tessarin ([info]tessarin) wrote,
@ 2008-04-23 11:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:politics

Maps
Many might remember the old map that extinguished the UK creating a series of regions. Like all EU projects, that was connected with devolution and regional assemblies. Part of the old divide and conquer maxim. When that provoked a hostile reaction they did what they always do. They withdrew it, swept it under the carpet and then re-introduce it with no fuss. Of course they have the connivance of the media who ensure coverage is minimal or sneering.

Well they're at it again. The regional bodies are still there, now mainly to do with planning, funded by us but unelected, proto-regional governments for the final carve up of our great nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/23/nmap123.xml 


(Post a new comment)


[info]keith5by5
2008-04-23 11:10 am UTC (link)
It'll be cool, no really.

As usual our lemming government will slavishly follow the EU directive. Meanwhile, the rest of Europe will do what they usually do and ignore what they don't want to implement.

Eh.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-23 12:28 pm UTC (link)
They rely on apathy to induce compliance. Dress something up as unimportant. Don't comment on it. Insist it is just a revision. The problem is so much with their goal. Although I fundamentally disagree with that but with the dishonesty of their methods. Think it is so great. Tell the truth and conduct a referendum.

The problem of course is they will not. And if they lost they would keep trying until they won.Only got to look at the conduct of the Irish referendum.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-23 11:16 am UTC (link)
You seriously believe someone in Brussels is trying to carve England / Great Britain / The United Kingdom up into smaller regions so it's easier to do what exactly?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-23 12:25 pm UTC (link)
Easier to digest, the endgame has always been a super state. There are two European strands that run through European politics since 1973. The Europe of the nation states is pitted against the centralizing urge of the commission and EU parliament. Beauracracies by their very nature tend to acquire power. Certainly these have. 60% of our legislation since 1997 has originated from Brussels.

There is definitely an agenda. It has been stated openly by arch federalists during the constitution debate. The tactic is to dress something up as reasonable cross border co-operation then turn the substance of power into actual power.

Take for example, Schengen open borders. Initially just a removal of border controls within the EU. Following on from this is the proposed creation of an EU border control body. This then becomes responsible to the EU institutions hence border control moves from the country to the EU level.

EU regional aid is another such tool. Money from the non audited budgeted is distributed partially at the local governments direction but increasingly by un-elected regional development agencies. It is very similar to the customs unions that preceded for example German reunification in the 1860’s.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-23 02:33 pm UTC (link)
Ah, okay, I understand now.

But just so we're clear, I'm a federalist.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-23 05:38 pm UTC (link)
One of the reasons I favour a referendum is that both sides can put the case to the people. They can then decide. Strangely I used to be very pro european in my youth.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-23 06:23 pm UTC (link)
There are matters where I'm all in favor of referendum's.

The EU isn't really one of them. Because, quite frankly, if it's left to referendum's we'll be back to no EU in no time flat, it's very easy to appeal to fear and the basic human tribalistic nature.

But in the end, I'm quite aware that until people think of themselves as Europeans any kind of Federalist dream will never be anything but that, a dream.

Though I'm under the impression dream is not exactly how the majority of the English population would refer to a possible Federal Europe. :D

Ah well... In one hundred years we Europeans have gone from killing each other in scary numbers to not really liking each other very much. Maybe that's enough?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]stormwreath
2008-04-23 07:15 pm UTC (link)
I'm sure that a thousand years ago, people were bitterly complaining about the creation of an English superstate taking power away from Wessex, Mercia, Sussex, Northumbria, etc etc. Now those same people's descendants think that England is the greatest thing ever created...

Personally I'm less concerned about the colour of the flag and more about whether we can hold our leaders properly to account and what direction they're taking us in. A European superstate isn't inherently either good or bad; if it reduces national rivalries and helps cooperation it's a positive thing, it if leads to remote, unchallengeable governments it's a bad thing...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-24 08:36 am UTC (link)
A state that does not arise out of the wishes of the majority but out of the desires of a narrow elite is a state built on sand.

I think everyone is agreed about being good neighbours. (Had a certain tune there.:))

But the integration agenda is proceeding against clear public disquiet in basically every country. The fact is, is that the parliament and commission basically are non-accountable. They refuse audits, sweep investigations under the rug refusing to release their details. Term major changes technical changes. There is a massive trust deficit. Of course this isn't unique to the EU. We have the same thing here but the intention was for us to sleepwalk into a united Europe.



(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ozma914
2008-04-24 10:39 am UTC (link)
I like the idea of united governments in theory, I just question the agendas behind them in reality. Hitler wanted united governments, and so did Stalin; on the other hand, so did President Wilson, who at least had his heart in the right place. In any case, it must be by consent of the governed.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-24 01:46 pm UTC (link)
The fact is, is that the parliament and commission basically are non-accountable. They refuse audits, sweep investigations under the rug refusing to release their details.

