Euro Area

[Kralizec]

I'll preface this comment by saying that I don't claim to know everything. However, since there are so many eurosceptics here who combine the capacities of armchair economist, legal expert and political scientist, I don't think I should hold back.

We don't know, and probably will never know for sure, wether Cameron promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in bad faith or wether he changed his position under pressure from other member states. And before you shoot your mouth of, it would be perfectly within their rights to press Cameron to ratify the Lisbon treaty. The other European countries have an interest in making the EU succeed. It's understandable that they'd be annoyed when measures that they view as being beneficial to the whole are rejected because a single government cowers in the face of its voters. It's perfectly understandable that they don't want these measures to depend on the outcome of a British referendum, whose voters who are stupid enough to put Diana Spencer ahead of Shakespeare and Darwin in a survey to establish who were the 100 greatest British people.

And if any of you intends to respond to this along the lines of: "politicians thinking of the general good, instead of being self-interested and stupid? Don't make me laugh" - please don't post.

Cameron is right, EU regulations will affect Britain even if they're not in the EU and so their interests are better served by remaining a member. Of course Cameron's vision of EU membership will consist of even more opt-outs. It's blindly obvious that it would be in the best interest of the UK to be able to vote on every single EU issue while still being able to pick and chose which parts will be binding to them. What's remarkable is that while you talk a lot wether the British should leave the EU unilaterally and wether EU membership serves British interest, we never see the opposite angle of that discussion. Nobody ever wonders wether it's in the interest of the Dutch, the French, and so on wether the UK is a member state.

- the British don't want the EU to succeed. A large part of the population would, at least on a subconscious level, be happy if the entire continent burned to the ground so they could say "I told you so".
- British people elect delegates that routinely insult other nationalities. Germans want to reinstate the fourth reich. Belgium is a non-country which shouldn't even exist. They sometimes feign compassion with other countries, but only to further their criticism of the rest of the EU and its member states - in that regard, it's worth pointing out that some British politicians opposed an increase of funds of the IMF because it could be used to bail out Greece.
- perhaps most important point: the British are only out for themselves. They don't care about the interests of other countries if it gets in the way of doing whatever the hell they please, 100% of the time. This is true for a substantial part of most countries in the EU, but other countries are governed by governments who recognise that the welfare of their countries are intertwined, and that they have an interest in keeping their neighbours from collapsing in financial ruin.

By all means, leave the EU. I don't think it will benefit you, but it will sure as hell be a benefit to the rest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's understandable that they'd be annoyed when measures that they view as being beneficial to the whole are rejected because a single government cowers in the face of its voters.

Is it really understandable?

Aren't all Democratic Governments ultimately responsible to their voters. If a country is principally run by one of two political parties and both parties acknowledge that the majority of the electorate do not want deeper European integration for their country, then whatever party is in power should respect that wish.

This is not a question of "vote for a Eurosceptic party", because all the parties know the will of the people is Eurosceptic and it is incumbent on them to govern accordingly - especially when they all said they would.

As to why Cameron didn't offer a vote on Lisbon - he admitted as soon as the Irish ratified the treaty with a gun to their heads that he wouldn't be able to hold a referendum until after the treaty came into force, making the exercise legally pointless.

The second part of your post - about what nasty bastards we are - doesn't even bear responding to.

Frankly, if the rest of Europe's Governments are so afraid of the popular will they won't test it then please kick us out, I mean it. We would be so much happier, and all your EU money would still be laundered through London.

[Kralizec]

Is it really understandable?

Aren't all Democratic Governments ultimately responsible to their voters. If a country is principally run by one of two political parties and both parties acknowledge that the majority of the electorate do not want deeper European integration for their country, then whatever party is in power should respect that wish.

This is not a question of "vote for a Eurosceptic party", because all the parties know the will of the people is Eurosceptic and it is incumbent on them to govern accordingly - especially when they all said they would.

