Evil Europe, trying to safe-guard our future, boo to them!! If we want to mess things up, we should be allowed then, then we come crying to Europe to save us.![]()
Evil Europe, trying to safe-guard our future, boo to them!! If we want to mess things up, we should be allowed then, then we come crying to Europe to save us.![]()
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
That is a fallacious arguement. If the EU allowed countries rights to their own soverign waters then they could ban other nations from fishing there. Put simply, there is no reason for the British to cut back quotas, as they have in the past, when Spanish trawlers can come in and take the fish anyway.
The current botched state of the EU is not blame, because less integration would also fix the problem.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Been there, done that. See 'Cod War'.
The way out is through international agreement and enforcement. Preferably global. However, I am not counting on reaching reasonable agreements with the Congo or Burma. Whereas I do think a permanent intitute for international co-operation by medium and small sized European states will function. Much to everbody's benefit. It is also much more efficient to have one agreed and enforced treaty than 27 states having different agreements with the other 26 states.
Also, 'national waters' is not a meaningful concept in sustainable fishing. Fish (like pollution, trade, science etcetera) doesn't recognise national sovereignity.
What if fish spawns in the 'sovereign waters' of country A, spends spring and autumn in country B, and spends winter in C.
If B doesn't allow fishing, then C will harvest all the fish during winter. Unless, of course, A will fish all of it while the fish are young.
A, B, and C will have to reach an agreement.
Together with D, whose rivers are crucial for the ecosystem of the waters of A. And E has traditional cultural fishing rights in the waters of C. The pollution of G affects the waters of C. As does the industry of H. The market for the harvested fish is mainly I. But it is processed in J. And transported through K. Etcetera.
What to do? Meet at a permanent forum and work it out.![]()
Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; 07-18-2009 at 22:43.
i lol at all the people who are "non-icelandic - but in favour of them joining the EU", have you not realised it is none of your business?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-negotiations/
The Icelandic parliament, the Althing, has voted by 33 to 28 to begin accession talks with Brussels. British Europhiles, who have had little enough to cheer lately, are jolly excited about the whole thing. Any moment now, Sunder and Sunny (or do I mean Sunny and Sunder?) will dust off their perennial blog post about how I lack all credibility on the subject, because I failed to predict the Icelandic financial crisis five years before it happened.
Look, chaps, I don’t want to dampen your celebrations, but Iceland won’t join the EU. Its people are too calculating, too hard-headed and too attached to their democratic institutions.
Iceland has voted to start discussing terms, not to accept them. Several of its MPs were elected on the basis of precisely this position: to find out what Brussels might offer. If and when a deal is hammered out, it will be put to a referendum. And there is every chance that, like the Norwegians before them, Icelanders will reject the accession terms that their politicians propose.
In every country in Europe, there is a split between parliament and people on the issue of political union. Eighty-two per cent of Danish MPs voted to adopt the euro, but only 47 per cent of Danes backed them in the subsequent referendum. Ninety-one per cent of Swedish MPs voted for the euro, but only 42 per cent of their constituents agreed. Seventy-seven per cent of French MPs were for the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty, but only 46 per cent of French voters; 84 per cent of Dutch MPs, but 37 per cent of Dutch voters; 92 per cent of Irish MPs, but 47 per cent of Irish voters.
Icelanders, partly because they are few, and partly because they are outside the EU, are not so divorced from their rulers. (I remember, years ago, a politician friend of mine coming in from an evening canvassing in Kópavogur with a stunned expression: “I just met this constituent,” he said incredulously, “and I didn’t know her!”) Even so, it would be strange if Iceland were the only county in the world whose people were less Eurosceptic than their politicians.
