Selective quotes, jets and palaces
April 11, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
I’ve never made any secret of the fact that my personal opinion is that it might make sense for each country to keep a Commissioner. I think it is intellectually honest to say so. However, the issue has been debated and discussed and a decision was taken in Nice which I accept. That’s the nature of political compromise. All countries, large and small will be affected equally. However, the interesting point is that under the Nice Treaty, it was decided that from 2009 the number of Commissioners will be reduced to less than 27. The Lisbon Treaty will reduce the Commission in size starting five years later, in 2014. If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected the size of the Commission will be smaller next year.
Still, for some there is no reason to allow the facts to get in the way of a good story. I notice that Libertas, the organisation campaigning for a No vote in the Irish referendum, has been putting an interesting slant on a reply I gave to a question at a recent public event, based on a report in the Irish Examiner.
I will quote the full article which reflects pretty well what I said:
“Under the terms of the treaty, member states will lose their commissioner for five years in every 15 in an effort to make the body more streamlined.
But Ms Wallstrom, who is very much in favour of the treaty, said a system has to be found to ensure countries are not left out in any way when they do not have a commissioner.
Member states nominate commissioners and while they pledge to serve the interests of the EU overall, they are a vital link between the commission and their home country.
Ms Wallstrom, addressing the Irish Institute of European Affairs in Brussels, said she had concerns about the new arrangement.
“Whatever we win in efficiency we might lose in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,” she said.
However, the rotating system had been agreed and would affect both big and small member states and all would have to be treated equally, she said.
“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing but there will be a lot of structures that will have to be adapted,” the commissioner said.
Ms Wallstrom, who is in charge of the commission’s communications strategy, said that she wanted Irish people to vote in June on the basis of facts and knowledge and not on the basis of fear and ignorance.
Many of the objections being raised by the “no” campaigners were simply myths, such as the introduction of tax harmonisation, or that it compromises Ireland’s neutrality, or the bogeyman of a militaristic EU sweeping young Irish men and women off to war.
In practice the choice is between two treaties — the Lisbon Treaty with the reforms it will bring or the present Nice Treaty, with its well-known shortcomings, Ms Wallstrom said.”
So, that’s what was in the Examiner. Libertas cuts that down to:
“Whatever we win in efficiency we lose [the 'might' is deleted] in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,”.
“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing”
A bit of a case study in distortion through selective quotation then!
Another interesting story today, this time in the UK press and some blogs, was that the new President of the Council will have a private jet, live in a palace and have a huge staff. This was apparently decided at a secret meeting this week. I am on the record as deploring decisions taken behind closed doors but in this case I was actually at the meeting in question which was by no means secret. It was an informal dinner with President Barroso and the ambassadors of the Member States. It was to discuss what steps might need to be taken by the Commission or by the Council this year in order to actually be ready if and when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. Not to anticipate, but to prepare. Among the things discussed were the External Action Service but also others. An example: if the Treaty enters into force there will be the possibility of a Citizens Initiative whereby the Commission could make a proposal based on a petition signed by one million citizens. (This is one of the reasons why I believe the Treaty improves democracy). This requires a legislative proposal from the Commission which ideally should be prepared this year. This is the kind of thing that was discussed. There was no mention of jets or palaces. If there had been I would have said I wanted one too…
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
April 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
“Another interesting story today, this time in the UK press and some blogs, was that the new President of the Council will have a private jet, live in a palace and have a huge staff. This was apparently decided at a secret meeting this week.”
British europhobe newspapers lie about the EU shocker! In other news - bears found to defecate in woods. Pope still catholic! I saw a Leader Article on this in the very foolish Daily Telegraph. It was followed up some of the wildest and loopy eurosceptic comments you could wish to laugh at!
I was in Bruges last week. It was lovely to see all the European Union flags hanging on public buildings alongside the Belgian national flag. It would be nice if there were similar maturity and self-confidence in Britain. However that is not so. Poisonous, lying euroscepticism still dominates much discourse over here, although the tattered anti-European referendum campaigns have probably signified how far that rotten, anti-intellectual movement has overreached. We’ll see.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I just wanted to ask you why the Lisbon Treaty is not put to an referendum in your home country, Sweden? Don’t you think that politicians should get some vote of confidence from the people when signing such an important document?
And, as I am an Norwegian, what do think will happen if we use our veto in connection to the data retention directive? This has been debated in Norway, and the opportunity of using the veto might the majority in parliament, as the Progress Party, Liberal Party, Socialist Left Party and Centre Party oppose it. If the Christian People’s Party opposes it as well, we would get a theoretical majority of 85 vs. 84 in Parliament. I will inform about the website campaigning AGAINST the directive, where it is possible for other of you Europeans to sign: opprop.no/opprop.php?id=neitileudir
April 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Typical of the UK press. No wonder there are all those mad British anti-Europeans.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
So if I understand; the decision over the palace and the plane was taken at the dinner the commissioner attended, but at the dinner the president’s plane, palace and staff were not discussed.
So either the UK press is mistaken about the venue or is lying about the decisions taken. So are we to understand that there are no plans for the president of the council to have the use of a plane a palace and a large personal staff. If they are, as the decision was not made at the dinner, then those plans must have been made at some other secret meeting?
April 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Well, its the same kind of selective quotes that we hear time and again from the EU. People in the EU will be told how good and beneficial the Lisbon treaty is for them. And, of course, “Don’t read the fine print, it is bad for the eyes”…
The treaty of Nice is bad, agreed. but the treaty of Lisbon is bad, too, and even worse in many respects, so rejecting it is the only chance to make you think about an acceptable solution. And denying us the chance to reject it just shows the lack of respect against democracy.
Go back to the drawing board, and this time create something acceptable (and not thousands of pages of foul compromises and saving of each politicians pet pork barrel). And then let us decide if you made it properly.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:48 am
I notice that Libertas, the organisation campaigning for a No vote in the Irish referendum, has been putting an interesting slant on a reply I gave to a question at a recent public event, based on a report in the Irish Examiner.
This (if true) is par for the course for these gents, most of whom cut their teeth in a right-wing Irish undergrad’s assocation (styling itself the “Freedom Institute) which blessed us with a short-lived but hilarious existence a couple of years ago. Other hangers-on are from the ‘grown-up’ version here, the so-called Open Republic Institute.
The interesting thing about this bunch (the late, lamented FI) is that most of the membership appears to have been members of Young Fine Gael. The horror of it, to have such rabid Eurosceptics coming out of Garret FitzGerald’s party…
April 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Member states nominate commissioners and while they pledge to serve the interests of the EU overall.
Should be ELECTED…..(Britain`s Commissioners twice thrown out of Parliment for DUBIOUS (to say the least) Financail dealingg..so perfect for the present eu.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Hello Margot,
Apropos improving democracy by petitioning the Commission: judging by the way the European Parliament will not tolerate dissension from the Grand Plan your use of the words “… the Commission could make a proposal based on a petition…” is not terribly comforting. It appears that it will be up to the Commission to choose which petitions to act on; any they dislike will not have a chance to change anything. In any case I don’t think that a fundamentally un-democratic organization such as the EU can ever improve something which it does not have.
This President of the Council bod - is there a list of candidates that the voters can peruse and read their manifestos before casting their votes? And what are the duties of said President?
Cheers.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Hi Ben Murphy.
Drinking in Bruges were you ? I bet the place cheered up when you left..
Incidentally, did you mean to end up there ? I mean you cant find your way to Dover to take up that challenge I laid down to you.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Margot Wallström said: “my personal opinion is that it might make sense for each country to keep a Commissioner”.
It might make even more sense for each European to have his/her preferred Commissioner, irrespective of any formal labels, nationality including, just humanly and professionally, just the same way as we opt for our friends and professional partners. Should I explain why? Because it is each particular EU personality, in its full richness (national features including), rather than countries or any governing structures, that can only be at the centre of prosperous European development.
It implies much richer, creative and efficient kind of work of Commissioners (and hopefully other EU authorities and structures): they should be closer to personally responsible heads of freely structured enterprises that would act as catalytic, idea-generating and support-bringing centres of various explicitly efficient, problem-solving and value-adding activities and initiatives. [For a starting, imperfect example, take already post/comment interaction on this blog, revealing unfortunately but lost possibilities within the current system.] Efficiency in (currently important) creation should be a necessary condition for support of otherwise formally unlimited, open-competition, openly estimated activity.
As a result of that kind of organisation, we wouldn’t need to spend our precious resources (that may unfortunately be close to one’s lifetime for our dear governors!) for painful elaboration of the “best” possible divisions and separations: our relations will arrange themselves in the provably best way (and rather towards efficient unification!), through efficient, constructive interaction between all interested persons/entities guided by explicit creation results and criteria. And nobody would need to justify anything, fight with “unfair citations” and miserably ask for anyone’s favour: only personal time, at all levels, will be the limit to our explicitly creative and therefore evidently useful projects. And a good idea (typically by one person) wouldn’t need to look for a million of fool signatures (massive signatures are foolish, more than people) because it would be enough to implement it and prove it’s usefulness in that way. We used to act like that in our material, generally successful production, didn’t we?
Needless to say, today we have rather the opposite situation of formally limited and catastrophically inefficient (“arbitrarily efficient”, to be more exact) EU activity, where the “privileged chiefs” appear finally to be … the most limited ones, as this post clearly confirms. Those “palaces”, whether real or imaginary, would be closer to “golden cages”: amuse yourself as you want but don’t change anything! That’s far from a good personal wish… Just look at the sheer contrast between those naturally reasonable, vivid and motivated ideas of “simple citizens”, here and everywhere, and intrinsic rigidity of “governing actions on the top”. Governors, don’t be afraid to become human again, it’s really better, for you and everybody! We’ll give you all the palaces you like, just bring us (and yourself!) back on the way of genuine, unreduced creation!
From that point of view, the sacred “Lisbon strategy” … well, maybe it’s somewhat better – or worse – in some details than the current situation, but it’s a version of the same “coal-and-steel” system (successful and dead), it’s too little to produce any noticeable change in our quite different, complexity-dominated epoch of intelligent machines and stupid experiments. So is that limited purpose, involving in addition disproportionally big contradictions, really worth such huge, pan-European efforts with a “cold-war” level of opposition? Wouldn’t it be better to return to reality (where the existing system machine doesn’t work at a very deep level) and direct those huge efforts and potentialities to the truly necessary transition to a naturally emerging, superior level of EU activity?
C’est foutu, les valeurs “charbonnières” et leur système de gouvernement, il faut aller plus loin maintenant, beaucoup plus loin…
April 12th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Ken Adams - Margot has never heard of any discussions about planes or palaces anywhere, including at the dinner.
EWI - yes, it’s true, Libertas issued a press release from which Margot quotes.
Captain Fatty - the Commission won’t be able to choose which petitions it acts on. The only question will be whether or not the Commission has the legal powers to do so. For example if the petition asks the Commission to paint all dolphins green, it will not act.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
As most British EU Commissioners ‘go ‘native pretty quickly, not having one won’t, in reality, be much of a loss for British people. But honestly, can anyone really envisage the day when a country the size of Germany, France or Poland will not have it’s ‘own’ Commissioner, but will have to follow directives issued by a Commissioner from a piss-pot-sized country like Luxembourg or Malta?
April 13th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Mr Mugabe is about as respectful of democracy as the EU. But at least he isn’t so mealy-mouthed about why he doesn’t like it.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Thank You admin.
I assume by your answer that there are no plans for the president of the Commission to have the use of a Plane, a Palace and large personal Staff,
and the British Press reports were incorrect on that point.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Hello wallstrom.admin,
Ah, I see, that’s clearer now, thanks. I bet the dolphins are relieved too…
Cheers.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Hej Margot,
I got tangled up with something that was said about the rotation with the commissioners:
“However, the rotating system had been agreed and would affect both big and small member states and all would have to be treated equally, she said.”
Is this rotation really agreed upon? I hope that the Lisbon treaty ratification process will evidently be concluded in due order. However, what will then happen in 2014 doesn’t seem all that straightforward. It would be difficult for me to imagine an equal and fair rotating system with big and small member countries having an equal footing in the rotation. Some have even guessed, that we’ll have to return to the treaties before 2014 just to “adjust” the workings of the commission to ensure that the rotation will be satisfactory to the .. more populous member countries in Europe.
What do you make of such guesses?
Mvh,
Joonas Turunen
Finland
April 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
My word, our BenMurphy is such a ball of twisted hatred, isn’t he? Poisonous, lying, rotten, loopy, anti-intellectual, Europhobes. He’s certainly not out to make any friends, is he.
