Welcome to the fourth ERC Video Journal this time on the Irish No campaign. During this Journal we shall introduce some of the main actors from the No side of the Lisbon Treaty referendum debate. Interviews with Patricia Mckenna, Frank Keoghan, Anthony Coughlan, Roger Cole, Kathy Sinnott
__________________________________
While the Irish No Campaign puts forward reasons why the Lisbon Treaty should be rejected it seeks to do so in a participatory manner, ie. to increase democratic debate within the European Union.
The Irish No Campaign does not reject the concept of the European Project. It accepts Eire's European-ness within that Project and seeks to demand a people's model for Europe built from the grassroots up.
It is a fundamental mistake to confuse the No Campaign with a campaign for withdrawal. The two are entirely different and it would be dishonest to present the one as being akin to the other.
BRUSSELS (EUX.TV) -- Europe's 'propaganda' Commissioner Margot Wallstrom on Wednesday is to present a plan to "widen and deepen" its approach for communicating the European Union that will enable citizens "to express their views directly to decision-makers."
The approach for 2008 and 2009 will accelerate the European Commission's communications efforts, especially in the run-up to the June 2009 elections. Details on the plans will be unveiled on Wednesday during a press conference after the weekly meeting of the commission.
Wallstrom discusses need to reach out to EU citizens
Referendums killed off the EU Constitution, a ‘blackmail’ that Europe’s elites will now avoid by forcing through the Lisbon Treaty without debate, writes Susan George. And Tony Blair is just the man some of them want to lead the way in this new Europe
Europeans are becoming accustomed to both insult and injury. For many excellent and well-examined reasons, in mid-2005 French and Dutch voters rejected the European Constitution. In France, it had been 13 years since anyone had asked its citizens what they thought about Europe, and they replied 55 per cent strong that it was going in an entirely wrong, neoliberal, inequitable direction. Yes, there were some far-right ‘No’ votes, but most came from pro-Europeans who refused to see Europe reduced to the status of a marketplace.
This expression of popular sovereignty was intolerable to the elites. They have now remedied the situation by forcing through the Lisbon Treaty, a carbon copy of the constitution, with only ‘cosmetic changes’ to ‘make it easier to swallow’, as former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing phrased it. He should know, having drafted the original document.
No official flag and no Beethoven hymn, but the rest is there. Don’t believe me – listen to Giscard, Angela Merkel, Karel De Gucht, Giuliano Amato, José-Luis Zapatero, Bertie Aherne and Jose-Manuel Barroso, European leaders who all heaved huge, public sighs of relief to that effect. As for the thoroughly undemocratic process that brought forth the Lisbon Treaty, Gunther Verheugen, vice-president of the European Commission, put it best after the French-Dutch votes: ‘We must not give in to blackmail’. They didn’t. One thinks of Bertolt Brecht, who in 1951 said of the East German regime:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writer’s Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
So the text of the treaty will be pushed through parliaments with no time for discussion and debate. Nicolas Sarkozy himself told right-wing Euro MPs that if there were referendums on the Lisbon Treaty, they would be lost; if the French voted, they would again vote ‘No’. Under no circumstances should citizens be allowed referendums (and Ireland made a huge mistake in making them compulsory).
Don’t make the mistake of letting people actually read a clear text. The Lisbon Treaty is what you get, like it or not, although we can’t actually give you a copy of it – just five or six separate documents, protocols and declarations that you can spend the next few years collating and cross-referencing to your heart’s content. Oh yes – and we’ve got just the man to lead the new Europe that this treaty intends to force upon you: Tony Blair.
He’s perfect for the job. We can count on him to promote ‘a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters [which] will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance’. And he will make sure that Europe ‘respects the obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members’, according to Protocol 4 of the treaty (which, like the other protocols and declarations has the same legal force as the treaty and supersedes national law).
We don’t know what Nato’s future policies will be and are signing on blindfolded. But we do know that the US will continue to lead it and that the US president will be its de facto commander in chief. Who better than Blair to polish the commander’s medals and shine his [or her] shoes?
The EU is terrific on market-oriented policies as well, and that can only be to Blair’s satisfaction. In the 410 treaty articles, the ‘market’ rates 63 references and ‘competition’ is cited 25 times. ‘Social progress’ gets three mentions, ‘full employment’ one and ‘unemployment’ none, but you can’t have everything.
What you can have is a downgrading of social policy and of public services. Any upwards harmonisation of EU social [or fiscal] policy will require unanimity of the 27 members, so the pressure will be to reduce taxes and social services. As for public services, they are specifically made subject to competition. The treaty doesn’t affect ‘the competence of member states to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest’ and that may sound reassuring. The problem is that ‘non-economic services’ are nowhere defined and in some interpretations they could be reduced to the police and the courts. The European Court of Justice has not shown undue affection for public services and the Commission can also make members stop subsidising them, so Blair should feel quite at home.
