Europe

[Furunculus]

There is a difference about feeding ignorance to people than actually presenting all the information as facts. Majority of the Eurospectic position are people in the end scene thinking "But what if I have to say 500ml instead of a pint?!" opposed to looking at bogus recipts about the cost.

Also, there is actually a riot outside my window at this moment of time. I think it is about government policy to increase the cap on Student Fees, but damn, it is loud and noticable over-abuse of whistles.

but the poor ignorant masses have had you EUro-enthusiasts singing the praises for year after year, i see this as little more than much needed balance.

[Furunculus]

our new overlord wants the EU to have direct tax raising powers:

Herman Van Rompuy: Europe's first president to push for 'Euro tax'
Herman Van Rompuy, Europe's first president, is to join forces with the European Commission to push for sweeping new tax raising powers for Brussels.

By Bruno Waterfield and Justin Stares in Brussels and Colin Freeman
Published: 7:00AM GMT 22 Nov 2009

Within days of taking office in January, the former Belgian prime minister will put his weight behind controversial proposals already floated by the commission's head, José Manuel Barroso, for a new "Euro tax".

He will add credence to Mr Barroso's plans, to be formally tabled in the New Year, by arguing for a Euro-version of a "Tobin Tax" – a levy on financial transactions already floated by Gordon Brown as a solution to the international banking crisis. It would result in a stream of income direct to Brussels coffers, funding budgets that critics say are already rife with waste and overspending.

Mr Van Rompuy, 62, who was appointed to the newly-created £320,000-a-year post at last week's special EU summit, set out his stall on direct Euro-taxes during a private speech at a recent meeting of the Bilderberg group of top politicians, bankers and businessmen. The group officially meets in secret, but when selected details of his remarks leaked out, his office was forced to issue a public statement on his behalf.

"The financing of the welfare state, irrespective of the social reform we implement, will require new resources," he said. "The possibility of financial levies at European level needs to be seriously reviewed."

Mr Barroso, whose commission acts as the European Union's executive arm and civil service, has set out alternative plans for a Euro tax that would involve Brussels taking directly a fixed percentage of VAT and fuel duties. While these taxes already help to fund EU spending – set at £121 billion next year – they are currently gathered by the treasuries of individual nation states, from which varying sums are paid into EU coffers.

A new Euro tax could appear on all shopping and petrol station receipts, showing the amount of VAT or fuel duty creamed off directly to Brussels. Supporters say it would take a fixed proportion of the existing tax revenue rather than increase it overall, and make the cost to taxpayers of running the EU more transparent. Critics argue this could backfire by increasing anti-Brussels sentiment.

Mr Van Rompuy has not set out in detail exactly which tax raising mechanisms he favours most, but after the Bilderberg meeting his spokesman said he would look favourably on either green taxes or a version of the Tobin Tax, originally proposed in 1972 by the US economist James Tobin as a tax on currency speculation.

Mr Brown floated this earlier this month as a way of financing future bail outs of the banking system, although he meant it for global rather than purely European purposes.

But whichever revenue-raising mechanism was used, the backing of two of Europe's most senior apparatchiks for the idea in principle will give it extra momentum.

Opponents of the idea could also underestimate Mr Van Rompuy's determination to get his own way. Ostensibly chosen for his new job because of his skill as a consensus-builder, he is also known as a skilled and ruthless political operator, who is happy to play rough as well as smooth. Last year he ordered the locks to be changed on a chamber in the Belgian parliament in order to prevent deputies holding a politically disruptive debate. According to Belgian newspaper De Morgen, van Rompuy told colleagues a few weeks ago that to achieve a top EU function you must "not ask for high office, but become a grey mouse, and offers will come."

Mr Barroso, meanwhile, has just been reappointed to his post by member states for a second five year term, freeing him to push his tax agenda in bolder fashion than before. Any move towards Euro taxes, however, will encounter bitter opposition from British Conservatives.

"Any kind of harmonised tax system will remove control over our national tax systems," said Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Britain's Conservative MEPs. "Competition in Europe depends on member states being allowed to have competitive tax regimes."

In opposing any Euro-tax plans, the Tories will find an unlikely ally in Mr Van Rompuy's sister Christine, 54, a left-wing nurse who joined the Marxist Belgian Workers' Party after witnessing the Belgian government's privatisation of the health service. She is now one of her brother's staunchest political critics, and the brochure used by her party features a picture of her brother dressed as a clown.