Here’s my guess as to what will happen next. Iceland’s Left-wing government will apply formally for membership at the end of this month, and the process will begin in earnest next year. There will be an almighty row about fisheries, which will end with the EU agreeing to a special protocol guaranteeing Iceland the right to its own territorial resources, including energy and fish. Icelandic ministers will claim victory, but sceptics will point out that the protocol is worthless, since it is not included in the main text of the Treaties, which continue to define fish stocks in EU waters as a “common resource” to which all member states have “equal access”.
By this time, Icelanders will have noticed that the EU’s economies are not in great shape. Already, Iceland has started to outperform Ireland. In any case, Icelanders will remember that one of the few parts of their economy that they had already ceded to Brussels before the crash was, er, regulation of financial services.
With the polls looking evenly balanced, the government will call a referendum – probably in late 2010 or 2011. It will lose. Icelanders will vote “No” for these reasons. You doubt me? Alright: I’ll wager a pound to a euro that Icelanders will still be an independent people five years from now.
Last edited by Furunculus; 07-19-2009 at 11:03.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
And that is a major defect in the EU.
It was not started as a constitution that other countries could join when they agreed to follow it, but a mess of countries whose purpose is always just about to be shown.
This shortsighted vision when the EU was formed hobbled it from the start, and as it gets bigger and increasingly unwieldy these things only get worse.
Short of a miracle there is almost no way to move forward as to reach consensus would be all but impossible. Better get it right with small groups of countries who have a cast iron constitution before starting, not unclear rubbish bolted on a decade or so down the line.
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Erm...it is very much our business. In fact, it is our business only and nobody else's.
But it would suit me just fine if British anti-EU sentiment would put its money where its mouth is and adopted the stance that it is none of Britain's business who joins the EU.
~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~
About that column:
Iceland is a sovereign nation. Iceland is also a democracy - it boasts the oldest parliament in the world. It expressed its sovereign democratic will to start negotiations.
It is not on for Daniel Hannan - an elected MEP himself! - to insist that this ancient parliament is not expressing the will of the Icelandic population. Is Iceland not a democracy? Should we perhaps not take this parliament of Iceland's own choice seriously?
Does that clown Hannan not see both the double standard and the diplomatic affront of his juvenile column? He himself is speaking as an elected member of a parliament. Yet, here he is close to claiming that the elected members of another parliament do not represent their constituency.
My, isn't that a respectful way to start off negotiations with Iceland with!
Hannan ought to understand that being an elected representative of Britain does not always combine well with smug activist blogging activities.
I'll meet his challenge with another one: I'll give him his pound, if he goes to Ireland this October, starts off a rant in his affected posh English, protesting that the Irish democratic institutions are obviously inferior, incapable of representing the sovereign will of Ireland, and expressing the hope that the Irish people will listen to his superior English sentiments instead.
I'll give him another pound if, next time he meets, say, American members of Congress for negotiations, he publicly and in a derisive smug tone, insists that they will lose the next elections anyway, making any negotiations with American democratic representatives an obviously useless excersize.
His claim is also just plain false and irrelevant.
First of all, the Icelandic parliament haven't decided to join the EU without putting it to a vote by the public. That's just what they're doing! They have decided to negotiate with the EU so that they can let the people of Iceland decide, by referendum, whether to join or not. The discussion has been whether to have a referendum on beginning negotiations too, but that would've been undemocratic. Why? Because such a referendum would undoubtedly be presented as a for or against the eu-referendum, and without the negotiations, the Icelanders wouldn't know what deal they will get with the EU, and would therefore be asked to make an uninformed decision. While I can see why some capitalist managers would like that option, making uninformed decisions is after all their livelihood, to us others it's rather dumb...
And I say this as a "no"-man. because the EU, while a good idea, are held captive by the market-libby hippies.... get rid of them, and I'll support ya![]()
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
errr, isn't that what he says too?
