EU President has the charisma of a damp rag [Archive]

Andres

02-25-2010, 15:16

Ukip's Nigel Farage tells Van Rompuy: You have the charisma of a damp rag. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/25/nigel-farage-herman-van-rompuy-damp-rag)

Ukip MEP Nigel Farage told Herman Van Rompuy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/herman-van-rompuy), the president of the EU, he had "all the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk" in the European parliament yesterday.
Farage, the former leader of the UK Independence party, also dismissed Van Rompuy's homeland, Belgium, as a "non-country".

As well as attacking Van Rompuy's appearance, personality and home nation, Farage also criticised the president's pay packet and accused him of plotting the overthrow of the nation state.
Van Rompuy, who had just made his first speech to MEPs since being appointed by EU leaders to the newly-created top job, sat in amazement and obvious discomfort as the tirade went on. Other MEPs in the less-than-full chamber gasped as Farage spoke.

Afterwards the Socialist leader in the parliament, Germany's Martin Schulz, condemned Farage for "trampling on the dignity of the house".

And Van Rompuy responded that he held Farage's remarks "in contempt", and refused to say more.
Farage – who is challenging the Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, in Buckingham at the general election – declared: "We were told that when we had a president, we'd see a giant global political figure, a man who would be the political leader for 500 million people, the man that would represent all of us all of us on the world stage, the man whose job was so important that of course you're paid more than President [Barack] Obama."

He continued: "Well, I'm afraid what we got was you ... I don't want to be rude but, really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question I want to ask is: 'Who are you? I'd never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.'"
Farage went on: "I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better."
The former Ukip leader told Van Rompuy: "I have no doubt that your intention is to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of European nation states."

That, added Farage, was probably because Van Rompuy came from "pretty much a non-country" so had no interest in the nation state.

Van Rompuy, 62, was the surprise compromise choice as the new president of the council – a role created by the Lisbon treaty and one which some thought should and would go to Tony Blair as an internationally-recognised new face for the EU.

Van Rompuy, the former Belgian prime minister, was credited with turning his country's fortunes around last year. He made clear he would not be a "globe-trotting" leader of the EU, considering himself more a "chairman" of the EU's council of national governments.
The centre-right politician quietly enjoys his nickname as the "grey mouse" and is known for writing haiku poetry.

Given a final say in the form of a right of reply after Farage and other – friendlier – MEPs had commented on his speech, Van Rompuy remarked: "There was one contribution that I can only hold in contempt, but I'm not going to comment further."

Dear Mister Farage,

Let's see:

- "You are the quiet assassin of European democracy ..."

Van Rompuy is merely the chairman of the European Council. He leads meetings and notes down votes. He has no real power whatsoever. What's so undemocratic about that?

His job is a by product of the Lisbon treaty, a treaty which limits Britain's veto-behaviour. In fact, it's a step towards true European democracy: less veto right (veto is basically a decisive "no" by a minority; very democratic, isn't it?), more qualified majorities, more importance for the European Parlement.

- and from the states.

Hey, if you don't like it, then just leave. Why is this guy sitting there, accepting his fat monthly pay cheque if he hates Europe so much? If Britain hates Europe so much, then why don't they leave the Union alltogether? Hypocrisy.

They can leave the Union and make bilateral treaties with EU member states if they want. But no, they don't leave. They whine, but don't have the guts to be consequent.

It's more difficult for Britain now to sabotage Europe. So much is true. No more veto by one country ("oooh! That's undemocratic!" Then leave our tyranny!). Voting by qualified majority will become more and more standard procedure (exceptions: relationships with external powers, taxes, defence are still to be decided unanimous) Qualfied majority = 55 % of the member states who have at least 65 % of the number of inhabitants have to agree. Very undemocratic, isn't it?

If the proposal comes from the European Council, it needs 72 % of the member states to agree. How undemocratic! It should be 50 % +1! Something tells me that is not quiet what Mister Farage meant.

:rolleyes:

- maybe it's because you are from Belgium, a non-country!

Who was among the firsts to recognise this non-country? Yep, your country, mister Farage.

Besides, what about the territory of your country? It isn't very clear to me. It's more a condominium instead of a state. Oversea territory, what belongs to the crown, what doesn't belong to the crown, ... Very confusing...

And if we're talking about the European context, well, it seems to me that Britain is the non-European state here. No member of the Euro. Hundreds of exceptions and opt-outs. If there's one member state that is not a true member state aka a non-member state, then it's Britain.

-We don't know you so we don't want you.

Typical for a xenophobe party...

Besides, we didn't know you too before your intervention. Now that we know you, we don't want you either.

Good manners, decency, style, respect : zero. Not to mention the blunder of outright insulting a befriended nation. Go wash your mouth with brown soap and don't you ever come back again, Mister Farage.

I guess that at least he now has something to tell his grandchildren and his friends at the local pub.

Louis VI the Fat

02-25-2010, 15:26

Farage has been a MEP since 1999. His haul thus far: €2.5 million of the EU taxpayer's filthy money, on top of his annual salary of €80.000.

He's been taking good care of himself. And the end is not in sight. His tabloid / Telegraph audience loves it. Loves his outbursts about the EUSSR and corruption. Loves it so much they'll keep voting the thieving crook in, again and again, believing his excuse that he is only raking in the cash to prove that the EU is corrupt.

Fragony

02-25-2010, 15:33

Also said it in the video thread: This is the first time I am sad Jan Peter Balkenende didn't become the 'EU president', I would have loved to see the look on his face.

Subotan

02-25-2010, 16:24

Man, that MEP really has some balls oh wait

InsaneApache

02-25-2010, 16:49

Of course the EUSSR is democratic and accountable. After all transparency is their watchword. They love referenda and free speech, in fact they cherish it.

As long as you agree with them. :wink3:

Sarmatian

02-25-2010, 17:00

Unfortunately, this part...
"We were told that when we had a president, we'd see a giant global political figure, a man who would be the political leader for 500 million people, the man that would represent all of us all of us on the world stage, the man whose job was so important that of course you're paid more than President [Barack] Obama."

He continued: "Well, I'm afraid what we got was you ... I don't want to be rude but, really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question I want to ask is: 'Who are you? I'd never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.'"... is completely true. It really takes an idiot to allow the position to be destroyed as soon as it is created.

