Europe

[Adrian II]

[..] it is some sort of travesty that Eurosceptics have so much trouble finding a moderate voice.

That's because it is a retrograde view. In fact the quip about 'racist flat-earthers' comes very close. What the racist part doesn't cover, the flat earth part does. One reason why such extremes are more likely to gain votes in nations like Britain and Poland is probably that those nations feel more aggrieved about past losses and present strategic insecurities. I am convinced that if the EU would support Poland more firmly every time it is being bullied by Russia this would go a long way toward appeasing Polish anti-EU sentiments. This would of course require a firmer and more united EU policy. Alas, as long as Germany and Italy appease Russia in the interest of their energy provision and France and Great Britain prefer to look the other way, we will never have such a policy.

Like I said, it's this 'Europe of the states' that never amounts to anything beyond the cumulative self-interest of its member states. A different make-up, centered on a Commission with parliamentary accountability, should bring much-needed change. I am sorry to disappoint our member from Finland who maintains that 'Europe' is like a sacred cow and you're either for or against it. I regard it as the only chance to preserve our values and way of life, but if we want it to be just that, it needs a lot of reforming.

[Kralizec]

The Tories aside, I think the main issue with "eurosceptic" politicians is that they always try to protray mainstream political parties as being essentially the same as soon as they're seated in the EP. Anyone with more than a cursory understanding of EU politics knows that this is not the case.

Even if they don't think that the EU should be abolished entirely, they advance ideas that would pretty much do just that in practice. For example, the Dutch Socialist Party thinks that Dutch judges should cast aside EU rules if they conflict with national legislation- they either have not thought this one through or are not honest enough to admit that they think there should be no EU regulation at all

[Fragony]

ow nvm

[Fragony]

For example, the Dutch Socialist Party thinks that Dutch judges should cast aside EU rules if they conflict with national legislation- they either have not thought this one through or are not honest enough to admit that they think there should be no EU regulation at all

Say that 3 times out loud

[Kralizec]

For example, the Dutch Socialist Party thinks that Dutch judges should cast aside EU rules if they conflict with national legislation- they either have not thought this one through or are not honest enough to admit that they think there should be no EU regulation at all

Say that 3 times out loud

There are a number of things that I don't want the EU to interfere with, but regulations that already exist should be respected. Otherwise, what's the point?

There were two cases over 40 years ago versus the Dutch and Italian governments when they raised import tarrifs and nationalized an energy company respectively - both were blatant violations of a treaty they signed voluntarily and of the regulations that resulted from it. If national governments were given unlimited freedom to abandon agreements they've previously entered, then the EU would be the useless institution it's often made out to be.

[Fragony]

There are a number of things that I don't want the EU to interfere with, but regulations that already exist should be respected. Otherwise, what's the point?

Yes, what's the point? The SP are a creepy bunch but I am on the barricades with them on this one.

[Kralizec]

Yes, what's the point? The SP are a creepy bunch but I am on the barricades with them on this one.

If the SP, or any other party feels that the Netherlands shouldn't give a rats ass about European regulation then they ought to be consistent and say they intend to leave the EU entirely. Staying a member and acting as if you're not bound by past agreements (wich is pretty much what they're advocating) is like immigrating to a country and then breaking every law there whenever you feel like it.

The SP and the PVV are only against integration and "meddling from Brussels" if it doesn't suit their own agenda. Wilders said he would like to see something like the American 1st amendment to be adopted everywhere and I expect that they'll try to get something along those lines implemented now that they're in the EP, thus further limiting what national governments can do when it comes to free speech. If implemented, I'd expect Wilders to change his opinion as soon as he's told that it means he won't be allowed to ban the Qu'ran.

That is not common sense - it's ignorance at best, and hypocricy at worst.

[Fragony]

The SP and the PVV are only against integration and "meddling from Brussels" if it doesn't suit their own agenda. Wilders said he would like to see something like the American 1st amendment to be adopted everywhere and I expect that they'll try to get something along those lines implemented now that they're in the EP, thus further limiting what national governments can do when it comes to free speech. If implemented, I'd expect Wilders to change his opinion as soon as he's told that it means he won't be allowed to ban the Qu'ran.

I don't understand you here, how would that limit national governments? Not clawing just asking.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the EU is to move foward the commission must be eliminated, the assumption that that corrupt body has a future in the EU is a Sacred Cow you seem to adhere to, Adrian.

