Europe

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Two world wars should have taught us a valuable lesson about why we should unite...

Kind of ironic, then, that the last one was started by someone who did want to "unite" Europe.

But think of something else that the powerhouses of Europe have in common besides the European Union. I think you'll find that it is a much larger reason why we have peace.

[Adrian II]

Kind of ironic, then, that the last one was started by someone who did want to "unite" Europe.

Before we call it a Godwin, let me quote Timothy Garton Ash in an attempt to remain on topic:

How would you describe a British politician who prefers getting acquainted with the finer points of the history of the Waffen-SS in Latvia to maximising British influence with Barack Obama? An idiot? A madman? A nincompoop?

You only have to go back to the newspaper cuttings from 2005, when Cameron first announced his leadership clincher, to see the horrified response of Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in the European parliament, who is now charged with sewing together this ragbag. And ragbag is not my word but that of Sir Robert Atkins, the Conservative MEP for North West England, who in 2005 wrote to local Conservatives warning that the party would be left in "futile isolation", in the company of an "unappealing ragbag" of far-right, racist and Europhobic fringe parties. Tell us, Sir Robert, what would you call it now?

[Furunculus]

Before we call it a Godwin, let me quote Timothy Garton Ash in an attempt to remain on topic:

How would you describe a British politician who prefers getting acquainted with the finer points of the history of the Waffen-SS in Latvia to maximising British influence with Barack Obama? An idiot? A madman? A nincompoop?

You only have to go back to the newspaper cuttings from 2005, when Cameron first announced his leadership clincher, to see the horrified response of Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in the European parliament, who is now charged with sewing together this ragbag. And ragbag is not my word but that of Sir Robert Atkins, the Conservative MEP for North West England, who in 2005 wrote to local Conservatives warning that the party would be left in "futile isolation", in the company of an "unappealing ragbag" of far-right, racist and Europhobic fringe parties. Tell us, Sir Robert, what would you call it now?

timothy garton-ash is an idiot who is hopelessly out of touch with british public opinion, so beware the veracity of his pontificating on britains place in the EU.

[Adrian II]

timothy garton-ash is an idiot who is hopelessly out of touch with british public opinion, so beware the veracity of his pontificating on britains place in the EU.

I'm afraid you're the one who is out of touch with Garton Ash, that's all there is to it. The gentlemen is an acknowledged expert when it comes to European history and the inner workings of European power. You, with all due respect, are not.

Garton Ash is on the mark when he states the following:

The fact that Cameron insists on withdrawing from a grouping that includes the parties of the German chancellor, the French president and the Italian and Polish prime ministers sends to them all, and to Washington, this message: prepare for the British again to be the spoilers, the naysayers, the foot-draggers of Europe.

I suppose that he, unlike some people who have an all too rosy view of British Conservatism, remembers what Euroskeptic foot-dragging amounts to. For instance to the attitude of a prime minister who, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, wanted to block German reunification because in her opinion the Iron Curtain had been 'a system under which we've lived quite happily for forty years'. I kid you not. The EU completely bungled the the post-1989 situation because of such foot-dragging which exasperated not just President George Bush senior, but many countries east of the former curtain. I remember Jorge Semprun, the then Spanish culture minister, pulling out his hair in frustration during yet another fruitless 'conference' on European unification where the British and French (unde the equally stupid Mitterrand) blocked any progress, muttering: 'They're not unifying it, they're splitting it up further.'

[Furunculus]

that is irrelevant to TGA being the british voice in europe as so many european papers treat him (there is a der-spiegal example in this very thread, and he was der-spiegals voice of britain during the euro elections).

expert historian he might be, but he is also a muppet who has been captured by the pernicious ideology Transnational progressivism, and he quite simply does not represent british public opinion when he mouths off about EU politics to foreign pundits.

he is also quite simply very wrong when states that the new party will be a political irrelevance, because under proportional representation that is totally untrue.

and this dodges the fact that the EPP, just like TGA, does not represent the world-view of conservative politics, so it is utter stupidity for the cons to remain as a minor partner in a federalist party.

[Adrian II]

[..] he quite simply does not represent british public opinion when he mouths off about EU politics to foreign pundits.

He doesn't claim to represent the British public at all. He couldn't, if only for the simple reason that British public opinion is divided.

he is also quite simply very wrong when states that the new party will be a political irrelevance, because under proportional representation that is totally untrue. and this dodges the fact that the EPP, just like TGA, does not represent the world-view of conservative politics, so it is utter stupidity for the cons to remain as a minor partner in a federalist party.

