text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
emmafinney in reply to Junoir Jan 31st, 02:07
The moderators have kindly allowed me to replace my reply to you which one of our local totalitarians evidently recommended for removal.
"Now don't let Pedro get started on the Dutch. He goes nuts, literally crazy with rage over them - apartheid, theft of Portugal's crown jewels and what not. Oh my what a happy family the EU has become."
True, despite the expense to taxpayers of zillions of silly blue brochures with gold stars on them that try to suggest the contrary, which have been churned out over the years.
If ever there were a collection of screamingly incompatible nations NOT destined to unite, the "EU" has managed to dig them up.
The "EU's" only supporters on this particular blog are obviously those from the parasite nations east and west who will fabricate aggressively a tedious stream of half-baked theories to justify it, or the "we are all in this together –or else" pumpernickel, a victim of the Wiedergutmachung history gone mad.
Most of them, mainly catholic it seems, have made the leap from fascism/communism to the "EU" bypassing democracy entirely, but bringing their former nasty traditions with them - very noticeably.
Take the 24/7 Marie, re her "but I haven't changed my mind on EU" above.
She comes from the authoritarian French statist tradition, and even uses the "EU organisation" as a reference to "prove" how "important" the French language is. No, she hasn't "changed her mind on the EU" at all – she loves it as long as the French run it. She even takes offence that 80% of the British want to exit the "EU", come what may. After all it is a French creation so she *has to be* proud of it:)
What these bots don't seem to grasp: although their traditions are mainly dictatorial, Britain never tells them what they should do. We want to depart this impossible "union" on friendly terms and they do not help their "cause" with insults and threats, which are guaranteed to increase the resolve to do a 'brexit'. Take this form of diplomacy, fanatical eyewash and fantasy from Guido Westerwelle, which unwittingly boosts the brexit campaign:
"'One thing,' says the German Foreign Minister, 'is not negotiable from Germany's point of view. For us the European Union is far more than just a single market; it is a community united for peace and the shaping of our common destiny. It was this political core that the Nobel committee paid tribute to when it awarded us the Peace Prize and that we celebrated together with France last week. At the end of the day, it was this political core that held the eurozone together through its biggest crisis, thus proving wrong the many sceptics who took a narrow cost-benefit view of the EU.'"
Or Greece's finance minister who warned that "it would be a "grave mistake" for Britain to leave the EU and a renegotiation of its membership would open a Pandora's Box" !!!
Eeeek! All my hand-outs running away !!
Such a popular "union"!
I am not surprised the bots deleted our remarks. Tolerance for different viewpoints is not their strong suit.
The German foreign minister should learn how to tell the truth instead of parroting EU propaganda like a robot. The EU almost dragged the world economy down with its deeply flawed currency if not for the massive help from the IMF's never ending eurozone bailouts and the lifeline from the US fed to European banks. The IMF & Fed had to save the EU from its self inflicted blunder.
As for the Greek foreign minister, Britain is the least of his concerns. it appears this is only a lull before the storm in the Greek/euro crisis. A Pandora's box will certainly open up but not by the British.
"Anyone who believes that the situation now spiraling out of control in Greece will end peacefully is dreaming.
There is no credible plan for economic recovery. Greek GDP is imploding. Multinational corporations are pulling up stakes, sometimes selling off their Greek operations for one euro just to get out.
No foreign investor in his right mind would put money into a new business there, and the local entrepreneurs who try are usually strangled in a tangle of red tape through which no amount of fakelaki can cut.
Strikes are an everyday occurrence, which shouldn't be surprising, as many strikers expect to be paid even when they don't show up for work.
Unemployment has passed the 26 percent mark, as Greece vies with Spain for the honor of being Europe's top economic basket case. Youth unemployment has passed an astounding 55 percent.
Suicides are skyrocketing as elderly and middle-aged breadwinners see no hope for the future.
And so the pressure builds and the clock ticks down to the next sustaining bailout payment — which, at some point, simply won't be there once the Troika is forced to acknowledge that Greek "promises of action" are worth about as much as Penelope's promises to her frustrated suitors.
When the anarchist/communists explode and the fascist/nationalists fight back, will we see a repeat of a civil war that claimed more Greek lives than World War II? How long before a frightened and suffering middle throws its weight behind a junta promising security? Someone will have to restore order when the German money runs out, because it sure won't be German soldiers that are sent to keep the peace
Emma, since you frequently remind everybody who gets paid more than Obama, I can't help but showing you this number I just came across:
2,500 (!!!) EU civil servants get paid more than Chancellor Merkel. Kudos.
Cameron is only concerned about his political survival... not England's
A good article about this problem:
Fischer's article is quite shrewd from an eurobotic (EU-phile) point of view although it highlights the anti-democratic desperation of the "project":
"With all due respect to the UK, dismantling the EU as the price of its continued membership is an absurd idea. Cameron should recognize that his strategy cannot be allowed (even if he fears that a few cosmetic corrections to the treaty won't help him at home)".
Cameron's "strategy" ... "CANNOT be allowed"?
Cameron has no such strategy. He is a PR man under pressure (as the article says) to keep his leadership of the party intact. His speech a "sop" to his backbanchers, if you like. For those backbenchers the idea of blackmailing or even "destroying" the "EU" is their least concern (the "EU" seems to dedicated to that task): they simply represent an electorate who broadly wish to either quit, or at the very least loosen ties, with the "EU". No more than that.
From an eurobot's view, the primal fear is the collapse of the "project.
The British electorate's view, it is simply to find a way out of the "EU" in its present form, but Fischer does not consider this and demonstrates simply that the "project" needs to crush the democratic process in order to survive. For him, as for all such ideologues, crushing parlimentary democracy may mean "for the greater good" despite all evidence.
Most of those hostile to British membership in the "EU", by contrast, would simply interpret his article as another crude gesture to keep a net contributor on board only in order to feed his "project".
The project's fanatics (Fischer is one of many mouthpieces with vested interests in it) will use all "EU" propaganda at their disposal to make a Brexit sound unattractive.
In the end, it is just another "bunker rant".
and though Cameron scrowled his red teppish for Berlin, but, he offerred to do it so many times these past months, for different clients, that it's a bit blurring !
'and though Cameron scrowled his red teppish for Berlin, but, he offerred to do it so many times these past months, that it's a bit blurring'.
Cameron's a real 'pute', eh? He sells his body to anyone who'll have him.
Quite "blurring"!
Ha, ha, ha!
for a "pute" he looks rather like a teppishes merchand
@ Pedro
The EU has turned out to be exactly what some people here predicted some time ago, but of course they were dismissed as 'idiots', 'xenophobes' and UKIP supporters.
We now have 'lazy Greeks' 'northrrn supremacists', 'peripherals' and 'PIGS'. One poster has even created a 'Latin supremacist' group (with Greece and Cyprus as honorary members) which one day will orgaanise Europe's defence under imaginary French leadership. Both Britain and Germany are 'barbarian' nations (after all, they are north of the Alps and use phrasal verbs in their languages, a sure sign of'barbarity', according to him)
This is the Europe that has been created over the last few years, and if these threads, in their microcosm, are anything to go by, then the outlook is sombre.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair, British PM in 2004 when Poland joined the EU, has received some prize or other in Poland for opening the UK's borders to Polish migrants as soon as their country joined.
Some people just talk about "creating Europe", others allow foreigners to take over the management of their football clubs, their public utilities and their airports. There is still no non-Italian car manufacturer in Italy.
The EU, more than anything else, is a load of pious platitudes.
Well if it isn't the Economists' own fault I'm afraid to admit.
It seems this journal has become a magnet for 'cavemen fighting in the dance hall'....
these people have always and will always exist and do not scare me, because they are thugs at heart.
I am far more worried about whether Birtnick, and his troupe, believe or not in the superiority of certain races in regards to others, or even if he does not want to answer that, certain NATIONS in regards to others. I'd certainly like to see what he'd have to say on that, but I am almost 100% certain he'd not reply.
As to Portugal's own place in today's UE, I remind you that we were the original members of the 'outer 7' or were they called the 'outer 6'?? I mean EFTA.... till Britain left, in 1973, was it? and went all bankrupt , and then the Carnations, and then Thatcher wanting Portugal and Spain in the EEC. Portugal invited Spain and both nations joined in a treaty signed at the Jeronimo's monastery, in Lisbon.
some Brit Tories see the UKIPERS as hooligans, I wonder why
If you had read your own link, you would have seen that it is not "some Brit Tories" who are saying that, but ONE person, a Dutchman called Derk-Jan Eppink.
@ Junoir:
Sloppy proof-reading on my part (how "barbarian" of me!). Apologies.
like Clinton said " what's the difference?"
like Clinton said 'what's the difference?'
Well, if you can't see the difference between one Dutchman making remarks about UKIP and a group of Brit Tories saying nothing at all then I suggest you try and get some sleep.
What you really mean is that your comment on your link was a lie.
And BTW, what is YOUR problem with UKIP? Didn't you support Jean-Pierre Chevènement's candidature in last year's French elections ( before he withdrew from the race) precisely because he wanted France to leave the €, if not the EU?
a lie? how dare you, I'm the best Birtnick supporter on these blogs !
but I haven't changed my mind on EU !
you do show some of your hidden sides, that are interesting, but not really expected !
Anything that is not reverring your Great Britain is damned to be fought by you, when I was accused of being a blinkered nationalist, very funny indeed
my link , who ever was mentioned in it reached its effect
Pedro did in fact write a pretty unhinged tract about the Germans too, up there with Joe Solaris. I am insufficently concerned to trawl back to look for the details, but I do remember interjecting something sarcastic like "that's no way to speak of your paylords and masters".
Marie-Claude " I'm the best Birtnick supporter on these blogs !"
wow, I never knew I had a "fan club" here;)
(I do aim to please.)
Hey junoir, are you a "fan" too?
A - ha - ha - ha - ha !! etc.
"Anything that is not reverring your Great Britain is damned to be fought by you"
THAT is pure self-projection, Marie.
Junoir has been very free with his descriptions of how the UK pitched itself into the brown stuff post 1945.
You lied about your own unread link, you were found out and now you bluster.
"I haven't changed my mind about the EU".
OK, so you are the French equivalent of a UKIPER?
As you know, I've always been a fan of Marie-Claire's. Her problem is she doesn't really know who her true friends are.
