The Berlin speech considerably reduced the benefit of the doubt I had erstwhile accorded to HVR. Rivals VGE at the EP last week when he called to develop a European public space by setting up a people’s congress… like in China.
No I didn’t believe I’d heard correctly either.

The UK versus Irish freedom

When will the UK end the occupation of Northern Ireland?

BTW, van Rompuy seems to ignore the fact that the world’s biggest wars were caused by empires and not nation-states. The two last world wars were done in the name of an empire that was supposed to have died in the Napoleonic Wars. Otto von Habsburg invoked the name of that empire when talking about the European Community during his tenure as a MEP in the 80s. So we now have an empire (as also so described by Barroso) with a government that copied the Soviet Union’s government, that has replaced habeas corpus with corpus juris, is grabbing more and more power for itself in an orgiastic bid for centralization, and is spiraling towards militarism. (Anyone catch the significance of Germany’s walking away from conscription? The reason why conscription was in the Grundgesetz was to prevent a professional armed force from forming; now there’s the danger of the recreation of the infamous “state within a state”. Heed well.)

Dear Mr Waterfield,

The 19th century called.

They want their mindset back!

The way I read von Rompuy here Bruno is attacking a straw man. Rompuy is saying that in the memberstates there are people who are nationalists in the sense that they believe in absolutely sovreign nationstates. He is quite rightly denouncing them: in our modern globalised world they believe a falsehood.

Financial crisis anyone!!!! Surely even the most ardenent nationalist has not failed to notice that a subprime fiasco in one country causes a huge divergence in the balance of payments in another, bank defaults in a third, and so on. That when one country artificially keeps the value of its currency down so as to grow by exports ths forces another country into a trade deficit that eventually causes it to print money. Our world is globalised. Events on one side of the world effect our ability to pursue the policies we would wish to here. Arguably Britain needs two new carriers but now can’t afford them becasue of the collapse in the financial system, a collapse that orginated on foreign soil. So just how is Britain sovreign when events else where can dictate our ability to defend ourselves. Its laughable. von Rompuy is right to call this naive thesis of nationalism-the thesis that every nationstate can be an island unto itself-a lie.

But Bruno is not a nationalist but an inter-nationalist, who thinks that such global tensions and problems can be ironed over by free nations entering into treaty agreements with one another (though surprising when such countries do this to form transnational organisations this is evil, or is that just when the organ in question is the EU?), and otherwise free associations on a more or less ad hoc basis. FIne. I disagree for many reasons but if that is his opinion then he is entitled to have it. And here is the important point. Neither I nor von Rompuy would charge him with perpetuating a lie. von Rompuy’s statement was not directed against inter-nationalism, it was directed at isolationist nationalism. Hence, Bruno is attacking a straw man.

As to the EU putting pressure on Ireland to accept a bailout, my understanding of the situation is that Ireland is so heavily indebted that there is simply no way that she will be able to grow herself out of the debt. She has funding to the spring of next year, but when she seeks refinancing the markets are likely to charge a heavy price to service that debt, a price Ireland will not be able to afford. She will be insolvent at that time and will either have to default and unilatrally write off the debts, which will cause an enormous sh1t storm w.r.t her creditors and make the republics name mud for decades, or she will have to be bailed out.

The Irish government is ignoring this reality in the hope that it will go away for reasons of domestic politics, not in some high minded stand for economic sovreignity. The government of the day has a waifer thin majority. Were they to accept a bailout, then the EU and IMF would want to see the books and, just as with Greece, dirty laudry will come out into the public domain. It is unlikely that the government would survive this, Greece’s didn’t. So they are denying reality for as long as possible, but in the end they will have to go back to the markets to finance their debt. probably at the beginnig of summer next year, and when they do that the game will be up for the republic. Default or bailout will be their only options. The EU prefers bailout; and so, is pushing for this. With a bailout eventually Ireland will pay back the money she owes her main creditor is since this september the ECB, with a default that money is lost.

Once again may I add : The EU Haiku writing President is using loose words to imprison us in the EU: ”There are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world … it is more than an illusion: it is a lie!”

I respond with a Haiku:
Blue stone roll down there
As we travel round
Secure the illusion of home !
Fear at the back door !

It looks like we Irish are just too good at spreading stories of our rebelliousness .

Look, the fact is that we live in a system were our choices affect those of others (hey, at the start of the crisis, it was Ireland forcing other countries into bank guarantees). The vast majority of the choices have been our own, and so were the mistakes. If you compare the Ireland and Greece, we Irish were very accepting of austerity, though we’re growing wary of it now that our version isn’t working. There is anger, but this is directed at the government – because it’s their fault! (But it was also partly our fault for how we acted and voted too). So you can invoke our rebellious past to score your political points if you want, but we’re actually quite Northern European as a nation in a lot of our attitudes (even if we’re the most latin-like of the north).