And this is where you totally misunderstand European politics. As Garton Ash states, the Conservatives are trading real influence for so-called representation by a bunch of racist flat earthers. Where's the gain? They are side-lining themselves in the role of dodgers, blockers and naysayers. They might be able to decide some swing vote or other, but that's all.

[Fragony]

Where's the gain? They are side-lining themselves in the role of dodgers, blockers and naysayers. They might be able to decide some swing vote or other, but that's all.

Eurocrat lingo, the only way to go is forward and you better not be left behind. A lot of people don't like the EU and where it's going, because, well that. And that group of people will grow because of, well that, people don't like it when their -percieved or not- common sense is insulted.

[Furunculus]

He doesn't claim to represent the British public at all. He couldn't, if only for the simple reason that British public opinion is divided.

And this is where you totally misunderstand European politics. As Garton Ash states, the Conservatives are trading real influence for so-called representation by a bunch of racist flat earthers. Where's the gain? They are side-lining themselves in the role of dodgers, blockers and naysayers. They might be able to decide some swing vote or other, but that's all.

he is treated as the voice of british reason in foreign press.

PR is powerbrokering with minor factions proppping up coalitions in return for concessions, they will do as well now as before, and at least be standing on a platform that their voters want.

[Subotan]

Personally, I think it's great. This way, federalism can be achieved at a faster pace. That, combined with Germany's court decision should help to ensure a Federalised, Democratic Europe sooner rather than later.

timothy garton-ash is an idiot who is hopelessly out of touch with british public opinion, so beware the veracity of his pontificating on britains place in the EU.

Well, he has spent the past 30 years studying European Politics, is a fellow of Oxford University and has written seven books; hardly symptoms of idiocy. And the fact that he is disagreeing with populists is probably another sign of intelligence. His latest article in the grauniad seems particularly relevant to this debate.

I don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?

Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. The two centuries when they weren't? The 19th and the 20th, coincidentally the era when European/Western power was at it's zenith. What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples. The old European nation-state is obsolete, finished. We are seeing the emergence of the civilisation state, where entire cultures are unified into single borders, single economies and single millitaries.

Britain cannot compete on that kind of scale. Neither can France, Germany or Finland. However, should we put aside our differences and together to protect our interests at home in Europe and outside of it, maybe we can do something. We can't prevent Chindia's increasing relevance, but we can sure as Hell prevent our irrelevance.

[Adrian II]

Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. [..] What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples.

I'll let you in on another bit of information. In every single century before the last, horsepower was the dominant factor in transport. These days it is the combustion engine. It may have triumphed for the longest time, but when its final day comes it will certainly not be replaced by the horse again. That's because there is no natural order of transport.

For similar reasons, which every reader can figure out for himself, there is no natural order of peoples. That's a historicist fallacy of the first order. By the way you are absolutely right that Europe should get organised (and get its house in order) in order to cope with the rise of new power blocks and changing relationships among the older ones.

Even so, all of this has little bearing on Furunculus' post, which seems to refute accusations that the ECR is a political trash can and particuarly that Michał Kamiński is a anti-semite. I haven't had time to look into this, but since I am committed by my earlier posts I will do so. I hope other will address the substance of his post as well.

[Subotan]

For similar reasons, which every reader can figure out for himself, there is no natural order of peoples.

Woah woah woah, you totally misinterpreted me. I was using "peoples" for poetic effect in place of the word "nation", and in no way shape or form do I think certain ethnic groups are superior to others

[Tribesman]

which seems to vainly attempt to refute accusations that the ECR is a political trash can and particuarly that Michał Kamiński is a anti-semite.

fixed

[Vladimir]

I'll let you in on another bit of information. In every single century before the last, horsepower was the dominant factor in transport. These days it is the combustion engine. It may have triumphed for the longest time, but when its final day comes it will certainly not be replaced by the horse again. That's because there is no natural order of transport.

*looks at feet*

*looks back at Adrian*

[Adrian II]

*looks at feet*

*looks back at Adrian*

Looks at Vladimir's automobile.

[Kagemusha]

Personally, I think it's great. This way, federalism can be achieved at a faster pace. That, combined with Germany's court decision should help to ensure a Federalised, Democratic Europe sooner rather than later.



Well, he has spent the past 30 years studying European Politics, is a fellow of Oxford University and has written seven books; hardly symptoms of idiocy. And the fact that he is disagreeing with populists is probably another sign of intelligence. His latest article in the grauniad seems particularly relevant to this debate.

I don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?

Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. The two centuries when they weren't? The 19th and the 20th, coincidentally the era when European/Western power was at it's zenith. What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples. The old European nation-state is obsolete, finished. We are seeing the emergence of the civilisation state, where entire cultures are unified into single borders, single economies and single millitaries.

