IsthatyouJohnWayne

Thank you to Placebo for keeping the discussion of this topic under control. Well noone can fault those responsible for their deadly timing. With the EU presidency, having just won the hosting of the Olympics and also the G8 conference, London hasnt been such an obvious target for a while. Balschoiw- I dont, i dont know anyone personally who does, i havent heard any authorities in London or the UK speak any words to this effect and i havent seen angry crowds on the streets. People seem remarkably calm. This isnt another september the 11th (or even perhaps a Madrid), the long term psychological effect isnt yet clear but so far it frankly appears to be a cautious and saddened 'business as usual'. Do you have any evidence that those responsible are from Afghainistan or Iraq (i would view it as rather unlikely). Do you have any evidence of the widespread involvement of Afghans or Iraqis in international terrorism generally? I do not believe that the assertion that Afghans or Iraqis are at the forefront of international terrorist attacks is borne out by the facts. I absolutely agree that its important to understand the motivation and ideology of those responsible, which is all the more reason to be careful that we get who and what they are right. Yes absolutely. The military alone are never the answer to this type of problem (and should be used only in a limited capacity). I hope the guilty parties are arrested and brought to justice.

Lets remain calm here. The people affected by these explosions and the emergency services seem to be maintaining a remarkable degree of calm so it would be crazy for people here to get more angry. Apollo- I agree, i do not particularly like the grouping of diverse conflicts (and brutal actions by governments such as that of Russia) around the world into some global 'war on terror'. So far the responses from the authorities in London seem quite reasonable and measured. Hopefully the people responsible for these acts will be caught and punished by the law. Im sure nowhere is going to get invaded over this, noone is yet even certain whos responsible, which puts bn880s posts in a slightly strange light. Seeing as 'Al Quaida' had nothing to do with Iraq and from the British perspective at least invading Iraq was not directly part of fighting terrorism (except perhaps in a very wide and vague definition including state terror) i dont see how the way the British forces fought Iraqi forces is relevant at all (even assuming this is 'Al Quaida' ). Hopefully the death toll will rise no higher.

I agree Iraq isnt Vietnam, nor will it be. Its Iraq. And at the moment, thats bad enough.

k@voven- Some fly .

From the article- It seems the article may have changed since walker posted it. So i wonder who cocked up. Could it be a US military spokesman was willing to spice up the news with unverified information? I suppose 'British aircraft also loitered in support' doesnt sound quite as impressive as 'fired laser guided missiles'. Also it seems that we have aircraft based in Baghdad, which i didnt know.

Objection your honour. I would like it on the record that i think Iraq is a damned interesting place and a fine country (all things being relative). Its only the extreme fear of death or horrible mutilation that would stop me going on holiday there.

[CAS] Daniel- I believe he was referring to the article. Anyway whilst it might be an amusing conceit to imagine how various moments in history would have panned out had there been a global 24 hour news media (if you can call much of the inane waffle on 24 hour broadcasting services news), the Second World War is vastly different from any situation in the present which someone might seek to draw parrallels to. Besides which, there were international news organisations in the second world war (notably the BBC) and once the war got underway they all became involved in broadcasting a greater or lesser degree of propaganda, misinformation and other services to the various governments(yes even such luminaries as George Orwell for the Allies! ). If a similar such situation really emerged today im sure they would come under immense pressure to do so again. (There is a case to be made that they have come under some such pressure over Iraq).