Justiciar

02-25-2010, 17:04

Oh aye. Curse and spit at an entire nation because one notoriously obnoxious ejit from a minor party kicks up a fuss. Good call.

Farage is a tedious sod who doesn't deserve his seat. I can't stand his guts. But the oft repeated "just leave then" line really gets on my tits.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-25-2010, 17:19

In order to leave the EU either A: the ruling party would have to vote us out or, we would need a referendum granted by the ruling party. Britons are currently so demoralised that the minority Labour party holds power, and there is no party with a popular majority.

No party represents the British people as a whole, or even a reasonable percentage of us.

So don't tar us all with one brush.

Tellos Athenaios

02-25-2010, 19:35

Louis VI the Fat

02-25-2010, 19:53

Bah. This was an outrageous outburst, an affront, a scandal, completely unbecoming of a member of parliament.

O temora, o mores! What an age to live in, when politicians with the manners and conduct of drunk hooligans are cheered and applauded. :shame:

Unfortunately, it is becoming the norm in politics. Perfectly reflecting society at large then.

Mr Hannan, MEP for South-East England, has been involved in filibuster tactics, using procedural rules to demand speaking time to make points of order and give explanations of voting, and insisting on seldom-used roll-call votes. Yesterday he saw red over moves to thwart such tactics by invoking parliamentary powers enabling the President to over-ride demands from MEPs if Mr Poettering believes the motive is to disrupt proceedings.

Mr Hannan complained about the stifling of free expression and likened the issue to the Enabling Act in 1933 that gave Hitler unlimited power.
He told the Parliament chamber: "To disregard the rules under which we operate is indeed an act of arbitrary and despotic rule. "It is only my regard for you Mr Chairman and my personal affection for you that prevents me from likening it to the Emachtigungsgesetz of 1933 which was also voted through by a parliamentary majority."
The Emachtigungsgesetz was the Enabling Act with which Hitler won unlimited power.

Joseph Daul, leader of the centre-right EPP group to which Tory MEPs are affiliated, immediately disassociated his group from the remarks and threatened to expel Mr Hannan. A decision is expected when MEPs meet in Strasbourg next month.
Meanwhile Mr Hannan used his blog yesterday afternoon to reveal support from Tory Chief Whip in the European Parliament Den Dover, who told Mr Hannan after the rumpus that his position in the Tory group was assured.
Mr Hannan called for an "amicable divorce" between UK Tory MEPs and their continental centre-right colleagues in the European Parliament's EPP group and pointed out that the Tories have already pledged to leave the EPP next year.
German Socialist leader in the European Parliament Martin Schulz - once likened by then-Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi to a Nazi camp commandant - condemned Mr Hannan: "People like Hannan are not only not speaking on behalf of conservatives in Europe - they have no home in the European Parliament. They are entirely isolated.

Subotan

02-25-2010, 20:07

Unfortunately, this part...... is completely true. It really takes an idiot to allow the position to be destroyed as soon as it is created.
What do you expect with a federal set up akin to a Polish Parliament? :shrug:

In order to leave the EU either A: the ruling party would have to vote us out or, we would need a referendum granted by the ruling party. Britons are currently so demoralised that the minority Labour party holds power, and there is no party with a popular majority.

No party represents the British people as a whole, or even a reasonable percentage of us.

So don't tar us all with one brush.
That's very nice, but the rest of Europe doesn't see the non-crazy side of die Inselaffen when outbursts like this occur. I don't want to end up looking like the Deep South of the European Union.

Louis VI the Fat

02-25-2010, 20:11

That's very nice, but the rest of Europe doesn't see the non-crazy side of die Inselaffen when outbursts like this occur. I don't want to end up looking like the Deep South of the European Union.Of course the rest of Europe's knows all the other sides of Britain too.

That's what you get for the good fortune of speaking a dialect of American. :beam:

We all know exactly what you lot are up to. :curtain:

Incidentally, Farage does not represent the UK. MEP's are not representatives of their country. This has the mitigating consequence of the hurled insults falling just short of a major diplomatic affront. This is not Britain vs Belgium, This is about common decency and civilised political conduct.
Even so, this sort of behaviour is more commonly expected of Italian politicians. A country therefore mostly not taken seriously, despite its weight.

Boohugh

02-25-2010, 20:36

The overall point still stands though: if you send in MEPs that are apparently unwilling to co-operate with other EU nations then you do deserve the line "get out or get over it already".

No no, you're absolutely right. We should definitely change our democratic rules and make the EU even less democratically accountable just so we don't cause embarrassment to other EU nations...

but in general it also applies to the UK's less than co-operative stance within the EU.

Definitely! I can't believe the UK has been blocking reform of the Common Agricultural Policy for so long, not to mention the Common Fisheries Policy, which has only managed to achieve the decimation of fish stocks in the North Sea because the UK allowed common fishing of its waters. Oh, and make sure you don't forget that the UK gets given such a massive amount from the EU budget compared to the cash we hand over.

Oh hang on, think I may be confused here... :rolleyes:

Perhaps if other EU nations were a bit more cooperative over a multitude of issues then the UK wouldn't have such a problem. The sad fact is, every time we give up something to the EU, we very rarely get back what we were promised in return. I'm still waiting for the reform of the EU budget that the UK was promised in return for giving up our rebate for instance...

Furunculus

02-25-2010, 20:50

Subotan

02-25-2010, 21:04

How can we defend the realm's sovereignty against enemies if we look like a bunch of rednecks?

Furunculus

02-25-2010, 21:31

How can we defend the realm's sovereignty against enemies if we look like a bunch of rednecks?

the way we have always done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy

:p

Louis VI the Fat

02-25-2010, 21:53

if we look like a bunch of rednecksOne will find all European countries have a large, populist rightwing. Of whom provocations and insults are not merely expected, but for whom this is an essential means to mobilise their electorate, to show them they are one of them.

I shall maintain this is not about Belgium versus the UK.

Even so, a slight expression of regret that Belgium (how have they ever wronged the UK?) should've been publically insulted by a Briton who, if he not represents Britain, was elected by British, would show why the UK was once a byword on the continent for good manners and inhibited political reticence.