350 Brit troops on the way to Mali, MI6 already operating on the spot (see Claude Angeli's article in 'Le Canard Enchaîné', yesterday), a 'racist', French-bashing Birtnick who writes fluent French.
Poor Marie can't see the wood for the trees.
But the "racist', French-bashing Birtnick who writes fluent French" is not, unlike her, a blind nationalist. Like millions of others, I just know that the "EU" is not for Britain.
As I mentioned above, we have little in common with the peoples who voted in Hitler or rallied to Napoleon etc. and cannot go along with their dictatorial methods for trying to solve their homicidal tendencies.
"OK, so you are the French equivalent of a UKIPER?"
no, because these people are benefitting of the system while spitting on it.
I'm between Melenchon/Le Pen, for a candidate that isn't born, or it's the pale Dupont-Aignan
350 Brit troops? oh yes, the Guardian was telling that they would coordinate the french troops LMAO
Brit hubris at best
BTW, of the two planes offered, only was able to fly, and... the left one only made one trip !
So I'm so gratful that now, your guis are going to solve Mali problem !
Some would rather see, that after that the French troops managed to get over Gao and Timbuktu, it was then interesting to jump into the show, since the Americans decided that the French weren't the "Zozos" that they think they were, hey, one wonders why the Brits would let the French alone occupying the scene with the Americans, the traditional Brit inspirator !
poor Junior, I feel your pain
I love your lies
I tell you, you don't even know who your true friends are. Either that or for some twisted personal reason you refuse to admit it.
Poor MC!
And by the way, if you had any idea what you were talking about you would know that Britain's offer of help with troops in Mali goes back at least 10 days, BEFORE the successes in Gao and Timbuktu. So there is no question of 'jumping into the show' as you say. The British victims in Algeria are also another reason for intervention.
"your guis are going to solve Mali problem!"
MC at her stupid best!
oh yes, I do know who they are, the Americans and the Brits, but the Americans are more frank than the Brits who would still use some perfid trick to pull the blanket
I forget the Danes, the Canadians, and ... little Belgium
"MC at her stupid best!"
you have not the monopole of intelligence, just that you think it's a British inheritance
How can they "pull the blanket" when there will be only about 400 Brits, whose operations are confined to training, compared to 4000 French troops who are engaged in combat?
N'importe quoi!
Junoir in reply to Hildegarde the favorite
You lied about your own unread link, you were found out and now you bluster.
"I haven't changed my mind about the EU".
OK, so you are the French equivalent of a UKIPER?
No, she is a bot pure et dure and too stubborn or stupid to admit it.
"French troops who are engaged in combat?"
Against whom? The opponents just disappear without a fight, only to reform behind French lines.
A stupid mission in which the British should keep a low profile, and above all, DO NOTHING at the behest of the "EU".
By the way, Marie. Merkel greed to loan two transport planes, two C160s, on condition that these were used by Africans and not by the French. Do you think French troop are following her orders?
This is Germany's 50th wedding anniversary present.
Ha, ha, ha!
"How can they "pull the blanket"
"Simon Jenkins
The British government is going for gold in mission creep. Just a week ago David Cameron clearly indicated there would be "no boots on the ground" in Mali. His office declared there was "absolutely" no question of British troops entering the conflict "in a combat role". Britain would lend two C-17 transports and that was it.
To this was soon added a surveillance plane. Now there is to be a roll-on-roll-off ferry. France may be awash in nuclear bombs and aircraft carriers, but it cannot ship an army to a real war. Then, as French troops advanced on Timbuktu, the adrenaline of triumph drifted across the Channel and into the nostrils of Westminster. Could Britain play too?
Cameron descended into his Cobra bunker, his lips quivering with the thrill of fear. Like every prime minister who uses that place, he emerged feeling he had to talk Churchill. He told the Commons: "We must frustrate the terrorists with our security. We must beat them militarily. We must address the poisonous narrative they feed on. We must close down the ungoverned space in which they thrive, and we must deal with the grievances they use to garner support." The deliciously operative word was we.
Cameron then said that, "if there were a British contribution to [the war], it would be in the tens, not in the hundreds". His spokesman elaborated that it would be "at the lower end of that range", and just for training. By last weekend tens had indeed become hundreds, so far 350 "trainers" and an as yet undisclosed force protection unit.
None of these would, at this stage, have "a combat role". Indeed, it now appeared that 90 troops were already on the ground, for "logistics, intelligence and surveillance support". Everyone, said the defence secretary Philip Hammond yesterday, would be taking part for just "a short intervention to stabilise things on the ground". Very soon the local Africans would take over. No one would be "in combat". It was just a case of in-and-out, easy to handle, reasonable, no trouble."
against whom?
from a expert
"Anṣār ad-Dīn has served it's purpose and will be disbanded or just disappear and re-appear in another form and name, that is our custom.
اياد اغ غالي or Iyad ag Ghali is a different story, he is a man who will come back through a door you, did not know existed.
he always has, he always will.
Ag Abdallah is a nobody, from an insignificant clan.
i enclose the last statement from Anṣār ad-Dīn, for the full text click the link.
as you can read, the men from Anṣār ad-Dīn are still dreaming, but it shows a little what they believe and how they talk.
ميحرلا نمحرلا الله مسب"
Jamaat Ansar Al-Din
Press release regarding the military operations
دعب امأ ،هاده عبتا نمو هبحصو هلاو ،الله لوسر ىلع ملاسلاو ةلاصلاو، نيملاعلا بر لله دمحلا :
In these same days in the past year, the first steps to establish the Islamic project in the Azawad region north of Mali, on the hands of Jamaat Ansar Al-Din, where the people witnessed the leading and distinguished experience, of implementing the Islamic Sharia, and the far and near saw the justice and lenience of Islam, which as much as it healed the hearts of the believers and returned to them the lost hope, it made the Kuffar and hypocrites sleepless, so they couldn't be patient to see that nation determines its fate by themselves, after they gulping the bitterness of tragedies for decades, to live free, under the shadow of the Sharia which they were raised on, and inherited it generation after generation."
and on and on and on.'
The opponents fled a direct confrontation, knowing that they would be defeated, now they are back into their northern eastern lair "Adrar des Ifoghas", where the conflict will be more like Afghanistan, though the Tuaregs are negociating at the moment, and it's also wehere the french hostages are hold.
"A stupid mission"
oh then why is Cameron eagering for going into the play ground too? We are told that you are much more intelligent than us !
oh yes, Merkel did that, we know that the Germans want just send their commercial agents for selling made in Germany windmills to the Africans when the ground will be cleaned, but like they did for the Greeks and the Spanish, they will have to lend them money first, because these poor countries can't afford to buy made in Germany, but made in China
"France may be awash in nuclear bombs and aircraft carriers, but it cannot ship an army to a real war."
the author ignores that the first troops came directly from Chad, Gabon, Senegal Centre Afrique, where there are french bases, they who made the first moves to Konna and to Diabaly
The joke about MC is that if de Gaulle (whom she admires) were here today he would be the first to say that France shall NOT be governed by laws emanating from an unelected foreign body and that in future these would be decided in France and France alone. After all, he was for a 'Europe des Nations', wasn't he? Unfortunately there is no de Gaulle in France today, but there are people who call themselves 'Gaulliste' (like Alain Juppé) who follow the very unGaullist Bot line.
Alternatively, you have people who are considered not respectable (Marine Le Pen), loud mouthed, aggressive and too far to the Left (Jean-Luc Mélenchon) or weird marginals
( Nicolas Dupont Aignon).
Personally, I'm waiting for someone from the two main parties to propose something radically new for France in Europe. Nobody in sight yet, just the same old UMP/Socialist Bot policies.
"The joke about MC is that if de Gaulle (whom she admires) were here today he would be the first to say that France shall NOT be governed by laws emanating from an unelected foreign body and that in future these would be decided in France and France alone. "
what do you find "joke" in that?
I would call bad faith your pretention
I find it a joke because if you really objected to French laws being made outside France and the gradual loss of French sovereignty, then you would spend more time condemning the EU and exposing it for what it is. After all, unlike me, you have access to thousands of links.
But instead of that you indulge in pissing contests with people of other nationalities. (Who has got a biggest army, the best weapons, historical squabbles...etc)
If you want to defend France, you should do so by campaigning against the EU and the creeping integration that the French don't want, but which is being imposed on them.
Un jour tu te réveilleras.
"no, because these people are benefitting of the system while spitting on it."
That's PATHETIC.
It means, as we already know, that you respect the EU "system".
I think it would be great if every political grouping accepting a salary for attending the joke EU parliament would just p+ss on it the way UKIPers do, instead of bleating like sheep and nodding their heads to the likes of the dictatorship bots Schultz, Verhofstat etc. etc.
Parliaments are supposed to contain oppositions in democracy.
Since the "EU" does not tolerated political opposition, then Hannan's, Farage's, Helmer's declared intention to abolish the "EU" while accepting its pay is morally superior to sitting there like hypocritical sheep falling asleep, like the incomprehending zombies who would nod "yes" to literally *anything* for their MEP pay check and wouldn't know what democracy was anyway if it bit them in the fundament.
But then again, we know you are a supporter of this "EU".
It is a joke. I am amazed that you needed to spell it out:)
One last time:
CdG would be ashamed of her support for an organisation that overrules French sovereignty and is abolishing parliamenatry democracy wherever it can in all member states.
That is the stated aim of the "EU", yet Marie prefers, as you have just mentioned, to use blogs such as this to facebook her nationalistic rants (which are of no political interest here), while her own nation's political sovereignty is being eroded, democracy abolished. She appears not to mind.
Perhaps she thinks that this is a good thing. So much for her admiration of CdG.
"But instead of that you indulge in pissing contests with people of other nationalities. (Who has got a biggest army, the best weapons, historical squabbles...etc"
you brought that yourself on, take the pissing part from your own's !
"If you want to defend France, you should do so by campaigning against the EU and the creeping integration that the French don't want, but which is being imposed on them."
You don't know what I do myself, and it's not on TE, where I rather have to defend France from pissing rants
if you make thequestions and the responses for me
that's a Joke, but not unusual from such a talented Evangelist
"You don't know what I do myself,it's not on TE, where I rather have to defend France from pissing rants"
What YOU have revealed is your ignorance of how de Gaulle would not have approved of the "EU". It is not a question of what you think that Junior knows, or what you think I know (I frankly doubt that you participate in any EU-sceptic blogs anywhere except to miss their point by "defending France".)