And a doublehard cutthroat army, composed largely of Irishmen, mercs and thieves yes. SPQR- After 2013? Cant see that as much of concession at all (though no doubt the French press may not have seen it that way). Blairs negotiating position is that -now- is the time for a debate about widespread changes in the budget , with agriculture (pinned) on the table. Yes he agreed to the previous deal, but although that may make him a typical two faced politician (like he wasnt already), it doesnt, for me, detract from the view that now is as good a time as any there will likely be to consider a negotiation on the wholesale restructuring of the EU budget (even if he may have been somewhat forced on the defensive in the first place only by Chiracs tactics). Besides which it is true that circumstances have changed since the previous CAP deal (not least with the no votes, which still loom large). Things will soon calm down a bit and the EU wont end, i dont see how all the doom and gloom talk could lead anywhere productive or useful (except as a scare tactic). An occassional crisis typically leads to a greater strength and sense of purpose in the EU, there is only a shift going on (not least because of all the new countries), it isnt the end of the road, more like a change of gear, and mention of war is preposterous. And Denoir, the Eurobarometer poll isnt exactly that supportive of your view that Britons possess an unbridled hatred of the EU, as you concede. Also Balschoiws link on the UK referendum vote poll had yes and no precisely level (with a large dont know). Im still trying to get my head around the British mainstream apparently being akin to the French National Front. Cant see it myself (as a regular BBC parliament junkie and multi source newspaper reader). There are plenty of zealots, crazies and vitriolic journalists, but they arent the mainstream (even if they like to think they are). A lot like ardent pro-europeans seem to like to speak for 'europe', Anti-Euros have a habit of grandiosely speaking for the people of Britain (or with the royal 'we' ), except they dont. We have a party called the UK Independence Party. If people have such an intense hatred of the EU they can vote for it to unilaterally pull us out. And they do. There is 1 UKIP local councillor (compared with 493 for the 3rd biggest party, the pro european Liberal Democrats). There are currently no UKIP MPs in British parliament. UKIP falls short of its targets (-BBC) The main opposition, the conservatives, i believe say they only want to 'renegotiate' not pull the UK out. An attempt to do so would very likely split the party. So basically youll have to kick us out, because theres no move imminent on our part to pull out. As you can see it aint happening. Hence compromise is simply a necessity. (Unless of course you want the EU to pump massive support into UKIP for say 5-10 years. Might work ) Frankly, if there is a mood sweeping the nation it is one of apathy or disinterest verging on political quietism. Â Hate would be a fine thing. Â Â

Noone really wants to take money from the new states in any form of the rebate, Blair and Chirac are obviously playing some kind of game of chicken for high stakes. Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands were also opposed to the luxembourg compromise with Italy and Denmark taking unsupportive positions. The Polish prime minister Marek Belka said he is willing to 'contribute to the talks' that Blair is proposing on more widespread reform (anathema to the Chirac axis), that he is willing to listen to Blairs ideas (but that a 'vision' is needed by those proposing reform). There is still fluidity to many peoples positions, id like to say more later. Denoir says Mmm hhhm. So what youre saying is, we really do love the EU deep down in our heart of hearts? Â Really? Gee thanks! I will end with a quote from my new favourite blog europhobia, (related to The Sharpener which Denoir linked to earlier) This pompous idiot appears as the main pictoral illustration to this article on Der Spiegel's English language site about the current rebate spat. (Which is actually rather a nice overview, if you haven't got bored of it already.) But is this how our European cousins really see us? Christ... No wonder they don't take us seriously in negotiations. This sort of thing really does tend to stop me from having any pride in being British anymore - largely because that kind of ostentatious gloating is entirely against the traditional national character. What a tit. Defending Britain by acting in an entirely un-British manner - and misplacing apostrophes to boot. Nice one. Update - national identity discussions aplenty at Stumbling and Mumbling. I earlier read the english Der Spiegel article and was appalled by the image German readers are likely to have/get. Apparently ,we are all members of the UK Independence Party! Except of course we're not and they are a small minority party, but distorting the facts is something only the British media are capable of, so thats impossible. You can see i am perplexed. I had a somewhat crazy night, everyone must now stop posting until i have time to make a serious reply tomorrow. Interesting times.

42/44 of 44 questions average error 9 miles pct correct 96% time total 267 secs My first was the Czech republic which i found hard to place exactly without country borders (even though i was there a month ago), and then i got San marino wrong too (+had to semi guess Malta), the rest were relatively easy, + i know all the capitals too True i think an awful lot of it is due to what orders they come in. Fun though.