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 21:59

god bless Dan!
I agree, even if there is no God. That fellow was right to make some of the outburst, although it was mostly tactless.

i don't really care what they think of us.
That, however, is not good.

Overall, Van Rompuy election is bollox because everyone knows they wanted a weak EU president. I am still not sure about the compromise-builder role, though. This said, Nigel Faragewas ranting by the time he began rambling on about the supposed attacks on European democracy. And the ad-hominem nevertheless made me cringe, even if it was true.

tibilicus

02-25-2010, 22:07

the way we have always done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy

:p

Isn't the RN due for massive cuts?

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 22:22

Isn't the RN due for massive cuts?
Yeah, I was just making a presentation the last week in my Comparative Politics class on that. Massive indeed. Especially those aircraft carries - ouch, they are everything to a navy in these times. But I do not see why Britain should sink into even deeper hole because of such a relatively unnecessary spending. As long as UK navy is comfortably ahead of Argentina, it will be alright, especially with the NATO.

Louis VI the Fat

02-25-2010, 22:28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceejnrM858k&feature=PlayList&p=0EBA791F1C1CC9FA&index=16
At around 2:00.

Hannan protests an anti-fillibustering law by comparing this to a Hitler putsch by the German Parliament President Pöttering. A man who sadly never knew his father because he tragically died in WWII, which was influential in this well-respected Christian-Democrat's strive towards a democratic Germany and Europe.

Dear oh dear.

I link to the video because it shows another face of British conservatism. Christopher Beazley. He tells Hannan he can't say this, and asks him to 'step outside with him'. Now there's a British Conservative* for you. A British Conservatism that is more gentle, more 'British' too, taking pride from good manners instead of the absense of it.

*Beazley has communists for breakfast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Declaration_on_European_Conscience_and_Communism

Furunculus

02-25-2010, 23:02

Yeah, I was just making a presentation the last week in my Comparative Politics class on that. Massive indeed. Especially those aircraft carries - ouch, they are everything to a navy in these times. But I do not see why Britain should sink into even deeper hole because of such a relatively unnecessary spending.

As long as UK navy is comfortably ahead of Argentina, it will be alright, especially with the NATO.
lol, because we spend soooooo much on Defence!

i didn't realise that Britains strategic interests started and stopped at the falklands........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceejnrM858k&feature=PlayList&p=0EBA791F1C1CC9FA&index=16
At around 2:00.

Hannan protests an anti-fillibustering law by comparing this to a Hitler putsch by the German Parliament President Pöttering. A man who sadly never knew his father because he tragically died in WWII, which was influential in this well-respected Christian-Democrat's strive towards a democratic Germany and Europe.

Dear oh dear.

I link to the video because it shows another face of British conservatism. Christopher Beazley. He tells Hannan he can't say this, and asks him to 'step outside with him'. Now there's a British Conservative* for you. A British Conservatism that is more gentle, more 'British' too, taking pride from good manners instead of the absense of it.

*Beazley has communists for breakfast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Declaration_on_European_Conscience_and_Communism
hannan was right, blithely setting aside democratic institutions so that affairs can move 'forward' is something germany should be both familiar with and wary of, and as an object lesson to the EU it was very apt even if it was also a little tasteless.

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 23:14

lol, because we spend soooooo much on Defence!
Of course not, but most countries can use a defence spending cut, especially with their economy in such a state.

i didn't realise that Britains strategic interests started and stopped at the falklands........
They are the main ones under possible danger. Can you give me another similar example of a British possession threatened by a nation with a viable military? Gibraltar :laugh4:? Argentina is the measuring stick for the Brits, as I said. It was my understand that if the UK had a comfortable superiority against the Argentinian forces, that would be enough for anything else. Or are you worried the Litvinenko affair may escalate :laugh:? I could very well be mistaken here, but I would need you to point out where more vital and threatened interests of Britain lay.

You could have just enjoyed our rare agreement, moment of convergence on the issues of that outspoken MEP and left it at that, but noooo, you conservatives.... :tongue::laugh4::clown:

Subotan

02-25-2010, 23:22

Hannan protests an anti-fillibustering law by comparing this to a Hitler putsch by the German Parliament President Pöttering. A man who sadly never knew his father because he tragically died in WWII, which was influential in this well-respected Christian-Democrat's strive towards a democratic Germany and Europe.

Dear oh dear.
I thought I recognised him! That's the NHS hater!

Furunculus

02-25-2010, 23:31

Of course not, but most countries can use a defence spending cut, especially with their economy in such a state.

They are the main ones under possible danger. Can you give me another similar example of a British possession threatened by a nation with a viable military? Gibraltar :laugh4:? Argentina is the measuring stick for the Brits, as I said. It was my understand that if the UK had a comfortable superiority against the Argentinian forces, that would be enough for anything else. Or are you worried the Litvinenko affair may escalate :laugh:? I could very well be mistaken here, but I would need you to point out where more vital and threatened interests of Britain lay.

You could have just enjoyed our rare agreement, moment of convergence on the issues of that outspoken MEP and left it at that, but noooo, you conservatives.... :tongue::laugh4::clown:
The first duty of the sovereign nation state, the provision of internal and external security, should not be subject to such budgetary belt-tightening when it:
> occupies a mere 5% of annual government spending
> is not the cause of the present financial difficulties
> has not been grossly inflated in recent years, and therefore likely to be packed with waste

oh how wrong you are, Britains military responsibilities extend far beyond such piffling local matters as the falklands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Current_operations

no, sadly i have the inescapable need to disagree with people who i believe to be misguided. :)

Furunculus

02-25-2010, 23:35

I thought I recognised him! That's the NHS hater!

you mean the person who recognises that other nations operatings other systems of healthcare achieve much better outcomes from their health service as a percentage of GDP spent?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100006356/interrupting-my-holiday-with-some-thoughts-on-the-nhs/

Interrupting my holiday with some thoughts on the NHS

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: August 12th, 2009

149 Comments

Five different BBC journalists have phoned today – presumably in response to this piece in the Independent. That’s the Beeb for you, I suppose: I’ve been setting out my views on healthcare in some detail over the years but, since I’ve been doing so mainly in the Telegraph, our state broadcaster hasn’t noticed.