The EU is already a federal state, but it has been done un-democratically because the EU is run by State, not people. That is the reason the British are upset, we have no control over the direction of this monstrosity.

When it comes to election time people vote on the party they think will best-run their country, the executive of that party then also controls the direction of the federal government. So long as State governments control the federation it will remain un-democratic and therefore abhorrent.

The entirity of the governing aparatus of the EU MUST be directly elected if the institution is to do anything other than self-destruct.

[Furunculus]

for what i want of the EU a council of ministers is entirely suitable.

[Beskar]

I think federation system would be the best way to go, in the terms that each of the member states can deal with their own matters opposed to a centralised European dictatorship.

[Furunculus]

I think federation system would be the best way to go, in the terms that each of the member states can deal with their own matters opposed to a centralised European dictatorship.

you mean like running your own financialo services regulation? the nature of a federation is that the federated parts retain power to govern only that which the central Gov't is not bothered about running.

why does britain need to be part of a federated europe?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

why does britain need to be part of a federated europe?

This is exactly the question I want answered. It is also the reason I want the autocratic Commission eliminated. Then the EP would have to at least try to justify it's existence.

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

As far as comparing the EU to the USSR, she is not alone. Mr. and Ms. SwordsMaster Senior, my honoured progenitors, have expressed that opinion many times. I prefer to see it as a Holy Roman Empire, lots of regalia and titles and little real power.
That's the only condition under which I'm prepared to stay.

True, but then again, maybe those americans chose to judge Bush by criteria other than those selected by witheringly scornful europeans, which again would explain the preference.

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

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

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

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

The Commonwealth rises at the same moment the EU reaches its nadir, do you think this will go unnoticed by the British people?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tre-stage.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There will also be warm talk about historic links and shared democratic values. But underpinning it all will be the perennial question: what is the Commonwealth actually for? A report to be published today by the Royal Commonwealth Society warns that it has "a worryingly low profile" among both public and policy-makers: less than a third of people in the Commonwealth could name anything the association did, and the majority of those could cite only the Commonwealth Games.

Certainly, from the British perspective, the organisation has usually played second fiddle. In October 2001, the Brisbane CHOGM was abruptly postponed, partly because of security fears, but mostly because Mr Blair was scurrying around Asia, laying the groundwork for the assault on the Taliban. Given the choice between standing at the head of the Commonwealth or at the side of the Americans, the PM plumped instinctively for the latter.

By his lights, it was the right decision – but it was part of a familiar pattern. In opposition, New Labour claimed that the Commonwealth would be one of its foreign-policy "pillars". Mr Blair insisted that "we cannot let a priceless legacy like this fade into nostalgia" – but nothing happened. Similarly, William Hague recently promised the Tories' "unwavering support" – but specific proposals were thin on the ground.

The Commonwealth's supporters point out that its two billion inhabitants make up roughly 30 per cent of the world's population, and between a quarter and a fifth of its economy – a proportion that can only grow, given the membership of a resurgent India.

The connections between its members – in particular, the linguistic, administrative and cultural legacy of British rule – mean that it costs 15 per cent less to trade within the organisation than with outsiders. So why does Britain not embrace the opportunity the Commonwealth offers?

Part of the problem is that the relationship has always been slightly troubled. While we are rarely now at loggerheads with other members – in contrast to Mrs Thatcher's isolation over South Africa – we still have to perform a tricky balancing act. Do too much, such as chivvying members to improve their human rights record, and we are accused of being neocolonialist. Do too little, and we are accused of neglecting our historic allies.

"From the British perspective, there can be a bit of a mendicant flavour to proceedings," says Richard Bourne, the former head of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit. "There are all these small countries, begging for resources and favours."

As it stands, Britain provides the lion's share of the Commonwealth's budget, alongside Australia and Canada. But that budget is relatively tiny, especially compared with French largesse towards La Francophonie, France's rather smaller club of former colonies.

Despite the grandeur of the its headquarters on Pall Mall, in a mansion loaned by the Queen, the Commonwealth Secretariat rubs along on just £14.9 million a year, barely enough to pay for a Premiership footballer. As a result, most of its work is valuable but low level: development, election observation, mutual offers of scholarships and the like.