Well, what a lot of international hot air. Denoir- Very clever. Define 'work' (luckily you are not a French farmer so this may be possible ) in this context (with regards to every member states position). Most of the people in the other member states are divided about precisely what they want out of the EU just as they are in the UK. A slightly condescending black/white simplification perhaps? But i cannot imagine that Denoir would ever be condescending about those who disagree with him, like, say, the people of Sweden. Europe isnt going anywhere at the moment, and its misleading to suggest otherwise. (Its official- we are having a 'period of reflection). Also your suggestion that europe is moving further and further from Britain seems dischordant with your suggestion that the rejection of the constitution was all due to excessive British input (if the constitution was too British then the non vote must be a sign that Britain was politically getting its way too much up until the moment of the referendums). It is true that most British people are not completely willing to abandon the 'nation state model', but throughout europe at this moment they are hardly alone in that and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Leaving the EU would be a terrible move for Britain and i believe a terrible move for the EU. More on this later. Balschoiw- I think such a vote would not result in us leaving the EU, thats wishful thinking for both hardcore euroskeptics and hardcore integrationists.. Why is it so hard to understand that each country has a nuanced position. There is no 'continental system' diametrically opposed to an 'anglo-saxon' system. That is a patently fictitious assertion and a gross distortion. The fact is that every country in the EU is different and has a somewhat different system. If i am pushed for a British vision of europe (that is one the politicians might spout with reasonable support from the people), briefly it is one in which the countries differences and great variety (including political) are respected and encompassed in a system -without- a 'one size fits all' policy on all matters. Thats far from being an island mentality. In fact i think its merely a pragmatic comprehension of the wide variety of opinions and national positions that the EU must attempt to represent and embody, allow or give space to and a coherent and positive alternative vision of europe. This 'with us or against us' stuff frankly smacks of fear and reminds me of The Bush Administration. The fact is a lot of the old leaders are on the way out and there is just the possibility of a Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown axis with eastern support emerging to cater to a less urgently federalist vision of europe. This would explain a certain amount of the current desperation to discredit Blairs position and the post-'non' gloom seen among the most fervent integrationists. It may not happen but the threat is there. Denoir- I agree its always been more than a free trade agreement. However on two of the things you mentioned (laws and constitution) there is no single or monolithic view on what they should consist of, how they should be implemented/where to draw the lines etc . Britain has as much right as any country to voice reasonable opinions on these issues (as does Euro-phobic Sweden), -thats- the EU. Consent of all nations is a pre-requisite, if you dont like that development then get out and form a Swedish hegemony. harley 3 1185 - I agree that the EU is not at risk, only some peoples vision of it. Now that the EU is a reality rather than a dream it has a life of its own, there is a limit to the extent that it can continue be 'designed' into one shape beyond the will of the various nation states publics. People want a say, and what theyre saying is dischordant and various. Deal with it. The EU must embrace that diversity of opinion. However the EU has always been about more than just a simple border or trade system, besides which the single market itself necessitates all kinds of other things like EC/EU wide legislation by its very nature which i think British people must simply accept to a certain extent as a part of the deal. But what the laws should be or the extent of subsidiarity is a 100% legitimate and worthwhile thing for the British or anyone else to debate within the EU. Donnervogel- Right, i agree. Wrong, most British people arent against the EU, though they may be against one vision of the EU. I rail against this idea that there is only one vision of europe as though everything has already been predetermined. And i think Dutch voters did too, and many French voters. You gotta love that gift to the euroskeptics Valery Giscard D'estaing when he suggested that the mistake of the yes campaign was sending out the treaties to every household. Or those who suggested that the answer was to hold new referenda until they got the 'right' answer. What does that say about EU respect for democracy? Such hubris comes before a fall. Your grand vision means crap if the people dont want it or arent convinced. I think thats wrong. Which 'direction' are we going in? Towards America? Hardly. Blair is hated by much of the Labour party for his cozying up to Bush. There is really nothing more than a historic predisposition to view america as partners or allies (our 'special relationship' in which Britain historically draws the short straw). Instead, Britain (as well as the more free market east, maybe portugal and some others) and the rest of europe are more likely to converge and come together. Or at least they damn well should. Germany and France can learn some things from the British economy, and we can learn some things from their social systems. Its really not so hard to find the common basis on which to cooperate once you get past the chestbeating strutting politicians playing to domestic audiences. Thank you, i agree (though you are Swiss?). But we do want to be in the EU (apart from a vocal minority). We just have our own idea of the EU. Is that so hard to understand or come to come to terms with? I dont think its 24 versus Britain, we have many supporters on reform, its just that currently Chirac has played the rebate card, partly to divert from the embarrasment of his referendum failure and partly to shift blame onto Britain and win european support for France (no doubt also he would genuinely like to see it ended whilst jealously  guarding the CAP which more or less necessitated the rebate in the first place). Judging by the media on the continent he seems largely to have succeeded with this maskirovka. I dont think virtually anyone in Britain is against making the EU more democratic, including i think a lot of fervent euroskeptics, because even though democracy might give unwanted legitimacy to EU decisions (a) its very hard to argue against increased democracy when they spend their time denouncing 'unelected Brussels bureaucrats' and (b) they genuinely want a europe more representative of the views of the masses. And of course the British public is in favour of increased democracy. This makes me wonder what kind of misinformation has been circulating in the european press lately. All of this current furore will die down and probably nothing much will have changed, the stupid rhetoric gets us nowhere obviously but a debate on the future of europe is truly needed. The Netherlands, France, Germany and everyone agrees on this. Im very happy that there is now a debate and that 'europe' (which is a rather lazy and deceptive shorthand imho) has become a big issue in this country, but i could do with less rhetoric, political grandstanding, demonisation, us versus them mentality and hotheadedness. I am not ashamed or afraid to call myself a european, as well as being a Londoner yadda yadda. But i resent anyone telling me what sort of european i should be, or narrowly defining what a european is (as for instance someone who believes in the French social model). Whether we like it or not we are all europeans, even the French. So lets have a party . But should there, could there ever be a neat yet non partisan decision on precisely what 'europe' must be or mean, what it should be? I think it must be left an open question, not fully resolved, we all must be allowed the space to grow together in our own time, i have always said anything forced will fail and i have been proven right. *ding ding* Thats round 1