Britain cannot compete on that kind of scale. Neither can France, Germany or Finland. However, should we put aside our differences and together to protect our interests at home in Europe and outside of it, maybe we can do something. We can't prevent Chindia's increasing relevance, but we can sure as Hell prevent our irrelevance.

I dont understand why only options should be either federal state or dismantling EU? The monetary Union will give prosperity to all of us in the long run. I would not mind a pan European defensive pact either, but in what do we exactly need a federal state? So we could feel more powerful?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I dont understand why only options should be either federal state or dismantling EU? The monetary Union will give prosperity to all of us in the long run. I would not mind a pan European defensive pact either, but in what do we exactly need a federal state? So we could feel more powerful?

The monetary union means we all rise or fall together. That's not better or worse, but it means individual nations are at the mercy of the fortunes of the whole. As to a defensive pact, we have NATO already.

[Kagemusha]

The monetary union means we all rise or fall together. That's not better or worse, but it means individual nations are at the mercy of the fortunes of the whole. As to a defensive pact, we have NATO already.

And you base your statement about monetary Union on what?

[Furunculus]

1. Personally, I think it's great. This way, federalism can be achieved at a faster pace. That, combined with Germany's court decision should help to ensure a Federalised, Democratic Europe sooner rather than later.

2. Well, he has spent the past 30 years studying European Politics, is a fellow of Oxford University and has written seven books; hardly symptoms of idiocy. And the fact that he is disagreeing with populists is probably another sign of intelligence. His latest article in the grauniad seems particularly relevant to this debate.

3. I don't understand (Most) Eurosceptics. They say that the EU is undemocratic; which is a fair criticism, and needs to be addressed. But this somehow translates into the whole concept being flawed, and that the EU should be dismantled. Ok, fair enough. But what's your alternative? Go it alone against USA, India, Russia and China?

4. Before you say anything, I'll let you in on a piece of information. In every single century during the entire history of mankind, save two, either China and India have occupied numbers one and two in terms of rank of gross GDP. The two centuries when they weren't? The 19th and the 20th, coincidentally the era when European/Western power was at it's zenith. What we are seeing with the "rise" of China and India is not some freak accident, but rather a realignment of of the natural order of the peoples. The old European nation-state is obsolete, finished. We are seeing the emergence of the civilisation state, where entire cultures are unified into single borders, single economies and single millitaries.

5. Britain cannot compete on that kind of scale. Neither can France, Germany or Finland. However, should we put aside our differences and together to protect our interests at home in Europe and outside of it, maybe we can do something. We can't prevent Chindia's increasing relevance, but we can sure as Hell prevent our irrelevance.

1. I'm not quite sure i follow, the creation of an anti-federal right-wing bloc will make federalism faster? Perhaps by starting an honest debate for once within mainstream euro politics over whether the people actually want a federal europe......... you may be right, but the result could easily go the other way. As to the german ruling; i support it to, it makes a strong case for national oversight and involvement in european politics, and to whatever extent european politics exists I want to see the primacy of national parliaments.

2. No, he still is an idiot. He has not grasped after thirty years of 'study' that the demos do not feel loyalty and trust to a cratos which shares none of the history that creates the shared culture, social norms, and goals that allow trust to form and loyalty to be awarded.
"Cameron may have helped the Polish right, but he has not served Britain. A dubious rightwinger now heads conservatives in Europe. What on earth does the Tory leader think that he's doing?"
He is doing what he is supposed to; responding to his EUro-skeptic electorate by not housing his european political arm within a federalist euro political bloc. TGA is still trapped in a lefty mindset of distrust and fear; distrust of the irresponsible peoples within europe who will once again descend into blood and barbarism without a post nationalist political ideology, and fear that non-liberal ideologies will be storming the gates of illiberal europe unless they band together against america and asia. I don't have that distrust of people, and i don't have the fear of once again seeing my ideological champions dashed to the ground.

3. No, the whole concept is unecessary and inherently un-demos-cratos. I say this because I believe in the sovereign nation-state. 1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view. Therefore I trust this body of people act in a way that I generally approve of, and to produce a governing body that will act broadly in manner that I understand and accept. Therefore I am willing to be bound by their decisions, and thus is my acquiescence to the will of the state created. I am, in short, willing to suffer the consequence of my governments actions. I share no such empathy and common history with the continental nations, therefore I have no trust that they (the EU) will act in a manner that I approve of, and thus I do not acquiesce to be governed by the EU. In short, I am unwilling to suffer the consequence of the EU's actions conducted in my name. It will never be right that I should be governed by those I do not consider my 'family', hence I will never support the EU's political ambitions.
You know what, i'm pretty sure there are lots of people in europe who feel the same way about britain too, and that's okay, why should they want our free-booting capitalist ways interfering with their own political evolution.