And why is he so worked up. He’s winning the argument, isn’t he? There was overwhelming support for the Constitution/Reform/Lisbon Treaty in the UK, wasn’t there? Our Referendum campaign was flaccid, wasn’t it? We’re greatly outnumbered by the Europhiles, aren’t we?
Does he lose out if a few flaccid EU-sceptics are allowed to speak out? Does he think that we should not be allowed to say anything? Is he a cog in the great EU machine? Do we taxpayers in the UK subsidise him in some way?
But I suppose we’ll have to look at the substance of your argument.
· The EU is responsible for the breaking up of our Post Office. EU directives 97/67/EC and 2002/39/EC. This ‘harmonisation’ of our services and the opening up of the UK to predators also applies to our water, electricity, gas and railways. Perhaps you are one of the beneficiaries of high utility prices forced on the much put-upon UK consumer. Not propaganda; fact.
· The movement of migrant workers to Britain has pushed down the wages and conditions of the UK workforce and led to a large proportion of our young people being out of work. Try Googling Laval un Partneri versus the good people of Stockholme, which resulted in the European Court of Justice ruling that the “free movement of provisions” is more important than the pay and conditions of ordinary ‘citizens’. Reported on EUObserver – not the Sun or the Telegraph.
· How about the rabid claim, also from EUObserver, that the “EU bio-fuels strategy supports human rights disaster say Indonesian NGOs”. No loopy, anti-intellectual Europhobes on the EUObserver team I’ll bet.
· The New York Times reports on the EU’s fishing deals with ACP countries that have left the local fishermen with no means of a living and out-fished their fishing grounds. I’ll bet the NYT is awash with Little Englanders.
· Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which dumps our agricultural goods (subsidized by my good self and other taxpayers) on the poorer countries of the world but sets such high regulation levels that those poorer countries can not sell back to us – this issue raised by Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. A hotbed of poisonous, lying Europhobes, I suppose.
It is a matter of free will that we can object to things that we think are wrong. It would help if we could perhaps address the issues – not just fling the usual sound bites and generalities around. I shall now look up the article in the Telegraph and wallow in the comments. I expect there shouldn’t be too many comments there, eh BenMurphy?
April 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
[quote]If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected the size of the Commission will be smaller next year.[quote]
Can`t wait…that will be almost the best thing that could happen.
Atfer Britain leaving the eu that is!.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
wallstrom.admin wrote:
“the Commission won’t be able to choose which petitions it acts on. The only question will be whether or not the Commission has the legal powers to do so. For example if the petition asks the Commission to paint all dolphins green, it will not act.”
That is not correct. The wording in the contract is that the petition invites the commission to react. The question of wether they have the legal power or not is not even raised in the treaty. The decision is theirs and only theirs, and they cannot be held responsible for their actions or lack thereof.
So the answer you gave is proof of my point exactly - selective (and factually wrong!) quoting is not (only) something originating from “anti-EU-fanatics”, its politics everyday bread and butter.
If that treaty is being shoved down our throats (even if the Irish try to save us, you will find a way to circumvent it, I’m sure), I will support any petition trying for more democracy in Europe.
Lets see: If the petition would call for an act of democratisation of the EU, e.g. making the commsioners directly electable by and responsible to the citizens, would the commission create a treaty or an initiative, or will they just laugh about it and drop it in the bin?
Petitions against lobbyism, petitions to make political corruption a real crime with real punishments, petitions to force the EU politicians to be responsible for their actions and inactions - they will get my signature.
And we all will see the commission dropping the petitions in the bin with one lame excuse or the other. Wanna bet?
PS: your antispam-Question flunked again. Timeout propably - I’m quite sure that 11+7=18
April 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
L.S.,
@Christian: Last time I checked, the Commission does not have the power to change the Treaties, so if you’re asking for something that involves a change in the Treaties, the Commission will not be able to help you. (eg. directly electing Commissioners)
As for your other suggestions:
- Lobbying is an issue that has received a lot of attention lately. The Commission is working on it.
- Making things criminal offences is not normally possible under the EC treaty, except in the circumstances that fall under the small arms case jurisprudence. The next best thing is art. 280 EC.
- “Petitions to force the EU politicians to be responsible for their actions and inactions” means what, exactly?
I’m sure this reply will be quickly placed under the “one lame excuse or the other” category, but I’m afraid that’s not really my problem. Eurosceptics, of all people, should understand that the Commission can’t do what it hasn’t been given the power to do.
To wit, this is what art. 3b (2) of the EU treaty will say after the Reform Treaty’s been ratified:
“Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.”
The current EC Treaty already says the same thing in art. 5:
“The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of
the objectives assigned to it therein.”
P.S. Fortunately I Ctrl+C’ed my comment before submitting, since I had a problem with the antispam question, too.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“I’ve never made any secret of the fact that my personal opinion is that it might make sense for each country to keep a Commissioner.
I thought we were all keeping the whole useless lot of you… Some just pay more than others…
What kind of mealy-mouthed opinion is “might make sense” anyway? Either it does or it doesn’t! Come on Margot - make your mind up!
April 14th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Dear Commissioner, you wrote in “”
“I’ve never made any secret of the fact that my personal opinion is that it might make sense for each country to keep a Commissioner. I think it is intellectually honest to say so.”
Its totally dishonest. Each country gets a commissioner, whose job it is is to serve the EU, not his country. In fact, I believe its a requirement that they patently don’t serve their country. On the plus side, its hard to know whom I could hate more, A so called Brit like Peter Mandelson, or someone from elsewhere. Either way, they are unelected, and impose their visions uupon 500 million who never asked, nor ever get a vote on it.
“However, the issue has been debated and discussed and a decision was taken in Nice which I accept. That’s the nature of political compromise. All countries, large and small will be affected equally.”
Yes, true. Does it matter wether its 27 people or 20 who have enormous powers, are unelected, and the rest. We all suffer either way. Its not like we the people get a choice.
“However, the interesting point is that under the Nice Treaty, it was decided that from 2009 the number of Commissioners will be reduced to less than 27. The Lisbon Treaty will reduce the Commission in size starting five years later, in 2014. If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected the size of the Commission will be smaller next year.”
No, its really NOT interesting. Real people in the street don’t know who their commissioner is, and even if they do, are savvy enough to know that people like Mandelson are not doing them any favours. Its interesting to people like YOU round the dinner table, because the Elite are ever so deeply interested in themselves, keeping a job, and a fat pension. Mandelson does not represent me, or Britain. He represents an Alien body, one of which he serves. Bottom of the list comes Britain. Do I care if Mandelson were to lose his posting? No, I’d do a jig. Nor do I find it pleasing to have some high handed elite give one another a job to go inflict their own idiocy on other people in my name or my countries name. Its despicable.
“Still, for some there is no reason to allow the facts to get in the way of a good story. I notice that Libertas, the organisation campaigning for a No vote in the Irish referendum, has been putting an interesting slant on a reply I gave to a question at a recent public event, based on a report in the Irish Examiner.
I will quote the full article which reflects pretty well what I said:
“Under the terms of the treaty, member states will lose their commissioner for five years in every 15 in an effort to make the body more streamlined.
But Ms Wallstrom, who is very much in favour of the treaty, said a system has to be found to ensure countries are not left out in any way when they do not have a commissioner.
Member states nominate commissioners and while they pledge to serve the interests of the EU overall, they are a vital link between the commission and their home country.”
(A vital link. Please, give me a break.)
“Ms Wallstrom, addressing the Irish Institute of European Affairs in Brussels, said she had concerns about the new arrangement.
“Whatever we win in efficiency we might lose in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,” she said.”
Please, more absolute contortions of the truth. EU commissioners serve the EU, not their home country. Mandelson talking my language holds only as much water as Lord Haw Haw talked my language. As for standing up for Britain, its not in a Commissioners remit, PLEASE STOP LYING.
“However, the rotating system had been agreed and would affect both big and small member states and all would have to be treated equally, she said.
“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing but there will be a lot of structures that will have to be adapted,” the commissioner said.
Ms Wallstrom, who is in charge of the commission’s communications strategy, said that she wanted Irish people to vote in June on the basis of facts and knowledge and not on the basis of fear and ignorance.”
“Many of the objections being raised by the “no” campaigners were simply myths, such as the introduction of tax harmonisation, or that it compromises Ireland’s neutrality, or the bogeyman of a militaristic EU sweeping young Irish men and women off to war.”
These are not myths. The EU has in its sights tax harmonisation, and your own people talk about this ALL the time. They cannot wait to be able to tax and put people in Uniform. All to often these things are claimed myths and then turn out to be realities. So I challenge you then commissioner, will you resign then if either becomes true? I lay a challenge upon you.
“In practice the choice is between two treaties — the Lisbon Treaty with the reforms it will bring or the present Nice Treaty, with its well-known shortcomings, Ms Wallstrom said.”
So, that’s what was in the Examiner. Libertas cuts that down to:
“Whatever we win in efficiency we lose [the ‘might’ is deleted] in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them,”.”
“We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a commissioner and we have to find a system — this is the down side and definitely it is a problematic thing”
A bit of a case study in distortion through selective quotation then!”
Them and you both. Its almost totally hilarious you try this argument that an Irish Commissioner serves Ireland.
“Another interesting story today, this time in the UK press and some blogs, was that the new President of the Council will have a private jet, live in a palace and have a huge staff. This was apparently decided at a secret meeting this week. I am on the record as deploring decisions taken behind closed doors but in this case I was actually at the meeting in question which was by no means secret.”
Who took the minutes then?
“It was an informal dinner with President Barroso and the ambassadors of the Member States. It was to discuss what steps might need to be taken by the Commission or by the Council this year in order to actually be ready if and when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.”
An informal dinner where people get sliced up, without minutes, and by Ambassadors no doubt. If ratified is remarkable language for people committing to making it happen no matter what. If seems more unintentional humour. But off course, EVERY man and his dog already knows the entire machinery is being put in place for stuff. Its a fait-a-comple. I really don’t know what to hate more, the fact you claim this all happened in the hilarious backdrop of an informal dinner, or the fact that its all been going on for a long time and you simply utterly lie about it. This ‘informal dinner’ was no different from the secret meetings that occur every day, only the backdrop was a little changed. Its still all done without consulting or discussing it with the population, with things being sliced up on a whim and the rest. I bet I helped pay for the dinner to boot, as do we all.
“Not to anticipate, but to prepare.”
Thanks for confirming what we always thought. No need for anticipation where you know a certainty already exists. Even if the Irish say no, One way, or another, you cheating types will worm your way forward once more.
“Among the things discussed were the External Action Service but also others. An example: if the Treaty enters into force there will be the possibility of a Citizens Initiative whereby the Commission could make a proposal based on a petition signed by one million citizens.”
Yes, its called throwing stupid populations a bone.
“(This is one of the reasons why I believe the Treaty improves democracy).”
Yes, thats right. A petition of 1 million being forced on 500 Million improves everything. This treaty does not improve democracy, but its making sure has destroyed it and made it a complete laughing stock.
“This requires a legislative proposal from the Commission which ideally should be prepared this year. This is the kind of thing that was discussed. There was no mention of jets or palaces. If there had been I would have said I wanted one too…”
Solana will get his jet, and his people, and his embassies. And this was all decided long before your little informal dinner, was is the tax harmonisation, as is the future planned military service.
And I quote”The thing is he said this a few years back at a meeting of EPP Parliamentary assistants,
H-G P “Europe will have both rights and duties”
EH, “Excuse me but what do mean by the term duties?”
H-G P “Oh, taxation and military service”.”
H-G P = Hans Gert Poettering
Why would I disbelieve a man who just organised arbitrary powers in the parliament Commissioner. Why *should the Irish* not also believe. Why lie to them? Why not simply tell them the truth, that down the line you fully work toward and fully intend to tax and uniform them?
April 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
L.S.,
@Anonymous: You’re right! We were blind not to see it. It’s all one big conspiracy for Ms. Wallström and the rest of the European elite to take over the world! Given that it has so far turned out to be impossible to convince a majority in UK parliament of this obvious fact, the only real alternative remaining is armed resistance! To say it with art. 20 of the German Basic Law: “All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.” (Similar sentiments flow, obviously, from the English Bill of Rights, the Scottish Claim of Right, the Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581), and many other fundamental sources of law.)