An interesting point of view on the issues of immigration and its relation to apparent problems with the 'social model' can be found in this article by David Goodhart (published in the Guardian) in which he argues that the concern over immigrants and the concern over european social systems are strongly linked phenomena (i wont paste the whole thing here because its looong even for my posts) The discomfort of strangers (part one) And Discomfort of strangers (part two) Those are just some extracts (the whole thing is quite readable, if on the long side). I disagree with some of this guys conclusions (in the second part) but i think his analysis of the problems facing western europe is not so far off. Without something of a US 'melting pot' (which according to him is one of the reasons for, or necessitates lower welfare spending in the US) european countries are in danger of a slow destruction of (percieved) 'national identity', and concomitant feelings of solidarity, in more multicultural areas and increasing resistance to changes affecting that sense of solidarity in more homogeneous areas (or an unwillingness to finance or play a part in such changes). This seems to provide some explanation for the rise of right wing nationalism is europe (and the Polish plumber effect), as well as playing a part in the resistance of France and Germany to what they see as an erosion of their sense of national solidarity (being under threat from multiculturalism already). The article also offers some fairly coherent explanations for the relative lack of national 'solidarity' in the UK (and its not simply the Thatcher era to blame), even though it is in many respects not more or less than an average large european country (as compared to North America). [edit- Damn, dont know if ill have time to reply to everything id like to here]

baff- It is worth mentioning that they are now providing financial incentives for settlers to move out of their settlements (i believe in the west bank?), which seems like a sensible if inconsistent policy. Also in the news the Israeli court backs the pullout plan . I think and hope one day, if a lasting peace is found Israelis may come to regret the repressive actions and some of the license given to settlers just as i regret some of the actions of the British army in Northern Ireland (and as we can see regret expressed under the Truth and Reconciliation system in South Africa). There are numbers of secularists, socialists, minority groups and others in Israel. With so many immigrants from different parts of the world and belief systems im not sure you can really talk about any -homogeneous- 'culture' of violence and repression, yes Israel is a militaristic society but if you look into its history thats not overly surprising. Im no fan of a great number of the actions of the state of Israel but i wouldnt say i hate 'them', nor do i think its true or quite fair to say the 'entire world hates them'. I agree though that Israel is the regional power now and the days for arabs of 'pushing them back into the sea' or whatever are long past (whatever rhetoric may be maintained by some palestineans). The idea that as the greatest regional power Israel should show restraint is one that i agree with, but i also accept that when the suicide bombers arent coming your way its easy to say that. Did Britain show restraint in much of the Thatcher era, or did France show restraint in Algeria? For that matter its questionable to what extent the United States have shown restraint since 11/09/01 (what with apparent Guantanamo bay abuses of power + Abu ghraib, multiple prisoners dieing in detention, the high altitude bombing of Afghanistan etc).