You never make your position clear or qualify an opinion on the existence of the "EU".
Don't EU-sceptic blogs in France even exist, is that the problem?
Don't you think it fruitless to come to an English language blog concerning the failure of the "EU" for the sole purpose of "defending France"?
This blog is about Britain and the "EU". So far your only contribution to the topic was to state your distaste for Britain's momentum to quit it, which suggests you are in favour of Britain's membership in "EU". So don't be surprised that most people disagree with you, or mostly do not reply.
Defending France? Not many people here are interested, but are surprised that you do not see how the topic of the "EU" disaster also applies to the vasselage of France into your "EU". Probably you believe France is the "EU", as I said, and that therefore the "EU" must be great. Poor you.
You never join the debate - you just facebook your version of French history no matter what the topic, which is normally a critical assessment of "EU" itself towards which you have contributed little except to tell us that the Germans should not run it, and absolutely nothing about whether it should exist or not.
"What YOU have revealed is your ignorance of how de Gaulle would not have approved of the "EU"."
LMAO, like if you were a admirer of de Gaulle, for a Brit, it's a sacrilege !
"(I frankly doubt that you participate in any EU-sceptic blogs anywhere except to miss their point by "defending France".)"
I don't have too, the people there do the job, it's more interesting to go on europhile blogs aan point on some incoherence, BTW, TE is a pro EU media, didn't you notice?
"You never make your position clear or qualify an opinion on the existence of the "EU"."
I'm not repeating the same message like you do on every commment and or sentence.
"Defending France? Not many people here are interested"
hence my place here, as I'm not expecting that you would do it !
"but are surprised that you do not see how the topic of the "EU" disaster also applies to the vasselage of France into your "EU". Probably you believe France is the "EU", as I said, and that therefore the "EU" must be great. "
again, your own tale !
"You never join the debate - you just facebook your version of French history no matter what the topic"
which debate? it's over, but you keep on hammering your same sermon !
do I have to remind you that's you that always bring France on te topic, too bad that it's on a brit blog, it's not a reserve for English people otherwise TE wouldn't make enough money
Facebooking? didn't see that was facebooking when I reply to your flames
Yawn – you are a mindless eurobot who wants to carry on clinging to German apron strings and talking about nuking them, like a child whining at its parents despite your age, whereas we want out – we are adult.
Have you nothing better to do with your retirement, surely there must be some life somewhere on the French blogosphere, or are they all sheep like you?
You claim to admire de Gaulle. I repeat if you really objected to French laws being made outside France and the gradual loss of French sovereignty, then you would spend more time condemning the EU and exposing it for what it is. Instead you have exposed yourself as no friend of de Gaulle, who no matter what you say, certainly would object to French laws being made outside France (unless you really think that laws coming from Brussels are the same – which you don't otherwise you wouldn't rant about "turning Germany into glass".)
Eurofascists are also very parochial and ignorant. Your latest crude threat against a Brexit is cromagnon in its ignorance: your "EU" wants to regulate The City of London out of existence whether we remain in your "EU" or not, but your "EU" is so provincial and arrested in outlook that you overlook the continued trade with the rest of the world that would continue under other regulations, which would backfire against the local rogue entity - the appalling "EU" with its diminishing global significance. We identify with the world, but you are just eurobores. The biggest danger to the welfare of my country and its democracy is to stay in your "EU".
A "union" with you people? You must be joking. You belong in the last century with your fascists and communists, and beyond.
Most people in the UK do not see Europe as a major issue as the Economist mentions.
But the Tories do. That in itself is insighful. The UK, as part of the EU has the huge advangates of being the US's best ally & having a loose club of other countries in the commonwealth behind it. Additionally the UK is the biggest political member after France & Germany. It could oversee some great changes, the most practical, banning French in EU institutions.
So why leave when you have the best hand?
The idea that if you are in a club you abide by the rules is a nice thought but not reality. Go to a fish or meat market in Southern Europe & Denmark. The degree to which " the rules of the club" are implemented is significantly different, the same is a reality right through the EU.
It is England that will decide being the biggest member of the UK. And the double whammy scenario is England out, Scotland & Wales in.
Some of what the EU does is annoying, much is not. Just wish the gin drinking, empire & all that members of the Tory party in the Home counties would realise that.
@Paul Deacon
"We Italians have always beeen in favor of a federal Europe. We voted about the needed transfer of sovereignty some 20 years ago, with 90% ayes."
And Cameron isn't stopping Italy from joining a federal Europe. In case you didn't notice he wasn't talking about giving Italy a referendum.
Usually people in a mature democracy realize that they cannot impose their views on others and that other countries have a right to their own self determination.
Italy has a right to chose its path and so does Britain. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. It only means different countries have different histories, different traditions and hence will have very different views on sovereignity.
And thank God for this difference or otherwise we will all be living in a bland Soviet era world where differences are squashed.
I've stated clearly, and a couple of times at least, that I think Britain has the right to hold a referendum on EU membership.
But to announce now that a referendum shall be held in 2017 IF Mr Cameron wins the election seems to me to be a duplicitous way to extract concessions from the other countries, while at the same time sabotaging their efforts to integrate further (which has always been Britain's attitude).
Differences are part of our wealth but there are obvious similarities and even common points. After all, we are sharing this conversation in English, aren't we? And we all believe in free speech. Outside Europe, you can't take that for granted.
"referendum .. to extract concessions from the other countries, while at the same time sabotaging their efforts to integrate further (which has always been Britain's attitude)"
Revealing typical eurobot-think: after externalising his frustration about Italy's North-South divide, PD is now externalising the Italian mafia mentality stereotype – but the reality is that as far as the Brits are concerned Italy, France etc. are free to do what they like with their "efforts to integrate further ", as long as Britain is not involved. But bot-think does not reciprocate this tolerance, it is at home with dictatorship.
PD's perception is also, unsurprisingly, close to the standard parasitical bot-think that Brussels relies so much on to extend its dictatorship. They are afraid, like doctrinaire sheep, that once one nation has left the "EU", others –particularly those with mature democracies- will follow. Their demagoguery is also allied to the blatant scrounging of e.g. the Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Greek governments that have hitherto agreed like sheep to all diktat from Brussels as long as Brussels continues to redistribute funds to them from the taxpayers of northern Europe. (This is what they mean by "efforts to integrate further " – "pooling sovereignty = pooling debts", hence their failing currency – the Chinese and Russians won't touch it.)
If they think that Britain is a black sheep or unreliable milk-cow, then they should be cheered by the perceptions of the more cool-headed northern European leaderships whose reaction to Cameron's speech is more realistic: you'll notice that the latter, being more realistic, are more worried that Cameron's manoeuvring is most likely the first step in exiting the "EU", leaving them on the hook to pay for the "further integration" alone. However the latter northern and wavering "EU" net contributing apologists are bound to wake up, and very soon, to the reality that the solution to the Brussels-induced crisis in Europe IS NOT MORE OF THE SAME!!
PD - "And we all believe in free speech. Outside Europe, you can't take that for granted"
He should have written "Inside the 'EU', you can't take that for granted". Brussels now intends to censor the media in the "EU".
It also preaches democracy to the world outside the "EU" but stifles it in the "EU" by ignoring referenda results and its own non-transparent modus operandi.
"After all, we are sharing this conversation in English, aren't we? And we all believe in free speech. Outside Europe, you can't take that for granted."
What delusions of grandeur you have. English is more widely spoken OUTSIDE Of Europe in the former British colonies in Asia and Africa and don't forget there are close to 400 million native English speakers OUTSIDE Of Europe in Canada, USA, Australia & New Zealand.
As for free speech, it is found all over the world in the Americas, Asia etc. North America has enjoyed free speech for over 300 years now.
However I take issue with you that there is 100% free speech in Italy and in coninental Europe. After all where is the debate about having an unelected EU president who gets paid more than Obama while millions of EU citizens are impoverished by austerity imposed by the EU?
Time for a reality check.
Very parochial, and offensive to boot. It's as though I argued there's no free speech in the UK because a discussion about your UNELECTED Head of State and UNELECTED Upper Chamber's role is not held widely. I may agree with you about the EU bigwigs, but I'm a lot more concerned about what happens in the political class of my country. You mention Obama - parochial again: you should have mentioned Queen Elizabeth, who's paid a lot more than either. Keep monarchy if you so wish (most Britons like it as it is, I guess), but don't preach about democracy, yours is far from perfect. The unelected EU president is chosen by accord among ELECTED member country representatives: when will Britain's Parliament appoint the country's royals? Just answer before lecturing other people.
Delusion of grandeur? I studied Shakespeare in high school, paid homage to Baden Powell's heritage as a boy scout, and use English both professionally and personally along with French and Italian. If you know a couple of things about English literature, you know Milton wrote "L'Allegro" and "Il Penseroso", Shelley died swimming in Italy's rough sea, and Kipling wrote a booklet about war on the Italian front in WWI.
However, if you feel more like India than Europe, so be it. We don't need presumptuous, parochial people in Europe. Geh mit Gott, aber geh!
What on earth has any of this got to do with the PRESENT and the dictatorship that you advocate in Brussels. Referencing Milton, Shakespeare and people swimming in the sea does not address why this navel-gazing, *parochial* "EU" is not respected for drawing on the worst of European traditions.
So what if emmafinney's country or Britain are not perfect?
Most Britons want out of the "EU". Have you a problem with that?
PS. You hold forth like a Canadian resident of Italy calling himself Theomorph, whom -with his diatribes against the anglos- most here wrote off as a neo-nazi.
> "What on earth has any of this got to do with the PRESENT and the dictatorship that you advocate in Brussels. Referencing Milton, Shakespeare and people swimming in the sea does not address why this navel-gazing, *parochial* "EU" is not respected for drawing on the worst of European traditions." <
Explanation for minus habentes and you: Emmafinney says Britain has more in commomn with India than with the rest of Europe; I showed Britain owes its very language to a cultural community that has existed for centuries.
> So what if emmafinney's country or Britain are not perfect? <
So what? Nothing. My country isn't perfect and I don't expect other countries to be. Moreover, every country has its share of idiots. I made it no mystery who I consider to belong to that ilk.
