Europe

[Subotan]

T
Why was this necessary in the first place?

Because of compromise and watering down.

[Furunculus]

the iron lady of latvia is at it again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6920916.ece

[Beskar]

Being honest, Vaira seems a good candidate and the first President being a female sounds some what appealing as well.

[Furunculus]

agreed, despite not wanting a president at all, she'd make the best of a bad deal.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

I'm sold.

[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.

[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.

[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]

All hail our new Belguim Overlord.

Andres, get on your beer bike and come in this thread for a celebratory drink on you.

[Subotan]

I for one, welcome our new Europygmy Overlords.

[tibilicus]

So after tonight where does the EU go from here? More integration forced by bureaucrats?

Tonight's a significant event, a president of what is the most powerful economic body in the world was ushered in, and non of us had any say in the matter what so ever.

Europe the beacon of democracy?


My arse..

[Subotan]

Tibilicus, did you vote in the last European Election?

[Beskar]

Tibilicus, did you vote in the last European Election?

I did. I voted Liberal Democrats.

Wasn't voting Labour and I would never vote Tory or any other nutcase parties.

[Furunculus]

So after tonight where does the EU go from here? More integration forced by bureaucrats?

Tonight's a significant event, a president of what is the most powerful economic body in the world was ushered in, and non of us had any say in the matter what so ever.

Europe the beacon of democracy?


My arse..

indeed.

we got a federast europygmy for president and a british non-entity for foriegn minister.

not a bad result all told.

Rompey is a pygmy from a pygmy nation, so his federalist clap-trap hopefully won't have much legs:

He has been described by Chris Bryant, the Europe minister, as having "a more federalist agenda than other prime ministers in Europe".

He once authored a federalist manifesto that decalared: "Apart from the euro, also other national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols (licence plates, identity cards, presence of more EU flags, one time EU sports events."

Just last week, speaking to a private dinner of industrialists, diplomats and politicians, he called for European taxes on financial transactions to fund the EU.

He is also a hard-line opponent of Turkey's bid to join the European Union because, he has warned, it is an Islamic country and would dilute Europe's Christian heritage.

Ashton is at least British, which is a good thing given that i view foriegn policy and defence as the most important thing a nation does, but is also a pygmy which means that neither the UK, France, or Germany is really serious about trying to forge a common foreign policy.

Another UK source said that by proposing her for the job, Mr Brown was ensuring the high representative could not be considered Europe's foreign minister. The source said: "This means the job is not a foreign minister job, it's a job of co-ordinating policies among 27 members."

[edit]
i did think that blair's candidacy was being used by brown as a stalking horse to make sure miliband got the high-rep job, in an effort to protect a labour high-flyer from the butchery at the next election along with the following wilderness years.

this didn't happen, but i still reckon brown used blair as a stalking horse to ensure a brit got the high-rep job, by far the more important position provided a pygmy from the right of euro-politics got the job of president.
[/edit]

[edit2]

This advert will be playing in cinemas across Britain in the near future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DxPnjOBlRI

What do you think?

[/edit2]

[Furunculus]

just came across this summation of events, which brilliantly matches my own thoughts on the matter in a few well-crafted paragraphs:

Baroness Ashton as EU Foreign Minister – is this the most ridiculous appointment in the history of the European Union?

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: November 20th, 2009

When Henry Kissinger famously remarked that Washington should have a single telephone number to call in Europe, I don’t think it was Labour peer Catherine Ashton he envisioned on the other line. I very much doubt that before today the former Secretary of State had even heard of Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and nor had I’m sure almost every person in Europe, including in her home country of Britain.

Admittedly I’m very relieved that David Miliband won’t be getting the post. He’s doing enough damage already as British foreign secretary, let alone inflicting further embarrassment on the UK from a new perch in Brussels. But what were the 27 EU heads of state thinking when they appointed someone with practically no experience whatsoever of foreign affairs to represent more than 500 million people?

I’m sure you could find 22-year old interns in the House of Commons who are far more knowledgeable on foreign policy than Baroness Ashton. She has a grand total of one year working in the international arena, as European Commissioner in Trade. Nor has she ever held elected office and is massively unqualified. Here is her less than impressive CV on the European Commission’s website. Ashton’s meteoric rise to power in Brussels is a damning indictment of the fundamentally undemocratic political process within the EU, and its utter contempt for public opinion.

There are though some positives in what is a spectacularly silly appointment. Perhaps the Obama administration might dampen its immensely naive enthusiasm for a federal Europe if it knows it has to deal with the less than dynamic duo of Catherine Ashton and new EU President Herman Van Rompuy. Somehow I don’t quite see Hillary Clinton and Lady Ashton as the Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid of international affairs – or even Cagney and Lacey for that matter.

It is also in Britain’s national interest to have an EU President and EU Foreign Minister who are political lightweights with zero international name recognition. Tony Blair after all would have given Europe a far higher political profile on the world stage, and been a force to be reckoned with at the negotiating table. Blair was by far the most qualified man for the job, but experience and real world qualifications count for very little in Brussels.

This may well be the most ridiculous appointment in EU history, but it will fortunately help set back European ambitions to be a major actor on the world stage. It is hugely ironic that after decades of slaving away at crafting the foundations of a European superstate, the Eurofederalists have been left with two of the dullest politicians on earth as the public face of the European Union.

Anything that undermines the Lisbon vision of the EU as a powerful supranational force is a good thing, and the appointments of both Baroness Ashton and Herman Van Rompuy will do that in spades. Better a weak non-entity as foreign minister or president than a powerhouse Henry Kissinger at the helm if the nefarious European Project is to be defeated. Europe doesn’t need a President, and nor does it need a Foreign Minister. What it needs is greater sovereignty, democracy, free enterprise and political accountability, all best preserved by the nation state.

[Beskar]

[edit2]

This advert will be playing in cinemas across Britain in the near future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DxPnjOBlRI

What do you think?

[/edit2]

It's nice that it only displays all the costs and non-of the Benefits or even goes on to explain the costs.

I can do it too, give me the budget and the actors and there you go, you have an alternative point of view in the same exact style.

Which one would be correct? Neither of them.

[Furunculus]

that is a shame, my heart bleeds!

[tibilicus]

Tibilicus, did you vote in the last European Election?

No, a year to young.

[Furunculus]

It's nice that it only displays all the costs and non-of the Benefits or even goes on to explain the costs.

I can do it too, give me the budget and the actors and there you go, you have an alternative point of view in the same exact style.

Which one would be correct? Neither of them.

you know what, you are right.

but it's propaganda, and what i celebrate is the fact that it is no longer politically incorrect to publicly campaign against ever-deeper-union.

for the last twenty five years it has been impossible to question the unalloyed 'benefit' of the EU, all political parties were for being inside an economic EU, whilst never admitting that it was in fact a nascent political EU.

now the game is up, we have a president and a foriegn minister, and groups are publicly asking the question; what do we get for our money?

it's the dawn of a new consciousness in the electorate.

the electorate are about to become more euro-skeptic, not less.

[Beskar]

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.