I suppose that that would truly be a sign that the EU has grown up to become a proper confederacy: if a terrorist organisation were founded for the express purpose of destroying it.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:09 am
As a Comissioner in charge of european communication, you have to have a strategy of communication turned to the diversity and multiculturalism. You must integrade in your corp of collaborators people of all races and colours; not only white europeans, just like you; as a black european, I think I have the right to give my collaboration and to participate for example in the strategy of comunication of Europe. For example you ought to create a station of Radio and TV of Europe in severals languages to explain the european policy and the power of Europe in the International Policy. This Radio TV Station can make retransmissions to begin in french, english, portuguese, german and so on…Thanks Al Binda
April 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Reading the post and the comments made me think of a couple of things:
1. There’s a lot of discussion about the election of key jobs in the EU. Commissioners and the president of the Council are not elected. Well, in Parlamentary democracies you don’t elect the government! The Prime Minister is not elected by the people either. However the EP has the right to nominate the Commission. If you want to have your say you need to trust your MEPs and show up to the vote to the EP. The president of the Council: he / she will be elected by the Heads of Government and State. That should not make sceptics nervous, it is an agreement among sovereign states. What would undermine sovereignty is a 27 states large campaign to elect a president!
2. Referenda, treaties and decision making: in all the things that have an effect in our country, the transparent thing would be to ask your NATIONAL parliament to force the government to unveil what they voted in the Council. It will turn out that the decisions made in Brussels are not made in Brussels but somewhere in London as well.
PS. EU military service? There’s no national ones anymore…
April 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
# martinned Says in “”:
April 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“@Anonymous: You’re right! We were blind not to see it.”
Save your sarcasm for those who are impressed by it.
“It’s all one big conspiracy for Ms. Wallström and the rest of the European elite to take over the world!”
Over informal dinner no less - apparently. Pass the bread.
“Given that it has so far turned out to be impossible to convince a majority in UK parliament of this obvious fact, the only real alternative remaining is armed resistance!”
The majority of parliament were forced to vote with a 3 line whip.
“To say it with art. 20 of the German Basic Law: “All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.” (Similar sentiments flow, obviously, from the English Bill of Rights, the Scottish Claim of Right, the Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581), and many other fundamental sources of law.)”
There may come a day in the future where you rue these words, and wished you had never uttered them. It would be deeply ironic for the EU to be the very cause of the thing it states is a founding cornerstone of its inner core.
“I suppose that that would truly be a sign that the EU has grown up to become a proper confederacy: if a terrorist organisation were founded for the express purpose of destroying it.”
No, it would be something it brought onto itself for no good reason at all. And all of it avoidable.
I’m not interested in your argument about Parliament. These powers, laws and privilages are not there’s to give or sign away. And the attempt to do so in direct contravention clearly of the people’s wishes is an act that is wholly undemocratic, and cannot be supported by any argument, no matter how well argued, for it can never have legitimacy. We will never agree, so we will have to agree to disagree.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
# Luis Bouza Garcia Says IN “”:
April 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“Reading the post and the comments made me think of a couple of things:
1. There’s a lot of discussion about the election of key jobs in the EU. Commissioners and the president of the Council are not elected. Well, in Parlamentary democracies you don’t elect the government!”
You clearly did not get very far when thinking.
“The Prime Minister is not elected by the people either.”
I can’t speak for your country, but in my Own, the PM has to be elected BY the people. The party attempting to run the country usually put him/her in a very safe seat. So you are either a Liar, or misunderstand things. Either way, you are wrong. Why is it that Pro EU people persistys with fabrications, lies, misdeeds, deceit. You can’t get your facts right, or even argue a case.
“However the EP has the right to nominate the Commission.”
The legitimacy of the EP is wholly under question anyway. I as a Britain still have not had a rightful vote on handing powers from my state to this new one. And even if we did, You I very much doubt even begin to understand how the EP works. If one party won enough seats, in some form of democracy, they would pick one of their own people - assuming you take a model from my nation state. You don’t pick some unelected buffoon put foward by various nations - non elected by parliament. The parliament gets a yes or no option, it does not pick these candidates, nor do they come from in the EP, they come from imposition from outside.
Tell me which Euro election Barruso won, or Wallstrom.
“If you want to have your say you need to trust your MEPs and show up to the vote to the EP.”
Our MEPs are the resistance in that parliament, and now suffer efforts to control their media access and have the rules made against them contrary to the very laws of the parliament. These MEPs are often abused by the Commissioner of this blog. Perhaps you did not know that. These MEPs do not agree with the selection of the Commission. I *Trust* these MEPs to various lengths.
“The president of the Council: he / she will be elected by the Heads of Government and State. That should not make sceptics nervous, it is an agreement among sovereign states. What would undermine sovereignty is a 27 states large campaign to elect a president!”
And none of these states have been able to win a european wide vote on their right to do this. France and Holland Voted NO, Britain was denied a vote after being promised one.
“2. Referenda, treaties and decision making: in all the things that have an effect in our country, the transparent thing would be to ask your NATIONAL parliament to force the government to unveil what they voted in the Council. It will turn out that the decisions made in Brussels are not made in Brussels but somewhere in London as well.”
That is the only point you made that has a ring of truth about it. But then the national parliaments are denied and derided by these people just like the people in general are as well. They hold nation states and the national parliaments in a state on continual contempt.
“PS. EU military service? There’s no national ones anymore…”
Then clearly you need to wake up, because they plan to make one. And in the case of Ireland, its something that should be explored fully in terms of their constitution.
Just to be clear - These are some of the darkest days in european democracy. The efforts made to bypass people’s wishes, and to ignore their democratic rights are disgusting. This ‘treaty’ is a disgusting rework of a deeply hated ‘constitution’ - that does not deserve a single moment of reasonable treatment. It should be held up by everyone who has a care from real democracy as a case example of everything from top to bottom of what is wrong with the EU and how it works, and a basis of why it should not be allowed to progress at all unless reformed.
The EU demands Human Rights, and Voting in Tibet, and yet it so rudely crushes its own people’s wishes, and made damn sure they get no vote on this ‘treaty’.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Don’t know who you are or what your agenda is, BG, but your “facts” could do with checking.
The high utility prices are not due to the breakup of the utilities (a cause championed by your own UK government well before the EU got involved), but are part of a worldwide trend, not unrelated to the higher cost of oil.
If you want to refer to the Laval case, you could at least do yourself a favour and read it properly first. But let’s say, hypothetically, that you’re right and that free movement of workers has brought down wages in the UK. Do you have any idea how many UK workers benefit from those provisions? It’s an enormous number - led by the professional services sector, where the UK (net) exports high-paid workers to the rest of Europe on a massive scale. This is because the UK is the place where such services started and have traditionally been strong. The economic benefits have been gigantic. Moreover, unemployment in the UK is at historic lows.
The biofuels strategy is not supporting a human rights disaster, whatever the NGOs or the EUObserver say. It is conceivable that the demand for biofuels is being met by unscrupulous producers, but that is hardly the fault of the demand side. If there is a problem, it is with the Indonesian government’s regulation of the sector. I grant you that the demand side can exert pressure on the supply side to implement better working conditions or human rights, but that is not the same thing at all.
The CFP is a disaster, but it’s wildly simplistic to say that ACP countries have been left with no fish and no fishermen because of EU cynicism. Why would they sign such deals? If you’re going to tell a story, tell the whole thing.
In case you haven’t noticed, food prices around the world are rising fast. The result is that the long-suffering agricultural producers of the developing world are doing much better. Problem solved? No way. If you have winners, you usualy get losers too, and in this case it’s the urban poor in the developing world. Selling our EU produce at a price closer to world market prices has simply shifted the pain from the farmers to the city-dwellers who used to benefit from the lower prices. I’m sure CAFOD would accept that.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Martinned wrote:
“Last time I checked, the Commission does not have the power to change the Treaties”
Yes, but they have a right of initiative. And that is a fairly big weapon. I do not think that the EU parliament would object to a castration of the commissions rights - on the contrary. And if needed, they can ask the member states to rubber stamp it. Plain and simple.
The lobbying theme is being worked on, I know. And it is still way to weak to stop all the undue influence on peoples rights of a democratic process. Thats why I proposed to make any stepping-out-of-the-line by a lobbyist a criminal offence. Lobbyism is not a petty crime - Lobbyism against the interests of the citizens is more akin to treason, and should be dealt alike, on both sides (i.e. the lobbyist, but also the buerocrat or politician involved). Again, this might need a ratification by the member states. But as we can see with the constitution -nee- Lisbon treaty, ratification comes quite cheap nowadays…
The main problem with lobbyism control in Bruxelles is that they don’t want it. Free meals and the occasionally passed envelope are just too convenient (and that is no imagination, I have seen this with my own eyes).
BTW, Thats what I meant with “responsibility for actions or inactions” - under the proposed ruling about “controlled lobbyism”, when they are caught, the lobbyist gets the boot, and the officials get out of it for free.
And yes, I consider your argumentation a lame pro-EU-excuse, as the commission can (even within their blurred fields of resposibility) wreck havoc on our rights and lives, way beyond of what would be acceptable for such a body.
PS: Again, the antispam question timed out.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
L.S.,
@Anonymous (roughly corresponding to your 1228 remarks):
- In Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath there are about 71.500 eligible voters, who get to decide whether or not Gordon Brown can stay in Westminster. That’s hardly the same as having the PM elected by the people of the UK. Or do you also want to include those Labour party executives who decide which candidate gets to run in which constituency? Maybe then we’d be up to as many as 72.000… The vast majority of UK citizens have no say in Gordon Brown’s direct future, except through their own decision to vote for a Labour candidate or not.
- In every general election in the UK, you get the chance to vote based on your preferences for EU integration. If you chose to base your vote on other preferences, instead, that’s your choice. If insufficiently many of your fellow voters share your opinion, that’s democracy for you.
- As for the elections Barroso and Wallström won, there’s this one, and beyond that there’s all the elections in EU MS that put EPP/ED or PES leaders of government in power. Between those two political groups, they have a stable majority in both the EP and the Council, which explains why the majority of the Commission also consists of representatives of those two political groups.
- In a democracy, majority rules. Given how few Eurosceptic MEPs there are, it is no surprise that they’re achieving little. Given some of their most recent stunts, it looks like they’re getting frustrated. That, however, is the consequence of our democratic system.
- Spain and Luxembourg voted yes in their referenda about the Constitutional Treaty. Do you really want a Europe wide referendum? Is that what you’re saying, or am I misreading your comment?
- Of course the Irish people should carefully consider the direction they want their country to take. The reason why they’re having a referendum is because this Treaty involves an amendment to their constitution, which always requires a referendum under art. 46 of the Constitution. Given how much discussion there was when the Irish people found out that the US army were using Shannon Airport for refuelling on their way to Iraq, any suggestion that the EU is on its way to creating an EU army would likely cause quite a stir. So I can see why one would bring it up. However, the EU army is already quite untrue (if you don’t believe me, I challenge you to point out where in the post Reform Treaty consolidated treaties it says so.)
- Except in case of actual invasion, any suggestion of a new move towards compulsory military service in Europe would be extremely silly. Most countries in Europe have either abolished it, or transformed it into compulsory social service of some sort. Given that it is already quite unimaginable at the national level, the suggestion of having it at the EU level needs no retort.
- More generally, this is European democracy at its finest. All over Europe there are discussions, among voters and among parliamentarians, about the nature of the nation state, the nature of the European Union, etc., and the system is generally working the way it ought to. I see no reason to be pessimistic, on the contrary.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Max,
The English idiosyncrasies always fascinated me, but it seems you are forgetting how much your country owes to these horrible “socialist measures” for more than a century now!
April 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
# Ibfg2 Says”":
April 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“Don’t know who you are or what your agenda is, BG, but your “facts” could do with checking.
The high utility prices are not due to the breakup of the utilities (a cause championed by your own UK government well before the EU got involved), but are part of a worldwide trend, not unrelated to the higher cost of oil.”
The high utility prices have a great deal to do with the UK. Contrary to your opinion, the ‘open’ market in the UK suffers from European issues when it comes to Utility supply. Claiming this is not the case is complete rubbish. There is no ‘wholesale’ market when its a rigged market full of european subsidised operations. Until Gas, Oil and other items can be bought on a true open market, then UK citizens will continue to pay the price. And remember, Being in the EU was supposed to make our citizens lives better. Right?