"I disagree with my brother's ideas for a green tax," she said. "Any new taxes would be paid by the poor. We need to tax the rich."

so, when we stay out of the euro-tax, in addition of the euro-money and euro border, will we have effectively created a two speed EUrope?

[Furunculus]

Hannan is often derided as a purely negative force, always complaining about the deficiencies rather than looking for the positive, so what would he do were he in Rumpey Pumpey's shoes?

Daniel Hannan: EU is 'in a democratic mess'
The European Union is an economic, demographic and democratic mess, writes Daniel Hannan.

Published: 11:42AM GMT 21 Nov 2009

"It's all very well to criticise, Hannan, but what would you do if you were in Van Rompuy's shoes?" So asked a euro-enthusiast friend when I had finished tearing into Thursday night's stitch-up.

It's a fair question, and it won't quite do to answer that I wouldn't be starting from here. The EU is in an economic mess: its share of world GDP will fall from 26 per cent to 15 per cent in 2025. It is in a demographic mess: 40 years of low birth rates have left it with a choice between depopulation and mass immigration. And it is in a democratic mess, with turnouts plummeting.

So what would I do? Step one is easy: I'd abolish the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby giving a greater boost to Europe's economies than any number of bail-outs and stimulus packages. Food prices would fall sharply: the average family would save more than £1,000 a year in grocery bills, with the greatest savings being made by those on the lowest incomes. Scrapping the CAP would also be the single greatest gift Europe could give the Third World. It would remove the main barrier to a full WTO agreement. Oh, and it would take a penny off income tax into the bargain.

With the CAP out of the way, it would be easy enough to dismantle the rest of the Common External Tariff. I'd phase out all structural, cohesion and social funds, releasing armies of consultants and contractors to more productive work. Ditto the staffs of dozens of euro-quangos: the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Authority, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and so on.

Now the biggie: deregulation. According to the Commissioner for Enterprise, Gunther Verheugen, the benefits of the single market are worth around 180 billion euros a year, while the cost of complying with Brussels rules is 600 billion euros. In other words, by its own admission, the EU costs more than it's worth. The solution? Heap the bonfire with pages of the acquits communautaire: the EU's amassed regulations. Scrap the directives that tell us what hours we can work, what vitamins we can buy, how long we can sit on tractors, how loudly we can play our music. Return power to national governments or, better, to local authorities – or, best of all, to individual citizens.

I would confine the EU's jurisdiction to matters of a clearly cross-border nature: tariff reduction, environmental pollution, mutual product recognition. The member states would retain control of everything else: agriculture and fisheries, foreign affairs and defence, immigration and criminal justice, and social and employment policy.

The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether; instead, seconded national MPs might meet for a few days every month or two to keep an eye on the bureaucracy.

You will, of course, have spotted the flaw in my plan: it would put an awful lot of Eurocrats out of work. Which, sadly, is why it won't happen. For, whatever the motives of its founders, the EU is now chiefly a racket: a massive mechanism to redistribute money to those lucky enough to be on the inside of the system.

Daniel Hannan is Conservative MEP for South East England.

[Beskar]

Scrap the directives that tell us what hours we can work, what vitamins we can buy, how long we can sit on tractors, how loudly we can play our music. Return power to national governments or, better, to local authorities – or, best of all, to individual citizens.

Wait... what?

This comment wasn't fully worked out. While on the face of it seems good, it is actually quite bad.

Firstly, several of these regulations are actually far cheaper than the alternatives and would cost the tax payer even more money. It might cut the cost at an EU level, but it would cost tax payers more if taken at a lower level, especially at National level governments or even local level government would now have to do regulation themselves. The advantages of it at a EU level are pretty obvious. Tax payers of the entire EU would result via pure basic mathetical ratio far cheaper than at lower levels which could result in exponential rises of cost of 10 to 20 fold for the Tax payer.

"What vitamins we can buy" I think regulation here is pretty obvious. They do experiments to see if the vitamins are actually safe for human consumption, and actually make sure they are clearly labelled and advised correctly. Helping the individuals to be able to do a good choice and get stuff that is good for them.

"What hours we can work" is in regards to work hours, this is to stop people from getting overworked by bosses. People if they really want, can work more than the maximum amount of hours at their own choice, opposed to being forced to do so. Just having it done at a cross level EU just makes everyone in the EU have that safe-guard.

etc

[Furunculus]

Wait... what?

This comment wasn't fully worked out. While on the face of it seems good, it is actually quite bad.