Actually Blair could probably get away with eliminating the rebate as long as he could sell it as part of a deal 'good for Britain' (ie he'd have to get something back). Legislation and sovereignty are more of an issue than the money is nowadays, but on the CAP you may be right. What would France be without picturesque, antiquated farms (...Britain lol) Denoir- I dont think its so simple or clear cut, there are always countries outside the EU to undermine industry anyway(throughout the EU). The playing field isnt level now and yet i dont see Finland collapsing because of, for instance, the UK working time waiver. Anyway, judging by the recent vote other member states are also uncomfortable with scrapping the current exceptions in the law. Question of time. As soon as we 'do' anything as a whole then you bet your yellow stars people will get pissed off (actually people are already pissed off with EU subsidies from Africa to Albania). Not to mention EU citizens...

Im drunk in a bad mood but i gotta reply to a few things.. According to a recent report the British are second only to Denmark in the EU for successfully implementing and complying with EU legislation. So as for what we do in the EU, i imagine we spend most of our time filling out bullshit forms these days. Denoir- Why is it a European (Union) matter? We now have or soon will have legislation which i would judge most of the population regards as appropriate. British Unions are themselves open to continued negotiation with the government on the matter of an opt out clause waiver for dedicated workers (implemented in such a way as to discourage coercion or an extra hours 'culture') according to the LibDem treasury minister. I honestly dont see why we need commission or EP involvement here. Protection of the exploited is one (admirable) thing, but the government telling people happy to work longer hours in situations where noone is being harmed (eg single guy in his twenties who wants to work his way to greater prosperity by putting in extra hours or Czech game developers working hard) that they are not allowed by law is something i disagree with fundamentally. The EU is seen as too inflexible and Kafkaesque as it is. I agree about the referendums though. Only half? I honestly expected it was more by now. The subjects of large chunks of this legislation were already covered by UK law and some of the less specifically tailored ill fitting EU versions provide regular fuel for the anti EU fire in opposition groups, British newspapers (and tabloids/public opinion), im even starting to find more critical articles in the Guardian nowadays. Besides which countries such as Spain for instance seem to flat out ignore it in many cases (maybe only legislating, not to mention tormenting bulls, for fun). 'Most of the media' are not saying federal europe is dead but there have been rumbling of discontent about the Euro reported. Not surprising considering the two 'no' votes in founding states but its probably nothing more than a blip in the end. I certainly agree that its not going to singlehandedly bring down the euro. Maybe. The French peasants (sorry -farmers-) undercutting poor africans whove worked it so that the rest of europe is subsidising them whilst they are still employing 1900s era farming methods to are certainly 'ahead' in some respects. I dont think this is a problem that cant be solved (and if he fires you, sue/work tribunal his ass). Yet, perhaps some people (who may or may not have kids or want a holiday) simply want to decide for themselves rather than being prohibited by law. Bordoy- The person who wrote that article is the divine tool. Balschoiw- Germany is not the EU. France is not the EU, that should be becoming clear. I do think the UK should scrap its rebate, if in return the French ditch the rotten CAP as part of an overall reorganisation. You dont think moaning is european (you have never been to France or Greece? ) Maybe id be happy to closer integrate with europe if it wasnt for the stench of corruption, gesture politics (and legislation), anti semitism and anti Roma feeling (which i recently sampled first hand in central and eastern europe-also in a recent Observer article>hate in a graveyard ), unrepentant Austrian nazi MPs, Italian Mussolini-ites, unreformed marxists yadda yadda. You see Balschoiw i dont think any country in europe is perfect from the perspective of all others (let the bastards without sin cast the first 'no' vote etc) and railing against any one country is both unfair and unlikely to improve the situation (or the cause of european peace and harmony). Britain used to look up to Western Germany in the seventies when we voted yes to stay in 'europe' ( Common Market, EC or whatever it was called then). I really think a lot of the legislation (though by no means all) hasnt done any good in this country, only serving to make the EU unfortunatly less popular. It doesnt have to be like this.