I am blogging from Dax where the feria is in full swing, the streets swaying with white-clad French people in red neckerchiefs and sashes. I love French ferias, and am still daydreaming of a repetition of this episode. But I am nowehere near a studio, so any journalists wanting a line from me will have to make do with the following.

1. In The Plan, published last year and co-authored with Douglas Carswell, I set out at length a scheme to replace the current government monopoly in healthcare with a Singapore-style system of personal health accounts. The Singapore system produces better outcomes than ours for half the price. If we spent the same percentage of GDP on healthcare as now, but put equivalent power in the hands of our consumers, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that we would be much healthier. (Incidentally, the state pays for those who can’t afford their own accounts in Singapore, as in every developed country. It never ceases to amaze me how many British people have been convinced that free healthcare for the poor is a unique property of the NHS.)

2. I am not the Conservative Party’s healthcare spokesman. I’m fond of Andrew Lansley, and I strongly support David Cameron as party leader. On this issue, though, I disagree with both of them.

3. When I was in Washington last week, I joked that, within minutes of my speech, John Prescott would be accusing me of “insulting our hard-working doctors and nurses”. I over-estimated the old bruiser: it took him a week. The idea that I – or anyone else – would set out to offend 1.4 million NHS workers needs only to be stated to see how silly it is. You see how the Left works, though. Any suggestion that the NHS might be improved upon is shouted down as an attack on the people in it – which is precisely the point I was making about how hard it is to reform so large a bureaucracy.

4. I particularly like Prezza’s idea that being “Progressive” means refusing to countenance any change to a system designed in 1944.

5. It seems increasingly obvious that American voters are turning against Barack Obama’s plans. That’s not to say that the Dems won’t get something called “health reform” through: they have invested too much political capital not to. But British-style state-administered hospitals – that plainly ain’t gonna happen.

6. Which raises the intriguing question of whether Britain would establish the NHS today.

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 23:41

oh how wrong you are, Britains military responsibilities extend far beyond such piffling local matters as the falklands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Current_operations

No, I did not mean the places where you voluntarily intervene, in your imperialistic delusions, which your nation still retains to some degree, operate. I meant the dependent territories of your Commonwealth (i.e. Pitcairn, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Falklands, Tristan de Cunya [sp?], etc)

Furunculus

02-25-2010, 23:43

No, I did not mean the places where you voluntarily intervene, in your imperialistic delusions, which your nation still retains to some degree, operate. I meant the dependent territories of your Commonwealth (i.e. Pitcairn, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Falklands, Tristan de Cunya [sp?], etc)

i accept that within the narrow confines of what you suggest, that the falklands represent the most 'threatened' group of British nationals and are regarded as such, but i reject that it has major impact on British strategic goals and thinking.

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 23:50

i accept that within the narrow confines of what you suggest, that the falklands represent the most 'threatened' group of British nationals and are regarded as such, but i reject that it has major impact on British strategic goals and thinking.
Fair enough, thank you :bow:. G'luck restoring the Empire :beam::tongue::laugh:

Furunculus

02-25-2010, 23:55

Fair enough, thank you :bow:. G'luck restoring the Empire :beam::tongue::laugh:

it doesn't need restoring, it's gone, and what is left is longer 'empire':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories

The British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories of the United Kingdom, but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself.[1] They are the remnants of the British Empire that have not achieved independence or have voted to remain British territories.

The name "British Overseas Territory" was introduced by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, and replaced the name British Dependent Territory, which was introduced by the British Nationality Act 1981. Before 1981, the territories were known as colonies or Crown colonies.

The fourteen territories are Anguilla, the British Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, St Helena and Dependencies (Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha), the Turks and Caicos Islands, Pitcairn Island, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus.[2] Claims in Antarctica, including that of Britain, are not recognised by all nations.[3]

The territories of Jersey and Guernsey (collectively known as the Channel Islands), and the Isle of Man, though also under the sovereignty of the British Crown, have a different constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, and are classed as Crown Dependencies.[4][5][6] The British overseas territories and Crown Dependencies are distinct from the Commonwealth of Nations, a voluntary association of countries mostly with historic links to the British Empire.

Aemilius Paulus

02-26-2010, 00:00

it doesn't need restoring, it's gone, and what is left is longer 'empire':

Exactly, which is why I wished you good luck restoring it, since it is gone and I am sure quite a bit of Brits would not mind some parts restored. :yes: Neither would I mind, for that matter. The Aussies and the Yanks have been going wild for too long, and for the Africans it would be another one of the hundreds of regime changes, this one being the least objectionable most likely.

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 00:06

Exactly, which is why I wished you good luck restoring it, since it is gone and I am sure quite a bit of Brits would not mind some parts restored. :yes: Neither would I mind, for that matter. The Aussies and the Yanks have been going wild for too long, and for the Africans it would be another one of the hundreds of regime changes, this one being the least objectionable most likely.

que? do you want to expand on that a little, in order that i can judge if you are insane or not?

because none of the above would welcome the reinstatement of empire, and no-one in Britain is of a mind to impose it!

Seamus Fermanagh

02-26-2010, 00:11

Boohugh

02-26-2010, 00:26

Massive indeed. Especially those aircraft carries - ouch, they are everything to a navy in these times. But I do not see why Britain should sink into even deeper hole because of such a relatively unnecessary spending.

Yeah, those few billion pounds spent on replacing carriers designed for and built during the Cold War makes all the difference when we're blowing £170 billion a year on giving chavs 6 bedroom mansions in London and paying for the Sky TV they need to watch because they don't work...

In any case, the Strategic Defence Review hasn't been carried out yet so saying where any defence cuts would fall is pure speculation. There is also no indication the Royal Navy will be hit harder than the other two services if whatever government comes to power is so utterly shortsighted it decides to cut defence spending significantly.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-26-2010, 04:17

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 08:56

Given the current political climate at home and the paucity of "Sun Never Sets" territories , the UK IS spending too much on defense spending. Politically, a majority -- at least from what I've seen -- would prefer the UK to reduce its military efforts, dialing it back to a brigade of ground troops, one naval task force, and the SAS. Only the SAS would be deployed in all but the rarest instances. If that truly is the case, then the rest of the monies are being wasted and could be re-apportioned to spending areas considered more salient.

