Europe

[Louis VI the Fat]

A good candidate? A European Sarah Palin I'd say, but with brains. Vaira has never held an elected office. She is a Canadian professor of linguistics, who briefly held the mostly ceremonial function of president of Latvia.


She may impress the Eurosceptic crowd with her demand that the position of EU chairman/president must be an elected office, an open process, but let's not forget that she herself was not elected president in a transparant election either, but appointed by parliament. As is the case in most European systems.

When's the last time Britain elected a PM? Never, of course, because that would mean a semi-presidential system.



Two things:

- Unless one wants a presidential system, as in France or the US, a president / PM is not directly elected. I find it most peculiar that so many people who dissaprove of a directly elected head of their domestic government, should insist on a direct election of EU offices.

- Again, it is the anti-federalists who dissaprove of a direct election of an EU chairman. As they should, as an anti-federalist. Because an elected EU President has a direct mandate from the electorate. Which places her in a position of direct power against national governments. This means an end to the EU as an organisation of supranational states, and turns the EU into some sort of confederacy.


So: know what you are asking for when demanding an elected EU president. Don't just mewl that the process is undemocratic, while simultaneously demanding that it be thus.

[gaelic cowboy]

A good candidate? A European Sarah Palin I'd say, but with brains. Vaira has never held an elected office. She is a Canadian professor of linguistics, who briefly held the mostly ceremonial function of president of Latvia.


She may impress the Eurosceptic crowd with her demand that the position of EU chairman/president must be an elected office, an open process, but let's not forget that she herself was not elected president in a transparant election either, but appointed by parliament. As is the case in most European systems.

When's the last time Britain elected a PM? Never, of course, because that would mean a semi-presidential system.



Two things:

- Unless one wants a presidential system, as in France or the US, a president / PM is not directly elected. I find it most peculiar that so many people who dissaprove of a directly elected head of their domestic government, should insist on a direct election of EU offices.

- Again, it is the anti-federalists who dissaprove of a direct election of an EU chairman. As they should, as an anti-federalist. Because an elected EU President has a direct mandate from the electorate. Which places her in a position of direct power against national governments. This means an end to the EU as an organisation of supranational states, and turns the EU into some sort of confederacy.


So: know what you are asking for when demanding an elected EU president. Don't just mewl that the process is undemocratic, while simultaneously demanding that it be thus.

And don't forget the likes of Furunculus is constantly telling us he wants an EFTA style arrangement when infact what he really means is an EEA arangement. The Anti EU crowd would really have summit to complain about then as the EEA must accept certain points of EU law without the ability to contribute to its crafting at all no ifs or buts. I may be sceptic but I aint no fool.

[Furunculus]

And don't forget the likes of Furunculus is constantly telling us he wants an EFTA style arrangement when infact what he really means is an EEA arangement. The Anti EU crowd would really have summit to complain about then as the EEA must accept certain points of EU law without the ability to contribute to its crafting at all no ifs or buts. I may be sceptic but I aint no fool.

Actually, what i really want is a bilateral set of agreements such as negotiated by Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzer...European_Union

The quality of the deal we negotiate depends on ones negotiating power, like our trade deficit with europe for instance.

[Furunculus]

Thanks to ALH_P - the europhile blog Charlemagne of the economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charl...ibility_in.cfm

Europe's global credibility in the balance
Posted by: Charlemagne

TWO days from the summit that should choose the European Union’s most senior representatives to the outside world, it is far from clear that most EU governments want to think, hard, about the outside world at all. In 48 hours from now we could be about to anoint a Van Rompuy-D’Alema ticket, a Schüssel-Diamantopoulou slate, or a Balkenende-Plassnik team. At which point an awful lot of people will turn around and say: a decade of institutional wrangling for that?

To a growing extent, I feel it is a shame that the discussion about global ambition has become bogged down in a discussion about the only world leader on the list of potential candidates, ie, Tony Blair. The fact that people have such strong feelings about Mr Blair has meant there has not been sufficient scrutiny of some of the more general arguments being advanced against him.

Talk to defenders of the modest “chairman” type president of the European Council, and you will hear an unholy alliance of reasons to aim as low as possible, when it comes to the EU as a global actor. From the federalist camp, and their cousins in places like Germany who believe in deeper economic integration, there is a clear desire to limit the clout of the European Council, in order to preserve the power of the European Commission and the European Parliament. There is a navel-gazing quality that is pretty startling: talk of the European Council’s job being to reach consensus about important things like agricultural spending, tougher regulations on banks or fighting illegal migration. In other words, domestic EU work, not great power foreign policy. They have been joined by people like the British Conservative opposition, who are labouring under the mistaken belief that a modest council president will lead to a modest EU (as I have written before).

Here is a big reason why: a lot of member countries of the EU simply do not do foreign policy. They have policies to do with their neighbours, ties to the odd ex-colony, but not foreign policies. They cannot imagine what it would be like to be an active player in a global crisis, and through a mixture of everything from pacifism to inertia, appear to feel it is naïve and vulgar to believe that you can ever affect the course of global events.