“If you want to refer to the Laval case, you could at least do yourself a favour and read it properly first. But let’s say, hypothetically, that you’re right and that free movement of workers has brought down wages in the UK. Do you have any idea how many UK workers benefit from those provisions? It’s an enormous number - led by the professional services sector, where the UK (net) exports high-paid workers to the rest of Europe on a massive scale. This is because the UK is the place where such services started and have traditionally been strong. The economic benefits have been gigantic. Moreover, unemployment in the UK is at historic lows.”
The professional sector has no real limits in terms of skills, highly developed skillsets are required and barriers for entry and lowered. This shame of an excuse you just made up - as all people who champion the mass immigration case is complete rubbish. The bulk of immigration into the UK and into Europe is of poor people, with little or no skillsets, and has had a monumentally damaging effect. If you wish to make a case for a basket case economy, where people can’t count, they speak broken or pigeon english, and work for slave labour level payments, then crack on. The claims of the Billions it adds to the economy are lies to cover up the political excuse for mass criminal and damaging immigration. The UK unemployment you talk of is also complete rubbish, and its widely understtod to be so. We have million unemployed, and we have millions on sick benefit instead, because it pays a little more.
When you have MILLIONS of people unemployed, there is no case for mass immigration. PERIOD.
I unlike BG am not a Labour voter, never was, nor will I ever be, however, his observations and understanding should not merely be dismissed by the politically leftist doctrine of political correctness. As such, I will remind you that the majority in the UK share his view. They are not taken in by this claptrap about immigration being ‘needed’, because they see the real effect it has all around them.
“The biofuels strategy is not supporting a human rights disaster, whatever the NGOs or the EUObserver say. It is conceivable that the demand for biofuels is being met by unscrupulous producers, but that is hardly the fault of the demand side. If there is a problem, it is with the Indonesian government’s regulation of the sector. I grant you that the demand side can exert pressure on the supply side to implement better working conditions or human rights, but that is not the same thing at all.”
The EU loves nothing more than destroying African farmers and fisherman. Why should it give a crap about Indonesians or anyone else. This notion that the EU stands for human rights, and other things is a sham. Its an uncaring elephant trampling on ants, and cares as much.
“The CFP is a disaster, but it’s wildly simplistic to say that ACP countries have been left with no fish and no fishermen because of EU cynicism. Why would they sign such deals? If you’re going to tell a story, tell the whole thing.”
The EU led the way, you know, in solving the internationalist problem of fisheries. You know, the EU is there to fix problems we can’t possibly solve by ourselves. Which is why the UK fishing industry is wrecked, the fish stocks are too, and the case for the EU being the answer is left in the same state.
“In case you haven’t noticed, food prices around the world are rising fast. The result is that the long-suffering agricultural producers of the developing world are doing much better. Problem solved?”
No, why do you people have to make vast canvassing lies? The world wide rise in costs, specifically FOOD costs is directly related to the shipping costs involved, ie oil prices.
“No way. If you have winners, you usualy get losers too, and in this case it’s the urban poor in the developing world. Selling our EU produce at a price closer to world market prices has simply shifted the pain from the farmers to the city-dwellers who used to benefit from the lower prices. I’m sure CAFOD would accept that.”
Everyone has suffered. Except one group, specifically in the EU. The governments who charge VAT on food, any time it rises, get a bigger slice of the pie. But don’t expect the ever increasing taxes to drop in exchange for the extra income.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Martinned -
If you have a problem with H-G-H - take it to him, and not me.
Remember, Its your side talking about the taxes and national service, NOT mine.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
L.S.,
@Christian Treczoks: I think you’re overlooking the benefits of lobbying. Fact is lobbying saves the European Commission and the European Parliament fortunes each year, because so much information they need in order to do their jobs is supplied by lobbyists. All they have to do, and usually they do, is make sure the information is accurate and make sure they get a balanced picture. (i.e. give attention to lobbyists from all sides.) Sure, this kind of activity could be transferred to more public hearings, the way it is done in the US congress, although the EP already have hearings, while the use of such hearings in the US has not stopped worries about the influence of big business.
Point is, it is a tricky issue, with benefits as well as costs. One certainly wouldn’t want to sever whatever tenuous ties exist between EU legislators and the private sector without careful consideration.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
L.S.,
The EU loves nothing more than destroying African farmers and fisherman.
What do you know, it’s still a conspiracy!
Maybe those African farmers and fishermen should joint their Middle-Eastern friends and declare war on us…
Then again, maybe they should start by cleaning up the mess in their own back yard first.
BTW, I was serious, the right of the people to take up arms against a vastly illegitimate government is absolute and precedes any positive law. But it is important to remember that such illegitimacy is, in any case, systemic. In ratifying the various EU Treaties, the UK Parliament has conveyed the EU legal order with all the legitimacy it, itself, possesses. Any attack on the EU legal order is inextricably linked to the UK legal order, just like their legitimacies are linked. If one has to go by extralegal means, they all have to go. In the alternative, where the issues have not yet reached that level of illegitimacy, the thing to do is to work through the legal system, instead of around it. Which brings me back to the same thing I’ve been saying over and over: the UK parliament is free to vote the UK out of the EU at any time. If the EU is such a tyrannical and conspiratory regime, why haven’t they done that yet?
April 15th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Thank you, Anonymous, 15/4/2008 at 4:53pm
It is a lovely sunny day in the Southwest of England and I wasn’t in the mood for replying to lbfg. You have beaten me to some of the points.
I will, although, speak from experience. My electricity is supplied by EDF a French company. My bill has risen 30-40% approximately in the last year. For me this is not such a problem but for the poorer people on fixed incomes it is a literally, food or power. There is an almost arrogant disregard for the real fix that these people are in, especially as we seem to have no way of tackling the problem; the appointed watchdogs seem incapable of doing anything.
On the subject of immigration I also speak from experience. In parts of the UK there are huge pockets of unemployment. The unemployment figures are also massaged by placing them on worthless courses and, as has been explained by anonymous, on long term sick. The main problem I have is this. In 1997 we had an incoming government with a certain John Prescott who promised to train our young people by making employers take them on or pay to have them trained elsewhere. It takes 2 - 4 years to train an apprentice and maybe it would have taken a couple of years to set up such schemes. That would have taken us to 2003 and yet for years after that date we felt the need to import 100,000s of migrant workers.
Now, we could say that the EU is not responsible for this but surely they must look on with concern when we have a situation where one country is taking in thousands of migrant workers whilst leaving the indigenous population unemployed and without training. Furthermore, what of the country that the skilled workers are leaving; shouldn’t the stability of that country be considered? It was even reported that Romanian workers were taking the place of the Polish workers who had gone to Britain. What is gained by this mass migration of people; it can only be of benefit to large businesses and our elite EU leaders, it certainly isn’t the ordinary ‘citizen’. Isn’t the point of the EU that we provide stability? We in the UK now have another generation who have not been employed, are contributing nothing to society and are not putting anything away for the future. Great going, the EU. I personally think that this enforced mass movement of people stinks of social engineering.
Incidentally lbfg, why is my assessment of the Laval case wrong? Calling Martinned.
Your dismissal of the disaster of bio-fuels is nothing short of astounding. I think it is you who needs to get some facts right. Since when is it right, if the EU is so concerned about the environment, to deal with countries who cut down rainforests in order to grow bio-fuels? Why are millions of hectares of food crops being replaced with rapeseed for the aforementioned growing of bio-fuels? And what of the massive amount of water needed to feed these crops. What of the transporting? Isn’t there a “carbon footprint”? What of the farmers being forced off of their farms at the point of a gun abandoning their traditional agriculture to bio-fuel crops. Are you saying that “the demand side”, your phrase, should just simply turn a blind eye? We are meant to be helping the poorer people of the world! The EU, with its stupid targets, is helping to do exactly the opposite. Your defence of an elite enriched by the poorest is beyond belief.
As for the CFP and the signing of deals between African countries and the EU, these deals on fishing and the Economic Partnership Agreements are usually tied to aid packages and so the countries involved are more or less coerced. I wish we in the UK could just get rid of the EU and deal directly with the countries concerned. I am ashamed to be mixed up with this obnoxious regime. Why the hell have we (quite rightly) rid ourselves of our empire only to join a club with its own imperial ambitions?
I should, I think, bow to anonymous’ assessment of the food price situation being down to the cost of oil. I also think that it is partly due to the replacement of food crops with crops for bio-fuels.
There are two final points to make, one to lbfg and the second to anonymous. I have no agenda other than to be free from the EU. Anonymous, I revised my opinion of Labour when I realised that they were just social engineers with a huge chip on their shoulders, (and that is from someone who was born on the very bottom tier of society). The strange thing is that the other parties don’t appeal to me either. I am disenfranchised.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Martinned wrote:
“I think you’re overlooking the benefits of lobbying.”
Most of which are benefits to the lobbying parties. If it wasn’t, the vast majority of lobbyists would not be there. They do not get paid for nothing, and they are not philantropists. They get paid well to do their business for their customers.
“Fact is lobbying saves the European Commission and the European Parliament fortunes each year, because so much information they need in order to do their jobs is supplied by lobbyists.”
It might save some money in short terms, and costs us all a fortune on the long run. Having sufficient independent in-house expertise would save a lot of money and trouble in the end.
“All they have to do, and usually they do, is make sure the information is accurate and make sure they get a balanced picture.”
Which they can’t, as they are lacking independent expertise in the first place. If they had independent expertise, they would not need the lobbyists with commercial interests in mind. I have no idea how they could make sure that the picture they get is balanced if the vast majority of lobbyists are funded by interested parties.
I stay with my opinion that almost all lobbyism is against the interest of the public and should be considered a criminal offence.
For a good example on how “accurate” and “balanced” the influence of industrial lobbyists is have a look at REACH, who was involved in its design, and who benefits from the odd exceptions in there.
Or have a look at anything related to CAP. One simple example: Planting tobacco is actually subsidized in the EU. On the other hand, the EU fights smoking. Does this make sense to you? I think not. But it makes a lot of sense for the lobbyists who get paid to keep this subsidy up.
PS: Antispam hits again (or 30+0 is suddenly no longer 30). What the heck is the timeout for this blog, and why is it not turned up?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am
L.S.,
Anonymous Says:
April 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Martinned -
If you have a problem with H-G-H - take it to him, and not me.
Remember, Its your side talking about the taxes and national service, NOT mine.
Where? When? Who? All I see is you talking about it…
(OK, I’ll give you a break on the taxes. I guess Sarko could be considered “my side”. But, then again, everyone is always talking about taxes. By and large it isn’t an EU competence, neither under the old system, nor under the new, and to the extent that it is, it requires unanimity.)
April 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
# martinned Says in “”:
April 15th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“What do you know, it’s still a conspiracy!”
Unable to actually argue a point Martinned? Come, you can do better.
“Maybe those African farmers and fishermen should joint their Middle-Eastern friends and declare war on us…”
Are you claiming now the middle east has declared war upon ‘Us’ - and what is us? The UK, EU, Holland. Yet another contrived and desperate response. Let me guess, this declaration is the reason why its a good idea in future to have men in uniform. Ahh, I see…
“Then again, maybe they should start by cleaning up the mess in their own back yard first.”
Its amusing when pressed how people break up their own argument. People like you and the commissioner want to save Africa, maybe you missed that.
“BTW, I was serious, the right of the people to take up arms against a vastly illegitimate government is absolute and precedes any positive law.”
Not before trying every other avenue. Don’t blame the people complaining IF in the end it reached that stage, if so, your own views and opinions echo’d only by the elite would be the cause.
“But it is important to remember that such illegitimacy is, in any case, systemic. In ratifying the various EU Treaties, the UK Parliament has conveyed the EU legal order with all the legitimacy it, itself, possesses.”
No, you don’t get away with this. One of the primary pillars in the EU is the supposed support and demand for things like the rule of law and democracy, and as such, demanding consensus from the people IN the EU ABOUT how the EU is built overrides anything else. If the EU feels so very strongly about democracy, human rights, the rule of law, then in the very first instance, it has to apply this to itself.
IT and its representatives CANNOT make waves about demanding freedom and liberty, and democracy anywhere else in the world while doing the opposite at home.
“Any attack on the EU legal order is inextricably linked to the UK legal order, just like their legitimacies are linked. If one has to go by extralegal means, they all have to go.”
This is irrelevant. The UK population in the last election, voted for a government that had in its manifesto a vote on this constitution. I don’t give a damn what games people like you play, with renaming things, and changing fonts, everyone in the UK fully comprehends that this is the same document, with the same core intentions, focus and operandi, and as you like to say, we had a choice. If we voted Liberal, we get a vote. If we vote Con, we GET a vote, and if people voted Lab, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET A VOTE. As you like to claim, only in a contrary matter, like we can’t vote to leave the EU IN THE LAST ELECTION, you can’t claim we did not vote to have a VOTE. If we did not WANT a vote my friend, we would not have voted to have one.