And despite the criticisms in the new report, the Commonwealth has tried hard to find a role. Back in 1991, after the collapse of Communism, the organisation proclaimed that it was no longer a fuddy-duddy relic of Empire, but a club of democracies. Under this new arrangement – unique among international bodies – the military strongmen who used to populate the meetings would find a bouncer at the entrance: no elections, no entry.

There was, however, the problem of enforcing this – and of massaging the divisions that are inevitable among such a diverse array of nations. Given how touchy former colonies are about their independence, the Commonwealth ethos is, in Bourne's phrase, "one of co-operation where at all possible" – the maximum progress compatible with the minimum offence.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), the rotating committee that monitors breaches of democratic norms, was only given any real authority because it was set up in response to a diplomatic crisis.

It was not just that Nigeria executed Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other environmental activists in the middle of the 1995 CHOGM, but that this contravened promises made to other leaders in private. As a result, John Major denounced it as "murder, callous and brutal", while Nelson Mandela fumed that General Abacha, the Nigerian dictator, was "sitting on a volcano, and I am going to explode it under him".

In general, however, the Commonwealth does not really do volcanic: indeed, Britain has been so hands-off that more than one Foreign Secretary has failed to attend CMAG's meetings, even when held in London.

Yet in the long term, as Amartya Sen writes in the foreword to another new report, Democracy in the Commonwealth: "The evolution of the Commonwealth from an Empire on which the sun used not to set to an alliance of free nations... has been nothing short of spectacular."

The authors of that report would like to see the Commonwealth continue down this road – to focus on development, human rights, and redressing the failure of many members "to encourage, or even countenance, open political competition".

Yet the Commonwealth has another kind of potential, which from a British perspective could be even more valuable. Amid the West's obsession with China, it is easy to forget that India – with its far more savoury political system – is also on the path to becoming a great power, hailed this week by President Obama as a nation whose relationship with the US would help define the 21st century.

"I've been predicting for years that India is going to be the leading player in the Commonwealth," says Derek Ingram, a journalist and leading Commonwealth observer, "and it's now coming to pass. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is putting it at the centre of Indian foreign policy."

Within the organisation itself there has been no struggle for power – it is far too gentlemanly a body for that – but India is nevertheless starting to flex its muscles: it provides the current secretary-general, will host the next Commonwealth Games, and is increasing its funding for a number of the group's initiatives.

"From the Indian point of view, the Commonwealth is an attractive field, particularly in terms of its rivalry with China," says Bourne, "It offers access to raw materials and investment opportunities, especially in Africa, and the ability to connect to the Indian diaspora across the world."

For Britain, a Commonwealth in which India took a lead would be more of a club of equals, a better reflection of the changing world. It would also, economically speaking, be a way to hitch a ride on the back of the Indian tiger – just as in cricket, where India now calls the shots, but the best British players still get a slice of the massive revenues from its Twenty20 competition.

Yet whatever happens, Britain's diplomats can reflect, as they bask in the Trinidadian sun, that what many have written off as an imperial relic has turned out to be a consensual, informal and adaptable organisation – and one that could, if policy-makers show some vision, be uniquely useful in a world whose problems are beyond the scope of individual countries, or even continents.

The Commonwealth is a resource of unparalleled potential, western europe will decline greatly in the coming century, but Britain's decline could be a lot more graceful than most were we to actually make use of the advantages we have.

[gaelic cowboy]

True, but then again, maybe those americans chose to judge Bush by criteria other than those selected by witheringly scornful europeans, which again would explain the preference.

Doubt it because they all regret it now at least the majority do and rightly so.

Sometimes the annoying cowardly neighbour who wont stop complaining about your loud parties has a point.

[Furunculus]

a belated birthday wish for the ECR, and for the sceptics who doubted it would last a year.

but just so you're not disappointed here's a little controversy for you:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/07...ecr-group.html

No 10: "Proud" of the ECR Group
Iain Dale 12:24 PM

Yesterday I blogged about the rows in the European Conservatives & Reformists Group following a meeting with David Cameron in which it was agreed that in future the group would be led jointly by Michal Kaminski and Timothy Kirkhope. I've just had an on the record comment from a Number Ten spokesman on the issue.

"We remain completely committed to the success of the ECR group. We are proud to have set it up and proud of its progress so far. As far as the leadership is concerned, clearly it must command the support of the group's members."