Firstly, several of these regulations are actually far cheaper than the alternatives and would cost the tax payer even more money. It might cut the cost at an EU level, but it would cost tax payers more if taken at a lower level, especially at National level governments or even local level government would now have to do regulation themselves. The advantages of it at a EU level are pretty obvious. Tax payers of the entire EU would result via pure basic mathetical ratio far cheaper than at lower levels which could result in exponential rises of cost of 10 to 20 fold for the Tax payer.

"What vitamins we can buy" I think regulation here is pretty obvious. They do experiments to see if the vitamins are actually safe for human consumption, and actually make sure they are clearly labelled and advised correctly. Helping the individuals to be able to do a good choice and get stuff that is good for them.

"What hours we can work" is in regards to work hours, this is to stop people from getting overworked by bosses. People if they really want, can work more than the maximum amount of hours at their own choice, opposed to being forced to do so. Just having it done at a cross level EU just makes everyone in the EU have that safe-guard.

etc

taken in order:
hours we can work, - national decision
what vitamins we can buy, - ambivalent
how long we can sit on tractors, - national decision
how loudly we can play our music - national decison

these are not things the EU should be engaged in.

[Beskar]

taken in order:
hours we can work, - national decision
what vitamins we can buy, - ambivalent
how long we can sit on tractors, - national decision
how loudly we can play our music - national decison

these are not things the EU should be engaged in.

Taken in order:

hours we can work, - Maximum contract hours up to the highest/universal level, actual working hours up to the individual.

what vitamins we can buy, - Research and study at the Universal level

how long we can sit on tractors, - Ultimately up to the individual.

how loudly we can play our music - Difficult one. For a farm in the middle of no where, whatever they want. If a complex of tightly packed flats... Yeah.

[HoreTore]

hours we can work, - national decision

NO!

Unions are international. Forcing them to be national would render them completely useless in a globalized society.

Also, if you want to work more, then there's nobody but your boss who can stop you, unless, of course, you're a surgeon or something else with extra safety measures. I worked 65 hour weeks a few years back, no law against that. But the thing is; I got to make that decision myself. Nobody forced me. That's freedom, my friend.

[Furunculus]

NO!

Unions are international. Forcing them to be national would render them completely useless in a globalized society.

Also, if you want to work more, then there's nobody but your boss who can stop you, unless, of course, you're a surgeon or something else with extra safety measures. I worked 65 hour weeks a few years back, no law against that. But the thing is; I got to make that decision myself. Nobody forced me. That's freedom, my friend.

we, in britain, kinda disagree with you on the roles and powers that should be assumed and wielded by the unions.

and i have no interest in fitting into someone elses idea of what a 'fair' globalised market should be.

[Beskar]

we, in britain, kinda disagree with you on the roles and powers that should be assumed and wielded by the unions.

and i have no interest in fitting into someone elses idea of what a 'fair' globalised market should be.

Not even mine?

[HoreTore]

we, in britain, kinda disagree with you on the roles and powers that should be assumed and wielded by the unions.

and i have no interest in fitting into someone elses idea of what a 'fair' globalised market should be.

Your unions disagree with that.

I can't think there's a single union in the world who does not believe in internationalism. Heck, have unions ever been against internationalism?

How can you play the freedom card when you want people to have less freedom in how much they want to work? How is it freedom to have less power over a third of your own life?

[Subotan]

Your unions disagree with that.

I can't think there's a single union in the world who does not believe in internationalism. Heck, have unions ever been against internationalism?

Wellll, unions in America back in the pre-1940's were notoriously anti-black, and various unions in totalitarian regimes have been quite nationalist.

But no, no union I can think of in a free country has not been internationalist.

[Furunculus]

Your unions disagree with that.

I can't think there's a single union in the world who does not believe in internationalism. Heck, have unions ever been against internationalism?

How can you play the freedom card when you want people to have less freedom in how much they want to work? How is it freedom to have less power over a third of your own life?

they might not, but by now union membership includes less than a quarter of the working population in Britain:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=4

i. don't. care. about. unions.
i'm fine for them to exist, as long as they know their place, but any job that requires a shop 'steward' is not a job i want anything to do with.

[Louis VI the Fat]

We, Britain, disagree

Britain is a big and complicated place. There is no single, monolithic British opinion.

Also, until Thatcher's War on Unions the UK was Europe's Union headquarter.



HoreTore - unions have a long history of protectionism. Immigrant workers were the means by which employers broke Unions. This is the origin of Europe's mass immigration from the 1960's onwards. It was only later, that immigration became a leftist theme.