If we were not meant to have a vote, then don’t put it in the manifesto of all leading parties in a democratic election. Its not use you whining about it, the EU is supposed to help uphold democracy inside the EU, therefore the question still stands. Why is the EU, and the member governments involved working so very hard to deny people votes, not just in the UK, but all across the EU. You claim this is not a conspiracy. You’re having a laugh man.
“In the alternative, where the issues have not yet reached that level of illegitimacy, the thing to do is to work through the legal system, instead of around it. Which brings me back to the same thing I’ve been saying over and over: the UK parliament is free to vote the UK out of the EU at any time. If the EU is such a tyrannical and conspiratory regime, why haven’t they done that yet?”
The UK government is only in office via a published manifesto, where people get a vote on this. You, and those who share your views have cynically changed the name of the document, and are playing elaborate games to attempt to escape from your promised and published obligations. Its not use pointing at the UK gov, because you are all at it. The whole EU and many of its governments are taking part in subverting their own population in this matter. There are no excuses for this, its a sham, and a crime against democracy.
Not having a vote, and failing to win one, is right our of Mugabe’s handbook. Please, do feel proud of yourselves, just don’t expect any quarter to be given in this matter. Making things ‘legal’ via an illigitimate method doesn’t satisfy the rule of law. I’m not interested in EU law, if the EU has no public support, and can’t win a public vote - its not legitimate in my eyes. And never will be.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
BG Wrote in “”
“There are two final points to make, one to lbfg and the second to anonymous. I have no agenda other than to be free from the EU. Anonymous, I revised my opinion of Labour when I realised that they were just social engineers with a huge chip on their shoulders, (and that is from someone who was born on the very bottom tier of society). The strange thing is that the other parties don’t appeal to me either. I am disenfranchised.”
Why would you not be disenfranchised? You’re only allowed to vote for a very finite controlled Politically correct form of democracy and politics. Even your own politicians are not entrapped inside what is akin to a single party state, where defying or speaking out of turn ends your career. Even the people you vote for only make 20% of the laws, the other 80% made up my people you never voted for, and never get a vote on. The laws you suffer under are imposed upon you. Your own rights, in your own country matter less than a new set of rights being imposed outside, where immigrants, asylumn seekers, criminals, terrorists, and minorities have a higher set of rights and privilages. Human rights of people elsewhere matter far more than your own. People who never contribute to a national healthcare system, people like YOU built now are a higher priority than yours.
I noted you attacked the empire. Well each to their own. But that aside, the people we are talking about have attacked, demolished, or are demolishing every single institution that used to be and are replacing with their own (worse) system.
My country is a country living in fear, the stench of it permeates every corner, nook and cranny. People are in fear of the next vindictive fine - probably out of the next bout of social engineering. Got a car, have a fine. Need to park, have a fine. Need to have a cig. Have a fine. Need to by food, here have higher taxes, green taxes, AND a higher price. Need healthcare, transport, or any government service, you know the things these social enginnering leftists bastards have taxed everyone to hell for, pah, not a chance. On every street corner camera’s await you. Watching you. Your own state and its many participants now invade your privacy, and monitor you via laws that were ONLY ever meant to be used upon the worst criminals and terrorism. So much for your human rights.
But this is the state today, a place where every 5 minutes, between the EU and these nanny state stalinist creeps, they will invent a new person to come and measure your tapwater in case its too hot, or someone on 30£k a year to measure the vegatables in school dinners, or more plastic cops to dish out fines on the public instead of actually going after real crime. That’s inbetween the barmaids being told not to wear low cut tops unless their employer gets sued under comical EU law.
They could take some of the young kids who are now aimless, they could work as guards in the home office, but the home office is too busy employing illegal immigrants to work as guards in its important offices.
I could never ever share your affinity for the left and labour, and contrary to how you think, these people have always, ALWAYS wanted to build and create their little stalinist nanny state. Blair was moderate and right wing, but underneath him, class war and idiocy runs rampant. The same people wanting Imams in schools and the army out - little wonder that Union is called NUT.
Blair came to power claiming he wanted to build a fairer, more caring Britain. In a stalinst way perhaps.
But that aside, we can at various times have bad government. We get a vote, and although we might not like the choices, if the people in are this bad, its a duty to remove them, and punish them. I’m hoping many Labour voters do so, because like you, this cannot be something they wanted. No one in the right mind can want things to be as they are now.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
L.S.,
@Anonymous: I give your rants the replies they deserve. Since generally they boil down to nothing more than paranoid and misinformed mumbling about conspiratory and unaccountable elites, there isn’t much in the way of reasonable reply that’s possible. So instead, I simply call BS on you and move on. Anyone who doubts the reasonableness of my response need only look at your last two comments, above, which don’t contain a single reasonable point or sensible argument for one between them.
FWIW, I don’t “want to save Africa”, although it would be nice if we could help them help themselves, not to mention that a certain minimum solidarity among all human beings seems to me to be a normal element of civilisation.
FWIW, there is not going to be a European army. Last time you mentioned that drivel, I challenged you to point to where it says differently in the Treaties, and you have not done so, since you couldn´t. Please stop talking about it.
Before I completely lose my good manners, one final point: What part of “people all over Europe, in accordance with their constitutional provisions, deciding to make some changes to the way the Union is governed is the very definition of democracy” do you not understand? Just because you´re getting outvoted, doesn´t mean there is something wrong with democracy. My country is increasingly being run by a bunch of statist idiots, an unholy alliance of christian-democracts and socialists putting my liberal party in opposition. They´re enacting one ridiculous law after another, but you don´t see me screaming about defects in democracy, do you? If you really can´t stand to look at it anymore, campaign to have it changed, or move to another country. Don´t try to undemocratically force your minority opinion on the rest of us, and, while you´re at it, provide some actual argument and evidence for your points of view every once in a while.
P.S. And, yes, it seems as if the timeout for the antispam question is shorter than it used to be. I got an error message again, just now.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
# martinned Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am
L.S.,
Anonymous Says:
April 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Martinned said in “”-
“Where? When? Who? All I see is you talking about it…”
Am I not allowed to talk about what the EU is planning openly or in secret then Martinned? Please do tell me that you once noble effort at explaining away everything is not going to simply be replaced with ‘we will not discuss’.
As I said, don’t say to me that the EU is not talking about taxes and national service, - because they are. If you have a problem with your favoured entity speaking the truth, and it being a complete vote loser (Like Turkey is) - then as I said, take it up with H-G-H and aski him why he is talking about things like the EU imposition of taxes, and an end game where it demands national service. Stop shooting the messenger.
(OK, I’ll give you a break on the taxes. I guess Sarko could be considered “my side”. But, then again, everyone is always talking about taxes. By and large it isn’t an EU competence, neither under the old system, nor under the new, and to the extent that it is, it requires unanimity.)
Absolute rubbish. EU leaders like the treaty, are not talking about the ‘truth’ in the run up to the Irish vote. In fact there is a conspiracy of planned ‘please don’t say anything before the Irish vote about our real plans, we will lose if you do’. I don’t need people like you kindly ‘giving me a break’. Its not a hidden secret from ME that you want to commit to EU taxes across the EU, and plan in the long term things like the entry of Turkey, and the inposition of Imperial ideas such as ‘putting men in Uniform’, which are just more lies like you won’t have a Foreign minister, or many of the other blatant and utterly disgusting lies, ruses, and misinformation being peddled about EU plans.
Now, Either, go and have a talk with H-G-H if you refuse to believe in the plans on taxes and in terms of national service, he is after all the ‘leader of the parliament’ - the same leader that just arranged arbitrary and undemocratic powers for himself, and tell him you are not happy about it, or better yet, just step forward now, and admit that you fully support the EU, its plans to be a new fully fledged state, with anthem, flag, taxation, foreign policy, national service, taxation and the rest.
You talked previously about people not selling the EU well enough. Do feel free to fly over to Dublin and talk about the national service, and planned taxation. You can’t sell these things, they are like Turkey - totally unpalletable to people if they find out what you are up to, and its the prime reason you can’t even get close to winning any form of real democracy.
Most of EU business is like Turkey, and the now ‘don’t mention the taxes’ antics - by design, and deliberately hides what your side are up to.
The clincher for any Irish man should be that he is likely not to have a commissioner in the commission, and his, what is it, 1% of the EU parliament has a fat chance of stopping anything that is a misfit for Ireland, Taxes, and national service being prime cases, but there are many others.
But the taxes apply to everyone anyway. Now you’ve denied the population a vote, I really can’t wait for Brussels to start levying taxes on an already deeply overtaxed population. That for kick of will go down with huge popularity here.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Anonymous, April 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm,
Hey, I’m on your side more than you think.
I’ve given up on left and right; the lines are blurred. I do agree with you in that Orwellian “Newspeak”, political correctness and the sly creep of authoritarianism have worn us down. It’s amazing how when the EU is talking about more freedom we feel more repressed. And I use “the EU” and not “the UK” because I feel more and more that this mode of rule is coming from the EU.
I’m for freedom under our sovereignty to make our laws free from the interference of foreign states. (And before Martinned starts digging around in his navel to find arguments to refute that statement, we have already established on previous posts that EU law has supremacy over UK law). I’d also like to be dealing with our old Empire and Commonwealth rather than allowing this bunch of thugs, led by Mandelson, to create havoc with their fishing deals and EPAs.
I’m absolutely amazed that Martinned belongs to a liberal party. The EU is about as far as anything can be from liberal. Not even Martinned could frame a law against xenophobia but its there in the treaty. It’s a thought crime!
On conspiracy: despite Martinned’s past thoughts on the stupidity of trying to build up a super-state to rival the major countries, established and on the rise; I think that this is exactly what is going on. We have high immigration to provide the bodies to create a superpower, high migration to homogenise us all, (and remember Martinned you are all for political figures representing different states to those they were born in). The Euro. The High Representative to represent all 27 countries; what powers will he/she have. Can he/she commit the EU countries to sanctions or hostilities?
There is a move to harmonise business tax. This is an obvious precursor to EU-wide taxation.
And yes, what is the point of a European Defence Agency if there is no European Defence Army? Eurogendfor can establish itself in any EU member state if asked by the ‘client’ country. Would that be asked by a government of a country? What if the government only represents 20% of the people? And, of course, according to the Treaty establishing Eurogendfor, once a force has been established in a member state it is ‘inviolable’. It can not be touched. I don’t know what school of liberalism you attended, Martinned but the EU is becoming increasingly spooky.
On a positive note I’ve been invited to get out on the street and deliver some leaflets for the local elections. I will be supporting UKIP and any independent candidate; I want to break the hold of the big three. Maybe there are quite a few who will be thinking the same.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Taxes for the EU are not collected by the EU. They are collected by the member states.
The EU can do the spending in a direct way, to curry favour with various interest groups and countries.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
# martinned Says “”:
April 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“@Anonymous: I give your rants the replies they deserve. Since generally they boil down to nothing more than paranoid and misinformed mumbling about conspiratory and unaccountable elites, there isn’t much in the way of reasonable reply that’s possible.”
Unable to counter the FACT that elections and voting has funding that is almost in entirity on the YES side, the FACT you nor anyone on your side can make a real case for TURKISH entry into the EU, aside from the fact that when caught red handed talking about taxes or national service, foreign ministers, flags, anthems, or anything else, you revert to form and use smear as your primary defense. Congratulations.
“So instead, I simply call BS on you and move on.”
So you did not write to H-G-H then. No, didn’t think so.
“Anyone who doubts the reasonableness of my response need only look at your last two comments, above, which don’t contain a single reasonable point or sensible argument for one between them.”
There is never a reasonable point - According to your side. Anyone opposing you is a little nationalist, a racist, a xenophobe, insert abuse here. As for pointing out to you that it was not a Euroskeptic who said OR talked about Taxes, or National service, but people from deep within your own side, you don’t have an answer. You just change the subject.
“FWIW, there is not going to be a European army. Last time you mentioned that drivel, I challenged you to point to where it says differently in the Treaties, and you have not done so, since you couldn´t. Please stop talking about it.”
I don’t have to limit myself to the treaty. The EU certainly won’t. It does not have to be written into the treaty, you know this - which makes your claim dubious in the extreme.