That's good reason, if true, to be against this integration efforts.

But I very much suspect that people in many places would be against any integration. Especially in England, from what I've read.

At the end of the day, I'm a federalist because I believe being integrated is the best way of making sure another war doesn't start between member states.

I also think that it's best to present a unified front in economical cases, otherwise the individual countries of Europe have far less bargaining power.

Since from what I've read the British economy is far more coupled with the US economy than the rest of the EU economies, being integrated with Europe might not make sense in an economical sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]w00hoo
2008-04-24 02:23 pm UTC (link)
At the end of the day, I'm a federalist because I believe being integrated is the best way of making sure another war doesn't start between member states

I think a third war in Europe is amazingly unlikely whatever happens now, technology has moved on so fast in the late 20th century that big business is far too integrated in to the way countries economies work for a war among the allies in the West to be in any way 'a good thing' and it has such a sway on what is and isn't done that they would never allow a situation to escalate in to a war as long as they had the option.

This is why the wars you see waged now all involve countries that aren't managed on both sides by big corporations and why there could 'happily' be a war in Zimbabwe if there was anything there that big business felt it could profit from.

Gone are the days when the overriding aim was for the steel industry and major manufacturing industries to have somewhere to sell their products that helped fuel WWII. Even then you only have to look at Coca Cola's involvement on both sides to see the fledgeling sprouts of what was to come.

Europe doesn't need the EU to keep it from falling in to war, we've left the times when that might happen long behind.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-24 04:03 pm UTC (link)
Plus the EU was nothing to do with the prevention of war in Europe. That was NATO and the fact that Germany was occupied by 200,000 British & American troops until renunification. Oh and that little thing called the cold war.:-)

As for large scale war in Europe I actually think it very likely in the next 50-100 years. They are postulating resource wars along Europe's southern fringe. I think there maybe what are termed Brush wars before the total collapse of Africa. This is actually one of the drivers behind support for the proto-european army and rapid reaction force. On top of that the creation of the EU superstate generates a proto-yugoslavia/Austria-Hungary situation. I think it would exacerbate tensions. On top of that we have the demographic strains which will provoke civil strife in the short to mid term. Whether this manifests itself as terrorism or open conflict I'm not sure currently. Then on top if you buy global warming then there is possible conflict between Russia and the EU over the Artic. That may actually be a three way brawl.

On top of that you have the model of pick a war with someone to unify Europe. Worked for Prussia against Austria and then France. Question is who would be the target this time. Of course Cyberpunk postulates the US here with Europe & China vs the NA. But that is fiction?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-24 07:16 pm UTC (link)
Yes, the Cold War certainly had a lot to do with the peaceful times we've had.

Although I'm pretty sure that had we been invaded by the Soviets, NATO would've been weakened by separate peace agreements, Europe not being a single country and all. :D

Care to describe what might happen in your opinion if there isn't an European Superstate in place?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-25 11:03 am UTC (link)
The cold war fossilised tensions. Hence the moment it ended we had the conflicts in the Balkans and the breakups in Eastern Europe. If you have ever read General Sir John Hacketts Third World War that sort of matches my view. Although I think the Twilight 2000 model was also possible.

My personal preference is actually for greater unity within the Anglosphere. Those are the countries that we share a common heritage, culture and language with. At the moment it is a very informal affiliation predicated on a mixture of soft and hard power. Also it is the area where before 1973 most of our exports were directed. There have been some hints in that direction in the last couple of years generally amongst right leaning think tanks etc but also starting to leak into the media. I think the rise of China might generate pressure in this direction in the US. But the UK is at a crossroads. By the time those pressures become tangiable we may already have been subsummed in a EU superstate. The analogy I would draw then is that we would be Europe's Quebec.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-24 07:01 pm UTC (link)
If we'd been around at the time of WWI we could have thought that war was also very unlikely.

After all, the European Powers had fairly well connected economies, and even better, the ruling monarchs were family.

That turned out okay, right?


In Europe the number of civil wars every country has gone through are far less than the number of wars against another nation. If the EU project or something like it makes it so that when Europeans think of each other as fellow countrymen, war will be that much harder.

Europeans, generally speaking, don't like each other. We have poor opinions of each other. We have a long history and most of it was spent at each others throats.

I might be a pessimist, but I don't think this is a recipe for "eternal" peace.

But I'll also be the first to admit that creating an European superstate without the consent of the majority of the population is a recipe for trouble.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]w00hoo
2008-04-24 10:48 pm UTC (link)
If we'd been around at the time of WWI we could have thought that war was also very unlikely.