While there may be a famous tradition of “ourselves alone” (i.e. Sinn Féin – though ironically this is technically bad Irish) in Ireland, when we actually tried to implement it, it was disastorous autarky. (Our modern day Sinn Féin isn’t exactly recognised for its financial competence either!) I know Bruno is not suggesting autarky, nor talking about Sinn Féin, but we have to accept and deal with both the situation and the choices we have made. As I think Bruno has accepted here, the choice is still ours to make, and if (though it seems like when) we make it, we will face the consequences of that choice.

Sovereignty seems to be increasingly viewed as some sort of idealised American dream of total autonomy. But even if we enter into more regular treaty agreements, we would have to accepts duties and recognise rights – and it would be done with less transparency than the EU. If you look at sovereignty as being able to make decisions, in real rather than formal terms, then for small countries pooling sovereignty really makes sense. Having a say in decision making fora that have an actual effect is more sovereignty than having the terms of market regulation, etc. forced upon you.

Indeed – and this is a point often overlooked by those from bigger countries – the supranationalist aspects of the EU suit us best, because countries are treated more like equals with equal say than in intergovernmental diplomatic fora, where bigger countries tend to dominate and bully. Which is why countries like the Netherlands was so opposed to posts like the E. Council President (and historically the European Council itself).

As a Dutch central banker once said before the Euro – “our job is really easy; we just do what the Bundesbank does.”

On HVR’s speech, when I read the whole thing I thought he was talking about the rising far right in different countries (like the VVP in the Netherlands). It seemed to make its way into the Telegraph and other newspapers in far stronger terms than in the original speech.

First of all we have to realise that Fianna Fail(FF) are desperate to get re-elected – even with coalition FinGael(FG). FF want us to understand that by not taking the bail-out they are the saviours of our sovereignty – they will resist. They, as government, may have too much corruption to hide from us – the population of Ireland – and essentially they do not want to loose the 12% taxrate on foreign companies working here – this, the latter, the EU are really anxious to take away from us. When Charles Haughey made the Mayo Gas arrangement with Shell,(who have already capped one of their new wells there), enabling them take the entire profit, he was accepting Shell into a country that had a new financial facility in Dublin that would be part of the global financial world. His TD.s may have been property speculators, his cronies might have been found in the Anglo-Irish Bank creators and bondholders. This entire story is about money and this entire scandal is their debt (FF), that they intend and have begun loading on our population. Already hundreds of families have seen their sons and daughters who appeared to have a budding future, AT HOME instead of as emigrants, leave the country.We have seen our well established social services for the poor and homeless wiped out by Government dictat last year – as they also actedat the same time to make ever more of us homeless and poor. What is going on here? Yes we know, money, and corruption and the maintenance of the structure that sheltered it.
We want a transparent government and we want young people in there who understand that they are there to solve the problems for everyone on the basis of equality and the famous Irish “fair play”, which is nothing to do with socialist rules, but with human concern.

@ Freeborn John

Unanimity is the worst option for small states, since the veto is the “nuclear option”, in practical negotiating terms this means that it cannot be used that often. I have spoken with Dutch people involved in Council policy making, and they hate unanimity because it gives small countries such a bad deal. Under QMV small countries may have a smaller voting weight, but with the threat of being out-voted applying to bigger states, they have to listen to the smaller member states more. Under unanimity, the big states bully the smaller ones.

After all, does Iceland really have equality with Britain or France in NATO when it comes to decision-making (never mind the USA!)? Formal equality and the straight letter of procedure only tell part of the story, and the simple fact is that it’s easier to bully a small country out of using a veto, than it is for small countries to regularly exercise the veto.

The Irish were warned over and over again by Anthony Coughlan and othwers not to accept the Lisbon Treaty and bring this totally intolerant QMV down round everybody’s necks – and many Europeans wrote us as well about the danger.

Slarti: Under Lisbon 3 countries cannot block. Therefore France & Germany cannot block with the support of one other, but they can with Luxembourg, Belgium (i.e. Old Europe 4) plus one more the size of Netherlands.

Also please note that these new Lisbon voting rules are not yet active, but will reinforce the old Franco-Germany hegomeny from 2014. Indeed from Franco-German pointof view this is the main purpose of Lisbon in an expanded EU.

Also please do not tell me i am imagining there is a Franco-German alliance. It is not me that makes them meet before every European Council to prepare a joint position, nor me who designed the QMV voting rules that gives them a de-facto veto on any competeing proposals from others, such that they can be sure that what they propose goes through or nothing goes through.