What are the figures regarding public support for a UK military that is more "actively" involved?

difficult to assess objectively, because the public have seen a military that is VERY actively involved, i.e. non stop decade long overstretch in nasty foriegn wars that never seem to end and appear to bring little obvious feel-good-factor.

notably the public is sick of these wars.

on the other hand, public awareness of, and sympathy to, the military is on rise, and short sharp feel-good wars like Sierra Leone and the Falklands have pretty wide support.

this is one of the reasons RUSI laid out the Strategic Raiding Doctrine, because the British public at large are happy for Britain to remain a Great Power........ as long as they only have to put up with the feel-good wars............ so the doctrine focuses on high-intensity expeditionary and rapid-reaction warfare.

This is being the very pointy end of a sharp stick; quick in and quick out, but it is also a valuable strategic capability possessed by only two other nations that can do it, so Britain can retain its Great Power status.

This tolerance to feel-good wars could also be a cultural meme from times past, in that most of Britains history we have used the Royal Navy like a scalpel rather than the Army like a club, so we have three hundred and fifty years of hearing news reports like; "chief Unga-Bunga has taken the British Ambassador hostage and refusing British trade through his ports", swiftly followed by; "The Royal Navy blockaded Unga-Bunga's main port while Royal Marines stormed the palace and released the British Ambassador, the crisis is past." Hoorah for Britain!

It is that kind of continual painless success that may explain why Britain remains more jingoistic that many nations on the continent, but it also puts limits on the kind of conflict the British public is 'willing' to stomach.

Andres

02-26-2010, 09:25

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2010, 09:51

Fragony

02-26-2010, 10:02

I think it's fair to ask why the UK just doesn't leave the Union if they don't like it.

Because the people who don't like the EU are represented here by Farage. Such a party-pooper, they just want to be left alone.

Jolt

02-26-2010, 11:30

because our politicians do. Labour refused to allow a Referndum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the Tories know that if they hold a Referndum on the EU we will leave; so they won't.

And why don't they want to leave? Is this some EU conspiracy to only allow British politicians who support the EU into political parties? Are they not British in the first place? Is it required an oath of fidelity to the EU when you join a British political party? Are British politicians payed with EU money? Is it a Zionist conspiracy to unify the world? Are the British politicians afraid of being laughed at by everyone if they leave the EU?

Why don't they want to leave?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2010, 11:57

And why don't they want to leave? Is this some EU conspiracy to only allow British politicians who support the EU into political parties? Are they not British in the first place? Is it required an oath of fidelity to the EU when you join a British political party? Are British politicians payed with EU money? Is it a Zionist conspiracy to unify the world? Are the British politicians afraid of being laughed at by everyone if they leave the EU?

Why don't they want to leave?

Leaving the EU has potential ecenomic sanctions attached, but, more than this, most of the current front-benchers are Europhiles rather than Patriots. They think in terms of Europe rather than Britain; then you get people (like me) who appreciate the value of a European trading bloc and co-operation but dislike the anti-democratic nature of the EU and believe the institution needs gutting.

Look at Lisbon, for example, it was decided by 27 men and women gathered together into a room, it was signed by them, and then the Irish voted (twice) and it became law. The proviso for necessary referndums and a SINGLE one in each country was not written into the treaty because it would have died. While I appreciate that politicians know things, we don't and we do elect them, I resent the circumvention of democracy when it pertains to the manner in which we are governed.

Particularly with regard to an Oligarchy like the EU.

InsaneApache

02-26-2010, 12:01

I think it's fair to ask why the UK just doesn't leave the Union if they don't like it.

a simple, yet very telling google search (http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=european+union+member+states%2B%22except+the+United+Kingdom%22&meta=&aq=f&oq=)

A short history lesson. When the traitor Heath proposed joining the common market, he and his accomplicies told the electorate that it was a trading bloc. There would be no loss of national sovereignty. Period. Ironically in those days it was the Labour party who opposed the idea.

The negotiations complete, the UK joined the common market in 1973. It was such a contentious issue that two years later the govenment, this time a Labour one, agreed to hold a referendum on membership of the common market.

The referendum was held ( I remember it well) and it was asserted again and again that it was just a trading bloc and that membership would be good for Britain. At the time I was in full agreement with this. The poll was taken and the Ayes had it. So we stayed in.

The organisation Britain joined was called the European Economic Community.

A decade or so later, without a referendum, Thatcher signed the act that would transform the EEC into the European Community. I was in my twenties at the time and I admit to being slightly concerned at the move. No matter said the government, it was just a 'tidying up' exercise. (sound familiar?)

Fast forward to the early nineties. Maarstricht was signed, again with no recourse to the voters, and as we all know this treaty was the one that created the European Union. By this time, the voters were becoming alarmed at what was going on. After all, didn't we just join a trading bloc? What's all this talk about parliaments and councils and suchlike. Again it was not put to the electorate. It was claimed at the time that there's nothing to see here, move along, after all it's just a tidying up treaty. Deja Vu.

Another decade another Euro. This time the govt. under Blair realised that joining the single currecy was not a vote winner and pretended that they didn't want monetary union and so we stayed out.

Half a decade on an EU constitution was suggested as a 'tidying up exercise' to help the EU function better. It was on all the main three parties manifesto that signing up would be put to a referendum. They all renaged on that promise. In due course the treaty was signed by Mc Doom in a broom cupboard when he thought no one was looking. (all true)

So ther we have it. The UK was duped by successive tory and labour governments. People dont like to be taken for fools and have their views stamped on and disregarded but because they were it's no surprise that 70% of the population want out. How would you feel?

As for those EU fanboys who say let the UK go, you can't afford it. The simple fact is the EU needs the UK to prop up finance the massive spending going on over in Pumpyville.

I shall now have a cold shower.

*and breathe*

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 12:21

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2010, 12:24

It seems that PVC and IA have answered your question very satisfactorily, so i will limit myself to your ancillary question: We're British, we don't go in for Zionist conspiracy theories like you excitable foreign types. :)

True, we engineered the original Zionist Conspiracy, after all.

The Wizard

02-26-2010, 13:51

My name is The Wizard and I endorse the OP.

We'll put an end to this "nation-state" nonsense sooner or later. Go EU! ~:)

Andres

02-26-2010, 14:41

So ther we have it. The UK was duped by successive tory and labour governments. People dont like to be taken for fools and have their views stamped on and disregarded but because they were it's no surprise that 70% of the population want out. How would you feel?