[Furunculus]

Britain is a big and complicated place. There is no single, monolithic British opinion.

Also, until Thatcher's War on Unions the UK was Europe's Union headquarter.

and yet it happened, and there isn't a single mainstream political party that would ever dare advocate a return to the 70's.

[Subotan]

they might not, but by now union membership includes less than a quarter of the working population in Britain:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=4

i. don't. care. about. unions.
i'm fine for them to exist, as long as they know their place, but any job that requires a shop 'steward' is not a job i want anything to do with.

Tbh, I'm quite happy with the strength of the Unions in the UK. Strong enough to represent the workers, yet not strong enough to damage the economy.

Britain is a big and complicated place. There is no single, monolithic British opinion.

Oh, I didn't notice that.

and yet it happened, and there isn't a single mainstream political party that would ever dare advocate a return to the 70's.

True, but the EU setting working hour directives is hardly going to do that.

[Furunculus]

True, but the EU setting working hour directives is hardly going to do that.

but, it is not a job that the EU has any business interfering with.

[Beskar]

but, it is not a job that the EU has any business interfering with.

Disclaimer: In Furunculus' opinion.

[Furunculus]

any reason why Britain benefits from having the EU decide this?

I would confine the EU's jurisdiction to matters of a clearly cross-border nature: tariff reduction, environmental pollution, mutual product recognition. The member states would retain control of everything else: agriculture and fisheries, foreign affairs and defence, immigration and criminal justice, and social and employment policy.

The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether; instead, seconded national MPs might meet for a few days every month or two to keep an eye on the bureaucracy.

Quote - Daniel Hannan

[Furunculus]

It might suit one of the main parties to let a referendum go ahead with the LDs as the "scapegoat" should one of their coalition demands prove to be such a vote (along with PR, which is a desperate necessity for New Labour if they are not to disappear forever once Scotland leaves a Tory-run UK).

scotland leaving the union might be a more remote possibility than you suppose:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...oll-shows.html

Independence and SNP support down, Telegraph poll shows
Support for Scottish independence has plummeted as Alex Salmond prepares to publish plans for a referendum next year, a new opinion poll conducted for the Daily Telegraph shows.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
Published: 5:00AM GMT 24 Nov 2009

In a double blow for the First Minister, the YouGov survey appears to dash his hopes of making Westminster “hang by a Scottish rope” after the general election.

Mr Salmond wants to increase the number of SNP MPs from seven to 20 and use them to extract concessions in a hung parliament, but public support for his party has crumbled.

Staging a referendum is also near the bottom of a list of priorities voters think Mr Salmond should be pursuing, signalling his administration is out of touch with ordinary Scots.

However, the poll suggests the SNP leader could improve his party’s electoral fortunes by dropping his demands to break away from Britain.

Its findings come as he prepares for one of the most important weeks of his political career, with the Scottish Executive publishing a series of reports about why Scotland should become an independent country.

The campaign will culminate next Monday, St Andrew’s Day, with the publication of a white paper on Mr Salmond’s Referendum Bill, his administration’s flagship piece of legislation.

The YouGov questions were set by Anthony King, professor of government at Essex University and one of Britain’s leading psephologists.

He said: “Alex Salmond increasingly resembles a man trying to drag a heavy vehicle out of a ditch. He pulls harder and harder, but the vehicle remains firmly mired in mud.

“The findings show clearly that most Scots regard the idea of a referendum on Scottish independence as an irrelevant bore and that, if any such referendum were held in the near future, it would be overwhelmingly defeated.”

Mr Salmond wants to stage a vote asking Scots for permission to “negotiate a settlement with the UK Government so that Scotland becomes an independent state”.

Even using this favourable wording, which Unionist parties claim is geared towards a positive answer, the poll shows twice as many people north of the Border oppose leaving the Union as favour the move.

YouGov asked 1,141 Scots how they would vote in a referendum using Mr Salmond’s question, and 57 per cent responded they would say no to independence.

Only 29 per cent would vote in favour, and 15 per cent said they did not know or would not vote.

Since YouGov asked the same question in October last year, support for independence has fallen two percentage points, while backing for the Union has increased by four points.

The three main Unionist parties have made clear they intend to vote down the Referendum Bill, arguing the SNP administration at Holyrood should be focusing on tackling the recession.

The poll suggests the public agrees, with only one in eight respondents naming a referendum as one of the top two priorities on which the Scottish Parliament should be concentrating.

Reducing unemployment in Scotland heads a list of seven areas rated in the survey, with 63 per cent of Scots saying that should be one of Mr Salmond’s most important tasks.