It is clear to anyone with eyes to see that two countries have a de-facto co-veto not enjoyed by anyone else, and act in such a manner as to confirm they are aware of it (even if you are not).

@Freeborn John

Yes, France can together with Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and eg Netherlands block legislation. Every country combination which covers 35% of the EUs population can. At the same time you also need a minimum number of member state to agree to it, I think if its about proposals originating not from the Commission or the High Representative the blocking minority (number of member states which can block it together) is around 30% or so. Thats not all too much after all. Actually it looks like a good compromise to me.

I know that these rules don’t apply yet, it is going to take a few more years. But thats not a bad thing. There are enough things in the move due to Lisbon. Its less of a problem if the transformations are spread out over some years.

So what France and Germany are meeting before some Councils. Like they would be the only ones that ever had done so. No and even both together, even though they make up quite a big junk of total EU population don’t have a “de-facto veto”. They need to have at least 2 probably rather 3 or more countries on their side in order to block something. They need substantially more support in order to get anything through.

And then, even if Germany should manage to get the necessary support from these states, it will be hard to do it without at least some support from the Commission and what is even more important: If the ordinary legislative procedure applies, which is almost always the case when QMV is used in the Council, nothing will pass without a majority in the European Parliament and the EP is not known for siding with Germany and/or France at the cost of everyone else in order to serve some of their national interests.

I do not quite understand why you obviously show such immense distrust against the EU but want to expand the WTO into a body capable of keeping a global common market in shape. I am not quite what you mean, In order to do so, the WTO would have to transform into a supranational organisation itself. To a slight extend it is already today. I can’t imagine how you could be comfortable with that idea. So either you get a solidly supranational WTO, or a global common market which does not work and is just a more glamorous simple free trade zone. In my opinion you don’t have to be afraid however, only the latter option seems to me realistic.

Regarding the EP. Its only since Maastricht that it has been worth talking about it. Since than it has gone on a steady journey and changed step by step with every treaty change into something with parliamentary powers. With Lisbon finally, it truly became a full legislative chamber. It has the potential of getting on eye level with the Council over the next years when a new post Lisbon power equilibrium establishes between the institutions.
That Parliament will have little in common with the one from lets say 20 years ago. Its quite daring to call the experiment failed when it more or less just started.

At the next elections you will have a parliament where an educated person could easily find issues worth to consider in the vote. Not even EU skeptics will have a good excuse, as even those who despise the Parliament have an option they can choose at the election in most areas of Europe. Its in the hand of all EU citizens,

@Freeborn John

EFTA is not much more than an appendix of the EU’s single market. While being somewhat separate it more or less benefits from the EU establishing a working single market. And what does EFTA manage to do? Keeping two small and two micro states aligned with the single market. Keeping the whole world together in a free market area is a whole different goal.

A free trade area is not comparable to a single market. Just because tariffs are limited does not mean trade is really free. There are tons of possibilities to use protectionism in a way a free trade zone can not do anything against. To really get a truly free trade area, you need a flexible political entity above the national level which can react to all sorts of creative protectionism. Parts of this flexibility is what you call “obscene powers”. This power needs checks and balances, unlike what EU skeptics tend to claim these exist in the EU. Actually power is much more distributed than in most member states. Its a reason, why many people are totally confused by how the EU works. The Commission is not an all powerful dark force. Its just one player among many and its dependent on being nominated by the member states and has to maintain a majority support in the EP as it can be censored anytime if it looses that majority.

As these “obscene powers” which are necessary to maintain a truly free market area are often sensitive issues, you need legitimation which goes beyond simply “rule of the stronger, behind closed doors diplomacy”. You need a supranational sphere of law which is not only enforced but also can react to new situations.

You keep talking 30 years of Parliament whatever. I take it that you keep ignoring that the nature and compeptences have completely changed over these 30 years. So far that its more than just a stretch to not see it more differentiated.

Many people live in countries, where its citizens, at no point in history, had a chance to vote over the powers of their parliaments. Tell me if I am wrong but I think the UK belongs to them as do many other countries with long democratic traditions.

You have a choice, with your type of mindset I’d say your best choice would be voting UKIP or possibly Conservative if you want a bigger party with a broader program rather than a single issue party.

As Kompetenz-Kompetenz does not lie in first line with Union institutions, you might think of voting UKIP at national elections as well.

If your mindset should be the majority position of Britons and not fall together with democratic agony (ie, choosing to make no use of the own democratic rights), its perfectly possible for Briton to leave the Union at any time.