> Most Britons want out of the "EU". Have you a problem with that? <
Not really. It's their right, if they so wish. I would not like a Brexit because I think Britain has much to contribute to a future Europe (and I'm not talking about the EU budget, but about attitudes such as an urge towards accountabilty in government bodies). I also think Britain whould suffer deep economic consequences, but that's my opinion, based on what knowledge I have.
> You hold forth like a Canadian resident of Italy calling himself Theomorph, whom -with his diatribes against the anglos- most here wrote off as a neo-nazi.<
Oh la la! So I'm a Nazi now! As an Italian resident of France, I find it difficult to identify with a Canadian whom I never had the honor. The only thing I'm sure of is that he annoyed you with his ideas, hence you very democratically call him a Nazi.
You have a serious problem with the notion of democracy.
The Queen is unelected, true of course, but she could be removed tomorrow by will of Parliament if it so decided. Therefore she is Head of State by the will of the people. I would also point out that seven other EEA/EU countries are monarchies with 'unelected heads of state'. Since the populations of these countries are quite happy with this state of affairs, why do YOU have a problem?
It is true that the Upper Chamber in the UK is 'undemocratic' and needs reform, but no-one in the UK claims to live in a perfect democracy. Their objection is having another undemocratic layer of administration (the EU) added to their own.
"The unelected EU president is chosen by accord among ELECTED member country representatives".
EU Commissioners are APPOINTED by the governments of their own countries, not elected. Given the powers they have, this is a serious breach of Europeans' democratic rights. Catherine Ashton, the most important commissioner after Barroso, was appointed by Gordon Brown. Nobody in the UK had heard of her, she has no political or administrative experience and speaks only English.
"when will Britain's Parliament appoint the country's royals?".
They may do this when the Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Belgian and Spanish Parliaments have appointed theirs.
In the meantime, I would say that these countries have a good democratic record compared to Italy's, wouldn't you?
Junior, I'll try to take you seriously.
Perfect democracy doesn't exist. The people's consent is measured not only in elections but also otherwise. Depending on specific circumstances, an election may or may not be the best way to ensure democracy.
For instance, the elections in the Eighties in Bulgaria were not a sign of democracy.
You mention other monarchist countries in the EU. I like those countries. King Juan Carlos of Spain was instrumental in bringing democracy back to his country. The Nordic countries are very civilized places. And so on and so forth.
But if you (and by "you" I mean all British Europhobes) insist on commissioners not being elected being an unforgivable sin, you deserve to be given your own medicine and be shown to be grossly inconsistent. This is what I did.
You counter this sentence of mine:
"The unelected EU president is chosen by accord among ELECTED member country representatives",
with this sentence of yours, which (as is so sadly usual with you) lacks logic:
"EU Commissioners are APPOINTED by the governments of their own countries, not elected. Given the powers they have, this is a serious breach of Europeans' democratic rights. Catherine Ashton, the most important commissioner after Barroso, was appointed by Gordon Brown. Nobody in the UK had heard of her, she has no political or administrative experience and speaks only English."
Ashton was chosen (you say "appointed", but do forgive my faulty knowledge of English, it looks as though it's the same) by Gordon Brown, THEN AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF A EU COUNTRY, and no other EU country objected because that is how commissioners are chosen, hence BY ACCORD WITH ELECTED MEMBER COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES (governments are elected, directly or indirectly, throughout the EU).
See? That, Junior, is called LOGIC. We all learnt it from the ancient Greeks. Even Britons did, who, some say, have nothing in common with Europe.
As to Italy's democratic record, I'm ready to concede that the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have a better record; but Belgium (with its divisions), Monaco (semi-autocratic) and Spain (Franco's demise came 30 years later than Mussolini's) are worse, and I could not say for Luxenburg and Liechtenstein. Britain, in my opinion, has belonged to the first group since the dissolution of the British Empire, which was absolutely undemocratic. As I said, democracy is never perfect. I like Britain and that is why 1) I wouldn't like it to leave the EU, 2) I'm sad at the thought of the consequences on Britain of doing so, 3) I'm worried that so many people in Britain embrace such a dangerous and stupidly nationalistic attitude (20% would already be too many, but you UK Europhobes are more numerous than that), 4) I don't oppose a UK referendum on EU membership, for the simple reason that it is an obvious right of the British people's. I do think it's not an especially good idea, that a Brexit would be the wrong thing to do both for Britain and the rest of the EU, and I certainly do question the right of Britain to turn itself into a perpetual pain in the neck for us Continentals. Hold that referendum right away, and then--Geh mit Gott, aber geh! (Go with God, but go!) And don't renege so blatantly on past pledges and ask for privileges no other EU country enjoys.
Even the most ardent Europhiles admit that EU Commissioners are unelected. I'll try and keep it short and simple.
Each EU government nominates/appoints one person for the post of commissioner in Brussels. A government can recommend anyone for the post, a friend, a former minister, his next door neighbour, Catherine Ashton. NO ELECTION TAKES PLACE for this position of power and importance. If you call this an "election", just because the government that appointed him/her was itself elected, then I'm afraid it's you who has a problem of LOGIC.
I see you're obsessed with the British Empire which you remind us, for the second time, was undemocratic. Of course it was, just like other European empires, including the Italian occupation of Libya and Abyssinia. So what's your point? This is 2013. The British empire disappeared over 50 years ago.
'A pain in the neck for us Continentals'.
So you speak for the 'Continentals', do you? Do you realise how widespread in Europe euroscepticism is now? Have you ever talked to the Czechs? Do you know that very few Poles now want to join the €? Why have Denmark and Sweden never joined? Better ask the Germans who, let's face it, wish they had never got into this mess.
And you talk of 'us Continentals', as though they were a homogeneous group. Have you ever been to Cyprus? What a joke EZ membership is there. Their whole process of joining the EU was based on broken EU treaties.
The Brits have never been anti-European. They are great travellers on the Continent and welcome hundreds of thousands of other EU nationals on their territory. It is the EU that they want to leave if they can't make it more adapted to today's globalised world. They don't want 'privileges that no other country enjoys', as you say. They want EVERYONE to enjoy the same opt-outs which are perfectly harmless, like deciding how many hours a week people can work.
This is called subsidiarity, a notion that the EU flung out of the window long ago.
Some political science for you, Junior.
Democracy is not the same as election, although there can be no democracy without elections. Democracy also requires free speech, protection of minorities, an independent judiciary, not too much concentration of media power, etc.
Elections can be direct or indirect. The US presidential election is nominally indirect (you elect someone to cast their vote for the president of your choice). In Italy, indirect elections encompass the offices of the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister, who is elected by Parliament after being designated by the President.
Ministers are not really elected directly in Britain as the PM can fire them. You also don't elect your Head of State and the Upper Chamber. Ah, and I'm umnder the impression that you don't elect your judges either (the Americans do), nor your prosecutors (ditto).
Do you elect sheriffs (in the American sense of the word: highest law implementation officer in a county, whatever it's called in Britain)?
And just how democratic is a British political election? I've found a figure for voter turnout: 76%. At the 2005 election, Labour formed a cabinet with 35.2% of 76% of the eligible voters, ie 26.75% of them.
I'll write it again: 26.75% .
Not once in the post-War period has Britain had a cabinet that was elected into office on a well-defined programme by more than 50% of the eligible voters. The latest election saw the Tories with 36% be forced to find a compromise agreement with the Lib-Dems with 22.1% (taken together, 44.16% of eligible voters) - this means voters' choices about programmes is not completely reflected in the cabinet's programme, because neither party's programme is being implemented exactly as it was voted.
If I were very polemic I would question if any Briton is entitled to claim they live in a democratic country. In fact, my judgement of the British political system is not so unfavorable. No political system is ever completely democratic and as approximations go, Britain's is not all that bad. It works better than my own country's. BUT – when some Britons delight in lecturing us Continentals about democracy, I find it really, really annoying.
And the furore about the possible inflow of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants?
This is what a Bulgarian college student thinks about it:
"Britain knew that labour markets would open to us when we started our EU accession process," the [Bulgarian] political science student continued, clearly warming to his subject.
"They had the chance to say 'no' back then. Now, suddenly a year before restrictions fall, they are saying 'we're not certain we want any of this anymore'." (www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/01/bulgarians-british-anti-immigration-ca...)
Typical. Britain signs a EU treaty, than has second thoughts and starts trying to renegotiate, as Mrs Thatcher did at the cry of "Britain's money back" and as Cameron is trying to do now.
I'm sure the power of letting workers in or keeping them is one of those powers which Mr Cameron wants to repatriate. For all his talk about the free market.
> (The British) don't want 'privileges that no other country enjoys', as you say. They want EVERYONE to enjoy the same opt-outs which are perfectly harmless, like deciding how many hours a week people can work. <
If THAT was the objective, why does Britain so often get out of a round of negotiations with an opt-out for itself? The objective is not reached in that way, is it? Like most nationalists, you believe (or want us to believe) your country behaves in an altruistic way, in this case struggling for all those poor EU members oppressed by the Brussels bureaucracy.
That idea is simply stupid, Junior.
The opt-outs, BTW, are not "harmless". They undermine the general contruction.
This thread that started with such promise, excellent irony from Connect-the-dots, intelligent comments from la.výritý and several other posters, has now fallen into the idiocy that was usual in Charlemagnes' threads.
Thanks to the usual culprits.
So, I feel very amused to devote my last allowed comment to thank those who unwittingly have provided me with a good laugh...
I understand from a post of of Pedrito of Portugal (quote:Finally, if sanmartinian don't mind my saying this, I'd wish you'd stop putting mine and his name together...) that some posters have ventured he and I are the same person or at least work in unison.
I've exchanged posts with Pedrito as I've done with dozen other posters; never had the pleasure to meet him or spoken, even by phone, with the gentleman. Any person who reads English and has two ounces of grey matter will recognize our styles are as similar as water and hard rock, he knows a lot about the price of gilt edges, secondary market quotes and similar matters on which I am a total ignorant. I don't even think we share many fundamental views although naturally, as all civilized people, respect our different opinions.
More important, poor Pedrito: I gather he is younger than my sons and that makes him about half my age or even less. Don't make him age so fast...
Come on! If you can't stop being as aggressive and bad mannered as "ex oriente..." from another thread, or as psychotic as "Schade(n)freude" from Charlemagne's interminable threads of long ago, at least don't be as dumb as a door knob.
