimately, this reduces the debt already got, it can only be a good thing.

and are the private creditors will to have their debt restructured?

and are the national economies willing to effectively print another £200 to act as a guarantee on the debt now owed to private lenders?

I am presuming this is the governments debt to private lenders (my whole talk is on about the government/states debt). I would say "Don't do it", akin to when a 'very nice man' is willing to offer you a loan.

I was always taught that "Debt is bad" and being honest, it is bad. Only times debt is justifiable is in those cases where you have to dip into it, such as when you want to buy a house, or perhaps help you through university. If you go into debt because you simply want to buy an xbox360 or go on a pub night out, you need a slap. It is amazing how many people go into debts over things like that, then they cry and whine the 30% APR they now have to pay ontop of the original costs. This is where the concept of "savings" come from. You do your hard-work, then you get your reward.

As such, if I was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you would see Britain coming out of debt and getting "savings", which might go into doing investments or perhaps loaning myself. However, Britain would never lend more than it can afford to lose, as such, we would have an amazingly good looking bank balance.

gaelic cowboy

05-04-2010, 16:24

I am guessing this is government debt though, right? While not merge all the debt into the national bank (for example, Bank of Ireland and Bank of Spain), and where there is interest involved, make the required adjustments, to cancel out the lessers debt.

This has happened already the Government is now the full owner of Anglo Irish Bank this bank is the epitome of the credit crisis the mention of it drives people into a frenzy of rage here. Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank are having there toxic debt taken off them by NAMA (http://www.nama.ie/) and they will recieve cash injections too if they require it which is likely. However thay have been given till the backend as we call it here to come up with there own money so they will likely sell prized banking assets in US, Uk and Europe.

Furunculus

05-04-2010, 16:30

that is a little different to arranging a debt swap with other nations.......

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

anyway, excellent article on debt in the eurozone:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,692666,00.html

Beskar

05-04-2010, 16:57

anyway, excellent article on debt in the eurozone:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,692666,00.html

https://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6141/bailout.gif

Vladimir

05-04-2010, 20:53

https://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6141/bailout.gif

Something about that guy behind him makes that hilarious.

Furunculus

05-09-2010, 10:13

Britain to help bail out the eurozone, how awesome, i thought we had enough problems of our own:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7697471/Alistair-Darling-trapped-in-euro-deal.html

Alistair Darling has agreed to consult directly with George Osborne and Vince Cable as European leaders looked poised to push through a new multi-billion pound bail-out fund part-financed by British taxpayers.

By Edmund Conway and Bruno Waterfield
Published: 10:08PM BST 08 May 2010

Mr Darling, who is still officially Chancellor of the Exchequer, will represent Britain at an extraordinary meeting of European finance ministers in Brussels today, slated to adopt far-reaching new powers for the Commission and its fellow bodies.

The meeting is the first major policy test for the hung parliament, coming with Britain in limbo between two governments. In a sign of the highly unusual nature of the situation, the Chancellor has privately committed to consulting before the meeting with his counterparts in the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

However, despite the likelihood that Labour will be ejected from Downing Street imminently, Mr Darling will have the final say over Britain's vote on participation in the new scheme.

The proposal, tabled by Nicolas Sarkozy in an emergency meeting late on Friday night, will involve the creation of a €60bn "European stabilisation mechanism" designed to provide bail-out support for countries which may face similar strain to Greece in the coming months.

It is thought to be focused particularly on Spain and Portugal, both of whose leaders fear an assault by "bond vigilantes" in the market who have scented weakness within the eurozone. The plan will have fiscal implication for all European Union countries, including the UK. The key element is an extension of an existing bail-out package, already used to support Hungary and Latvia.

This involves extending an already-existing Lisbon Treaty clause originally designed to provide cash for economies hit by natural disasters. Under this, the European Commission will borrow directly from markets, with its own finances guaranteed by EU nations – something which would leave the UK public finances exposed if a country fails to repay the loan. It could also impact the UK's credit rating.

Another plan being considered is to create a permanent continent-wide equivalent of the International Monetary Fund. This proposal is being lobbied for energetically in Brussels by, among others, Mr Sarkozy and Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who is understood to have called Gordon Brown late on Friday to urge him to help it through the summit. He warned that British banks were also vulnerable to European financial turmoil.

The first element could be rushed through the summit without British approval, because the qualified majority voting system means Britain cannot strike down a plan that has the support of other major European nations. The second more far-reaching element may have to be passed unanimously by all European Union members.

The current Labour Government's position is understood to be against the creation of the European Monetary Fund. However, with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats having yet to arrange a coalition or co-operation government, they can do little but lobby Mr Darling on their position over the Fund.

The sticking point goes to the heart of the controversy over a prospective Con-Lib coalition, since while the Tories oppose further European integration and exposure, the EMF could well be an institution of which the Lib Dems would approve.

Representatives from either party were unwilling to comment last night. The plan, which was only expected to be entirely finalised by lunchtime today, in time for the ministers’ arrival in the Belgian capital, must be completed in time for markets opening on Monday morning, according to Mr Sarkozy.

Traders are preparing for an extremely nervy start to the week. With the Conservatives having confirmed that there is unlikely to be a coalition formed before then, and economists expect further lurches in the pound when foreign exchange trading resumes in Australia this evening.

Attention is likely to focus on the Debt Management Office’s next auction of government bonds – a £2.25bn offering of mid-range debt on Tuesday.

The Treasury is still working under its pre-election “purdah” regime, which means the department is working on a non-political basis until the new government is formed, and both Mr Osborne and Mr Cable are briefed on all matters of economic importance.

However, under the British constitutional system, Mr Darling can carry on as Chancellor until the Queen forms a new Government. The uncomfortable situation was tested on Friday, when the US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, called an emergency teleconference with other G7 finance ministers – something about which the would-be Chancellors were only consulted on by the permanent secretary at the Treasury, Nick Macpherson.

On the other hand, the opportunity for Cameron to bargain for the return of EU competences that I predicted is fast approaching, is all it requires is a tory administration in power to ask for those competences back, as opposed to Lab/Lib who will roll over and permit an EMF with no price-tag attached.