It is hard to convey to outsiders the narcissistic parochialism of Brussels at the moment. There is a sense that whoever is chosen on Thursday night, it will be a big moment for the world as the EU's new institutional arrangements are given their first figureheads.

The world is not waiting for the appointment of the EU's first double hatted foreign policy representative. The world is busy, and is dimly aware that Europe has finished with its latest treaty and is about to appoint some new top figures. The world will check who those new figures are, and if they appear credible and impressive, will take note. If they are unknown figures, appointed after hours of horse-trading dominated by considerations about balancing north and south, gender, left and right, big and small, new and old, central and peripheral etc, the world will shrug and walk away.
A sort of circular reasoning grips many of my colleagues in the Brussels press corps, lots of whom still yearn for the Luxembourg prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, to get the post of president of the council. The reasoning seems to go as follows: Europe needs to become much more integrated politically and economically to become a major world power. Mr Juncker has a long, unrivalled track record of promoting the economic and political integration of Europe, therefore if he is chosen, Europe stands the best chance of becoming a major power. That reasoning is flawed.
Try waking Barack Obama up in the middle of the night, because Jean-Claude Juncker is on the line. Imagine a crisis: perhaps Israel is 36 hours away from bombing Iran. With a heavy-hitting, charismatic president of the council, there might be a chance that “Europe” could work the phones between Washington, Beijing and Moscow, to put together a set of sanctions on Iran (a petrol embargo, say), tough enough to stall Israeli action. Is that a job for Mr Balkenende, Ms Diamantopoulou or Ms Plassnik? No.

So what is going to happen on Thursday night? I no longer have a clue. Or rather, I am no longer confident in anyone’s predictions, though I hear a lot of predictions from people actively engaged in these discussions. That is because if it were going to be a straightforward discussion, we would know that by now. The summit is arguably a week late, which indicates that the Swedes who are hosting the meeting are really struggling to reach a consensus on names. Diplomats are talking about the meeting going until dawn on Friday, or quite possibly ending without a result, forcing leaders to come back in December. Once you get to 3am in an EU contest, all the serious candidates thought of so far could be dead on the carpet, leaving a complete surprise to come through the middle.

methinks he is contradicting himself; apparently a euro-pygmie both will & willnot bring power and prestige to the position of EU president...................

the point about many euro nations simply not-doing foriegn policy is interesting, another reason why I am not interested in having British mule hitched to the back of the EU wagon-train, it's going nowhere interesting on the international scene.

[gaelic cowboy]

Actually, what i really want is a bilateral set of agreements such as negotiated by Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzer...European_Union

The quality of the deal we negotiate depends on ones negotiating power, like our trade deficit with europe for instance.

And yet it will be one way traffic for the majortiy of the bitter pills as stated in your own link

These negotiations resulted in a total of ten treaties, negotiated in two phases, the sum of which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. The treaties are:

Switzerland had to go through these procedure because the voters rejected EEA membership which would have imposed the same set of circumstances on them anyway. Unfortunately the voters of Switzerland could not stop there politicians from doing a deal under EFTA arrangements.

Earlier it states

Switzerland wanted to safeguard the economic integration with the EU that the EEA treaty would have permitted, while purging the relationship of the points of contention that had led to the people rejecting the referendum.

So we can see the voters were outmanouvered as they did not have the right to impose restrictions on there politicians right to act on there behalf when in talks.

[Furunculus]

And yet it will be one way traffic for the majortiy of the bitter pills as stated in your own link

These negotiations resulted in a total of ten treaties, negotiated in two phases, the sum of which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. The treaties are:

Switzerland had to go through these procedure because the voters rejected EEA membership which would have imposed the same set of circumstances on them anyway. Unfortunately the voters of Switzerland could not stop there politicians from doing a deal under EFTA arrangements.

Earlier it states

Switzerland wanted to safeguard the economic integration with the EU that the EEA treaty would have permitted, while purging the relationship of the points of contention that had led to the people rejecting the referendum.

So we can see the voters were outmanouvered as they did not have the right to impose restrictions on there politicians right to act on there behalf when in talks.

Hate to break this to you so bluntly, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain is not Ireland, and it is not Switzerland.

You want access to our trade deficit?
You want access to our diplomatic resources?
You want access to our military resources?
You want access to our worldwide network of bases?
You want access to our EU contributions?

Sure, but it'll come a cost.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hate to break this to you so bluntly, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain is not Ireland, and it is not Switzerland.

You want access to our trade deficit?
You want access to our diplomatic resources?
You want access to our military resources?
You want access to our worldwide network of bases?
You want access to our EU contributions?

Sure, but it'll come a cost.

I hate to break it too you but any English man who thinks they can return to the days of having a sign a dover saying "Channel Fog Bound Continent Isolated" is maybe in need of a bit of blunt talk from reality.