If any civilized poster addresses me in this thread please accept my apologies if I don't reply. I'll do my best to be off this once interesting thread now that it has deteriorated beyond repair.
My thanks to the editor who wrote this very good leader that provided initially an interesting debate.
Time for bed soon where I am.
Nighty, night, now.
ja ja, and €-bumz from all Barosso PFIGS & beggar states should be banned from €U
It will be my pleasure to meet you one day.
I do remember two very important things you said, though (I've got a good memory):
1 - That the euro was harshly introduced - but its harsh dismantling would prove even more disastrous.
2 - When asked by me, back when I was a baby in Economist years, what would ever happen to Portugal, you replied 'they'd turn to the sea'.
You were right on both.
And for those who enjoy surfing, apparently there are a few, I leave you to quite a spectacular image of Garret McNamara, riding the 'highest wave ever'. Portugal ain't for sissies, I guess. But it does give yout this sort of thing now and then:
As to age, I believe it was Pessoa (or at least it's attributed to him by quite a lot of people) who said : 'Age is a state of mind'.
Best regards,
To Pedrito de Portugal
I can't really leave without thanking you for your very kind words I certainly do not deserve.
I will definitely try to meet you next time I land on my favourite fishing village, but the pleasure will be all mine.
Meanwhile, I cannot leave it unsaid that the big waves that are being talked about all over the world and "youtubed" everywhere with Garrett McNamara riding them (surfing is the appropriate term, I believe) occur ten miles North of my house in that fishing village I talk so much about.
5 miles as the crow flies: it's a twisting road and using the motorway is 15 miles.
We go there often to watch the monsters that curiously seem to go up very lazily. I'm sure I wouldn't say that if I went down with them. Unfortunately my sailing dinghies would be destroyed just trying to get near them.
"Au plaisir" as Francophone Belgians say for Bye, by. I'm sure you speak French; all cultivated Portuguese do.
What never ceases to amaze me is to notice at what great lengths some commentators will go in fabricating stories squarely contradicting reality.
Take our Portuguese friend Sanmartinian (encouraged by his sidekick Pedro).
LAST WEEK, Sanmartinian was busy "explaining" why Portugal's + Greece's record subsidies over 27/31 yrs were LESS (!) significant than the similarly high subsidies Lithuania + Hungary have been receiving for just 8 yrs. The thing predictably went nowhere (we are still waiting for the data proving Sanmartinian right, which he said he'd provide).
(to be ctd.)
This week, Sanmartinian has written daily multi-page essays on how emigration from Britain is an indication of the British economy taking a dive, and declared Portugal a migration winner ("hands down!"), when in reality, Britain registered a net migration PLUS of 150,000, and Portugal a net migration MINUS of 120,000 in 2011 alone (- 1.2% of the entire pop. in just one year). Figures for the first 9 months of 2012 are hardly any different.
Trying to disguise this negative trend by talking about the period BEFORE the crisis broke out ("1995-2010") won't alter the fact that since the Portuguese economy came crushing down in 2010/11, the country's been hit by a massive exodus of its best and brightest (Pedro of course stayed, confirming the overall migration pattern LOL).
(to be ctd.)
The reality is: For Portugal to stop shedding jobs, Portuguese wages will have to become price competitive again -- and that'll be the case once they've depreciated by ANOTHER 25 %, experts say.
As long as Portugal will stay in the euro zone, that means the Portuguese are looking at "internal devaluation" of 1/4 of their wages.
I'd look for work elsewhere, too, if faced with that prospect.
I know this article concerns speculation about the British relationship to the "EU" and the "EZ", but doesn't it strike you as peculiar that that you, two Portuguese posters, are immoderately concerned about Britain's desire to distance itself from a project to which is it is unsuited?
It is especially odd since Portugal itself has demonstrated conclusively that it is unsuited to a northern currency union. It does not help you to insult posters like Josh who point this truth out regularly: "Portugal and Greece just proved that deeper integration isn't for everybody".
Then you insinuate that to mention this fact politely is *racist* of him!
Has it ever occurred to either of you that it may be time for Portugal to make some independent initiatives of its OWN for a change instead of fishing around for "unions" and "leagues", instead of censuring the incomparable British for wanting to limit their participation in the "EU", while you a advocate feebly that Portugal just continue to depend a federalized transfer union to bail you out, which will not work?
It cannot work.
The Edit button sometimes plays up - to "two Portuguese posters" I meant to add,"sanmartinian and Ped/rolx/rito".
Hey 'Farage',
So you took the bate he.
Well you must define 'Northern Currency' first, since I wasn't aware currencies had a North and a South pole, unless they're magnetised.
And second, what adjustment, and to WHAT? Portugal was the subject of an attack in the bond markets. Want me to repeat ? Portugal was the subject of an attack in the bond markets. You don't seem to be able to understand this one. The increase in debt from 2007-2011 can be accounted for by the GLOBAL CRISIS of the banking system that the likes of City, Wall Street, and Frankfurt dwellers helped create. So lets see, 20 bn for BPN, 32 bn in the bank of Portugal for government covered bonds, 10(15) bn for Madeira, etc. etc. = the exact amount by which Portugal's public debt increased - FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE OECD, EC, ETC ETC. A debt which is now being inflicted upon the nurses of this land, because the likes of you and your sad ilk believe they're living above their means. No one in Portugal, apart from about 1,000 families is actually rich, in the real sense of the word. It's been so for 200 years, since the liberal wars.
Finally, if sanmartinian don't mind my saying this, I'd wish you'd stop putting mine and his name together, I work alone, my ideas are my own, I don't claim to represent my country, or anyone, but myself. These are my ideas thank you very much.
I am sick and tired of seeing people using my name here and there in what is clearly a personal attack on me, and when responded in kind, my posts disappear. Are you truly all that petty?
@ Birtnick:
I hate to agree with you, Birtnick, I really do;-), but you are right about this one: my politeness has not been reciprocated by the rascals. Sadly so.
Whenever did civility become a bad word?
You genius. So its all simply down to those dastardly "bond spreads" again is it?
Now why do you think that nations like Portugal and Greece in particular were singled out from the EZ for such "an attack", eh?
Some random fluke perhaps?
Ha, ha, ha, ha! Some "union" you think you belong to:)
You certainly do not expect me to have THAT argument again will you??? I've (and other people have explained it ad nauseam to you and others for the past three years. Do you think it natural that Portuguese bonds were downgraded at a trimonthly basis? What does an economy change in a period of three months? And that our bonds yield much lower than bonds that are now what those half wits at the CRA call investment grade territory?
Don't make this world into a sad parody
By the way where did I censor Britain? The only thing being censored here are my posts
There was a procyclical reaction to the ratings and the spreads. They were forced out of normal territory. This is pretty obvious, and people in the know, know. What else do you want me to say.
I've already explained to you what I think a 'union' should be. But you label me and don't actually read me. READ me. Instead of forcing down your own prejudice upon me. Get it? It can't be that difficult
Try to come out of that comfort zone of yours where everything is labelled into little squares. Try using little circles for a change.
The problem is that you generalise what can't be generalised. The oldest of fallacies
what is this world coming to!!
Cameron has used this referendum as a political tool and is acting in an expedient way, rather than acting upon his true principle. This thought of a referendum will certainly prompt merkel into more sympathetic talks with the UK over European policy. It also goes a long way to appeasing tory backbenchers and turning the eurosceptic percentage of the UK population back towards the conservatives, which could be crucial if Cameron will gain a majority in the next election.
Gamblers may worry prudent people and good managers. Yet they sometimes can win big: look at Nelson in Copenhagen but this is, of course, only for naval war history buffs.
What is worrying is that David Cameron may be gambling and yet playing the wrong cards.
Reuters, admittedly a pessimist about British financial health, has been full of bad news for the last couple of months: PSNB (UK gov favourite budget deficit measure) growing at dizzying speeds, global productivity tumbling (see this issue of the Economist too), going ahead wit fast speed rail links and suchlike.
This is the opposite policy to what other highly indebted countries (bar Japan that seems intent on copying bad examples) have been doing to address their woes.
A silly conversation last week on this blog drew my attention to net migration. Everybody knows there's a loose connection between net migration and economic circumstances.
But could there be one between migration and government finances ?
It appears there may be something.
I went to the sources of sources, Eurostat at
and believe I found it.
As the Eurostat table is longer and more boring than a Fidel Castro speech I've condensed it to an equally boring but much shorter table.
For the sample to be fair, it includes the three bailed out countries, three "new" EU members, three affluent EU economies. I have added Iceland, not an EU member, but interesting because of her near death experience.
Name of country to your left, accumulated net migration from 1995 to 2010 (showing a trend), net migration in 2011, the first full year of the Euro debt crisis and the last year Eurostat provides data for.
Unit: rate of net migration: 1 person per 1000 inhabitants. Plus for net immigration, minus for net emigration. Alphabetical order.
Obviously measuring the prosperity or economic health by net immigration is an ignorant idea if there ever was one. If this were true, Ireland, Greece, Portugal would have been the three most prosperous countries in the EU from 1995 to 2010. Iceland, not in the EU, would have been the 4th of this sample...
Prosperous countries lag far behind. Can it be that excessive immigration creates government indebtedness? It looks illogical but the fact the three bailed countries had by far the highest immigration for 15 years is either a coincidence or suggests a link. If so the UK must watch out. Her net immigration is lower than the Portuguese but not far enough for comfort.
Statistics cannot be read by comparing simply two isolated figures; that's only for the very incompetent in this subject. A full job of proper analysis has to be done.
And in this case it is rather simple: as soon as bad times arrived (mostly 2011) Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Greece moved from a position of net immigration to one of net emigration, a move in full accordance with any economics handbook. Still prosperous Germany stayed course again with full approval of any economics professor. Holland could do a little better, maintaining a net immigration with a mild recession. The UK definitely flunked by increasing immigration as times got worse. We shall see what happens in the next year.
And please watch Japan. It can be even worse.
As we are measuring the "Gambler's" chances only, either he is very lucky or he may leave the table without his shirt. Particularly if the stats provided by HM's government and reported by Reuters almost daily are anything to go by.
isn't this net migration plus natural adjustments? I think despite the crisis net migration is still positive in Portugal.
you can see here that foreign (official) population has stabilised in Portugal
at around 450,000 but I remind you that quite a lot of people get their citizenship. As many leave others come. I've met many foreigners coming in to stay and was recently in a wedding between a Belgian and a Portuguese, and from what I could gather the Belgian wants to get Portuguese citizenship.