Democratic governments as we know them are electable olichargies. That's not a nice description, but essentially true. Its rulers are accountable to their voters because if they're ill perceived, they're expendable and can be replaced. If "deeper European integration" is such a hot issue for the majority of voters, they should vote for the UKIP or the BNP. That way, you're out of the EU. Your society and economy will be in ruins of course, because you just elected idiots. The idea that whatever party holds power at the moment needs to consult the opinion polls before making a decision would make representative democracy pointless and impotent.

I've seen many British people, on this forum and elsewhere, who try to paint their political system as some sort of "special" system which serves the nation's wellbeing more than any other system. Especially those continentals, with their proportional representation and civil law - gross! As soon as their politicians agree to sanction the EU, however, it's a gross abuse of representative democracy. Go figure.

Most people in the Netherlands would agree that leaving the EU would be a bad idea. We don't have an entrenched two party system like you doj, and we do have various eurosceptic parties - composed of idiots and loons, like yours. In the last two elections I supported a pro-european party, and as I've said before the eurosceptics' failure to organise themselves into an electable party with competent politicians is not my problem.

As to why Cameron didn't offer a vote on Lisbon - he admitted as soon as the Irish ratified the treaty with a gun to their heads

That is a rather disingenious way to explain why the Irish voted for the Lisbon treaty.

And for Cameron - it's phrased like a sorry excuse, which coincidentally ties in with my argument about not resisting something the rest has already agreed upon.


Deny, if you will, that you won't get a feeling of satisfaction if the monetary union implodes. I won't be happy because I'll probably be unemployed and poor. Likewise, I challenge you to state that you'll be glad you were wrong if the eurozone pulls through this. Because I've never seen anything in your posts that suggests this.

It is doubtfull that the majority of European voters agree with your view that they have an interest in making the EU succeed. As for this "cowers in the face of its voters"... Governments should cower in the face of people; the Government serves the people and not vice versa. The Common Law of England binds the Queen, not the other way around.

This statement makes me doubt wether you understand at all how Common Law came about, how it developed or what it is.

Any country whose population wants the EU to fail should, quite frankly, GTFO. Failing that, its governments should still act to make it work because they have that duty towards the other members.

Democracticly elected governments should not cower in the face of the people. Anyone who argues that is an anarchist, completely clueless or simply lives in a country whose government can't be described as "democraticly elected".

An elected politician should do what he thinks is right for the country, act accordingly and then explain to his voters why he did what he did. It remains to be seen wether Cameron's party will be punished for his "we should stay in the EU because it's in our interest". If he were an honest guy instead of a spineless wimp he would have made that clear before the last election instead of pandering to the tabloid reading crowd with his eurosceptic pandering.

[SoFarSoGood]

I understand Common Law perfectly well thank you. It is what bound King John to the Magna Carta and ended up costing Charles l his head after he tried to impose a ship tax outside the port towns: It was illegal but he proclaimed 'Divine Right', God didn't save him from the headsmans axe though. Where I live in 'perfidious Albion' there are common law rights that date back before the Norman invasion. In theory anything that can be proved to be customary since 1189 (I think) is held to a part of custom and therefore protected by 'common law'. On the continent they use 'Roman Law' which is top down as opposed to English law, the basis of which is bottom up. Do some reading...

Don't you understand that the people are the only the court though? You sound like apologist for dictators... God forbid you ever have power.

[Fragony]

'Most people in the Netherlands would agree that leaving the EU would be a bad idea.'

We are in too deep already, but ask the same question about returning to the EEG aka just trade without becomming part of the international-socialist superstate.

A haunting look into the mind of an international-socialist's logic http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments

Link is Dutch but vid is English.

He lies btw, the Dutch didn't vote yes, 70% voted no to the international-socialism but that was the wrong button

That guy is not Dutch by the way he is from Belgium

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Kralizec - Maybe, you know, the British system is better.

I mean, Ireland excluded, we've been more politically stable and democratic than most place in Europe for the last four centuries. We shouldn't need to elect UKIP in order to be consulted on a transfer of Power from Westminster to anywhere else.

