Europe

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

He sounds like Borat, only with the unfortunate coincidence that he happens to be serious.

[Furunculus]

He sounds like Borat, only with the unfortunate coincidence that he happens to be serious.

is there a video somewhere?

[cegorach]

Oh dear, British mainstream political parties are once again implicated with the lunatic political fringes common amongst our continental neighbours. Silly tories, it's not as if you weren't warned!

no wait, turns out is wasn't the tories, its labour, found to be in bed with crazy gypsie hating slovakian fruitcakes of Tito loving fame:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/ce...art-three.html

No offence, but Slovakia was never a part of Yugoslavia...



From the second part of this text:

Last but not least, we come to the Viktor Yanukovych's Party of the Regions (yes, he of vote-rigging, pro-Krelmin, anti-Orange Revolution fame). I do not need to remind ConHome readers that the tactics of Yanukovych's party during the disputed Presidential election were widely criticised by the British government with then Labour Foreign Secretary Jack Straw heaping criticism on their attempts to subvert the "democratic will of the Ukrainian people".

The slight problem with that is noone else but the Tories found themselves in an alliance with Kremlin helping them to block a reform of the Council of Europe about a year ago.


The lesson is - dig hard enough and you will find silly, even repulsing allies somewhere. That is the flaw of all-european coalitions.



P.S. Personally I don't care what allies the British Conservatives are finding and where, but this part of the article was a bit one-sided, much like the entire nonsense with Kaminski* was.



* Whome I consider lying, cheating bas..., but the campaign against him was still complete, disgusting nonsense.

[Furunculus]

P.S. Personally I don't care what allies the British Conservatives are finding and where, but this part of the article was a bit one-sided, much like the entire nonsense with Kaminski* was.

didn't you read the first 15 pages of non stop vituperation against the shocking bad sense displayed by the tories in leaving the 'mainstream' of euro politics, and how reprehensible any alternative to the EPP and PES would be?

[cegorach]

didn't you read the first 15 pages of non stop vituperation against the shocking bad sense displayed by the tories in leaving the 'mainstream' of euro politics, and how reprehensible any alternative to the EPP and PES would be?

I wasn't there and I don't need to, I've seen enought in the Guardian - sometimes even three articles a day for Christ's sake! Of utter nonsense I've observed with disbelief.



IN my opinion Tories made a mistake and the Law of Justice is a failing party which is despised in Poland by 3/4 of voters. The good side is that thanks to their disgusting ideas and appearance the ruling Civic Platform scores stable 40%-60% points in every survey.

The Law and Justice, may it rot in hell, has nothing to do with racism, neonazism or anti-semitism smearing campaign attributes to them otherwise they wouldn't score 5% elections.

They are terrible semi-anarchic, ultra-centralised (at the same time) party with outdated, socialist economic ideas, nationalist-populist slogans, almost-communist language, semi-authoritarian traits and usually rude and noisy supporters which it is enough to earn my lifetime hatred.

I don't need to manufacture silly arguments to treat them with greater contempt. If I ever did I would become like them and that thought is more than sobering.

It is like an ice cold shower and I'd recommed it to anyone.

Besides it is really not my problem. In a year the Law and Justice will lose the president (20% in popularity ratings - he will lose against anybody), in the spring they will lose local elections just like they did lose previous local elections, general electons and Euroelections.

After that it will either fracture, fade and die or be pushed even further from the real politics.
And so be it!

If someone really has to represent populist-nationalist quasi-patriotism they can stay as long as they ramain the pariah of politics in Poland.

[Furunculus]

adapt or die, a motto equally appropriate for politics as it is for evolution.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The European Parliament has approved a 122.9bn euro (£110bn) EU budget for 2010 - nearly half of which is to go to agriculture and natural resources.
It is a 6% increase on the 2009 budget, which was worth 116bn euros.

Good. More money to the EU!

The UK's net contribution to the EU budget will rise by almost 60% to 7.2bn euros (£6.4bn) next year, the UK Treasury has said, because of the costs of EU enlargement and a cut in the annual rebate to the UK.

While I don't trust British accountancy, especially concerning the EU, the increase if true is of course splendid news, suck 'em dry I say, always more where that came from, erm, I mean, an unfortunate turn of events for the UK.

A turn of events which obviously nobody saw coming. The British increase is not, I must insist not, the result of clever French negotiators - always drawn from the brightest minds France can muster, who apply en masse for diplomatic jobs like these because these carry far more prestige this side of the channel - who thoroughly outsmarted their British counterparts in predictable manner yet again.