Denoir- Yes, given the nature of the Treaty thats true but i dont think it should have to go treading on peoples toes at all. Its a function of the type of 'constitution' assembled (a detailed, legalistic constitutional treaty replacing specific existing treaties) that it is so difficult to reach agreement on. Plenty of people here seem to feel that this isn't the best europe can do and you, a supporter of it even have objections. Id say what we see here is representative of many. The Lisbon agenda for economic reform in europe was agreed to by the governments (not just the British, and not some anglo-plot for power). Unemployment here is half that of Germany. That is a social consideration. In addition we have welfare support, the National Health Service etc. The (-relatively-) free market economy is not representative of whos europe? Half of the EU now is still playing catch up (including with British levels of welfare, pension and other spending), and of course economy comes first, you get a good growing economy and then use it to finance a reasonable level of social support. We do serve a useful function , Woohoo! I would say that the Swedes serve a useful purpose, namely supporting the British on many issues . I would prefer that we serve a useful function in the positive contribution that we can and do make to the EU however (yes, including helping to gently reinvigorate the stale economies of our friends). And France and the rest of the EU serves a very useful function in giving us different systems from which we can learn something as well (such as in child care). I wasnt suggesting that Britain let alone anywhere else was moving back to 19th century capitalism, noone seriously is, we have a welfare state, we have public services financed by the taxpayer in a way unthinkable in the US, and British people are proud of that. Britain does not equal 'mini US', by any stretch. I was suggesting that the rigidity in employment and some of the protectionist excesses in Germany and France will be unsustainable in the future, not that all social spending will somehow cease in some new capitalist nirvana. Your vision of an automated 'culture economy' is some way off, and before it could ever be realised reforms are necessary (as you have said). What are you referring to here please? We already elect euro MPs, presumably you mean the council of ministers, commisioners, the european council or what? What is needed is to develop a sense of what we have in common across borders (the 'european demos'), and a clear sense of what people would be voting for, something that this treaty wouldnt be all that great for anyway. Different solutions create different problems (+ you seem strangely hot on greater EU democracy given your elitist views on 'the masses') The thirty-third report of the select committee on European scrutiny has some interesting comments (if you can get through it all there are some good points made): ----------------------------------- Denoir- But the fact is its called a constitution (Treaty Establishing a Constitution), and that summons up grand ideas which bear little relation to this, the 'Treaty Replacing Previous Treaties in a Fairly Ad Hoc Fashion. If we're calling it a constitution then lets write a real damn constitution that the european people can agree on and be proud of.~ Why not? People may be voting on wider european issues not directly related to the constitution as Necromancer indicates (and also to me seemingly stupid reasons like Ran-sorry), but thats not necessarily such a bad thing- if there are issues that the masses of europe feel are not being addressed, including a wider debate on the future of europe, then a referendum is one way of making this clear and bringing it up for debate (though referenda becoming a test of national governments is indeed unfortunate). As Supah indicates in both the Netherlands and France there has been a negative Yes campaign stressing the dangers of voting No rather than what this constitution is good for (possibly because the answer isnt very impressive). I dont think thats necessarily true, the French rejection seems to me to put Chirac in a potentially weaker position. A lot of British people love european cooperation in principle im pretty sure. People are in favour of general coopation on the issues that clearly transcend national boundaries (environment, crime, immigration) what we dont like is seemingly duff and irrelevant legislation, corruption, and an attempt to impose one 'vision' on europe (why for instance cant the British continue to have their more market orientated model preserved and the french their protectionist model, if they wish, as now). ran- Maybe you should apply for a position in the Bush administration. That doesnt seem like a very 'european' view. ran- I have been saying for years that things should go slowly (whilst consulting and getting the people to feel involved) or the great unwashed masses will feel dissociated from it. Thats just what has happened i think (quite apart from the dissatifaction with individual governments). Denoir- Its true the EU wont collapse because of this. I dont think its a failure for 'Europe', its a faliure for the people who drafted the treaty. The people who reject the treaty are of europe and the people who drafted it failed to represent them (and crucially, make them -feel- like they were getting represented). Its just 'Europe' sorting itself out and deciding in a more public way where its heading. If its sad its because it took these referenda to initiate such debate. I agree also with der bastler and others that a lot of the writing in this document was not really fit for a 'constitution for europe'. some of it could be covered or determined elsewhere if necessary. Denoir- Oh surely not! I think this constitution is very fun! Albert Schweizer- Yes. Supah - I quite agree with you on this even though i disagree about a supposed 'ultra liberal' undertone or that mere references to 'the market' are a reason to vote against it. Supah- Its not about big business anymore than the EU has always been about big business. Its about restating previous treaties and shuffling things round a bit plus a bit of centralisation etc. But theres no doubt the people in a lot of nations feel excluded from all this and thats a serious flaw which needs correcting. I heard a good proposal from a Dutch guy on the BBC to set up institutions in member states to find out what people from member states actually want precisely from the EU. Cant hurt. Denoir- "US Companies in Germany The (Blood-) Suckers" You mean like this? Sometimes im not sure whether the religious right in America are more extreme, or the indoctrinated left in continental europe (even ignoring the ugly resonances of this campaign against foreign business). Denoir- But who says the EU is run on principles of sanity? Â (i agree with you though). Albert Schweizer- I agree with all that you said in this post Albert but the rejection of this treaty is nothing to get angry about really, things will continue as usual and we will find a way to reach agreement eventually. In fact the British presidency will ensure that economic factors will not be brushed under the carpet even whilst politicians in various countries try to reconnect with the people (probably using populist rhetoric). Denoir- They can afford it in the US. You really think e.g. Germany needs -more- social security and employment protection at this moment, making it even harder to hire (and fire) people? Its up to them what they do, i dont really care unless it destabilises the continent, yet i wouldnt think they should increase spending in that area above what the working population can support. But they can have their system, Spain its, and we ours. Theres no pressing need for one central model to be imposed on unwilling populations. Apollo- A pity to say the least. I dont think we are the worst in this by a long shot but even so we sent our own damaged goods with tarnished image to become- guess what- EU trade commissioner (Peter Mandelson)! Ive been thinking for a while that we could probably write a better treaty in this forum. And now BBC Newsnight ('Construct a constitution') are asking people to do just that. Maybe we should make an entry. I think it would be so great if somehow a constitution for europe came from outside the political classes that the masses of europe could agree on. IE By the people, for the people. ------------ In other news i welcome the recent increase in EU aid (EU aid agreement)- Which the UK has played a leading part in (strange since we are apparently such selfish capitalists). I hope though it goes into long term development and not just handouts (which dont even offset third world debts)