We elect our politicians to govern not to outsource their responsibilities - if they wish to do so without a popular mandate (and there is no part which has campaigned on anything other than maintaining Status Quo in Europe) then they need to ask.

As to our economy being in "ruins" if we leave - your beloved Europe is driving the entire bloody continent into bloody ruin without any regard to the human cost of "the Project". The Euro was never necessary, nor was the Constitution, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the current deadlock results from the democratic deficit - politicians in Europe have created a situation without any popular backing, and now they cannot move forwards or backwards without ensuring their own political Oblivion.

When the Constitution fell at two votes the move towards further integration should have been abandoned and serious consideration should have been given to alternatives, such as closer Union for those countries that wanted it or could manage it, and a looser relationship for the rest.

The bloody experiment in imposing political change top to bottom has failed - anti-foreign sentiment has been rising in various countries for the last decade and is now reaching a head. Greece is actually ungovernable now, the Executive can't do anything, Spain is facing a very serious prospect of fragmentation, Belgium continues to stagger on without a proper mandate at the Federal Level, France has elected a man who thinks the rich will pay 75% tax.

Don't get me started on what's happening in Germany.

[Fragony]

'As to our economy being in "ruins" if we leave - your beloved Europe is driving the entire bloody continent into bloody ruin without any regard to the human cost of "the Project". The Euro was never necessary, nor was the Constitution, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the current deadlock results from the democratic deficit - politicians in Europe have created a situation without any popular backing, and now they cannot move forwards or backwards without ensuring their own political Oblivion.'

Indeed, there was never any need for any of that, but they just don't know when to back off. The international-socialism is a project of politicians who failed nationally, it's the pit of incompetence. But they just can't go back anymore without admitting their faillure so es muss sein

[Kralizec]

I understand Common Law perfectly well thank you. It is what bound King John to the Magna Carta and ended up costing Charles l his head after he tried to impose a ship tax outside the port towns: It was illegal but he proclaimed 'Divine Right', God didn't save him from the headsmans axe though. Where I live in 'perfidious Albion' there are common law rights that date back before the Norman invasion. In theory anything that can be proved to be customary since 1189 (I think) is held to a part of custom and therefore protected by 'common law'. On the continent they use 'Roman Law' which is top down as opposed to English law, the basis of which is bottom up. Do some reading...

Don't you understand that the people are the only the court though? You sound like apologist for dictators... God forbid you ever have power.

Not exactly. Or rather, this is completely wrong. You should do some reading.

"Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation. The various customary laws that previously were held to be binding in the countryside were superceded by what was called the Common Law of the land; i.e. previous customs were supressed in favour of uniform law. Which isn't to say that changes in society can't affect common law, but the point is that as soon as the higher courts set a precedent it's binding for the entire jurisdiction and until it's superceded by a new ruling - a very much top down approach.
And please, let's view Magna Carta for what it is. Allthough we can broadly agree that it was a good thing in itself, it essentially was a bunch of lower aristocracy forcing the King to make certain concessions. That some have tried to pass it off as what God wanted has no bearing on history. Such charters were fairly common throughout the middle ages. If you know what the words "Magna Carta" would translate to in English you can claim to be more knowledgable than David Cameron.

I mean, Ireland excluded, we've been more politically stable and democratic than most place in Europe for the last four centuries.

That's debatable at best. If you make a selective comparison with France, then yes, Britain/the UK would seem to be a beacon of stability. But even so, England has been occasionally raided by Scots AFAIK during some ages, you've had a brief period of illegitimate dictatorship (Cromwell), the legal King removed in favour of his daughter and a foreigner (a.k.a. the glorious revolution) and so on. I don't feel like spending the time an an exhaustive comparative research of the history of European nations, but from what I know I'm confident that the British tale of stability and tranquility has been blown up to fairytale proportions.

As for "more democratic", I think that a lot of European countries (mine included) introduced universal suffrage around the same time as you did. What you English people call "democratic" in the 19th century was little more than elective olichargies with fairly broad, but still limited suffrage.