As for those EU fanboys who say let the UK go, you can't afford it. The simple fact is the EU needs the UK to prop up finance the massive spending going on over in Pumpyville.

So, why is this 70 % not voting for that Farage guy who will surely decide to have the UK step out of the EU and save you all lots of money in the proces?

If 70 % of your population hates Europe so much, then why doesn't 70 % vote en masse for a party that says it's going to step out of it if elected?

Beskar

02-26-2010, 15:14

They don't want to blame themselves for their problems, they prefer to blame faceless bodgey men over in Europe. Even though they are in Europe, but some how, saying 'over there' makes it more imposing for them.

InsaneApache

02-26-2010, 15:40

Quick answer, UKIP are a single issue party.

The UK oters dont hate the EU, we just thought that it would have been nice if we were asked first if we wanted to become part of a federal Europe.

They don't want to blame themselves for their problems, they prefer to blame faceless bodgey men over in Europe. Even though they are in Europe, but some how, saying 'over there' makes it more imposing for them.

No. It's about democratic accountability and fiscal transparency. As a businessman what do you think HMRC sanction would be to me if my accountant refused to sign off my accounts for over a decade?

I'll give you a clue. Arrows on suits. Bars on windows. Lights out at 7 pm.

Subotan

02-26-2010, 15:59

Leaving the EU has potential ecenomic sanctions attached, but, more than this, most of the current front-benchers are Europhiles rather than Patriots. They think in terms of Europe rather than Britain; then you get people (like me) who appreciate the value of a European trading bloc and co-operation but dislike the anti-democratic nature of the EU and believe the institution needs gutting.

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.

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.

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

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.

(These is also a fourth, Socialist version, but this is largely irrelevant and I won't discuss it)

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?

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.

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.

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.

Also, I ******* hate Internet Explorer. The Piece of junk timed out on me when I wrote that post originally, and I had to retype it.

Aemilius Paulus

02-26-2010, 16:43

que? do you want to expand on that a little, in order that i can judge if you are insane or not? because none of the above would welcome the reinstatement of empire, and no-one in Britain is of a mind to impose it!
See, you are the type of Brit who prolly read the A Modest Proposal and took it seriously :tongue: Of course I was joking. If I said the Yanks and Aussies 'have been wild for too long', should that not hint at the joking nature of my post?

because none of the above would welcome the reinstatement of empire, and no-one in Britain is of a mind to impose it!
Of course, no-one will welcome losing independence. But I am not so sure about the second. Sure, people are not thinking of the countries to impose the rule on specifically, but some probably have nostalgia for the days the Empire was stronger and larger. After all, why does Britain intervene in so many nations? Economist itself noted the British long such delusions, and that Brown was one of the first to take a more sober look at this... I mean, you can debate this, but there is still some truth in it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2010, 17:11

So, why is this 70 % not voting for that Farage guy who will surely decide to have the UK step out of the EU and save you all lots of money in the proces?

If 70 % of your population hates Europe so much, then why doesn't 70 % vote en masse for a party that says it's going to step out of it if elected?

What IA is saying, which is that none of the truly Eurosceptic parties could be trusted with running the country long enough to disengage from the EU.

Boohugh

02-26-2010, 17:56

After all, why does Britain intervene in so many nations?

Britain built it's wealth on basically creating a massive, secure trading bloc (that's effectively what the Empire was) and it still relies on that trade (although with everyone now) for the health of the economy. Over 90% of our physical trade travels by sea, the vast majority of which goes through 7 key maritime chokepoints (a number of which are in the middle east/indian ocean region), including a significant amount of our energy supplies. If we let the rest of the world go to pot then it'll only come back and bite us in the bum, so it's in our interests to intevene abroad.

gaelic cowboy

02-26-2010, 18:36

This thread has diverted a bit into the usual red herring of why does Britain not leave the EU this is constantly quoted by eurosceptic's and pro-union people its never gonna happen people.
The reality is neither side wants that eventuality I have stated before and state it again Britain's sovereignty was finished the day the Treaty of Rome was signed England's ability to pit one side against the other to prevent a powerbloc in Europe was finished with European integration.

Instead Britain must ensure it uses it power to follow paths more preferably to it by close dealings with my own country and the other newer members in the east who are more amenable to the views of Britain on business and trade. Britain requires the free markets of the EU and its finance industry requires the savings of Frannce and Germany etc I could go on but you all get the point.

Tellos Athenaios

02-26-2010, 18:46

Yes I think that is at the core of the issue. But it immediately prompts the question if the EU is such an affront to the British MEPs yet they do see how it could be so much better etc. etc., then why do they just spew random crap like that instead of doing what they are elected to do: making some change? As far as integration goes, UK is pretty much unique in how distant it wants to remain (not being part of Schengen for instance); but as far as wanting an economic reform in the EU it isn't. As far as wanting more accountable EU it just keeps shooting itself in the foot.

Furunculus

02-26-2010, 18:57

Britain built it's wealth on basically creating a massive, secure trading bloc (that's effectively what the Empire was) and it still relies on that trade (although with everyone now) for the health of the economy. Over 90% of our physical trade travels by sea, the vast majority of which goes through 7 key maritime chokepoints (a number of which are in the middle east/indian ocean region), including a significant amount of our energy supplies. If we let the rest of the world go to pot then it'll only come back and bite us in the bum, so it's in our interests to intevene abroad.

beaten me to the punch again, nicely done.

the other half to the answer to AP's question is that perhaps we have a relatively non-traumatic collective memory of war, largely because it has never been visited upon us in quite the same way as most other countries, a fact that makes a mockery of the statement; Great Britain is not an island.*

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?109780-Great-Britain-is-not-an-Island

if the EU is such an affront to the British MEPs yet they do see how it could be so much better etc. etc., then why do they just spew random crap like that instead of doing what they are elected to do: making some change?
you mean like:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?118607-Dawn-of-a-new-EU-European-Conservatives-and-Reformists-Group-springs-into-life

how does that grab you?

tibilicus

02-26-2010, 20:39

Just went on the UKIP website.

Didn't realise they were major climate sceptics. Oh well, at least they're honest about it.