However the way countries worked before WWII wasn't that different to the way they worked before WWI or in the 19th Century. The belief was that after the Great War mankind wouldn't be so short sighted as to start another world war. My suggestion is far less fairy tale, it's not going to happen because there's no profit in it any more. If wars were still the way to solve things someone would have invaded Zimbabwe by now.

Europeans, generally speaking, don't like each other. We have poor opinions of each other. We have a long history and most of it was spent at each others throats.

As arguments for letting Europeans in general govern my country go, I think this is probably a very poor one :-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ozma914
2008-04-24 04:52 am UTC (link)
Where I come from, an unelected government is called a dictatorship.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-24 08:44 am UTC (link)
And that is precisely what we are sleepwalking into. The idea is to ignore, say it's too complicated, or smother in comfort until it is too late. They're clearly not seeking the consent of the people as a lot of the parties fought their elections promising to put the constitution to a vote. When they lost in France and Netherlands, two pro EU countries they knew they couldn't risk anyone else voting. You only have to look at the dodgy dealings around the Irish one currently.

The EU has not had it's accounts signed off for over 12 years now. People who whistleblow on this are arrested, have their careers destroyed etc.

The MP's have just refused to reveal a report which shows widespread endemic corruption. They're receipients of slush funds therefore it's in their interests to support closer integration as that means more money. More money means more chance for corruption. The same thing is occuring in the UK re MP's expenses and interests.

They will not put things to a vote as they know they will lose. Now if they were honest and upfront about what they were after and regularly put it to the vote then I think people would be more accepting. Everything is always presented as a tidying up exercise.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ozma914
2008-04-24 10:40 am UTC (link)
It's hard to find honest and upfront people, once they've accumulated a certain amount of power.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-24 10:06 am UTC (link)
It's been awhile seen I've read about the US election process, but...

Have you ever cast a vote for a Supreme Judge?
How about the Federal Reserve Chairman (or is it Chairperson)?

And were I not at work, I'm pretty sure I could find other important unelected positions in the government of your country.

Not to mention that we're very, very far from a true government for Europe. If we did have a true government, there wouldn't be such different responses on for instance, Iraq.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ozma914
2008-04-24 10:34 am UTC (link)
The Supreme Court is appointed by the President, with his nominees approved by the Congress. The Federal Reserve Chariman, a position appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, has no authority to pass or enforce laws.

I don't know how you define a true government, but the US response to Iraq was approved by a vote of our elected representatives in Congress based on the facts as they knew them at the time -- much as many of them would prefer we forget that. (Naturally, I'm not claiming they don't make mistakes!)

The important positions in our government are either elected, or appointed by people who are elected, and thus (in theory) held accountable to the people. Our system is far from perfect, and we've become so complaisant that the number of us who participate is far too low, but we still do have an elected and representative government.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-24 11:14 am UTC (link)
The EU "government" is similar. People might not get elected directly, but they get elected by people who were elected.

If that makes sense. Granted, the process is wasteful, and I would prefer a more direct approach, but to claim it's a dictatorship... well.. the EU doesn't even have an army.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ozma914
2008-04-24 11:28 am UTC (link)
Oh, I'm sorry -- we've miscommunicated, but I see what you're saying now. I wasn't trying to suggest that the EU *is* a dictatorship; I was trying to suggest that it could be on its way to becoming one, if it tries to make major changes without the consent of the governed. As a comparison I can give you Hitler, who was after all elected into power -- and who also didn't have an army, or at least not much of one at the time. It's an extreme comparison, and I'm not trying to say Nazi Germany is comparable to the EU right now -- I'm just saying things could swing in that direction. And the same thing could happen over here too, of course; democracy requires constant vigilance.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]w00hoo
2008-04-24 10:45 am UTC (link)
I think the argument isn't how far we are from 'a true government for Europe' but how far down the path we've travelled and where out point of no return is.

Colours to the mast, I'm anti-Europe and see little benefit for the UK to be part of it, I agree with the first comment that we would become the poor cousin because we'd moan about the laws and then comply with them rather than rioting against them or ignoring them which is what the majority of other European countries seem to do.

Why wouldn't the French complain about a pointless change in meat standards? Because they wouldn't actually do anything different. Why would the British complain about a pointless change in meat standards? Because it would cost us loads of money to implement the changes and would remove products from shelves and probably cost people jobs and we'd do it all because we'd been told to. We'd complain but we'd do it. That's why being part of Europe is so bad.

The suggestion here is that by creating a cross border initiative that gives minor powers to bureaucracts forms the basis for the next step which is expanding that initiative in to something more powerful, then the slow transfer of power across and one day you spot it's all changed.

