Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE REFERENDUM LOCK

What David Cameron has proposed

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

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

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

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

How could it be done?

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

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

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

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

A UNITED KINGDOM SOVEREIGNTY BILL

What David Cameron has proposed

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

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

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

How could it be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What David Cameron has proposed

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

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

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

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

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

How could it be done?

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

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

OPT-OUT FROM CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

What David Cameron has proposed

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

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

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

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

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

How could it be done?

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

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

RETURN OF POWERS OVER CRIMINAL JUSTICE

What David Cameron has proposed

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

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

How could it be done?

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

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

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

"REPATRIATION" OF CONTROL OVER SOCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

What David Cameron has proposed

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

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

How could it be done?

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

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

Verdict: The hardest of all to achieve. A Tory government would have to give something substantial in return - most likely the loss of national sovereignty in other politically unacceptable areas such as taxation.

Two additional questions:
1. Is the above achievable in your opinion?
2. and if he cannot secure all of the above, could he still say he had achieved his objectives of protecting Britain as a sovereign entity, i.e. does he have some wiggle room to persuade a skeptical electorate that he had lived up to his promise?

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

why?

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

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

no doubt.

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

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...or-Europe.html

http://www.futurefastforward.com/fin...-telegraph-uk-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-off-out.html

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009...ising-iceland/


-

Jewish groups are getting their knickers in a twist over Milliband branding the polish president as an anti-semite:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...cut-crime.html

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

re the beeb in its latest attempt to tilt at windmills:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...t-the-accused/

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

the federasts just won't let go, anyone would think they felt threatened or some such notion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

---

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

It's a little more complicated than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

It's a little more complicated than that.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

---

If they like it so much, then they should return to Russia to campaign for it to liberate their Russian brethren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

Is that funny or scary? Or both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps when we all realise how much has been sacrificed for us in the name of European unity it will be easier for alleged sceptics like Mr Cameron to tell the truth. One thing, though, is never in doubt. To pretend that Britain might one day dine à la carte from the menu of the Treaty of Lisbon would be just the latest grotesque deceit practised upon this country in the name of Europe.

i'm agreed with heffer in that i don't have confidence that DC will have the resolve or the ability to make good on his EUro policy.

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

a few choice examples:

Quote:

---

€680,000 for “running costs” of NGOs promoting EU integration
In 2009 the EU allocated €680,000 for the “running costs of the Platform of European
Social Non-Governmental Organisations”. Among the stated aims of this are: “giving
citizens the opportunity to interact and participate in the construction of an ever closer
union”, as well as “developing the conscience of a European identity”, and “reinforcing
citizens’ sense of being part of the European Union.”

---

i don't want an ever closer union.

Quote:

---

€400,000 for videomaking festival to promote EU citizenship
The European Cultural Foundation spent €400,000 on its ‘Stranger’ festival in
Amsterdam37, for 150 young people to develop their videomaking skills in the ‘Stranger
Academy’38. Short films were entered into a competition aiming to promote ‘intercultural
dialogue’ and EU citizenship. One of the winning 2008 films, “scriptwrited”, told the story
of a script writer who lives in two worlds, a world of dreams and the real world and in
“who I am (not)” a young boy lists off the many things he cannot do, concluding “but I
could record this film”.

---

nor too do i care about EU citizenship.

Quote:

---

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

---

just, what!?!?

Quote:

---

In 2008 alone, the EU spent more than €2.4 billion promoting European integration
and ‘ever closer union’ through a myriad of funding streams and through the various
Commission departments – DG Culture, DG Education and Citizenship, and DG
Communication.

---

2.4B euros on ever-closer-union!!!!!!!!! i wonder how much they spent promoting a loose association of sovereign nation states?

Quote:

---

€680,000 for “running costs” of NGOs promoting EU integration
In 2009 the EU allocated €680,000 for the “running costs of the Platform of European
Social Non-Governmental Organisations”. Among the stated aims of this are: “giving
citizens the opportunity to interact and participate in the construction of an ever closer
union”, as well as “developing the conscience of a European identity”, and “reinforcing
citizens’ sense of being part of the European Union.”

---

I wonder what the costs of promoting the Scottish, Welsh or even British identity are.
Btw, some of us do want a closer union, and it's nice to see them allocating at least a small amount of money for this purpose :3

Quote:

---

€400,000 for videomaking festival to promote EU citizenship

---

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

‘

Quote:

---

Donkeypedia’: the blogging donkey

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

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

---

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

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

Because all propaganda = bad?

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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

---

Indeed.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

They had better be chocolate Hob Nobs

oops, here's another reference to the EUSSR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...is-Soviet.html

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

oops, here's another reference to the EUSSR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...is-Soviet.html


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

---

No she wasn't behind the wall. She has never lived under communism. Her family was endeared to the nazis. They fled Latvia in 1944 to Germany. After Germany lost, they fled again to Morocco and later Canada.


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

lol, good catch. :p

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