Sarmatian

02-26-2010, 22:26

Britain built it's wealth on basically creating a massive, secure trading bloc (that's effectively what the Empire was) and it still relies on that trade (although with everyone now) for the health of the economy. Over 90% of our physical trade travels by sea, the vast majority of which goes through 7 key maritime chokepoints (a number of which are in the middle east/indian ocean region), including a significant amount of our energy supplies. If we let the rest of the world go to pot then it'll only come back and bite us in the bum, so it's in our interests to intevene abroad.

Possibly true, but the world has changed much from the days of the Empire. Where once were several European nations trying to screw each other over colonial affairs and maritime trade routes, now there is pretty much free trade in the world. A Romanian ship will pass through Malaca strait just like a British ship would and if one of the big boys (India, China, US...) tried to change how it works, you wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway. You can still throw your weight around the middle east (but even that is debatable if you didn't have US support) but that won't last long. So, building and maintaining a huge navy is just a waste of money, in my humble opinion.

Boohugh

02-27-2010, 00:39

Possibly true, but the world has changed much from the days of the Empire.

Very true, in the current globalised world we need a stable system of trade more than ever.

Where once were several European nations trying to screw each other over colonial affairs and maritime trade routes, now there is pretty much free trade in the world. A Romanian ship will pass through Malaca strait just like a British ship would and if one of the big boys (India, China, US...) tried to change how it works, you wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway.

That's a very state-centric view of things and wouldn't necessarily be considered the main threat currently. Take Somalia and Yemen for instance, both straddle one of the most important waterways in the world, but it isn't the states themselves that are causing problems, it's the turmoil inside the states that creates instability. It's in the UK's interests to have a military cabable of intervening in those areas if necessary, especially as most other nations seem unwilling or unable to, which requires a navy with the correct capabilities. Yes you can argue that we are unlikely to intervene alone, but that is why our military is centred around operating in alliances with other nations and very rarely on our own. It is in the UK's interests for trade to go smoothly for everyone, not just ourselves, so any instability in any region is a threat to that.

So, building and maintaining a huge navy is just a waste of money, in my humble opinion.

For starters, I'd hardly call it huge (as Louis will be more than happy to point out, even the French have a bigger navy than us now!). There are barely enough ships and personnel to maintain our standing committments to the EU, NATO and the Commonwealth and our operations supporting current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, so downsizing isn't really going to help anyone. Having a navy capable of things only one or two other nations can do allows us to punch way above our weight politically and is really rather cheap in comparison to the benefits it provides.

Mooks

02-27-2010, 01:17

Id give him a 7 on the "burn" scale. Maybe if he called the EU president fat and noone loved him including his whore mom and fat girlfriend, he couldve succeeded in his mission to make him cry. Too bad.

Louis VI the Fat

02-27-2010, 01:23

Quick answer, UKIP are a single issue party.

The UK voters dont hate the EU, we just thought that it would have been nice if we were asked first if we wanted to become part of a federal Europe. And the UKIP is plagued by the usual problems of the populist right: incompetent, foulmouthed, full of political adventurers. Not a party one wishes to entrust with power.

Most corrupt party in the UK too. And, were it not for MEPs from cultures with less dreadfully dull and uncreative attachement to the separation of what's public and private, the UKIP would be the most corrupt in the European Parliament as well.

I do find it worrying, and a bit sad, though, that for moderate Britons, or from elsewhere, for whom Euroscepticism is close at heart, there is not really a moderate political option. Multiculturalism and the EU - on these two subjects, there is much electoral discontent that doesn't find itself represented by mainstream parties. That is democratically untenable in the long run.

JAG

02-27-2010, 04:00

I don't know why anyone in Europe thinks that vile, ignorant, right wing nut is worthy of any breath or air time - no one over here does. (bar the loonies in his and the Tory party)

Louis VI the Fat

02-27-2010, 04:32

Francophone only: http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/article/562223/le-ta-gueule-de-daniel-cohn-bendit.html

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

- maybe it's because you are from Belgium, a non-country!

Who was among the firsts to recognise this non-country? Yep, your country, mister Farage.

Besides, what about the territory of your country? It isn't very clear to me. It's more a condominium instead of a state. Oversea territory, what belongs to the crown, what doesn't belong to the crown, ... Very confusing...

And if we're talking about the European context, well, it seems to me that Britain is the non-European state here. No member of the Euro. Hundreds of exceptions and opt-outs. If there's one member state that is not a true member state aka a non-member state, then it's Britain.
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/article/565373/mais-si-la-belgique-est-un-pays-proteste-leterme.html

Mais si, la Belgique est un pays, proteste Leterme.

"En tant que politique belge, je dois réagir immédiatement à la portée calomnieuse de cette intervention", a écrit le Premier - le même homme qui, dans une autre vie [?], déclarait que la Belgique n’avait "pas de valeur ajoutée". Comme quoi on peut changer d’avis. :deal2:

Tellos Athenaios

02-27-2010, 22:06

Ah. Ouch. This is best summed up thus: :laugh4: -> :inquisitive: -> :gah:

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 02:43

The Brits are taking over!

In stark contrast to Van Rompuy's understated and professional performance, Baroness Ashton's performance thus far has been weak. That's what you get for an inexperienced personal trustee of Brown as foreign minister.

The one thing she has accomplished, is to appoint Britons and personal trustees to all key foreign positions.

As usual, behind the nagging and complaints, Britain knows just how to use the EU for its own gain.

• Confidential German ministry document reveals objections
• Alarm at Ashton’s multiple appointment of British officials

Germany is planning to stop what it sees as a British campaign to dominate European foreign policy-making under Lady Catherine Ashton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/lady-ashton), the Guardian can disclose.

Amid growing criticism across the EU of the performance of Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the EU’s new high representative for foreign and security policy, Berlin and Paris are alarmed at the prominence of British officials in the new EU diplomatic service being formed under Ashton.

http://www.businessgaze.com/germany-and-france-dispute-lady-ashtons-excessive-eu-powers-2Away with British corruption and self-serving cliques and another Belgian for foreign minister too!