And this without taking into account unofficial numbers, which remain high as you should know. There was a report on tv recently talking about immigrants here that were born here, studied here, etc, and have no papers.
So while the media speaks of emigration, I just think they're blowing it out of proportion as usual.
It's the same with youth unemployment, Are these people not aware that in certain countries, like Spain or Greece, no one works till the age of 25??? so yeah unemployment is 100% from the age of 16 to the age of 25.. lol
There is no culture of university students working in bars in these countries.
Sometimes I think the world is really really stupid
Nelson is a very good example, sometimes it is useful to be blind on one eye, however, the trouble is that most people use the wrong eye in allmost all situations. :-)
to Pedrito de Portugal on net migration plus adjustments
Could well be.
The Eurostat page is a bit dense and my eyes get easily tired. As adjustments would certainly not affect my conclusions, I decided to save eyesight and did not dive deeper into the matter.
Is net migration still positive in Portugal?.
At present, no idea. Medium term (1995/2011) definitely yes.
I just followed Eurostat and its result are that net migration in Portugal for 2011 alone is negative to the tune of -2.0. Didn't bother to find reliable data for 2012. I doubt it exists.
This makes that accumulated net migration in Portugal 1995/2011 is +51.1. Lower than, say, Ireland's (+100.2), higher than Britain's (41.6) and much higher than Poland's (-6.0) just to give an example from each of the three groups I took in consideration: bailed out countries, affluent countries and "new" EU members.
This is unimportant. I repeat stats are not football rankings. Comparisons serve only to see trends and check whether a country is following the right policies.
The bailed out countries and Iceland have all followed the right policies: changed the flow of migration as soon as the financial situation deteriorated. Germany without important financial problems followed the right policy too. Others, not so much.
To Ulenspiegel on Nelson and wrong eye
Had a good laugh at your reply.
It's been a long time since we chatted last time. It's always a pleasure.
It is net migration + adjustments.
I don't think there is any clear data for 2011, and 2012, since as anyone with the least mathematical skills knows that theymake forecasts and the error bars are large till they can get better ones which takes considerable time.
In any case I do believe the Portuguese net migration is still positive. (I read it somewhere, but just can't be bothered to look it up) I think the media, as usual blos everything out of proportion. The Portuguese are per tradition adenturers, and there is a Portuguese inhabitant in every single part of the world.
When it comes to Europe, many go stay a few years, and then come back. In my own environment, which is by no means representative, there are quite a lot of foreigners coming and going.
But you are right, migration now would not be good thing, although preliminary data seem to suggest unemployment is stabilising.
To Pedrito of Portugal on unemployment having stabilized in Portugal
Have no idea. Unemployment data are very fickle everywhere. Like all stats you need a large number of samples to have some probability of a successful analysis. Look at the debate in America about the real size of unemployment.
It's just as amateurish as believing that the immigration trend in Borduria is higher than in Ruritania based on a single year.
I wish unemployment everywhere and not only Portugal goes down very quickly, but we'll only have any certainty things are improving after, say, six months of a confirmed trend. And even then, we shall have to wait another six months to be sure nothing untoward happened.
Short termism is the infantile disease of analysts to paraphrase the well known Leninist maxim: Leftism is the infantile disease of communism...
Wanna bet someone is now going to accuse me of being a closet communist?
Thanks for confirming Eurostat data included adjustments. Now we know dead people and unborn babies do not influence the stats. Hell, it could change things a lot...
@ Junoir:
Cameron's speech actually got a fairly decent press across the board in Germany and the Netherlands (says my wife) - general tenor: he's asking the right questions, even if we might not always agree about the answers. And everybody seems to agree that there should be more accountability in Brussels and less wasteful spending.
I cannot speak for the Netherlands, but Germans are no longer in favor of euro federalism as they once were, but want a looser union in which national governments + parliaments retain the last say. That's more than Cameron's "free trade zone +", but less than the federalized transfer union Southern Europeans are craving.
By and large, Northern Europe has reacted calmly to Cameron's speech and is ready to seek compromise, France shrugs it off (et boff!), and Southern Europe panicks - as evidenced by the sharp reaction of the Italian and Spanish governments, and in this board by our two Portuguese residents, Pedro and Sanmartinian, who won't stop talking about Britain's dire prospects (which is a bit funny considering the fact that it is Portugal and Greece who've just proved that deeper integration isn't for everybody).
but Barosso and the €-bumz sure disagree
"Germans are no longer in favor of euro federalism as they once were,"
Indeed. One can get an idea of that by looking at the readers' comments on German newspaper-websites like FAZ or Welt on Cameron's speech - far closer to the British stance than that were a few years ago.
Excurse me free fall, this isn't rally directly related to what you just said.
I would just like to express my disgust at the fact that the moderators at the economist seem to accept xenophobic remarks towards people from southern Europe, but are quite notoriously fast in deleting anything that might be offensive to the people from the North of Europe.
Please denote that I don't even believe in this kind of divide although I think quite a lot of people do.
What seems to me, and it is something I've been fearing for quite a while is that the Nazi belief that 'Aryans' (or Noric Races - which are a myth by the way) are somehow superior to the rest isn't quite dead yet.
I've once drawn the analogy between the hatred towards Jews they demonstrated after the other great repression, the one before this one, and the hatred that is so apparent now in the speeches of so many of your commentators.
Scapegoats are always needed. But this is scary in so many ways. It is not old a display of ignorance. As you can't really draw a line in Europe as so many have tried to 'explain' it.
This has obviously nothing to do with Cameron, although I see quite a lot of Englanders, those who gave birth to such extraordinary creatures as Churchill, which defended the oppressed at the time, doing the exact opposite.
This is meant to be a debate on the future of Europe, and Britain and other country's role in it, not a litany of insults directed towards southern Europeans. In any case, I don't even consider myself one.
I am Portuguese, European, Eurasian.
No ore, no less.
OK, to use the comment section of the Welt as reference is weak, sorry. If I needed a group of idiots only slightly more intelligent than Bild readers, I would use the Welt commenters.:-)
The FAZ and other newspapers are more serious. While some of the criticism is correct, the major issue is that it comes now from a country that has done nothing to promote a EU in the past and when I get the impression that the audience of Camaron's speech was the a British not a European, then I have my problem. Similar (more logic) critique from a Dutch politician would have been much much more credible, BTW.
The basic weakness of Camaron's speech was that there was no real logic in his arguments and almost no constructive critique, no wonder when he acts from a very weak position.
We can not expect any useful political or economic impulses from the UK in the next years, there is no motivation to make any concessions, that's the 101 of realpolitik.
"OK, to use the comment section of the Welt as reference is weak, sorry"
Totally beside the point. Their intelligence doesn't matter - they represent a significant part of German public opinion, whether you like it or not.
Sure there are certain tendencies among Welt readers, but this also applies to other high-circulation newspapers such as Der Spiegel (not very intelligent either, but more pro EU).
So what about FAZ? Clearly the most impartial German newspaper - but its readers don't seem to have a completely different opinion on Cameron's speech. Doesn't this contradict your point about Welt readers?
"major issue is that it comes now from a country that has done nothing to promote a EU"
What about being one of the largest net contributors? "Nothing"?
However, why do you need to be strong promoter of the EU to criticize it? Doesn't "being a paying member" qualify?
And least of all this makes his critique less credible. I think the opposite is true:
Since the UK has always had a rather critical stance towards the ideology of "uniting EUrope" it is even more credible that Cameron underlined: "We do not want a European national state".
Btw is "Camaron" some kind of word game or are you just a dumb Welt reader? :)
Some comments of the serious German press:
- "The Brits are watching how European politicians are trying desperately to save the Euro with disbelief. The necessary approximation of the productivity of the South and the North ("harmonization") is avoided and damaging the competitiveness of the entire euro zone badly."
"If London will leave the EU we would lose our most important partner/supporter for market economy, self-responsibility and competition. We were delivered to the South under the leadership of the state-believing centralists in Paris even more than we already are." Handelsblatt
- "Whoever said categorically that a euro for Greece is more important than a euro for schools, kindergartens, universities, and health care and other social services in this country, in fact apples and oranges are mixed up in an inappropriate manner." Wirtschaftswoche
You'll find articles like that in the FAZ, too.
flowfall, elpulpo
Yes, but what is the matter of these observations in respect to Cameron's speech?
The EU was always a organisation wwith the goal to deepen political integration, UK kew this when they entered. Now to play the surprised is stupid. This only works when you/Cameron believe that your audience is stupid, go figure.
To reduce the EU to a nice market place for UK banks and oppose any regulations which require without doubt a deeper integration is "interesting" after a financial crisis, esp. if you consider the role of UK finacial institutions. You want the fun but you dont want to take responsibility, nice.
If Cameron really believes that the EU is a lost cause, why this referendum shit in 5 years? Leave now! Geh mit Gott, aber geh! Or is this again phony acting without the burden of taking responsibility?
Or if he believes that the still EU is useful, than UK should stay and work from within, should be no problem when the UK position is shared by other members. The current behaviour is in the treu sense of the word childish and obviously lost on you.
The few billion EU contributions will very likely be considered a bargain in compariosn to the damage a UK exit will cause to the UK economy, but that is their problem.
'the future of .... "Europe", and Britain and other country's role in it?'
Since you cannot mean political union, what an earth are you talking about? Are you a geologist?
No but you are definitely pretty bad at geoGRAPHY ;)
"Geh mit Gott, aber geh!"
Lovely. For those who don't understand German, it means "Go with God, but go!" And the sooner the better.
Unless the British change their attitude, which won't happen, unfortunately.
The British tend to see the EU as a commercial transaction: you get this and I get that, and it's OK if both are worth the same amount in pounds sterling (not in Euros, God forbid!). This is not how communities are set up and maintained. Marcel Mauss and Gernet have explored the rules of gift (in the English sense of the word, not in the German ,-) ), which is the fundament of non-market relationships such as the family, the political party, the nation. There has to be some balance between what is given and what is received, but not a market equivalence. Goodwill can't really be measured in a currency.