4. Referring to #2, i don not fear that Britain won't be able to compete with the rising asian titans.
We are an innovating economy, our future wealth is tied to our ability to create value for others, not add value. That does not require a federal euope for Britain. Whether it requires a federal europe for France, Belgium et-al is a choice for them to make, not me.

5. Again with the fear, i'm not interested.

[Tribesman]

1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view.

Wow , what to say about that load of tripe?
I suppose Bollox will suffice.

[Furunculus]

try harder....

[Adrian II]

1000+ years of co-existence and co-dependence has forged the English people, and latterly the British peoples, into a group with a shared culture, shared social norms and values, and a shared world view.

And how did it come about?

You may recall that in 1603 a certain James Stuart descended from Scotland to London to assume the throne of Great Britain. The personal union of Scotland with England and Ireland wasn't exactly a love affair, leading to the Bishops' Wars, a civil war in Scotland, the War of the Three Kingdoms, and to James' and Charles' own excesses (both father and son allowed themselves to be rules by adventurers like Buckingham and certain Spanish and French princesses). Yet this difficult episode brought the isles together.

I could point to similar episodes in the 'making' of Great Britain.

I could give you the Dutch successor to the British throne whose ascent (in 1689) marked the start of a prolonged period of growth for the nation, even though he himself was scorned by part of the British public on account of his religion and alien roots.

Or what about the ascent to the throne of a gentleman with the peculiarly un-British name of Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Kurfürst und Erzbannerträger des Heiligen Römischen Reiches ('George' to his friends)? He was ridiculed by his subjects, the Jacobites hated him, yet he turned out to be an enlightened ruler who helped to introduce cabinet government.

It's politics what brought yer isles together, my friend. And it's politics what'll bring Europe together. In what shape of form this will come about will be the subject of eternal discussion and dissent, but the principle, dictated by necessity as it was in early modern times, seems clear.

[Furunculus]

1. You may recall that in 1603 a certain James Stuart descended from Scotland to London to assume the throne of Great Britain. The personal union of Scotland with England and Ireland wasn't exactly a love affair, leading to the Bishops' Wars, a civil war in Scotland, the War of the Three Kingdoms, and to James' and Charles' own excesses (both father and son allowed themselves to be rules by adventurers like Buckingham and certain Spanish and French princesses). Yet this difficult episode brought the isles together.

2. I could give you the Dutch successor to the British throne whose ascent (in 1689) marked the start of a prolonged period of growth for the nation, even though he himself was scorned by part of the British public on account of his religion and alien roots.

3. Or what about the ascent to the throne of a gentleman with the peculiarly un-British name of Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Kurfürst und Erzbannerträger des Heiligen Römischen Reiches ('George' to his friends)? He was ridiculed by his subjects, the Jacobites hated him, yet he turned out to be an enlightened ruler who helped to introduce cabinet government.

4. It's politics what brought yer isles together, my friend. And it's politics what'll bring Europe together. In what shape of form this will come about will be the subject of eternal discussion and dissent, but the principle, dictated by necessity as it was in early modern times, seems clear.

1. Are you advocating war to forge a federal europe?

2. And, what does this tell us in the context of whether the British people in the 21st century want federal governance from europe...........?

3. And, what does this tell us in the context of whether the British people in the 21st century want federal governance from europe..........?

4. If you consider war an extension of politics by other means, then yes, politics did bring the British isles together, again, are you advocating war to forge a federal europe?

Two questions I ask myself about Britain's relationship to a future federal EU:
1) Is it necessary? (will Britain see a net benefit over and above that which it enjoys now) The answer is always - No
2) Is it desirable? (will representative governance suffer due to the disconnect between demos and cratos) The answer is always - Yes

So it is neither necessary nor desirable. It is that simple.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Before we call it a Godwin, let me quote Timothy Garton Ash in an attempt to remain on topic:

How would you describe a British politician who prefers getting acquainted with the finer points of the history of the Waffen-SS in Latvia to maximising British influence with Barack Obama? An idiot? A madman? A nincompoop?

You only have to go back to the newspaper cuttings from 2005, when Cameron first announced his leadership clincher, to see the horrified response of Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in the European parliament, who is now charged with sewing together this ragbag. And ragbag is not my word but that of Sir Robert Atkins, the Conservative MEP for North West England, who in 2005 wrote to local Conservatives warning that the party would be left in "futile isolation", in the company of an "unappealing ragbag" of far-right, racist and Europhobic fringe parties. Tell us, Sir Robert, what would you call it now?

...?