We shouldn't need to elect UKIP in order to be consulted on a transfer of Power from Westminster to anywhere else.

Yes, you do. That's how representative democracy works. If you want to influence the Tory platform you need to become a member of that party. Otherwise you'll be stuck with the choices offered at the ballot, and your FPTP system will ensure that only the traditional parties have a chance of getting in power.

Which incidentally is why I don't think the British system is better. Allthough the USA could be described as having a more rigid 2-party system than the UK I would say that theirs is better. The two parties in America are fairly diverse in themselves - there are reactionary democrats in the south, and there are socially liberal republicans in the north east. Congressmen can, and often do, vote against the party line. In contrast, the UK has 0.5 party more, but British parties have far greater party discipline and less local input.

As to our economy being in "ruins" if we leave - your beloved Europe is driving the entire bloody continent into bloody ruin without any regard to the human cost of "the Project". The Euro was never necessary, nor was the Constitution, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the current deadlock results from the democratic deficit - politicians in Europe have created a situation without any popular backing, and now they cannot move forwards or backwards without ensuring their own political Oblivion.

I wasn't saying that leaving the EU would inevitably lead to ruin. I was saying that giving Downing Street 10 to either the UKIP or BNP would do that, and incidentally only those two have promised to get you out of the EU. Subtle difference.

The bloody experiment in imposing political change top to bottom has failed - anti-foreign sentiment has been rising in various countries for the last decade and is now reaching a head. Greece is actually ungovernable now, the Executive can't do anything, Spain is facing a very serious prospect of fragmentation, Belgium continues to stagger on without a proper mandate at the Federal Level, France has elected a man who thinks the rich will pay 75% tax.

Don't get me started on what's happening in Germany.

LOL, so now the EU is to blame for that Spain has a history of regional seperatism? And that Belgium has a 150+ years history of tension between the Flemish and Walloons?

Revolutions and civil disorder are far, far less likely to break out in times of economic boom and prosperity. The EU has its share of the blame in the current financial trouble, but that's it. If Catalonia breaks away from Spain it's not the EU's fault. Honestly, you're a smart guy, but the conformation bias in your argument here is astounding.

[Fragony]

Just a thought Kraz, aren't you like many europhiles mistaking the EU for a nation-state? As it isn't.

[InsaneApache]

Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation.

I might be wrong but it was there before the Normans. I believe it was Alfred the Great who instituted it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Kralizec;2053486710]Not exactly. Or rather, this is completely wrong. You should do some reading.

No it isn't.

"Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation. The various customary laws that previously were held to be binding in the countryside were superceded by what was called the Common Law of the land; i.e. previous customs were supressed in favour of uniform law.

Wrong - The "Common Law" was created when William I sent his judges to discover what the law was in the land. Point being - it was accepted that English Law existed, the Justices were to determine what the law was - hence the part about the date and "existing custom"

And please, let's view Magna Carta for what it is. Allthough we can broadly agree that it was a good thing in itself, it essentially was a bunch of lower aristocracy forcing the King to make certain concessions. That some have tried to pass it off as what God wanted has no bearing on history. Such charters were fairly common throughout the middle ages. If you know what the words "Magna Carta" would translate to in English you can claim to be more knowledgable than David Cameron.

The suggestion that David Cameron didn't actually know "Magna Carta" is absurd - that was clearly a fake response. The Charter was pressed by the Barons together against the King - not the "Lower" aristocracy. You need to look up the English peerage. While much of it was about the Rights of Foresters and the Barons it also enshrined many important rights for churls as well.

That's debatable at best. If you make a selective comparison with France, then yes, Britain/the UK would seem to be a beacon of stability. But even so, England has been occasionally raided by Scots AFAIK during some ages, you've had a brief period of illegitimate dictatorship (Cromwell), the legal King removed in favour of his daughter and a foreigner (a.k.a. the glorious revolution) and so on. I don't feel like spending the time an an exhaustive comparative research of the history of European nations, but from what I know I'm confident that the British tale of stability and tranquility has been blown up to fairytale proportions.