It is the last year that the EU budget has been negotiated under Nice Treaty rules.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, which went into effect on 1 December, the European Parliament will have greater powers to influence the budget. All areas will be subject to parliament's "co-decision" with the EU governments.
For the first time MEPs will have the power to challenge farm spending figures.

Curse that Lisbon Treaty! It gives more power to the people, more power to parliament, and more power to those woho wish to challenge the size and allocation of the EU budget.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8418275.stm

[Furunculus]

Ah Louis,

Blair gave away the rebate in return for a promise that the EU would look to reform CAP, and in a way i am delighted that we have been seen to be screwed over once again, for it will only act to further harden our hearts against political governance from a federal EU. By the time we have a government willing to act against the interests of the ever-closer-union brigade, they will have an electorate that is willing to back them in the risky games of hi-jinx, you wait and see.

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

in other news, national sovereignty still exists within the EU, hoorah for the italians:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...l-sovereignty/

Who'd ha thunk it? Italian Constitutional Court tells ECHR to take a hike, asserts national sovereignty

By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: December 19th, 2009

The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)

The Constitutional Court ruled baldly that, where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such decrees “lack legitimacy”. In other words, they will not be enforced in Italy. Although this judgement related to issues concerning the civil service, the universal interpretation is that the ECHR’s aggressive ruling in Lautsi v Italy, seeking to ban crucifixes from Italian classrooms, shortly before, was what concentrated the minds of the judges in the Italian Supreme Court.

In fact, sources close to the Italian judiciary have informally briefed that the decision was a warning that activist rulings by the ECHR “will not be given deference”. The juridical principle at issue here is nothing less than national sovereignty. Where an alien court has the right to overrule a national constitution, sovereignty has de facto ceased to exist. Citizens may go to the polls at a general election to elect an administration, but the “government” they choose will be no more than a municipal council. This, of course, was always the intention of the Lisbon Treaty and its supporters.

Europhile politicians and commentators in Britain, after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the ratting by the Vichy Tories on their promise of a referendum, were masochistically resigned to the United Kingdom becoming a province of Brussels. Now the Italians have overthrown the fatalistic notion of the irresistible march of Eurofederalism. They have simply said: if it encroaches upon our national sovereignty, it won’t fly here. This is excellent.

Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords.

But such considerations should not blind us to the fact that the sovereignty of European states has been given a crucial boost by the Italian ruling. It is also likely to bolster resistance in Ireland, where a similar activist case from the ECHR is expected to attempt to impose abortion on a state that has rejected it. Not everyone would have expected the first roll-back of Lisbon to come from Italy; but it has, so we should be heartened. Eurofederalism – just say no!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Blair gave away the rebate in return for a promise that the EU would look to reform CAP

Sure. But this reform is: Give away the rebate and we'll give up the CAP subsidies.

It is a tiresome embrace.

[Beskar]

Paying people not to farm is a pretty stupid idea though.

[Furunculus]

it is a very stupid idea, agreed.

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

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-leave-the-eu/

Ten reasons to leave the EU by Daniel Hannan -

1. Since we joined the EEC in 1973, we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. Over those 27 years, we have run a trade deficit with the other member states that averages out at £30 million per day.

2. In 2010 our gross contribution to the EU budget will be £14 billion. To put this figure in context, all the reductions announced by George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference would, collectively, save £7 billion a year across the whole of government spending.

3. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.

4. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.

5. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.

6. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.

7. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.

8. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.

9. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven.

10. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again.

[Furunculus]

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

The european court is about to tell us who we are obliged to pay social security money too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...einstated.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier this week the European Court of Human Rights dealt a separate blow to UK anti-terror policy when it ruled that the stopping and searching of suspects without grounds for suspicion was unlawful.

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

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

[Subotan]

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

[Subotan]

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

So there's no problem then.

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

You could say just the same things about judges in the UK.

[al Roumi]

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

The european court is about to tell us who we are obliged to pay social security money too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...einstated.html

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

[al Roumi]

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

[al Roumi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Subotan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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



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

[Subotan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

England Prevails!

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

England Prevails!

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

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

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

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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

[Kralizec]

Ah Louis,

Blair gave away the rebate in return for a promise that the EU would look to reform CAP, and in a way i am delighted that we have been seen to be screwed over once again, for it will only act to further harden our hearts against political governance from a federal EU. By the time we have a government willing to act against the interests of the ever-closer-union brigade, they will have an electorate that is willing to back them in the risky games of hi-jinx, you wait and see.

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

in other news, national sovereignty still exists within the EU, hoorah for the italians:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...l-sovereignty/

*Sigh*

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

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

[Subotan]

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

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

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

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