Beskar

03-01-2010, 02:55

Sir Humprey Appleby was right, France is the real enemy of Britain.

bobbin

03-01-2010, 04:06

As usual, behind the nagging and complaints, Britain knows just how to use the EU for its own gain.
cough..cough..Common Agricultural Policy..cough..cough

Don't worry about UKIP they are about as unpopular is the UK as they are in Europe. A bunch if "little englander" idiots in my opinion.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-01-2010, 20:18

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 20:28

The CAP is the means by which Britain - damp and bleak - is granted a share in the glory of France and the divine fruits of her blessed lands, and call it a bit theirs. :book:

I thought you'd all be a bit more grateful.

Beskar

03-01-2010, 20:32

I think we should have a Common Agricultural Policy, as in a actual policy, but I don't believe we should have a "Compulsory Charity for Lazy French Farmers"

bobbin

03-01-2010, 20:38

End the CAP, then we can talk.

I mean END, by the way, not reduce; we already gave up the rebate.

No we didn't, it got reduced by 20% but it's still there.

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 20:40

I think we should have a Common Agricultural Policy, as in a actual policy, but I don't believe we should have a "Compulsory Charity for Lazy French Farmers" French farmers are not lazy. The soil is simply that fertile that one sows in March, then sits in the sun reading philosophy and poetry all throughout a glorious sun-filled summer and then reaps a bountiful harvest over two days in September.

The Briton by contrast has to slave like an ox all year round only to still reap a the most meagre of harvests.

That's why its better to invest in French agriculture - better return on investment, plus it leaves even the French peasant so cultured that French arts and literature flourish as much as the land itself, allowing a double harvest of agricultural and intellectual culture so rich that the whole of Europe can bask in its glory.

:book:

bobbin

03-01-2010, 20:58

:laugh4:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-01-2010, 20:59

French farmers are not lazy. The soil is simply that fertile that one sows in March, then sits in the sun reading philosophy and poetry all throughout a glorious sun-filled summer and then one reaps a bountiful harvest over two days in September.

The Briton by contrast has to slave like an ox all year round only to still reap a the meagerest of harvests.

That's why its better to invest in French agriculture - better return on investment, plus it leaves even the French peasant so cultured that French arts and literature flourish as much as the land itself, allowing a double harvest of agriculture and intellectual culture so rich that the whole of Europe can bask in its glory.

:book:

Clearly the French are skilled with fertilizer......

Aemilius Paulus

03-02-2010, 01:02

Clearly the French are skilled with fertilizer......
Not as much as the Chinese :devilish::skull:

Fragony

03-04-2010, 08:13

Follow-up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPqH6YisTYE&feature=player_embedded#

Yes freedom of speech is expensive indeed. And common the guy has a point, who the hell is that guy, how did he get there. I am glad there are people like Farrage representing those of us who have doubts about an undemocratic European police-state and the euro-mediteranian partnership.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-04-2010, 23:47

It was horrible that Nigel Farage said such things. Especially because he was right.

Tristuskhan

03-06-2010, 21:02

I think we should have a Common Agricultural Policy, as in a actual policy, but I don't believe we should have a "Compulsory Charity for Lazy French Farmers"

Oh no, not from you, Beskar... not you please. Have a look at the reality: 80% of CAP subsidies to french agriculture goes to the 20% biggest farmers. Old school french farming tries to survive by itself and owes nothing to you.

Boohugh

03-06-2010, 21:25

Oh no, not from you, Beskar... not you please. Have a look at the reality: 80% of CAP subsidies to french agriculture goes to the 20% biggest farmers. Old school french farming tries to survive by itself and owes nothing to you.

So what you're saying is most of the money goes to the farmers who should be most commercially viable. Remind me of the logic of why France supports CAP for the good of the small farmers again? If anything, this is just further evidence the system is broken and needs a total overhaul...something the UK has been pushing for a long time now.

Beskar

03-06-2010, 23:37

Tristuskhan

03-07-2010, 16:01

So what you're saying is most of the money goes to the farmers who should be most commercially viable. Remind me of the logic of why France supports CAP for the good of the small farmers again?
"Small farmers" supported by the current french government? If I remember well the most important benefactors are Doux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_Doux and His Excellency Albert II of Monte Carlo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Grimaldi. Spit on them as much as you like.

If anything, this is just further evidence the system is broken and needs a total overhaul...something the UK has been pushing for a long time now.
Lessons of agriculture coming from the United Kingdom? Like acknowleging cows shoud obviously be fed with sheep? I'm the first one to admit CAP must be dramatically overhauled, but aiming at the wrong target is definitely useless and insulting.

Kralizec

03-07-2010, 19:57

I think we should have a Common Agricultural Policy, as in a actual policy, but I don't believe we should have a "Compulsory Charity for Lazy French Farmers"

I agree...there should be a common agricultural policy, just not this one. Most states would have funded their own farmers in some degree anyway, might as well ensure some uniformity to combat unfair competition.

My approach would be to completely phase out the subsidies over a period of 10 years or so, and simultaniously raise tarriffs for agricultural products from countries wich still subsidize their own farmers like the USA.

Boohugh

03-07-2010, 22:12

"Small farmers" supported by the current french government? If I remember well the most important benefactors are Doux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_Doux and His Excellency Albert II of Monte Carlo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Grimaldi. Spit on them as much as you like.

I'm not saying that the CAP money does go to the small farmers, as you have pointed out it clearly doesn't. I'm just highlighting the clear discrepancy between what many French governments have said to defend CAP (that it is vital to protect the small farmers to preserve a certain way of life that is culturally important to the French) and the reality (it lines the pockets of the large commercial farmers). Even if we agree that CAP should be used to help the small farmers in France (which is debatable in itself), the current system clearly fails in that task and so should be reformed. Yet it is successive French governments who have blocked reform of CAP, why? As the system doesn't achieve what they publically say it should (protect the small farmers), there must be a private reason they don't want it to change, and so what is that reason? It is simply that if we reform CAP the French will get less money overall, as the large commercial farms which currently get most of the money wouldn't anymore, which is political suicide due to the strength of the farming lobby in France. I'm not blaming the small French farmers for this, but I am blaming every French government that has defended CAP, despite them knowing the system doesn't work, for purely selfish reasons that don't even lie in the best interests of France as a whole.

Lessons of agriculture coming from the United Kingdom? Like acknowleging cows shoud obviously be fed with sheep? You're absolutely right, perhaps we should be doing it the French way and feed them sewage instead :rolleyes:.