[Subotan]

Well I suppose we could go Orwellian, willingly join into a union with the USA, rename ourselves Airstrip One and be colonised by the colonists?

[Beskar]

She may impress the Eurosceptic crowd with her demand that the position of EU chairman/president must be an elected office, an open process, but let's not forget that she herself was not elected president in a transparant election either, but appointed by parliament. As is the case in most European systems.

It is not just Eurosceptics. Do you class me as a Eurosceptic? I believe that the head and cabinet should all be individually elected if there is going to be a head. If I am honest, I see a "president" more of a chairperson than a leader. So ultimately, I would like to be a elected chairperson for the EU.

When's the last time Britain elected a PM? Never, of course, because that would mean a semi-presidential system.

I would love to see an elected prime-minister. Also, we wouldn't have got Gordon Brown. Shame Gordon Brown didn't jump ship and allowed David Cameron in office. I would have just laughed really loudly to see him inherit the Credit Crunch then the Depression.

- Unless one wants a presidential system, as in France or the US, a president / PM is not directly elected. I find it most peculiar that so many people who dissaprove of a directly elected head of their domestic government, should insist on a direct election of EU offices.

It is interesting. But not everyone wants their current domestic government system, such as myself, so I can't be thrown in there.

- Again, it is the anti-federalists who dissaprove of a direct election of an EU chairman. As they should, as an anti-federalist. Because an elected EU President has a direct mandate from the electorate. Which places her in a position of direct power against national governments. This means an end to the EU as an organisation of supranational states, and turns the EU into some sort of confederacy.

Evil anti-federalists getting in the way of democracy.

So: know what you are asking for when demanding an elected EU president. Don't just mewl that the process is undemocratic, while simultaneously demanding that it be thus.

Indeed.

[gaelic cowboy]

Just a correction for Beskar but a Prime Minister is only head of Goverment and so while important he is obviously elected to the assembly. Heads of state are differant many countries elect there head of state still more do not like england.

[Beskar]

Just a correction for Beskar but a Prime Minister is only head of Government and so while important he is obviously elected to the assembly. Heads of state are differant many countries elect there head of state still more do not like england.

I still think the head of government should be elected into that position.

[Furunculus]

A good candidate? A European Sarah Palin I'd say, but with brains. Vaira has never held an elected office. She is a Canadian professor of linguistics, who briefly held the mostly ceremonial function of president of Latvia.

She may impress the Eurosceptic crowd with her demand that the position of EU chairman/president must be an elected office, an open process, but let's not forget that she herself was not elected president in a transparant election either, but appointed by parliament. As is the case in most European systems.

When's the last time Britain elected a PM? Never, of course, because that would mean a semi-presidential system.

So: know what you are asking for when demanding an elected EU president. Don't just mewl that the process is undemocratic, while simultaneously demanding that it be thus.

I have made it quite clear that i encourage the democratic deficit within the EU, because;
a) i wish a federalising europe to be hampered at every turn, by its own lack of legitimacy, as long as we are within it.
b) there is no demos that i recognise as sharing my interests
c) there is no kratos with whom I am happy to have act in my name.


as to VVF:

Mrs Vike-Freiberga, 71, studied in Canada and became Professor of Linguistics at the University of Montreal. She is the author of 11 books and the recipient of 16 honorary doctorates. Married with two children, one of whom works in London, she is fluent in English, French, German, Latvian and Spanish and also understands Italian and Portuguese.

Her brand of centrist free-market politics — she stood as an independent candidate for the Latvian presidency — is built on a hatred of dogma in all its forms, but especially the communism that enslaved her country for 50 years.

Her baby sister died as the family fled the advancing Red Army, which her stepfather, a fireman, had been forced to fight when he was drafted into the Latvian legion — the Waffen SS. The family eventually found sanctuary from Europe in French Morocco and moved again to Canada in the 1950s. “As a child I have seen Europe at its very worst,” she said. “I have seen two occupations of my country and the front line going back and forth over my grandfather’s farm.

“Nobody who has not been occupied by two opposing forces should get on their high horse and start spouting about supporting one side or the other. We wanted a free Latvia. We hoped that the Allies would prevent us from being occupied by the Soviets but we were betrayed, including by the British. That’s a fact.”

Mrs Vike-Freiberga, who was nominated by the Baltic states to be UN Secretary-General after the departure of Kofi Annan in 2006, said that her programme for the EU presidency would be guided by pragmatism, rejecting ideologies such as federalism. Since leaving the Latvian presidency two years ago she has joined a group of senior politicians drawing up plans for the EU and is a frequent visitor to Brussels.

there is a lot to like.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A good candidate? A European Sarah Palin I'd say, but with brains.

I'm sold.

[Beskar]

I'm sold.

Problem with Louis' definition is that Sarah Palin is looks with no brains.

So if she is Sarah Palin with Brains, that would mean she has looks and brains, and altogether perfect.

If she is just Brains and no looks, she is the opposite of Sarah Palin.