The EU would be stronger if Britain stayed. The British do advance a few valuable points. There should be more democracy in the EU, but this means it should become a federal state. If it didn't, it could continue working as it does now--as a structure whose will is shaped by the negotiation among different democratic states. But it would hardly be worth the effort, in my opinion.
And the British public underestimates what Britain is going to lose when it's out of the EU. They count on keeping the so-called special relationship with the US, which is itself bound to decline further. They count on their ability to negotiate free trade agreements and prosper in an international environment, but they fail to see the growing power of China, India, Brazil and Russia and the outcry against the UK's number one export, financial products.
It's their business, though. It takes 28 to tango, but we'll make do with 27 if need be.
"but they fail to see the growing power of China, India, Brazil and Russia".
Yeah, that's right, the Brits have NO idea of the growing power of these countries.
Of course if Mr Cameron fails to get a majority at the 2015 election and/or loses office, then the gamble is lost.
Personally I don't agree with referenda in any circumstances. Therefore I don't think his proposal is a smart move at all.
It's just what certain sectors of Britain wanted. Cameron is being held at knife point to make such a move, which in my opinion could end up being a good thing and quite the opposite of what the UKIP desires.
It's not being given much importance either , only in certain sectors. It will have no immediate effect.
It's just that now we know what they meant these lobbyists. They lobbied for the dismantling of the euro and since they didn't get that they played this card.
I think in the ed this will prove to be a positive thing because Europe does need to be.chaned to become more democratic . A clever labour leader could use this as a weapon to gain votes in Britain. Britain being the initiator of a change in the way Europe works. Although I don't know what that could be. It could involve making the commission more accountable, diminishing the number of MEPs and actually force them to work, etc etc etc
The rest is just headlines for the tabloids.
Why does this article read as if the Conservatives will definitely still be in power in 5 years time? Am I missing something or will there not be another general election by then? I don't think it's in any way guaranteed that the Conservatives will win??
Sorry but is there something about "The Gambler" you don't quite grasp?
The Damiano defence (In Portuguese Damião), one of the very first European chess masters, is ironically named after him, because he condemned it as a bad chess move. It is, also, ironically, my favourite chess move. (NB: I am a bad chess player)
Some people call it the 'five pawns' gambit.
I think we're in for a pentuple gambit (rather than the triple one I'd proposed earlier).
France will put something on the table and call.
When calling we'll know the Nordics have nothing in their cards , but the highest percentage of people with died blonde hair in the world (it IS true!)
We must now see what the other countries have.
I'm in .
So, who calls?
Don't follow? I was quite clear that I didn't grasp why the author was writting as if the Tories will definetly be in power in 5 years time. You haven't answered my question.
You'd get a similar response if you asked why the moon is made of green cheese. The whole premise of the article is that DC is taking an electoral gamble - ie. the result isn't guaranteed. Admit it, you didn't read the article.
I'm very interested in what cards France put down in response to Germany's competitiveness card. That dictates the future of the EU in my opinion. If Hollande plays the cards he was elected to play then it could be the beginning of the end with no Franco-German axis. Britain could have all the aces this time:
@ Sanmartininan:
"You know the old saying about statisticians like me, don't you? If we torture numbers properly they'll confess anything we wish to accuse them of."
€-bumz like this try to "torture numbers properly" to make Germanz bail them out.
jaja, the true meaning and purpose of EU for €-bumz...
€-bumz like this try to "torture numbers properly" to make Germanz bail them out.
This is an unacceptable slur against the Portuguese.
The Portuguese people have made a lot of sacrifices to qualify for international help. However, the formulas imposed on the country have brought it a lot more recession than was anticipated. The formulas were wrong.
Come to the dark side, David: we have cookies...and Mario Draghi!
Sorry, I couldn't resist (how very mature of me)...
apparently there's a cookie policy in The Economist, so be wary of them cookies!
and you should be giving the biscuits, rather, and crumpets. AND strumpets. That's how you get them Englanders!
France's Vox Agora praised David Cameron for breaking the taboo and igniting a pan-European debate, running a red-blooded headline: "towards the end of European dictatorship?"
"The British prime minister has scored a bulls-eye," said the Frankurter Allgemeine, Germany's most venerable newspaper. "Cameron is right: the EU must be more flexible and competitive. The return of competences to the national authorities must be made possible. The EU must be made more democratic at long last."
The Free Voter party won 10pc of votes in Bavaria with calls to block the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and this in turn has forced the Bavarian Social Chrisitians to harden their message, including demands for a referendum on transfers of power to Brussels. Chancellor Angela Merkel has her own "UKip problem".
So too does the French establishment. Marine Le Pen's Front National -- at 18pc in the polls -- is threatening the right-flank of the Gaullistes with calls for an in/out referendum. President Francois Hollande's Socialists face a parallel attack on the other side from the Left Front.
So too do Italy's mandarins. The triple alliance of Beppe Grillo, Silvio Berlusconi, and the Northern League commands 37pc of the vote on EU-bashing of one kind or another.
Holland, Finland, and Austria all have eurosceptic parties large enough to upset politics. Austria's Freedom Party now wants an Alpine alliance with Switzerland and a vote on EU-exit.
Nice one Cutters. It is just as predicted:
when one threatens to go they all follow like sheep!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha !!
That's exactly the point: Cameron not being a populist, is totally entitled to call a referendum!
After all Europe has clearly stated democratic principles! In being a freedom advocate, in wanting more openess and democracy he becomes, paradoxically, a much needed european leader!
How much time has been spent in British politics over recent decades on the issue of the role of the UK in the EU? Far too much I'm afraid. Tony Blair had it right when he responded to an anti-Europe MP during his final PM's Questions by saying good-bye in three different European languages. This continued identity crisis on the part of Britain is baffling. The UK is part of Europe. OK, there's plenty of room for discussion about the money and what gets decided in Brussels or in national capitals but the game and enhancement of fear that allows people in UK politics to blame any ills in the UK on the EU needs to stop. What bothers me the most is that the Economist takes such a mushy approach toward the issue--supporting a vote, but just not by a certain date. Either vote or don't. All the bad things that will happen if the vote is held in the next five years will happen no matter when the vote is held because the very idea of the UK leaving the EU is crazy. The Economist should demonstate some real courage and support the UK in the EU with negotiations on other points like money and powers within that framework just as the Economist needs to stop sending mixed messages about having concerns about austerity during tough times yet backing what the coalition is doing in London. Time for some courage Economist. Either back the actions of the Conservatives or oppose them. Stop trying to hedge your bets.
1. The UK has the right to decide on leaving the EU or staying there with a referendum.
2. The UK does not have the right to blackmail the other Europeans with this nowhere idea of a referendum in 2017 after negotiations. "Give us all we want or face our withdrawal, but we might withdraw anyhow."
3. So the UK is kindly requested to decide whether or not it belongs to the EU BEFORE negotiations start about improving either A. The Union, or B. Britain's relationship with the Union from the exterior. The referendum should be held immediately.
4. It seems a whiff hypocritical to try to scare the Scots into remaining part of the UK with the perspective of Scotland falling out of the EU, having to re-apply for membership, possibly facing a UK veto on its membership, while the UK might then eventually brexiting. This is foul play. The Scots have their rights too. The Scottish nation never voted to join the UK; a Scottish unelected monarch did it.
5. All the nations in the UK are culturally part of Europe and will probably stay so even with the new mode of feeling American. That will not cvhange with the referendum.
"It seems a whiff hypocritical to try to scare the Scots into remaining part of the UK with the perspective of Scotland falling out of the EU, having to re-apply for membership"
The only people who have tried to 'scare the Scots' into remaining part of the UK are the European Commission, which told them that if they ever voted for independence they would have to re-apply to join the EU as a new country. The same applies to Catalonia.
"The Scots have their rights too".
And in what way are they being deprived of their rights? They have organised a referendum for next year of their own free will and will decide for themselves what to do about it. Nobody in the rest of the UK is holding the Scots back.
"The Scottish nation never voted to join the UK".
People didn't vote on ANYTHING in 1707.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
The European Commission, however "bureaucratic" and "intrusive" in your opinion, is not in the business of dismembering member countries (escuse the pun). It couldn't have said anything to the Scots, even if it was invited to say whether there could be a speedway for Scotland's accession in case it broke away from the UK. It was an internal business of the UK and it couldn't meddle in it. -- Since we are presumably all adults, I may add that I ould be very surprised if the UK government had not "suggested" the Commission that it was "more appropriate" to take exactly that position.
"The Scottish nation never voted to join the UK".
People didn't vote on ANYTHING in 1707.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Yes. If nobody voted back then, then the Scottish nation did not vote then. Did it ever vote afterwards? No? Oh! Then why do you object to my statement, which is so plainly true?
The UK voted once on joining the EU, and seems poised to vote again in 2017.
Hey Junoir, read my post about the Rabbit below.
I didn't dislike Cameron's speech, quite the contrary. I like a good gamble.
As I've said I'd be happy to see Portugal leaving the EU and reliving the dream. I even proposed the creation of a Anglo-Portuguese alliance which could prove advantageous in the long run. Need I remind you that Portugal only joined the EU, because you abandoned EFTA? And there was no 'real' choice after the Carnations?
On the other hand, Europe does need to be rethought. And I've always defended that, as you should know. And know.
And at least no one can say Portugal wasn't committed to 'this' Europe. As it shall be to any other. It is a necessity rather than something in the realm of aesthetics. Think Roman, rather than Greek. Get the point?
"It (the EU) couldn't have said anything to the Scots"
This is where you are wrong. The Scots National Party has sought legal advice from the EU about where Scotland would stand vis-à-vis the EU if it voted to leave the UK, and have been told quite clearly that they would have to reaply for membership. The same goes for Catalonia.
Google these:
'Barroso casts doubt on independent Scotland's EU membership'
'Jose Manuel Barroso says independent Scotland would have to re-apply for membership'
'Scotland would have to apply for membership, a disaster for Salmond'.
That should keep you busy.
"Did it ever vote afterwards? (to remain in the UK) No?"
No it didn't, because there has never been demand for a vote on Scottish independence until recently. They are now going to vote next year and the result, unlike in ignored or rigged EU referendums, will be respected.
Scotland is NOT being kept in the UK against its will. That's why I find your posts irritating.
Junior, you find my posts irritating because you're not especially tolerant. In fact, at times you sound like a chauvinist.