I said "last four hundred years or so", didn't I?

Excusing the Civil War, we have manged several dynastic transitions without any actual bloodshed - James II's overthrow was a relatively minor matter. Even then, we have been at peace internally in England since 1688. France cannot claim that, Germany cannot calim that, Spain cannot claim that, Italy cannot claim that.

Find me a European country that existed in 1688 that can claim that - then we can talk.

As for "more democratic", I think that a lot of European countries (mine included) introduced universal suffrage around the same time as you did. What you English people call "democratic" in the 19th century was little more than elective olichargies with fairly broad, but still limited suffrage.

The Great Reform Act was 1832 - the Netherlands had a similar Act in 1848 - universal Male suffrage came in 1917, in the UK it was 1918

Table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

The Netherlands has had universal suffrage for marginally longer than the UK, but limited suffrage for nowhere near as long, and political stability hardly at all prior to WWII.

LOL, so now the EU is to blame for that Spain has a history of regional seperatism? And that Belgium has a 150+ years history of tension between the Flemish and Walloons?

Revolutions and civil disorder are far, far less likely to break out in times of economic boom and prosperity. The EU has its share of the blame in the current financial trouble, but that's it. If Catalonia breaks away from Spain it's not the EU's fault. Honestly, you're a smart guy, but the conformation bias in your argument here is astounding.

You're absolutely right - the EU is responsible for exacerbating existing tensions, the diometric opposite of what it's supposed to do.

[Greyblades]

Find me a European country that existed in 1688 that can claim that - then we can talk.

Switzerland?

[Kralizec]

No it isn't.

His bit about Common Law forcing his King to do this or that is complete nonsense. I don't recall an English judge ever giving the King orders how to rule. It has become part of common law in the broad sense, but that's not what he said.

Wrong - The "Common Law" was created when William I sent his judges to discover what the law was in the land. Point being - it was accepted that English Law existed, the Justices were to determine what the law was - hence the part about the date and "existing custom"

The mistake here is that you're assuming there was some sort of uniform body of English law there to be found. As I said, the substance of Common Law may have been lifted from the bottom, but that doesn't change the fact that the precedents that were declared by the judges were then binding for the entire jurisdiction. If a higher court approved of the verdict, it became a precedent for an even wider area. Other countries in the same period had a remarkable legal diversity, and the same was true for England before Common Law brought uniformity. It's the reason why "conflict of laws" was a rich, developed field of legal theory in continental Europe while it was unheard of in Britian until the union with Scotland.

The suggestion that David Cameron didn't actually know "Magna Carta" is absurd - that was clearly a fake response. The Charter was pressed by the Barons together against the King - not the "Lower" aristocracy. You need to look up the English peerage. While much of it was about the Rights of Foresters and the Barons it also enshrined many important rights for churls as well.

He was asked, among other things, what the name actually meant and didn't answer.

British peerage holds no interest for me. I was thinking of barons when I wrote that, but I don't know why I wrote "lower". I stand corrected. The point was that other people had the power (and the nerve) to make the King concede stuff, instead of some romanticist fairytale that Englishmen have rights because of god/common law/flying spaghetti monster.

I said "last four hundred years or so", didn't I?

Excusing the Civil War, we have manged several dynastic transitions without any actual bloodshed - James II's overthrow was a relatively minor matter. Even then, we have been at peace internally in England since 1688. France cannot claim that, Germany cannot calim that, Spain cannot claim that, Italy cannot claim that.

Find me a European country that existed in 1688 that can claim that - then we can talk.

Switzerland. Can we talk now? (EDIT: darn, beaten to it)

I'm sure that if you do enough research, you can find plenty of German principalities that were untouched by Napoleon, barely noticed that the HRE stopped exisiting and were largely at peace until the world wars. Britian is only remarkable in that it was a large territory with above average stability. Even so, upheavals did occur, and how people leap from this to the conclusion that the British political system is inherently superior to all others is beyond me.