About a third of respondents, 36 per cent, named tackling drug abuse as a top priority, and 26 per cent discouraging further immigration to Scotland.

Twenty-three per cent said Scottish ministers should focus on improving the quality of housing, and 16 per cent “restoring the position of Scotland’s historic banks”.

Holding a referendum was rated sixth out of seven, with 12 per cent saying this was a priority, just ahead of dealing with climate change (11 per cent).

Despite their overwhelming opposition to independence, 45 per cent of Scots are there should be a referendum within the next two or three years “to settle the matter one way or another”.

This is only slightly less than the 47 per cent who said there should not be a vote “as this would be a distraction from more urgent issues that need tackling”.

Mr Salmond hopes to make this a campaign issue at the next general election by arguing the Unionist parties are denying the people a say over Scotland’s constitutional future.

This is part of his strategy for the SNP to make a breakthrough when voters go to the polls next spring, and increase the number of the party’s MPs from seven to 20.

The SNP has traditionally performed much more poorly at Westminster than Holyrood elections because voters think only the Tories and Labour can form the Government.

However, a UK-wide opinion poll published at the weekend suggested there will be a hung parliament after the general election, with David Cameron leading a minority Tory administration.

Mr Salmond has said he would use his bloc of 20 MPs to make Westminster “hang by a Scottish rope”, extracting concessions from the Government in return for the SNP’s support on an issue-by-issue basis.

However, the poll’s findings about voting intentions for Westminster appear to put pay to this target and suggest the SNP will be lucky to win one more seat.

Support for Mr Salmond’s party has nosedived by a third since last year, while backing for Labour has recovered to the same level as the 2005 general election.

Twenty-four per cent of Scots said they will vote SNP next spring, down from 36 per cent recorded by a YouGov poll conducted in August last year.

This represents an increase of six percentage points compared to the popular vote the party won in the 2005 general election, but is not close to the level required to meet Mr Salmond’s target.

In contrast, Labour has seen a sharp revival in its fortunes north of the Border, with its support increasing ten points to 39 per cent since the August 2008 poll.

The poll puts the Conservatives on 18 per cent, two points higher the 2005 general election and the same as last year.

But backing for the Liberal Democrats has plummeted from the 23 per cent of the popular vote they won in 2005, to only 12 per cent.

The SNP has also slipped to second place in voting intentions for Holyrood, with the findings suggesting Mr Salmond’s prolonged honeymoon after winning power two years ago is well and truly over.

Thirty-two per cent of respondents said they would vote for his party at the next Scottish Parliament elections, down only one point since 2007 but a fall of 12 points since August 2008.

Labour attracted 33 per cent of support, an increase of one point since the election two years ago and a rise of eight points over the past year.

The Conservatives have seen a slight increase in their support since the 2007 election, from 13 per cent to 15 per cent, while backing for the Lib Dems has flat lined on 14 per cent.

The poll suggests the SNP’s falling support at Holyrood is thanks to growing disillusionment among voters about Mr Salmond’s record in power.

Among the key SNP manifesto pledges that have been dropped have been promises to scrap council tax, abolish student debt and reducing primary class sizes to a maximum of 18 pupils.

Forty-one per cent of respondents said they approved of the Salmond administration’s record to date, down from 52 per cent in August 2008.

Meanwhile, the proportion unhappy with SNP ministers’ performance has increased from 27 per cent to 36 per cent over the same time frame. This means their positive approval rating has fallen from 25 points to only five points.

The poll suggests that the surest way for Mr Salmond to revive his party’s fortunes would be to “defend and promote Scotland’s interests” but abandon his support for independence.

More than one in four respondents, 28 per cent, said this would make them more likely to vote SNP compared to only nine per cent who said they would be less inclined.

A further 36 per cent said it would make no difference as they would not vote SNP anyway, while 17 per cent said they would back Mr Salmond’s party regardless.

[Furunculus]

1. 'Europygmy' is a nom de tabloid. 'A Europygmy from a Europygmy country'. That's how the British Eurosceptical newspapers describe him, in a mixture of spite over Blair losing out, disdain for anything smaller than or simply different to Britian, and the need to feed their audience their daily EU outrage.
That's the tragedy of English being the world's leading language. British categorizations are taken over. Other considerations than finding a pygmy were the reason to choose Van Rompuy. Most capitals looked for 'a concensus builder' after the bloody, painful, nine year long oddyssey of 'Lisbon'.