I think people are missing the point What about every species of animal, vegetable and insect that is annihilated, should we genetically modify a new one?.. No need to shout.

baff- To be honest i had to google your post to check if it was cut and pasted from UKIP HQ. Whilst i share some or even many of your concerns about the EU (corruption, waste, totally unnecessary and/or ill thought out legislation etc) your post exaggerates, misrepresents and has a fair few innaccuracies (eg its not true that we dont sell anything to the EU, most of our trade is with EU member states) but ill be responding to everything here in more detail probably tommorrow. Suffice to say that leaving the EU isnt a very realistic option (hence even the euroskeptic tories tend to recoil from it), it would be hugely costly and damaging to the country (believe it or not) and we would still have to obey EU rules if we wanted to trade (like Norway). Yes, so is continued membership costly (its just one of those things). Thats why Britain should commit itself more fully to the EU, and the public get involved, so that we can push for reform and a better overall system from a strong base. We could end up with a degree of power in the Blair presidency if the government manages to make alliances with the new eastern members. Either we can leave the EU, shoot off lame rhetoric from the Sun from the sidelines, or fight the ideological and methodological battle for europe. So the French said non. Zut Alors- who'd a thought it! Next it will be the Dutch. If they say yes ill eat my alphabet pasta based words.

To strain this analogy like a surgically enhanced breast, for me its more like i want the electrics fixed and instead someone fiddles with the plumbing.

der bastler- The economy and a free market has always been a cornerstone of the 'european project', (the idea of the single market itself?) Just as this BBC article An Anglo-Saxon takeover of the EU? ) on the supposed 'anglo-saxon' character of the treaty mentions: There is more in the article on other issues in the constitution and its worth a read. It is ironic that whilst many French people see it as too British ('anglo saxon', free market), Many British people see it as too French, (continental, old fashioned protectionist). I dont think this constitution is going to get through the ratification process though, it will probably have to be amended, renegotiated or whatever. Scrapping it and starting again would be more satisfying to me, though a mammoth task to reach agreement on. You really cant expect it to resemble the German constitution or any national one. I think already its too complicated and seems to have too much detail. Why does it even need to mention terrorism, surely a vague passage about defence would suffice? It seems too contemporary, not timeless enough, too bogged down in details, uninspiring, messy, longwinded etc. But what will the alternative be? Reforms are needed in Germany and France just as they were needed in Britain in the late 1970s. If those countries or others insist on increasing protectionism, lower maximum working hours, very generous benefits and so on even as it becomes unsustainable with competition from emerging economies (China and India being frequently mentioned examples) Â increasing and with the continuing high unemployment levels, then there will very likely be a split in the EU (or different 'tiers' which would amount to the same thing). There is a widespread sense that changes are needed for the EU to progress but can we agree on what the changes are, on which direction to go in? There is also it seems a widespread dissatisfaction with the way the EU is being run (for various reasons). Time to shake things up. --- EU referendum prompts French identity crisis (Guardian) --- Blair promises better regulation Guardian) I agree with him on this, and im sure the majority of the voting public in this country do. Perhaps there is a chance that changes may come with the British presidency but im not sure whether France and Germany are open to the winds of change.