Iceland has voted to start discussing terms, not to accept them. Several of its MPs were elected on the basis of precisely this position: to find out what Brussels might offer. If and when a deal is hammered out, it will be put to a referendum. And there is every chance that, like the Norwegians before them, Icelanders will reject the accession terms that their politicians propose.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
I dunno. I've had enough of these countries joining in because they're going through a difficult economical situation, get fixed partly thanks to EU funds/trade, and then keep complaining about 'teh evil EU bureaucracy'.
Iceland repeatedly said the EU is terrible and what not and that the country is doing fine without it. Now that everything is going wrong in the country, they suddenly think about joining? A tad too easy for me.
Furthermore, we've had way too many new members lately. As Furunculus and other EU-skeptics are hoping, the more members join, the more instable and unworkable the EU becomes.
exactly so.
if the EU were merely a glorified trading block then it would not be possible to cause disintegration by increasing entrant countries, but it is not just a trading block, it has political ambitions that I disagree with (because we are in it) so I am delighted to propose entrants that will make political integration more challenging.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
HoreTore, Furunculus - I'm sorry, but I didn't give a recapitulation of Hannan's blog. I gave a criticism of it.
In which I accused MEP Hannan of losing sight of the fact that Iceland is a sovereign nation, and that Hannan's blog is dangerously close to a diplomatic affront.
~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~
The Fun stuff!!
Hannan was, until recently a very outspoken admirer of the economic system of...Iceland! That's right, the very ultra-liberalised system that led to the current deep economic crisis in Iceland. (No, not a crisis like the one that rages in Europe or the US. But one that has shook Iceland to the core and swept away the foundation of the country. Iceland is bankrupt.)
For years, Hannan has written that Iceland should serve as the example to the EU. Whereas, as it stands, currentl Iceland is bankrupt and has just applied for EU membership.Originally Posted by Hannan
Is this, perchance, the reason why Hannan reacts so irritable about Iceland negotiations to join the EU and the euro? Why he writes blogs that border on the diplomatic affront?![]()
Hannan has been a regular visitor to Iceland for 15 years. His best man organised his stag night there to celebrate its refusal to join the European Union, and has declared Icelanders to be the sturdiest and most self-reliant people he knows. Hannan's critics have pointed to his extravagant praise for Iceland's economic miracle prior to the 2008 crash, in which he advocated that other countries should emulate the Icelandic model of minimal national and international regulation as their model.
In an October 2004 piece for the Spectator, entitled Blue-Eyed Shiekhs, Hannan wrote "For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence Party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members ... Icelanders have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth. Long may they remain so"
~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~
I wonder what Hannan's new overlord has to say about all of this, the leader of the British Conservatives in Europe, that nationalist Pole - what's his name.![]()
That is not true!!Originally Posted by Furunculus
I don't accuse you of having a simplistic view of politics. Only of having an elaborate view of politics that is wrong all the time.
Look, I'm sorry, I don't know what it is about Hannan. There is a certain self-absorbed smugness in his face that just creeps me out. I can't help myself.
Yes, I too am not happy about cleaning up Iceland's mess. It is too easy indeed. Iceland has enjoyed a free ride of EU regulations up until now. Cherry-picking what served the interests of Iceland, without accepting expenses or responsibilities.
But, except for the class of '95, this has been the practise for just about all countries upon joining. And for many, to varying degrees, after joining.
Iceland, despite everything, is a sober and sensible nation. Its membership will strengthen the EU. Quality above quantity.
I will wellcome Iceland to EU with open arms. While i am not friend of deeper integration. I believe economically EU is a good organisation for its member states and i would not mind Norway and Switzerland joining either.
Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.
Blair for president should just about put the cap on it.
There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
"The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."
I based my post on your criticism, but reading his article I just can't see where he's "losing sight of the fact that Iceland is a sovereign nation".... He asserts that the people of Iceland wants to negotiate with the EU, but he also asserts that the majority in Iceland stills says no to the EU....
Assassinate your market-libby hippies, and I'll have no problem joining.
Last edited by HoreTore; 07-21-2009 at 17:39.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Bookmarks