2. Van Rompuy was the clear candidate of the European engine, France and Germany. Belgium and the Belgian model are taken quite seriously. (The secret plan is to model Europe after Belgium.)

3. I have no idea whom the Italians preferred, and nobody pays any attention to Italian politics anyway. The Portuguese are well catered to with Barroso, who heads the European Commission. Spain had Javier Solana, originally intented to take the post of 'foreign minister'. He only recently stepped down. The Scandinavians had some ideas of their own, but they are too polite to ever raise their voice. It is too early for the new East European countries to claim either post.

4. The two posts were going to be divided between, and decided upon, by the British Isles, France/Germany, and the Benelux. The British backed Blair. Brown kept backing Blair, until Merkel called Blair last week, informing him politely that he wasn't going to become president. When it still didn't sink in, she called him again, telling him this time in no uncertain terms that no, under no curcumstance could he become president.

5. At any rate, Blair will be lucky to evade criminal prosecution for war crimes, what with the British enquiry about Iraq starting this week.

6. The British were left with two options: aim for an economical position, desired by most British European politicians, or go for the glamour of the post of foreign minister. Brown chose the latter. Which, hopefully, the City will come to regret as this increases the chances of Europe regulating the financial markets, possibly by installing a Tonkin tax.

7. Merkel and Sarkozy understood that they couldn't claim the candidacy for their countries. Then the Benelux pulled its weight. They laid claim to the post. France and Germany informally agreed. Juncker initially, of Luxembourg, made his candidacy. In response, next the Netherlands and Belgium offered their PM's. The Dutch one is onpopular and spineless. The Belgian one is inexperienced, but his track record is impressive. Sarkozy agreed to Van Rompuy, because VR ticked all the right boxes:
- No Turkey in the EU
- Lacking the stature to overpower Sarkozy

8. Merkel was swayed to Van Rompuy too. When the preference for Van Rompuy became clear, the Dutch PM retracted his candidacy and the deal was done. This left the British to name the candidate of their choice for 'foreign minister'.

1. Lol, spite? No-one wanted Blair as president of europe, we spent long enough trying to ditch him in the UK without him returning to power, vampire like, at the head of the EU. It was also understood that Blair as president would bring too much prestige to the position, which is exactly what the British don't want, given that our politics isn't the partisan and tribal model which seems expected on the continent, where you must always back your guy in a euro-vision like manner.

2. Not the clear candidate of of France Germany and Britain because they all wanted a euro-pygmy who would not overshadow national politics.............. are you sure?

3. Given that you spend all your time castigating me for my lack of pan-european vision, and extolling the mantra that we are all the same, it is surprising to see you writing of the worth of the Italian's so casually................

4. So Brown didn't use Blair's candidacy as a stalking-horse to ensure that our position as king-maker resulted in us getting the foreign policy spot (which to me is more important given how spineless i consider continental foreign policy to be, and especially given the pygmy president)?

5. Lol, by who, and with who's army?

6. You may be right, it wouldn't surprise me if once again Brown picked prestige over power. However, if the intention is to wreck the city, then that is just another reason to get out, is that what you want?

7. No turkey - great shame, and yet another reason to think poorly of europe (as a group of peoples), with whom i have no wish to share a democracy.
Sarkosy's Napoleon problem - so you do admit that Rumpey Pumpey was chosen because he is a euro-pygmy?

8. So we got what we wanted (not that i'm saying we got the right thing), doesn't sound like a diplomatic disaster to me.

[Beskar]

Hey Furunculus, why does Dan Hannan always makes his public displays in an empty room? (cue his youtube videos like this one)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think the guy next to him has his head phones tuned into RockFM

Or on scrapping the CAP (see here)

[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]

Hey Furunculus, why does Dan Hannan always makes his public displays in an empty room? (cue his youtube videos like this):


Or on scrapping the CAP (see here)

i think it is an indication of seriously the majority of MEP's take their role as governers of the polities of europe.

excellent video, hadn't seen that one.

[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]

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.

everyone in politics has a sell-by-date, and bush's term was dogged by a multitude of the most difficult choices in recent history as a result of 911, so he made a lot of hard and unpopular decisions.

[gaelic cowboy]

everyone in politics has a sell-by-date, and bush's term was dogged by a multitude of the most difficult choices in recent history as a result of 911, so he made a lot of hard and unpopular decisions.

They were also incorrect and false as evidenced by the fact's on the ground.

[Beskar]

Furunculus, could you do a Commonwealth thread? (aka, similar to what this has become)

Would be interested in talking about that.