Europe

[Sarmatian]

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?

[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.

[Subotan]

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.

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.

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?

[Furunculus]

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.

[Furunculus]

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:

€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.

€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.

‘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!?!?

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?

[Subotan]

€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

€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.

‘

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.

[Furunculus]

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.