This article suggests that its not only poor farmers with starving families but large logging companies supported by the Brazilian government and even legal system doing the business of removing the amazon from the face of the planet. And further that Indians truly living at a subsistence level are the victims. What about these appallingly treated tribes living at a subsistence level in the amazon rainforest in a sustainable way? They are being annihilated or driven into reservations. Sounds familiar somehow. Those poor logging companies..

The amazon rainforest is one of the wonders of the natural world and it is being destroyed for what given that fact are a few measly dollars here or there. I dont think its only Brazil who should act. If some of my taxes go to diverting Brazilian farmers from slashing and burning the rainforest to developing more sustainable forms of agriculture im certainly not going to complain (even though its the Brazilian governments job). Do you really think burning the rainforest is the only way of making money in Brazil? People are giving in to the simplest and easiest option despite the repercussions. Miraculously there are plenty of people not burning the rainforest who are still alive in Brazil.

Victor_S.- "The environment ministry said 26,000 sq km of forest were chopped down in the 12 months prior to August 2004" -Amazon destruction accelerating.. BBC Right. The Amazon rainforest is vanishing. They dont have to make anything up. Yet from the first google link i found: *A single river in the Amazon may harbor more types of fish than are found in all the rivers of Europe combined. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994 *The Amazon is home to one in every four plants found on Earth. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994 *Only 5,000 of the world´s 250,000 plant species (2%) have been screened in the laboratory to determine their therapeutic potential. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994 *The Amazon is home to the world´s largest eagle, snake, anteater, armadillo, spider, freshwater turtle, and freshwater fish. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994 *One quarter of all prescription drugs sold today have plant based chemicals as active ingredients. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994 *The Earth's rainforests are shrinking at the rate of 100 acres per minute. Plotkin, Mark "Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice" Penguin Books, 1994 (that was in 1994 so you can almost double it for todays figure) -I cant vouch for this author but i expect all of these facts are verifiable. And its now getting worse again thanks to slash and burn soya farming. ---------------------- Do you know what a species is? Taken from Bordoys link: "THE LIVING PLANET INDEX The Living Planet Index is a measure of the state of the world's biodiversity. It measures trends of vertebrate populations in terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments " If you dont care it is only because you are totally failing to think (it cannot be because you are selfish). Thats quite true but there are myriad ways of struggling to survive that dont involve -destroying the majority of species on earth before they are even documented- just for a few measly dollars.

Actually i thought Britains entry this time was maybe second or third 'best' after the Greek entry. They were all crap though. I mean really awful. I watched the whole thing after reading a BBC article urging British people to try and be more european by watching Eurovision in a non ironic or mocking manner. I think its physically impossible for us- they all sing in what passes for English- its hysterically bad- (i know it really should be a kind of complement that its in 'English' but really...its too awful). What seriously worries me is that some people in continental europe seem to actually take it seriously(ish) (I was joking about the chancellor though lol). Anyway- Id like to know what happens if a French 'non' in the referendum becomes a reality (+ maybe the dutch as well). So would everyone else i imagine, but it seems perhaps like the disenchantment (for differing reasons) of the voting masses with the direction the political classes have decided upon for europe is finally telling. France, Holland and the UK could easily all vote no (and all for different reasons). Would a renegotiation be enough to win voters over and would it even be possible to renegotiate given the widely differing or contradictory aims of the 25 states in amending the current document? The constitution is in danger of collapsing as a basis for the EUs future before it has even come into effect and this puts the EU itself in danger (though in my view it has been in danger as long as the various publics have felt disconnected and disenfranchised from the EU). Of course though, it may be Oui...

*round of applause*