Regarding repesentation. Thats an easy one. If people start to make their choice at the EU ballot based on European issues where actors really have a say in, rather than being a rehearsal for national elections, parties will adopt pretty swift to that situation. If people however don’t want to make use of that right which is theirs, than parties have no reason why to care about representing the voters.

What prove are you talking about? Supranational entities can offer a certain extend of democratic legitimation by themselves. International entities can’t, in exchange their abilities are more limited in first place.

An international approach in an EU of 27 let alone in entire Europe and not even thinking about the whole world, is either highly ineffective, inflexible or has a more severe democratic deficit than a supranational approach.

You suppose wrongly that supranational structures only started with the creation of the EU. Thats plain wrong, while the further integration since then is hard to deny already the EC and even the ECC had clear supranational arms and some major aspects were formed out already pretty early on, especially the basis for the European sphere of rule of law. As the common market increasingly approached the form of a single market also the supranational capabilities around it grew.

Of course institutions have the tendency to head for more power. Thats why one speaks of power equilibrium there exist forces and counter forces. Member states have a very strong position in the EU now as before. Thats why scholars also deem it highly improbable that the EU could simply implode to a federal state. Also international entities show a tendency, like supranational, or national ones.

If you get rid of all supranational institutions, you demolish the EU down to a level where the single market would simply explode into bits and pieces. Small and medium sized business would have a much harder time defending their markets beyond their home nation again. Who, do I ask you will have the power to uphold the rules? Upholding the rules in an impartial way where being does not give you any privileges of breaking the rules? Also a WTO court would have to care more about what the biggest blocks think not what is according to the rules.

If there is no supranational institution who will see the forest for the trees? Who will make it more than the sum of pity national egoisms?

Just one example. If there were no supranational rules, who would make sure that the Eurostar train order goes to the best bidder rather than to a company which believes to have the god given right of receiving the order? Its pure wishful thinking you could improve the common market by abolishing the EU and replacing it with an overweight EFTA. I know the UK dreamed of it already way back but it miserably failed back then and it would fail again.

I am amused by your assumption that if only tariffs would go, trade would be necessarily free of protectionism.

Thats one aspect, the other is that you obviously believe in a truly outdated concept of sovereignty. It seems you believe that only if Britain left the EU it would be totally sovereign again. Sovereignty is the ability to do something. In the globalized world, its in many key areas of politics not much more than an illusion.

A supranational Europe can acquire abilities of setting policies, member states would have a hard time or could not even dream of. For example preventing two American multinationals from merging in order to form de-facto market dominating position in Europe. If the UK on its own would should out against that merger, it probably would be only kindly ignored.

Sovereignty is relative. Who is more sovereign? a Sailor on his own in a small fisher boat or a crew member out of 27 on a large cargo ship? Probably also depends on the weather on the sea. The former might feel even comfortable … as long as the sun is shining.

So maybe sovereignty is greater for the fisherman, but thats not necessarily the case. It could be as well that its otherwise.

@ Slarti

You have made your point. Very stoutly I might add. Would be about time to stop feeding the troll

The EU is 100% undemocratic, lack of demos alone proves it.

The EU bailout fund is illegal and violates the no bailout clause of the EU’s own treaty.

The intergovernmental WTO has done more for trade than the supranational EU has, which has only helped destroy the African agricultural market because EU was designed to protect French farmers from competition.

The EU or as it is now called (the EUROZONE) is a registered CORPORATION and in my opinion all CORPORATIONS are criminal organisations. Have you ever asked yourself who is the owner of that CORPORATION! If not perhaps it is time that you did.

Ir4EU :Ireland CANNOT cope with its debt crisis alone, and probably wont be able to despite EU/IMF intervention. Reticence to allow the EU/IMF bailout was mere delusion on the part of a Government that never fully got to grips with the scale of the problem with the banks. Whats more, the burden of this bailout will ultimately prove too much for the economy, with default the most likely scenario in the medium term unless the restructuring of banks incorporates a certain amount of debt forgiveness. This is fast becoming the standard interpretation amongst independent economists in Ireland at the moment. This not the beginning of the end of the crisis for the Euro, but the end of the beginning.

I suppose that short memories abound. Romano Prodi was emphatic when he talked about a crisis with the euro being a vehicle for Brussels to grab more powers; he repeated the same thing back in May when things were declining fast. That’s why the euro was set up as a fiat currency from its beginning, and those who have been keeping an eye on the situation have noted that the interest rates of the ECB were set to Germany’s advantage, including the rises that led to the financial collapses of 2008. Evading putting the blame where it lies (the ECB) means evading the reality of the matter. Germany isn’t into debt forgiveness, so don’t expect it.