“Before I completely lose my good manners, one final point:”
You lost your good manners with your sarcasm earlier.
“What part of “people all over Europe”
Britain, France, Holland, others untested? Do they count as across Europe? Apparently not.
“, in accordance with their constitutional provisions”
The constitution says that parties are elected based around a published manifesto. You do remember what was in the manifesto - don’t you.
“, deciding to make some changes to the way the Union is governed is the very definition of democracy” do you not understand?”
No, I understand people in a very small grouping want to make themselves more powerful than they already are. And in the first attempts, via public vote, lost. Having lost, they now go about any other method but facing the public to gain support for their plans. I don’t give a damn that in your useless, empty, worthless opinion, these antics satisfy your limited view, I don’t give a damn if they fit that of a tiny miniscule minority of elite politicians who openly and not so openly fully comprehend their actions and criminality in those actions. Gaining your approval for these antics is meaningless. You;d support the EU ‘project’ no matter what, so its moot.
“Just because you´re getting outvoted, doesn´t mean there is something wrong with democracy.”
Er, You can’t actually win a public vote, and have run as far as possible from every country in Europe save Denmark, where you cheated and bent the rules, and Ireland where you were forced to have a public vote. Save your petty pathetic spite on the subject. As it is in Ireland - as usual, you’ve rolled out all the big EU guns, you’ve got most of the press TV, radio, and you’re still struggling to win over the populace.
As for the claim that this sham is democratic or supportable, you think so. Who are you again, oh a full on, died in the wool EU supporter. Not exactly a surprise.
“If you really can´t stand to look at it anymore, campaign to have it changed, or move to another country. Don´t try to undemocratically force your minority opinion on the rest of us, and, while you´re at it, provide some actual argument and evidence for your points of view every once in a while.”
You’re country is Holland is it not. They voted no, remember?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
L.S.,
@Anonymous:
- My country voted no, so we changed the Treaty, taking away all that constitution/look-at-us-we’re-starting-a-new-country talk.
- Generally, in discussions on the internet, evidence is provided with hyperlinks. It’s not difficult. I don’t know who you mean by H-G-H, or why I should be contacting them, but if you claim something about EU level national service, you should be able to back it up with evidence, i.e. with links.
- In case you don’t know how, here’s a quick course:
- The link above looks like this while I’m still typing: [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland"]hyperlinks[/a], except that I’ve replaced the with [ and ] for your convenience. As you can see, the logic of the tags is simple enough. You put the web address you want to link to in the first part, between the “”, and you put the text you want to have appear in the second part.
- As far as I’m concerned, wikipedia is generally reliable enough for most subjects. What’s more, it usually provides external links at the bottom for those of little faith.
- Let’s type in national service. Interesting article, but unfortunately it says nothing about the EU. (Surprise, surprise.)
- Why not look at their entry about the new Treaty, since obviously actually reading the Treaty is too difficult for you. (No, there’s no excuse for dismissing it like you did. In Brussels, the Treaties are the start and the end of everything. Any piece of secondary legislation, regulations, directives, decisions, everything, has in one of the first recitals the legal basis of the legislation, and that is, rightly, one of the most frequently litigated aspects. Here’s a link to an important example.)
- This is what wiki says about the Reform Treaty. I guess your national service issue falls under defence. This is what the entry says about defence, quoting in full: “The treaty foresees that the European Security and Defence Policy will lead to a common defence for the EU when the European Council unanimously decides to.”
- OK, so what about the European Security and Defence Policy? That sounds menacing enough. O, wait, it’s not. It turns out that, as before, just about everything EU MS do about defence is done through NATO. Do you know how I know that? Easy! I checked the budget, which tells met he budget for CFSP for this year is € 285,25 million, most of which is spent on Kosovo.
- If all else fails, there is always Google. Search terms “national service” and EU, I suppose. The 8th hit links to another forum, where someone just like you was typing. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t count as evidence. Since those links to CORDIS are about something else, I think, we’re still coming up empty.
Unfortunately, I have to go and do something useful now, but I hope I’ve demonstrated the concept of evidence. If you claim something, either back it up immediately or be ready to back it up when someone calls BS on you, that is the etiquette of online discussion. (Or what passes for etiquette.) In fact, this is what I used to like so much about discussions on usenet. I would end up in the most pointless discussions with crazy Americans, and we’d end up parsing through FBI crime statistics, etc. No matter how pointless the subject was, both sides were always looking for more and better evidence. Simply replying “cite?” was enough. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
H-G P “Europe will have both rights and duties”
EH, “Excuse me but what do mean by the term duties?”
H-G P “Oh, taxation and military service”.”
H-G P = Hans Gert Pottering
“In his speech the President emphasized the necessary link between democracy and parliamentarism and alluded to the example of the European Parliament and its evolution over time towards a fully-fledged legislative body. “When I was elected for the first time in 1979, the European Parliament had no legislative power at all; with the Lisbon Treaty, it will be on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers as a true co-legislator in all areas”.”
The full legislative power to impose taxes and national service no doubt. As I said before, if you have a problem with this, take it to him.
Or you are calling the The President of the European Parliament a liar.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
L.S.,
@Anonymous: OK, that’s an improvement, but still no links, I see. The reason why I’m asking for a link is so that a) I can see you didn’t misquote anything and b) so that I can see the context (When, where, how, etc.) of the remark.
Without any access to context, I’m going to have to make some general comments, such as
- It’s just an example of what is meant by duties in such a context.
- If it’s just Pöttering, I hardly think this qualifies as something that is likely to become an issue anytime soon. Come back to me if you have a quote from Barroso.
- He is right in that, to the extent that there are taxes at an EU level (i.e. 1st and 2nd stream own resources), the EP should have a say, under the rule of “no taxation without representation”. (I realise you’re English, and this phrase probably brings back some bad memories, but I think it’s a pretty good principle. It’s also one of the grievances listed in the Dutch declaration of independence of 1581.)
- He wasn’t saying anything about creating new taxes at an EU level, but only the division of power at the EU level.
That’s just off the top of my head. I’ll do better if I have some context.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
# martinned Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm in “”
“@Anonymous: OK, that’s an improvement, but still no links, I see.”
Links would do what exactly? You’d only fall back to the links not being vindicated because what is said in private meetings at the EU is not recorded and thus can’t be validated and as such the claim is only here-say.
“The reason why I’m asking for a link is so that a) I can see you didn’t misquote anything and b) so that I can see the context (When, where, how, etc.) of the remark.”
Plausable deniability resides throughout the EU, its how its been built. You know this, off course. You know that council meetings, and in general how the EU is run is done ‘in secret’. I could provide you the link, but the link is irrelevant. You support the EU being run as is, and as its proposed post Lisbon.
“Without any access to context, I’m going to have to make some general comments, such as
- It’s just an example of what is meant by duties in such a context.”
You know Pottering is an absolute arch federalist, and you know exactly the context of which he was damn well speaking. We don’t need to bandy words at all in this.
“- If it’s just Pöttering, I hardly think this qualifies as something that is likely to become an issue anytime soon. Come back to me if you have a quote from Barroso.”
There was a reason why I included the quote from Pottering and his visit to Qatar. And you yourself have been caught numerous times talking up the changes in the Lisbon treaty, and the powers its hands to the parliament, yet here, when caught with your pants round your ankles, you run to an excuse of ‘come back if I have a quote from Barruso’. I don’t need a quote from Barruso when what you support puts Pottering and his merry Federalists in a position of increased power - power enough to Implement and push things like Taxes, and National Service.
“- He is right in that, to the extent that there are taxes at an EU level (i.e. 1st and 2nd stream own resources), the EP should have a say, under the rule of “no taxation without representation”. (I realise you’re English, and this phrase probably brings back some bad memories, but I think it’s a pretty good principle. It’s also one of the grievances listed in the Dutch declaration of independence of 1581.)”
Look, to be honest, had your side been out there and won through referendums, I would not oppose taxes by the EU. After all, public support for the EU, and what it stands for would implicitly mean some money has to go in coffers to proceed with ‘the plan’. Tell the Irish you are about to tax them, and cripple their business. If you can still win the referendum, good on you. But the point is utterly mute. I know you not to be a stupid man at all. You and I know these taxes by stealth or any other required measure are in the pipeline and are part of the plan. The pointless argument you make about having this in black and white written form is also pointless, the EU and those who hold power within its structures make measures over dinner - informal or otherwise, or in non public meetings that are not recorded, and the rest.
“- He wasn’t saying anything about creating new taxes at an EU level, but only the division of power at the EU level.”
Please stop playing the idiot. The plan for the anthems, the flags, the new state are only temporarily removed from THIS treaty to get it through. These ideas have not gone away, people like Pottering dream and work towards this new ’state’ and its taxes, government, military, and foreign power. Your claims that this is somehow not the case is a fantasy.
“That’s just off the top of my head. I’ll do better if I have some context.”
I’m not interested in your games. Is pottering lying in the statement I showed you, or is he not. Its a simple enough context, even for you.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The problem of wild claims about the EU’s intentions is one of the EU’s own making.
The Lisbon Treaty is so vague it could be read to mean, or leave the door open to the imposition of, pretty much anything.
Which presumably is the idea, from the EU’s point of view.
What’s more, having one Commissioner per country, or even the whole Commission directly elected, will not improve the lack of democracy inherent in EU decision-making.
That is because Europe has no ‘demos’ - a people who have enough in common to be governed together; and for an over-ruled minority to accept the will of the majority because they identify with each other as one group.
Europe doesn’t even have a language in common, nevermind a common political sphere or even much in the social, cultural or economic fields. Some, yes, of course. But not nearly enough.
A ‘demos’ is a fundamental prerequisite of democracy - certainly the stable kind. Hence its inclusion in the word! Maybe things will be different in Europe in 50 or 100 years. But it is not the case now. And while this is so, decisions made at Europe-wide level can never be truly democratic.
Look at the fact that even some existing EU members - eg. Spain, Belgium, UK - are facing demands for more local, separate government within their own countries, because cultural groups don’t feel they have enough in common with other groups to be governed together at the national level.
This is the ‘demos’ problem in action. Ignore it at Europe’s peril.
This is the underlying problem in everything you and your EU colleagues are doing. You fail to pay anything more than lip-service to Europe’s diversity, steadily imposing on Europe an ideologically-driven State structure without a People.
Worse, actively discouraging governments from consulting their peoples about it!
That, in my view, is a very dangerous path you and other EU-supporters are working to take our continent down.
Co-operation yes. Integration, no. Isn’t it time, here in the 21st century of new challenges, to leave 1950s ideas for Europe behind?
April 18th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
L.S.,
@Stuart Coster: Since you brought up the demos thing, can you please help me out? I’ve never been able to understand why some groups of people are considered a demos, and others aren’t. So why don’t we start with something simple. Which of the following, if any, are not only a group but also a demos:
- the people of the UK
- the people of England
- the people of Northern-Ireland
- the inhabitants of the home counties = greater London
- the inhabitants of Bretagne
- French citizens of Algerian descent
- the inhabitants of the 27 EU member states
- the inhabitants of the Benelux countries
- the people of Belgium
- the inhabitants of Brussels
- the inhabitants of my appartment building
Many of these groups have distinctive characteristics, but other don’t. Many have parliaments of some sort, others don’t. Which qualify as a demos? (And, if you have time left over: why?)
April 18th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Martinned you are so right. The “demos” is whatever Stuart defines it to be, because it’s one of the most intensely subjective concepts in politics. Since he can define the sacred “demos” to be a “national” (also highly subjective and artificial) community, he can then justify all sorts of arguments against international co-operation on the basis that it is not coterminous with the interests of that “demos”. Completely circular logic.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“Since he can define the sacred ‘demos’ to be a ‘national’ … community”
I suggest you return when you’ve learned to read, Ibfg2. Look at his post again. Stuart Coster positively rules out equating “demos” with “nation”: “eg. Spain, Belgium, UK - are facing demands for more local, separate government within their own countries, because cultural groups don’t feel they have enough in common with other groups to be governed together at the national level. This is the ‘demos’ problem in action.”
April 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
# Ibfg2 Says in “”:
April 18th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“Martinned you are so right. The “demos” is whatever Stuart defines it to be, because it’s one of the most intensely subjective concepts in politics.”
In *Your* Politics. While we’d surely love to confine ourselves to an Unelected Commission, a Parliament that for sure has no ‘Demo’s - it does not even recognise the Irish right of voting and self determination in that countries constitution.