The regions of Europe can and do address the EU on various issues, and often get a reply.
But not with issues of secession.
True, Barroso answered the way you mentioned to the question whether European membership was forever. In my opinion, his answer was wrong, but that is beyond the point.
There was another subsequent question, to which there was no answer: whether the EU could provide a fast lane for membership for the secessionist countries. To answer it would provide such a fast lane would have sounded like incitement to secession. The EU refused to consider it. FACT.
My opinion was that the UK put some pressure to obtain such an answer. Thereupon I may be wrong. You know, sometimes I'm wrong, unlike you who nearly always are...
> Scotland is NOT being kept in the UK against its will. <
Maybe. But prythee, Junior, how do you know? There's a referendum coming to ascertain just that - what is Scotland's will. I have no opinion on that - it's the Scots' business - although I defend their right to secede exactly as I consider it is Britain's right to leave the EU. You know, it's a matter of self-determination and sovereignty. It seems to me your country is in favor of those principles too.
"The regions of Europe can and do address the EU on various issues, and often get a reply.But not with issues of secession".
Wrong again. The Catalonians have asked the EU the same question (what if we secede?) and have been given the same reply by Barroso. Catalonia would have to re-apply for membership and SPAIN HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WOULD VETO IT. SPAIN WOULD ALSO VETO SCOTTISH APPLICATION.
"True, Barroso answered the way you mentioned..."
Ah, but you didn't say that in your first posting, did you? You implied it was ENGLAND, and not the EU, that was telling the Scots that they couldn't join the EU if they seceded, something they do not have the right to do, BTW.
"There was another subsequent question, to which there was no answer: whether the EU could provide a fast lane for membership for the secessionist countries".
NO. there is no "fast lane for secessionist countries". Just look at the Spanish example. Catalonian membership would be vetoed. The EU does not encourage secession.
"Maybe. But prythee, Junior, how do you know?"
Simple. A referendum is being organised by the Scots and the result will be respected. That's what I mean when I say 'Scotland is not being kept in the UK against its will". They are free to decide their own future.
Anyway, if I may say so, I don't understand your obsession with Scotland. Wouldn't it be more logical to comment on the Catalonian situation where the Spanish government has declared secession ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL? ILLEGAL!
Also, if you're Italian why don't you tell about the rights of the Northern League to secede?
Do I tell Italians how they should run their country?
Don't waste your time Junior.
This poster clearly has no idea of the constitutional truth of the matter, that it is purely for Scotland to decide. Alex Salmond has already noted that any reapplication by Scotland (which has no intention of giving up sterling) to join the "EU" will come, as Barossa has indicated, with crippling strings attached. Nonetheless it remains 100% a Scottish decision to take.
It appears that this Italian gentleman is externalising his anxieties about the far more extreme North-South divide in Italy, where neither region enjoy the constitutional protection that Scotland has to make its own decision. The British have given this "region" such a right AND support, whereas Italy, Spain and the "EU" (unsurprisingly - even as he tells it) give their regions no such democratic recognition or support.
It also tells you something typical about "EU" advocates: that in instances where a nation state provides genuine democracy such as the Scottish right to decide its future, they start to cry "chauvinist "populist" etc.
The poster wrote: "Junior, you find my posts irritating because you're not especially tolerant. In fact, at times you sound like a chauvinist."
Look at the outcry from the politicians of Italy, Poland and Spain etc. at the possibility of a British withdrawal from the "EU", (particularly of a net contributor of that size), and contrast it with the more level-headed response from Scandinavia, Netherlands and Germany!
You have to conclude that such southern eurobots are made of crude stuff: they are much more "at home" with dictatorship.
Italy is a net contributor to the EU budget.
And Britain's net contribution is mere peanuts if compared to the budget's sums.
City financial organizations contribute to EU prosperity by creating tricky derivatives and falsifying the LIBOR.
We'd rather they didn't. Even if it had to mean Britain out of the EU, in spite of Europe's cultural unity.
Geh mit Gott, aber geh.
If you doubt about the unity, here is a list of the words in your post that stem from Latin, Greek or Romance languages:
typical, Union, advocate, instance, nation, state, provide, genuine, democracy, decide, future, populist, etc., poster, post, irritating, bacause, especially, tolerant, fact, sound, politicians, possibility, particularly, net, contributor, contrast, response, conclude, crude, dictatorship, much.
You couldn't even reason if there hadn't been cultural unity for centuries. To wit: try to say anything significant excluding all those "Continental" words, if you can.
You couldn't even be able to reason without Europe's cultural unity.
A few more words, while Germanic in origin, have cognates in Latin ot Italian (singling out just one of the Romance languages):
Right, it, cry, not, at, in, level, more, head, have, southern, (Nether)lands, Germany.
It is tragic that this article and most of the comments address this issue as UK vs EU. If you read Cameron's speech he is not talking about repatriating powers to the UK. He is talking about restructuring the EU to return powers to all states. In this he is speaking for a majority of EU citizens. In many ways he is their only voice.
But that will change I hope. The EU is currently on a route to self destruction or loss of democracy. Cameron is its best hope for its next big step in evolution. That may mean going back in some, even many, areas but that is what evolution does.
I don't agree with you.
The Eurozone has no choice in the matter, they have to converge and centralise powers otherwise the Euro is doomed, so repatriation of powers back to the nation states is not an option for them. Hence Cameron can only hope to negotiate the form of the "two speed EU" with repatriation of powers back to the non-Euro countries within the EU.
He did the right thing in my opinion but I fear the sour grapes reaction will be extreme, despite the shared interests in maintaining mutual access to a common market. Let us hope that they are pragmatic rather than vindictive.
IanBio: "The EU is currently on a route to self destruction or loss of democracy. Cameron is its best hope for its next big step in evolution."
If your assumption concerning Mr Cameron's intentions would be correct, why then, one must ask, did he urge Ms Merkel repeatedly to "take decisive action on the euro or risk a break-up that threatens livelihoods across the continent", telling Angela Merkel, then, that "Germany must do more - and quickly - to save the single currency" (May 18, 2012). Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is when it comes to the German taxpayers?
Fact is in order to protect the financial interests of the City he pushed Ms Merkel to ever more commitment toward the EU. How does this compare to his 'speech' wherein he allegedly wants to "restructure the EU to return powers to all states"?
Of course, more inter-governmental commitment means, as a consequence, MORE power-transfer to supranational institutions, such as the ECB, the EU Commission, or the EFSF. Or are you trying to tell us that David Cameron is so 'naive' not to know this?
As I wrote in another post (to Junoir), David Cameron is a 'snake oil dealer', in my opinion, who tries to sell his homemade wares to fellow Europeans.
Double post due to wine....
Why do you see a request from Cameron to Merkel to safe-guard the euro in order to prevent a break-up as incompatible with a desire to repatriate powers to all EU states? The British government has no desire to see the € break up, with all the economic and social consequences that that would entail.
"As I wrote in another post (to Junoir)",
That post seems no longer to be with us, so I haven't seen it.
El Pulpo, who is German, seems to think differently and tells us that Cameron's ideas have support in Germany. (See below, 25 Jan, 14.53).
When did we Continentals elect Cameron to be our voice?
I think you are confusing the EU and eurozone. If the EU is to continue to exist and to include non euro nations then the relationship between the EU nations and the relationship between nations within the eurozone become entirely seperate issues. The Eurozone will start to operate more like a single nation within the EU. A looser arrangement between EU nations is perfectly compatible with tighter relations within the eurozone.
One can't have his cake, and eat it too. It seems to me and others that Cameron is trying just that.
On the one hand, Britain refused to adopt the euro, on the other, she has always demanded a seat at Europe's top table. Yet, the country has resisted vehemently any move to relegate it to an outer, more detached tier as "a status not befitting a global power".
Cameron concedes, now, that a single currency with a central bank behind it and more transfers between those 'Euro-countries' might need a separate 'transfer-budget', but at the same time he rejects the transfer of political power to a new (core) body which is needed to control politically (and democratically) such extended menage.
He distances his country from Europe's financial problems (including from those that are not part of the Euro), however butts in at every possible opportunity to tell Merkel (and others) what to do. Under no circumstances is he (so far) willing to let Britain take a back seat in that matter.
Maybe, forced to put his money where his mouth is, he might now be more willing to accept an EU (or a treaty interpretation) that allows those who want to go further and faster toward a political Union to do so without being held back by Britain and others.
This would mean a political Two-Tier Europe is in the making with Britain's consent!
Then say so Mr. Cameron! . . . I would like to add.
See my post above, Junoir, wherein I explained the self-contradictory elements in Mr Cameron's line of argumentation. In reality his vision needs a "two-tier" Europe. If this is so, then Mr Cameron should say this aloud . . . and promote it.
@ Junoir:
Cameron's speech actually got a fairly decent press across the board in Germany and the Netherlands (says my wife) - general tenor: he's asking the right questions, even if we might no always agree about the answers. And everybody seems to agree that there should be more accountability in Brussels and less wasteful spending.
I canot speak for teh Netherlands, but Germans are no longer in favor of euro federalism as they once were, but want a looser union in which national governments + parliaments retain the last say. That's more than Cameron's "free trade zone +", but less than the federalized transfer union Southern Europeans are craving.
By and large, Northern Europe has reacted calmly to Cameron's speech and is ready to seek compromise, France shrugs it off (et boff!), and Southern Europe panicks - as evidenced by the sharp reaction of the Italian and Spanish governments, and in this board by our two Portuguese residents, Pedro and Sanmartinian, who won't stop talking about Britain's dire prospects (which is a bit funny considering the fact that it is Portugal and Greece who've just proved that deeper integration isn't for everybody).
@ Junoir:
Oops, typo alert!
At the same time as they elected Merkel and Schäuble.
We Italians have always beeen in favor of a federal Europe. We voted about the needed transfer of sovereignty some 20 years ago, with 90% ayes. It's only natural that we dislike Cameron's initiative.
In terms of overall debt - not just government, but business, finance and households, ie all the debt that the economy will have to repay - Italy's in better shape than the UK. We also have a primary surplus and the budget deficit is rapidly sinking.
We haven't received any bailout money -- in fact, we've given our help to other countries in need, such as Ireland and Greece, that being what you'd expect from a partner.
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The deafening silence of David...
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more