I asked if the whole issue was indeed raised at the meeting at Number 10 between Cameron, Kaminski and Kirkhope. The spokesman replied: "Yes, it came up and discussions are underway in Brussels. Clearly it is important that the leadership commands the support of the group and the parties concerned."

I asked about the Czechs and whether it was important for them to support the changes and the answer was: "Yes, of course".

On the face of it, this is rather bland and what you might expect Number Ten to say. But the statement goes out of its way to make clear that they are committed to the ECR group and its future.

Sources tell me that there have been murmerings about Kaminski's leadership of the group for some time and that there have been concerns about his workrate, and this is what lay behind Kirkhope's move.

In some ways I am surprised at how few ructions this has caused. Several MEPs I have talked to believe that the initial kerfuffle will be as bad as it gets and that it is already dying down.

[Beskar]

[removed]

[Furunculus]

is that spam, or is there some cryptic message in there?

[Vladimir]

is that spam, or is there some cryptic message in there?

"But the statement goes out of its way to make clear that they are committed to the ECR group and its future."

Maybe?

[Louis VI the Fat]

a belated birthday wish for the ECR, and for the sceptics who doubted it would last a year.

Happy Birthday ECR!


And my continued good luck to the UK Conservatives with Kaminsky! Been following what Cegorach lately has been writing about Poland and Law and Justice?

Poland now has got a conservative, centre-right, neoliberal PM and President - to which the UK Conservatives now no longer have ties. They are, instead, stuck with their boy Kaminsky - a 'has-been' who belongs to the populist Polish Fruitcake Party which just got it on the chin from educated, western, cosmopolitan, hard-working Poles who are not interested in his rubbish anymore.

[Vladimir]

Kaminsky? Do you mean this guy?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Furunculus]

Happy Birthday ECR!


And my continued good luck to the UK Conservatives with Kaminsky! Been following what Cegorach lately has been writing about Poland and Law and Justice?

Poland now has got a conservative, centre-right, neoliberal PM and President - to which the UK Conservatives now no longer have ties. They are, instead, stuck with their boy Kaminsky - a 'has-been' who belongs to the populist Polish Fruitcake Party which just got it on the chin from educated, western, cosmopolitan, hard-working Poles who are not interested in his rubbish anymore.

a has-been from a party that polled 48% of the presidential vote?

[cegorach]

a has-been from a party that polled 48% of the presidential vote?

Yes which of course means that 48% of voters support the party not the candidate... or not.

But another test is just ahead - in October there will be municipal elections.

Uusally the crushing majority of votes are grasped by local associations and citizen organisations which leaves parties with one way to test their popularity and one reason to declare victory.

Namely - in how many CITIES is it able to win.


Good luck with that!

[Furunculus]

don't get your knickers in a twist Cegorach, I am quite happy with the presidential result and prefer their politics in the main.

my support for law and justice is restricted to their MEP's political affiliation in brussels, because the EU to me is foriegn policy so i prefer the Conservatives european party to be stuffed with like-minded anti-federalists.

that is all.

[Kagemusha]

I am sorry to disappoint our member from Finland who maintains that 'Europe' is like a sacred cow and you're either for or against it. I regard it as the only chance to preserve our values and way of life, but if we want it to be just that, it needs a lot of reforming.

Well in that case, maybe our most elusive member from Netherlands should be more open about political alliances whom are actually trying to reform EU and not condemn them before they have not even proposed anything. Also stereotyping whole countries in the process does not help.

If we look at the last elections.Far right and populist parties gained more seats in the EU parliament. Maybe that should give a message that everything is not quite right in the glorious new States of Europe we are living in.

[Furunculus]

hear hear. well put.

[Adrian II]

Well in that case, maybe our most elusive member from Netherlands should be more open about political alliances whom are actually trying to reform EU and not condemn them before they have not even proposed anything. Also stereotyping whole countries in the process does not help.

If we look at the last elections.Far right and populist parties gained more seats in the EU parliament. Maybe that should give a message that everything is not quite right in the glorious new States of Europe we are living in.

Our member from Finland seems to have trouble reading. I already discussed the programme of the new formation, I offered a partial explanation for certain phenomena without stereotyping anyone, and I already stated that not all is glorious in the state of EU.

Mind you, the fact that far right parties gain seats could be a symptom of all sorts of things, including unresolved local issues that have nothing to do with Europe.