“Since he can define the sacred “demos” to be a “national” (also highly subjective and artificial) community, he can then justify all sorts of arguments against international co-operation on the basis that it is not coterminous with the interests of that “demos”. Completely circular logic.”
The only logic you understand is attempting to create a totally false and fantastic demo that does not exist. You claim that a majority of Europeans want this european project, but you have not managed to win large scale support for it anywhere. You cover in absolute fear about having any vote in the UK, and lost in France and Holland - the very heartland you might claim that would come out and support the European project.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
L.S.,
I suppose Stuart hasn’t gotten around to going over my list yet. Fair enough, people are allowed to have lives.
Anonymous said: “you have not managed to win large scale support for it anywhere”. Of all the referenda that have been held, only a small minority went against the EU. (Maybe. As I recall, quite a few French voters voted no because they felt the reform didn’t go far enough.) Add to that countless parliamentary votes, and if one must, opinion polls, and I can’t escape the conclusion that there is still, as there always has been, widespread support for the EU. Am I wrong?
April 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
# martinned Says “”:
April 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“Anonymous said: “you have not managed to win large scale support for it anywhere”. Of all the referenda that have been held, only a small minority went against the EU.”
A minority? Where? There was no Minority in France, Holland, and if there had been a UK referendum, there either. Oh, you mean in the fantasy of a European wide election, one you happen to think you could win. The problem is there was no European wide referendum, only referendums in actual nation states. And the conditions were simple, unless everyone said yes, it did not pass the democratic hurdle. Off course, as ever, you know all this, but its irrelevant to you.
“(Maybe. As I recall, quite a few French voters voted no because they felt the reform didn’t go far enough.)”
No, and now Sarkosy has got his way and destroyed the single market, its more likely you’d get a yes vote in France, but also more likely get a No in the UK and Holland, especially going forward where this step actually starts to bite.
“Add to that countless parliamentary votes”
Falling back on parliamentary three lined whipped votes when you’ve abjectly failed the public litmus test cuts no ice with me, nor others. You can cling hopelessly to this rubbish, its your choice.
“, and if one must, opinion polls, and I can’t escape the conclusion that there is still, as there always has been, widespread support for the EU. Am I wrong?”
You had the chance to present this fact when every country went through a process, where every state had to agree. If this widespread support for the EU actually exists, then we have yet to see this qualify this in heartlands of France, Holland, The UK.
As far as my own country goes, let us put this to a test in the next euro elections. How would you feel if I said that in the up coming elections, the people will vote for the supposedly euroskeptic Tories, and UKIP and others similar, and support for the pro EU liberals and Labour will collapse, or at the very least, suffer deeply. And off course, none of these people will be under the EPP or similar banners you love to proclaim in your rhetorical nonsense about EU democracy.
If people here support the EU, they won’t vote for skeptics, but labour and liberal who claim to support the EU. We can have a conversation again after you’ve lost. (Again.)
April 21st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“There was no mention of jets or palaces. If there had been I would have said I wanted one too…”
It’s very comforting knowing that you want one too for our tax money. Seriously Margot, are you still in kindergarden? I want one too if
he’s getting one. It’s my taxmoney, stop spending them like there is no tomorrow.
I work hard and would like it if I, (the one of us who actually do a descent job) could keep them instead of giving them away too ignorant people such as you.
SERIOUSLY!!!! Stop spending my money on crap!!!
By the way, that one project wich I think was your idea. The one with giving every kid an EU gym bag must have been the most stupid idea ever. Everyday you seem more and more like Leni Riefenstahl.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Johan - Margot’s comment was intended as a joke and I have never heard of any EU gym bag idea…
April 21st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Crapaud a state is not the same as a nation.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
L.S.,
@Anonymous: Learn to read. It’s your native language, not mine.
As for those who are worried about all the perks for the new Council president: It looks like the EP will use its budget power to put a stop to that
MEPs to use budget power over EU president perks
22.04.2008 - 09:22 CET | By Honor Mahony
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Members of the European Parliament are prepared to use their hold over the bloc’s purse-strings to try and make sure that the proposed new EU president does not wield too much power.
“The treaty is very clear about the duties [of the president],” the head of the parliament’s budget committee, Reimer Boege, told EUobserver, noting that it says the person can have an administrative role, “but not take over an executive function.”
“Budget power is always used as a weapon. This is a principle,” said the centre-right German MEP.
The parliament, wary of upsetting the fine balance of power between the EU institutions, will have a chance to use this weapon when it comes to negotiations later this year on the 2009 budget.
Mr Boege said that MEPs will looking out to see that if any extra perks for the president – a private plane and a residence are rumoured to be under consideration – would be “linked to lowering the communitarian level in the treaty”, meaning reducing the power of the European commission and boosting inter-governmental politics.
The MEP urged member states who are due to deliver a draft budget to the parliament before the summer to show a “flexible and responsible approach” and indicated that euro-deputies would be inclined to accept a salary and staff set-up for the president that does not exceed that of the immediate staff of the European commission president (around 20).
The first reading of the budget is due in October, but MEPs are already fretting about the institutional implications of the Lisbon Treaty, which is supposed to come into force by the beginning of next year.
Earlier this month, senior MEPs, including parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering, met European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso to raise certain points about the treaty, particularly concerning the remit of the proposed president.
The treaty foresees a purely administrative role for the President of the European Council – the formal title of the post - organising the meetings of EU leaders.
However, there is the potential for external representation overlap with the foreign minister and the commission president, while the role is also set to be defined by the person who gets the job.
Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, one of those often mentioned as a contender for the post, had said the president should not be “an empty figurehead or a director of ceremonies.”
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who will head the EU later this year when the job description is to be decided, shares this opinion. Others, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are said to want to keep a lid on the president’s powers.
A pre-democracy situation
For their part, MEPs suggest there will be a democratic legitimacy problem if the president has too much power, as the person will be chosen by the 27 EU leaders - in a closed-door process - and is not accountable to the European Parliament.
They note where the president has operational powers, that person is directly elected, such as in France or the US.
A powerful EU president that is neither subject to parliamentary control nor elected by citizens “would lead us to a pre-democratic situation,” German centre-right MEP Elmar Brok told the constitutional affairs committee earlier this month.
Speaking about the possible size of the president’s entourage - which some in council (the member states’ body) have suggested should run to 60 people, including security officials, cabinet, chauffeurs and secretaries - Mr Brok said:
“I am of the opinion that if we cannot come to agreement on this, then we should abandon the gentleman’s agreement whereby one does not mess with the budget of another institution, because now we are talking about operational powers. It is no longer about the implementation of purely organisational duties.”
© EUobserver.com 2008
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
martinned Says in “”:
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
“L.S.,
@Anonymous: Learn to read. It’s your native language, not mine.
As for those who are worried about all the perks for the new Council president: It looks like the EP will use its budget power to put a stop to that”
Hahahahaha, Let me get this entirely straight, Martinned, You expect me to now follow your prompting, and expect the EP, a place so laughably corrupt in the first place, to Police properly, a posting it, and the people in it, have been trying to create, and support creating, and not provide it with the bells and whistles. The same place thats passed EU budget year on year, and overlooks fraud and crime in its own house.
The members of that Parliament can’t get access to the information showing fraud of its own members, and I highly doubt they will get access to the hidden details in the EU secret meetings and dinner table decision makers.
You’re having a laugh Martinned. Is this the best you can do? Seriously, is this all you have, the best your intellect can trawl up?
“while the role is also set to be defined by the person who gets the job.”.
He’ll soon ‘define’ why he needs a staff, Limo, and jet.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
BG Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
(…)
· The EU is responsible for the breaking up of our Post Office. EU directives 97/67/EC and 2002/39/EC. This ‘harmonisation’ of our services and the opening up of the UK to predators also applies to our water, electricity, gas and railways. Perhaps you are one of the beneficiaries of high utility prices forced on the much put-upon UK consumer. Not propaganda; fact.
Sorry to come back to this more than a week after it was posted, but I was just reading this CEPS Commentary about ownership unbundling, written by the British professor (at London City University) Alan Riley, who, in the passing, discusses some of the facts BG seems to be so fond of:
“Equally, the argument that there is no correlation between unbundling and investment and prices
is weak. In the first place, the Commission has never argued that there is a direct correlation
between price levels and liberalisation. Other significant market factors can affect price. Yet
over time, a liberalised market is likely to have lower prices than a closed protectionist market.
For example, Eurostat figures show that since 1998 power prices in liberalised markets –
including the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden – prices have increased by only 6%,
whereas in other markets they have soared by 30%.
For a more specific comparison, take the German and British electricity markets. From 2004 to
2006, the wholesale price for electricity in Germany was 10% below the UK price, but the price
paid by industrial and domestic customers was more than 25% higher than the UK retail price.
There is, however, a direct correlation between ownership unbundling and investment. The
Commission has direct evidence that ownership unbundling encouraged new investment in the
UK. Four new liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals are operational in the UK, along with the new
Norwegian pipeline which has a capacity of 23 billion cubic meters. All of this infrastructure
has been built since unbundling took place. Meanwhile, in protectionist Germany there is still
no operational LNG terminal, even though the debate over whether to have LNG terminals there
started back in 1982.”
Once again my apologies. Given that this type of thing is what I research for a living, I should have responded to BG’s remark sooner.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“Crapaud a state is not the same as a nation.”
Is that meant to be an argument against some proposition of mine, Ibfg2? As far as I can see, neither Stuart Coster nor you nor I have mentioned the word “state”.
Do tell us what you mean.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Martinned,
How nice of you to make such an effort to sort out my troubles. And yes, you have caught me out lying. 40% was a bit over the top. I will dispute however Alan Riley’s figures. I don’t see how his figures equate to an increase of 6%
According to ukenergy.co.uk, my electricity bill under EDF rose in Jan 2005 by 7.5%, in Oct 2005 by 10.6%, in Mar 2006 by 4.7%, in Jul 2006 by 8%, and in Jan 2008 by 7.9%. This is confirmed by the thisismoney.co.uk website. The rises for gas are a bit higher.
But well done, Martinned.
I must say that I did not expect you to question my figures as much as my actual rant. Margaret Thatcher privatised our utilities but even she may have blanched at the thought of an almost complete take over by French and German companies. Now there’s one for the conspiracy theorists. How much of our industry is owned by German and French companies?
For the great handbagger of the EU our Maggie sure did hand them our family silver.
As for Alan Riley’s assessment that there will be investment in unbundled domestic power industries, of course there will be, the investors will have a captive market. I sometimes wonder how a EU policy of unbundling is arrived at. I suppose it’s nothing to do with corporate lobbying in the form of ‘Expert Groups’, is it?
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Martinned,
LS and 20 Century Fox
You tell us you are a legal student, then an economist and now a researcher.
Either way, you are the best of the EUrophiles and I salute you.
You still talk rubbish about a referendum though.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Martinned,
LS and greengrocers.
Demos, according to the Oxford dictionary, is Democracy,the common people,personified.
So the inhabitants of your apartment building dont have a demos if only you tell them what to do. The citizens of 27 states of the EU dont have a shared demos as there is no proper democracy.
I think the modern term for Demos is shared sense of belonging and identity. How do ypou define it (and I must congratulate you on the use of English)?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
# BG Says in “”:
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“I must say that I did not expect you to question my figures as much as my actual rant. Margaret Thatcher privatised our utilities but even she may have blanched at the thought of an almost complete take over by French and German companies. Now there’s one for the conspiracy theorists. How much of our industry is owned by German and French companies?
For the great handbagger of the EU our Maggie sure did hand them our family silver.”
Thats not really fair. Maggie unburdended the state of many things, some good, some bad, but in the utility area, the problem with the Utilities is that in the UK, they were put into the idea of market forces. Thus French and German companies have been able to buy into that market, HOWEVER, they operate in closed, or limited, or controlled markets at home, which was not the Europe, single market or competition Thatcher ever supported. British energy companies face problems when trying to get into the German or French markets.
You could always nationalise things again BG, course, given the antics and failure, and MASSIVE taxes already being wasted like confetti by the socialist scum, I dare say our energy supply would not be better under them. Still, if the government did control energy, they could employ yet more snoopers to come inspect your house, make sure your heating was not on, your hot water never above tepid, and no doubt more hilarious antics. You’ve used too much electricity sir, we have to fine you £200.