Surely this would be more effective if the councils of the areas talked to each other and set up committees that way as they actually know the full picture about their areas. Then Wales would find out just how little it has in common with Spain and Portugal for instance...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-24 11:59 am UTC (link)
Well, maybe then the issue is with your domestic politicians? Vote for anti-EU ones. Or even more anti-EU, since as my European Studies professor said, it's fairly well known that Britain joined the EU to sabotage it. :)

You might have a different opinion of course. :D

But you're mistaken in thinking Britain is the only country that needs to follow pointless changes. That might be your impression, but it's the wrong one. All countries have had to make pointless changes. Some traditional foods for instance in Portugal, aren't allowed anymore. Our entire agriculture has changed. We're not producing as much milk as we could, and instead importing it. Etc. Etc.

And quite frankly, if not having things in common was a good reason for having nothing to do with each other, I'd expect Wales not to be a part of the same entity that contains say... London? The US should implode any moment now too.

But it might not make sense for UK to be part of the EU. That's for each voter to decide.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]w00hoo
2008-04-24 02:33 pm UTC (link)
Well, maybe then the issue is with your domestic politicians? Vote for anti-EU ones. Or even more anti-EU, since as my European Studies professor said, it's fairly well known that Britain joined the EU to sabotage it. :)

Definitely some British politicians are there to do just that, having seen that there would be a vote for euro mp's whatever they put themselves forward on the back of a policy of trying to stop the EU from making changes and a fair number got in.

But you're mistaken in thinking Britain is the only country that needs to follow pointless changes. That might be your impression, but it's the wrong one. All countries have had to make pointless changes. Some traditional foods for instance in Portugal, aren't allowed anymore. Our entire agriculture has changed. We're not producing as much milk as we could, and instead importing it. Etc. Etc.

I have to admit a lack of knowledge when it comes to Portugal and would imagine that its lack of a presence in the UK media is probably because 'it' stays quiet and toes the line which is pretty similar to the UK moaning loudly and toeing the line. :-)

The only problem is that on a playing field where Germany and France can both refuse to recognise fines for their poor national fiscal results when they voted for the policy that brought the fines in I don't think the UK, and by inference Portugal, have much hope.

And quite frankly, if not having things in common was a good reason for having nothing to do with each other, I'd expect Wales not to be a part of the same entity that contains say... London? The US should implode any moment now too.

Well, Wales does have its own Assembly after all, and Texas is happy to point out that it has an opt out clause from the Union whenever it fancies it. The US is a different example because it is really a federation of seperate States and the fact that that federation was formed in less enlightened times is why it works now.

Question, when the World consists of Europe - America - China - India - Australasia and a host of warring states in Africa, should it stop there? Or carry on combining? If countries are too small, why would Europe as a whole be the right size?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jgracio
2008-04-24 04:56 pm UTC (link)
As long as citizens are free to live their lives pretty much as they want, the government is democratic and respects the different cultures, and coexistence between the citizens is possible...

Why not?

BTW, a federation of different States is the most united Europe can ever get.

Question, why Great Britain? What's wrong with England, Wales and Scotland as independent countries?

And why stop there? There were many tribes in the British isles at the time of the Roman Invasion... :D

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ozma914
2008-04-25 05:53 am UTC (link)
I like the idea of all the nations combining together; saving all the money spent on border security and armies and separate governmental units. Standing together as a race to solve problems, exploring space together, pursing a life of peaceful coexistance ...

I just don't think it's possible.

A simple look around the world confirms that, as usual, there's a difference between what should be and what is. After all, the only reason the US *hasn't* imploded is the memory of what happened last time one group of states tried to separate from the rest. I'm more than willing to get along with my fellow man, but if their idea of getting along is forcing me to change my principles and do what they say, I'm not going to just sit there and take it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]tessarin
2008-04-25 11:10 am UTC (link)
My problem with the whole project is both the consent and the endgame issue. If we accept that we need to be part of something bigger to obtain a fair shake on the World stage. Not something I buy for the 4th largest economy in the world. Then I would prefer it to be as part of a unifying Anglosphere.

The other issue is that British and English foreign policy for the last 1200 years has been predicated on preventing the rise of a continental hegemon that controls the entire facing coastline. Hence we sit on the sidelines and play both sides. That served us pretty well making us the most powerful nation on Earth from 1707 to 1942. So allowing the rise of the EU goes completely counter to this impulse. Now of course being hypocritical if the institutions and model of government they were following was ours and was based here I might have a different view. Unlikely as I think the cultural and economic connections with the Anglosphere are much more powerful. Of course that doesn't mean we cannot be good neighbours.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ozma914
2008-04-26 06:59 am UTC (link)
I think you hit on something in that last sentance that a lot of people don't seriously consider. Even if we aren't one nation, why can't we be good neighbors? We can have different governments, different ways of doing things, and still get along. Having a national identity doesn't automatically mean we have to war against each other!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…