The Great Reform Act was 1832 - the Netherlands had a similar Act in 1848 - universal Male suffrage came in 1917, in the UK it was 1918

Table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

The Netherlands has had universal suffrage for marginally longer than the UK, but limited suffrage for nowhere near as long, and political stability hardly at all prior to WWII.

According to that table, France and Switzerland beat you by a long margin as far as universal male suffrage is concerned. I'm not even sure what you're arguing about here.

The Netherlands, politically unstable before WWII? If we start counting after Belgium's seccession I don't think so- and keep in mind that the general area of Belgium had only been part of the Netherlands for a couple of decades, prior to Napoleon it was an Austrian posession. There were some hot political issues here and there, but nothing special AFAIK.

The biggest political upheaval in Dutch history, excluding the French and German invasions, was the so-called Patriot uprising in Holland. It's difficult to dertermine how that would have played out since it was crushed by the Prussians - I don't know much about it; it was virtually ignored in schools until recently, presumably because of its republican nature.

You're absolutely right - the EU is responsible for exacerbating existing tensions, the diometric opposite of what it's supposed to do.

That is a matter of opinion. To me, it's akin to assigning blame to a movie or a video game for triggering a psychotic man's nerves and causing him to go on a killing spree. In my opinion the makers don't deserve to be blamed in that scenario, either.

Regional sentiments have fluctuated in Spain even in the good times. That Spain is buckling when faced with extra stress (an exaggeration, in my opinion - I do not expect it will come to that) just shows further that they don't have their own house in order, and that's not in the purview of the EU.

[SoFarSoGood]

"Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation.

Wrong. Gavelkind was 'common law' in Kent long after the Norman invasion. The Normans were forced to accept common law based on Saxon customs. Read English legal history; law comes from the bottom up. This is why we elect legislators, something you appear to oppose.

[Kralizec]

Wrong. Gavelkind was 'common law' in Kent long after the Norman invasion. The Normans were forced to accept common law based on Saxon customs. Read English legal history; law comes from the bottom up.

Chances are that I've read more about English legal history than you did. So again: you're wrong.

Of course the people had laws and customs before the Normans came, thanks a lot for pointing that out. I'm going to spell it out for you one last time: these laws and customs differed from region to region. The system of common law allowed for a uniform legal system by binding all regions to legal precedents. The Saxons did not have this system and therefore did not have "common law" as we know it today.

This is why we elect legislators, something you appear to oppose.

I never posted anything that could be construed as such.

Common law relies far more on (unelected) judges to develop law than continental systems. In comparison with civil law systems, the English legal system has very little in the way of statutes - i.e. law made by elected representatives.

Indonesia is a republic and an ex-colony of Netherlands. Compared with its neighbours it is not doing very well ie Malaysia, Singapore and Australia are all ex-British colonies.

Pakistan isn't particularly stable then again it's probably outdoing Afghanistan or Iran as places people want to live and is only being outdone locally by India which is another product of British colonialism.

I think I'd rather live in Iran than in Pakistan. Neither are appealing, though.
Indonesia is a more or less secular state with equality before the law. The same is not true for Malaysia. Any comparison with Australia (or Canada) is unfair for obvious reasons.

I don't see how any of this is supposed to prove common law is better in any way. Ex-colonies seem to always keep the legal system that their occupier left in place. Turkey, Egypt, Japan and China are countries that were never "colonized" by western powers and they all chose to adopt the civil law system.

[SoFarSoGood]

The other European countries have an interest in making the EU succeed. It's understandable that they'd be annoyed when measures that they view as being beneficial to the whole are rejected because a single government cowers in the face of its voters.

It is doubtfull that the majority of European voters agree with your view that they have an interest in making the EU succeed. As for this "cowers in the face of its voters"... Governments should cower in the face of people; the Government serves the people and not vice versa. The Common Law of England binds the Queen, not the other way around.