Still, it would give them yet another reason to arm idiots with uniforms, and ‘enforce’ their socialist paradise once more.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
L.S.,
@BG: When the euro was introduced here, there was a big discussion about the difference between the official inflation figures, which were quite low, and people’s percieved inflation, which were higher. They called it something untranslatable by analogy to the difference between temperature and wind chill. The idea was that the price increases were in goods that people spent a lot of time on, such as groceries, while the price decreases were in goods that people spent little time on, but more money, such as utility bills. The result is that the official inflation number, which is weighed by how much money is spent on any one item, was low, while percieved inflation, which is weighed by how much time is spent thinking about certain purchases and their prices, was higher.
My point is, while it is definately true that there are lies, damned lies and statistics, that does not mean that the better answer can be found by extrapolating one’s own experiences. So rather than dispute your experience, I will simply note that the professor’s numbers are from 1998 onwards, which is when the liberalisation effort started.
@Robin: My undergrad degrees are in International & European Law and in Economics, and my Ph.D., which I’ve been working on for about 2 years now, is in Law & Economics, particularly concerning “semi-public institutions” such as utilities, or, in my research, railways. Being an economist, at least half the time, I tend to start my thinking from individuals, and only later consider how the behaviour of individuals can be aggregated into a model that describes groups. As a result, I am by nature sceptical about all “sociological” notions of Zeitgeist and demos, which to me smack of metaphysics more than actual science. Your Oxford definition is only making it worse, since I don’t really know what is so special about “the common people”, as opposed to the people generally, nor do I even know what a common person really looks like. To the extent that we are talking about “a shared sense of belonging and identity”, a demos is essentially the same as an “imagined community”. (I bought the book, but haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.) The problem with such imagined communities is that it begs the question which should follow which, and which, in fact, follows which. Just like many European states predate their respective demos, one might wonder whether some sort of European Union is not exactlly what is needed in order to achieve a sense of shared destiny in Europe. My feeling is that this is exactly what the fathers of Europe, such as Jean Monet (I have his memoirs, but haven’t gotten around to reading them yet), had in mind when they created the EC. While I certainly wouldn’t advocate the kind of oppression that caused France to turn from a collection of regions into a demos, I would say that a temporary misalignment between demos and democracy is not a problem. Otherwise, how will Northern Ireland ever become a single community? (I didn’t include them in my list for nothing.) I would say that globalisation, annoying word as it may be, is causing people accross the world to feel more connected to one another, although there is still a long way to go before there would be anything resembling a world demos (by your definition). In Europe, I have many friends from many different countries, countries that, just two generations ago, were shooting at each other. European identity is still weak, and it is very difficult to measure even if it does exist, but I think we should encourage it rather than turning our (imagined) national identities into unassailable castles.
Fundamentally, I think this demos/community issue is quite separate from the question of democracy. One doesn’t need the other. The first is about what binds us to each other, the second is about the links between us and our governments. Democracy implies consent of the governed. A government of the people, by the people, for the people. As long as I have the power to support one politican or another, and the option of becoming a politician myself, the connections between me and other voters seem to be irrelevant.
As for my building, i.e. the building where I live, there are about 60 appartments in this building, and together we have a mini feudal state going, where each of the owners of these appartments gets a vote in the owners’ association. That’s democracy, but I’m not sure whether I have any shared sense of belonging and identity with my neighbours.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Moderator,
I see the subject of the demos has had an airing here. I’m sorry I missed it because I’d like to say something about it. However, rather than start afresh I hope you won’t mind if I cut and paste my answers posted on 14 April on this topic to points raised by a commenter (called PG) on another blog*, a link to which I have appended at the bottom of this piece.
The context was set in a discussion of aspects of the BNP, Britain’s nationalist party, and, in particular, their attitude to, and policies, on immigration. I had made posts prior the one from which I am about to quote below but they dealt mostly with immigration. The post below, however, focuses on the demos while nevertheless making contextual reference to the prior posts. In this regard the only thing worth noting about them here is my statements therein to the effect that until the end of WWII there had been no immigration into the UK to speak of in thousands of years.Yes, Romans, Anglo-Saxons (their blood was already here long before their invasion in the 5th century), Vikings, Normans, Huguenots and Jews — total DNA ‘contribution’ zilch. I mention all this purely for context and not to start other discussions on what are largely side issues here, at the moment at least.
Here goes:
=== My (edited) responses on the DEMOS on another blog ===
“…your apparent belief that the demos can only be defined in racial terms… [PG]”
Well, it’s more apparent then than real….. kind of, maybe. This is a little complicated.
Without attempting to be comprehensive about it as I profess no expertise in the matter (not that expertise should have any bearing here), I would define a demos as any group of free men (or persons, perhaps, if one is really fussy about making it clear that women are not to be excluded) who regard themselves as having sufficient interests in common to strike a deal among themselves that they, and ONLY they, will decide on how they are to be ruled, with their rulers being chosen presumably but not necessarily from among themselves. Choosing an outsider to rule them would seem somewhat self-defeating though, so let’s exclude that possibility. (Incidentally, one possibility is that they may choose to have no rulers and decide every question on a show of hands. That might works in very small groups. However, as a purely practical matter, most groups would probably opt for having elected representatives act as their servants in operating the mechanisms of their governance.)
This exclusion of others cuts both ways. Within this deal they cannot expect any say in the governance of any other (necessarily mutually exclusive) group unless the two groups unite by common consent—a tricky issue with potential for civil war since it entails a completely new deal, one way outside any NORMAL day-to-day democratic (or what have you) process and one presenting a fundamental change in the very basis of the current deal (a warning to the EU there).Their form of government is, of course, solely their own business too. In particular, if they elect, in their freedom, for rule by a tyranny then that’s their affair whatever one might think of their wisdom in doing so.
Outside the deal is another matter. For example, they can attempt to wage war on whomever they like and for whatever reasons compel them. Of course they may agree among themselves on an explicit code of behaviour (let’s call it their ‘public morality’) which might limit their activities in this and other regards, but such a code is not necessary for the formation of a demos. In fact, not only is it not necessary, it is a dead cert in my opinion that there would never be any agreement on it. Moreover, it would serve only as a breeding ground for greedy lawyers, ‘theologians’ and other parasites wishing to hack out a nice faker’s living. Definitely a dumb idea then.
Now, to get to your meat here. In principle, no, it isn’t necessary for a demos to be defined in racial terms. But what if it were? What is the problem with that? I don’t see any. Maybe the group thinks, and agrees, that their racial homogeneity—or ‘purity’, for those who might wish to evoke the sound of the stomping jackboot—is important to them as one of their “interests in common”. What business is it of anyone else?
But never mind ‘in principle’ and never mind any other nation. My interest extends only to our own. I have no views on what others might or might not do. Neither do I want to get into a discussion of what race is, nor even whether there is such a thing as some on the left would have us doubt. (They have no doubts about ‘racism’ though.) Let’s just say for our purposes here that race is extended kinship. The next question then is how far does it extend? I don’t know and again I am not interested in the question in general. It is fortunate, however, that in our case I don’t have to be. It turns out, by way of one of those happy historic happenstances, that we Britons form a rather nice natural extended kinship whatever our very ancient origins might have been. That will do for me. I imagine few other nations are so lucky. I am very happy to know my fellow countrymen and I have such strong familial bonds going back into the mists of time. It makes it much easier to find interests in common, especially when it comes to deciding who we are and who we count among us, not that WE ever had any problem in that regard. (The left are trying to create one though in their recent attempts to fuzz up the notion of ‘us’ and redefine Britishness to their agenda.) However, if anyone wants to call this demos-selection criterion racial then that’s fine by me—one name is as good as any other.
“…your apparent belief that the demos…is permanent and immutable. [PG]”
I suppose I can see why you might be led to say that. But apart from the obvious objection, that men are born and men die, there is no logical necessity for a demos to be permanent and immutable, at least in terms requiring the exclusion of all others but their descendants. People are free to make any deals they choose, including renegotiating a new demos with whomever they like. The necessity for their consent in those deals, however, is not negotiable. No consent, no deal. So let’s be clear, if someone wishes to include people of other races, say, necessarily from other places, we need to be consulted and our consent needs to be sought. Again, no consent, no deal. As you know a majority of us haven’t been keen on this idea of including other races. But our governments were unconcerned with that piddling little detail. So much for “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, as those evil Americans are wont to say. But what do they know? We have the likes of Gordon Brown to steer our ship, to wherever HE wants to take it. That’s democracy UK style. Crap, isn’t it?
“In fact, such identities change over time and differ according to the observer’s perspective. For me (I’m English), the UK still functions as a nation whereas, for a lot of Scots, it doesn’t. [PG]”
Yes, true. I agree with your view on this. I regret that not all Scots do. I hope they are just “going through a phase” and will change their minds. We have far more in common, especially in the bloodline, than anything that divides us. But we are all free to make our own decisions. If they want a new deal for themselves, among themselves, then that is entirely a matter for them. Incidentally, neither the peoples of England and Wales (and let’s not forget the Welsh people) nor the people of Scotland had any say in the Act of Union 300 years ago—it was decided by a small political class. In my view that makes it illegitimate whatever one might have to say about the so-called legal position. But my view is also that we all naturally form one nation, one demos. (I’d be happy to include Ireland in that too.) But that’s only one man’s view. What counts is what the peoples as a whole say. I think it’s time someone asked them, but only after we have dealt with all this unwanted immigration which, if immigrant votes were included in the count, would otherwise make the whole business the usual farce that passes for democracy in this country. And we’ve had our bellyful of political farce by now.
In any event, this issue shows that even within an homogeneous group of people, sorting out an agreed demos is problematic. There is absolutely no hope when it comes to the suggestion that, say, pakistani muslim immigrants and their descendants be included. My fellow countrymen? No way. Just no way. I do not and will not consent to them having any say in how I am governed since I discern not only do we have absolutely no interests in common there are significant areas in which they conflict. I doubt I am alone in seeing things this way.
Some might say that there are problems with my definition. For example, what would happen if the people of Surrey decided they wanted to declare UDI? Oh that’s very good question. One might even say it was ‘unhelpful’. I’d have to ask them what was their purpose in asking it. Was it to clarify the concepts, to hone them for practical use, or was it an attempt to fuzz everything up and throw people into confusion in typical pseudo-intellectual fashion so as to reach something a little more conducive to their agenda. This is a very easy trick to perform by the way. I’ll give you an example.
We all know what a chair is. We don’t need to be told. Nevertheless, some cleverdick might request a definition and someone else might oblige him. It doesn’t matter what the proposed definition is, the one thing you can be sure of is that it won’t cover all bases. Certainly no dictionary does to my knowledge. Does a seat with five legs count? What about one with six legs? Do three legs make it a stool even if it has a back? If it has no back but has five legs, is it a stool instead or is it a table, or still a chair? What about no legs? (I have seen a few.) How big does the back have to be to count as a chair and not a stool? Exactly how fat does a chair have to be to count as a settee and not chair? If you look close enough you’ll find every chair is evaporating molecules. Is it the same chair it was two minutes ago or should one define it as a different chair? And so on. No end of fun. When it comes to chairs people have no trouble spotting the silly game, and they’re not confused on subsequent trips to the department store in search of furniture. But the game seems to be quite effective when played with other matters. The unfortunate upshot is that many can be thereby be induced to leave these ‘difficult’ questions to what they have been duped into thinking are their ‘betters’. Big mistake. That’s how we end up with the kind of governments we have today.
“Even if you thought that mass migrations hadn’t affected our identity before the 20th century…. [PG]”
‘Even’? [JA Note: They didn't, and I had already said as much.]
“…that identity wouldn’t have related to any fixed polity or social arrangement… [PG]”
Yes…. or no….so? There are many factors and accidents of history, not least our having only recently acquired some form of democracy, highly imperfect though it is. Did you have something specifically relevant in mind?
“Your ancestors had no racial loyalty, only loyalty to their family, their village, their feudal masters or their god. [PG]”
I guess most of them never owned a television either. And if you go back far enough some of them had gills. So?
In summary, the main point I want to make about immigration is that it means a change to the demos, the fundamental basis of any nation especially if it is a democracy. Such a fundamental change, especially being one difficult (but not impossible) to reverse once made, is at the level of the constitutional, literally in fact. It is a very serious matter indeed and certainly not one to be treated as mere a day-to-day ‘managerial’ issue, which is how our deceiving politicos want to treat it. And being a constitutional issue even a simple majority will not do to effect the change. Constitutional changes, because of their importance, for good reason typically require far more, often in the region of 75% in favour, before they are passed. Or they should do. I think about Yugoslavia when the lid came off.
* Taken from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/april08/doubtsaboutabnpadvanceinlondon.htm
===================== End =======================
.