Among the many provisions of the constitution, the treaty has also retained the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a meek and mild compendium granting fewer rights than most national constitutions. However meagre, this was still too much for Blair, who demanded – and received – an exemption for the UK, enshrined in the lengthy and detailed Protocol 7. All one can deduce from this is that in our brave new Europe, the rules concerning market freedom and competition are compulsory, whereas anything smacking of even limited human and social rights is optional. Why should Blair’s attitude as president of Europe reflect any other view?
If Europe still seems remote to you and not worth getting excited about, you should know that 80 per cent or more of the laws that will apply to you and your country will come not from the seat of your national government but from Brussels. Let us hope that the petition against Blair’s presidency blazes its way through the 27 member states or that Tony himself may decide to be content with the putative 500,000 quid he will receive annually as a part-time advisor to the JP Morgan Chase investment bank. If he jumps out of the British frying pan into the Brussels fire, 450 million European citizens risk being severely burned.
Susan George is a Fellow and Chair of the Board of the Transnational Institute. Her latest book is La Pensée enchaînée: Comment les droites laïque et religieuse se sont emparées de l'Amérique [Fayard, 2007], to be published in English as: Hijacking America: How the Religious and Secular Right Changed What Americans Think [Forthcoming, Polity Press 2008].
www.tni.org/george _________________ One Planet - One People - One Destiny http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com http://eurodemocrats.blogspot.com/ http://x09.eu/splash/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK_FREE_UNIVERSITY/
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:12 am Post subject:
Stefan wrote:
Quote:
Rory, you seem to be asking me to allow the lion to eat me, and then campaign for it to become vegetarian from it's belly.
The struggle for those who wish to see greater co-operation and unity between European nations is to reject the Corporatocracy proposed in the Lisbon Treaty, campaign for a new treaty which we would accept and then implement it.
I would be all for the "right" EU - but not for giving away the scraps of democracy we have left in the hope that we may be able to convince those we gave them to to return them with interest - based wholly on an assessment of their good nature which does not comply with the facts as we know them.
No, that's not what I'm saying, Stefan. I'm saying that what we should be campaigning for is real democracy within Europe and not confusing the No Campaigns with Withdrawal campaigns as has been done dishonestly by some. Whether by ignorance or intent this became a red herring.
Blair and Brown have been responsible for sowing confusion through their totally opportunistic treatment of Lisbon. On the one hand they have ensured a denial of fundamental rights to the British people through obtaining by blackmail opt-outs of the Charter and then presenting this to a domestic audience as an "achievement"!! The only parties who achieved anything from the opt-outs are the British police state and the employers.
The Lisbon Treaty is good in places and very bad in others: good in protecting certain fundamental rights that no other domestic law guarantees us, good in that it seeks a European Defence Force but bad that quislings like Sarkozy and Blair seek to tame the EDF into another US trojan, good in that it achieves a common European foreign policy but very bad in that it supports the economics of 'neoliberalism' which are most certainly not social-democratic in nature or for the good of the people.
So when all the pros and cons are weighed up I think that this Constitution masquerading as a Treaty would not be good for the people of Europe. Despite being a federalist and a committed proponent of a United Europe I personally would support the No Campaign and reject the Treaty as it stands. For this is certainly not the kind of democratic, decentralised federalism I see the need for in a future European Federation.
Xmasdale wrote:
Quote:
One thing I will say, though, is that, given the British opt-out from the human rights provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I would be voting against the Treaty if we had a referendum on it like the Irish which we should. The fact that the coroporate governance of the EU is determined to get this treaty onto the statute books, regardless of the wishes of the people, is a good reason for saying to Brown and co:
"We don't like the way you are trying to steamroller us into acceptance of this treaty, particularly not since you have removed all its human rights provisions from application in Britain. What you have done is taken out the best parts of the treaty and left us with the worst parts. Go back to the drawing board and give us a treaty which gives our elected representatives power to over-ride the Commission and which guarantees our human rights. You are undermining our democratic rights and freedoms in the name of your desire to pursue illegal mass-slaughter of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan on the back of false-flag terrorism in which you must to some degree have been complicit."
All we can do is hope that the Irish will say "no" to this treaty which will effectively veto it. This will give a chance for people to campaign for a replacement which is democratic and just.
Very well put, Xmasdale, exactly my thinking. We must hold out for something much better than the crumbs the fat cats of corporate capital have thrown to us under their table.
Assuming that the Irish will vote NO (and that's where I'd put my money) then we must look at the situation afresh from the point of view of conducting a real people's campaign for a democratic Europe.
Of course, that has nothing in common with UKIP and its followers who maintain a very different right-wing nationalist agenda of unconditional withdrawal. By deliberately seeking to confuse the issue of a No Treaty Vote with a Britain-Out-of-the-EU vote these people have done a great disservice to democracy. Like the Nu Labor opportunists they too have misrepresented the issue and confused the public.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:04 am Post subject: European Tribune
In the aftermath of Northern Rock and the current craze of Nu Labor and its Thatcherite, 'neo-liberal' friends within and outwith the European Union for the anarchy that is de-regulation, this essay on the parasitic nature of 'liberalisation' observes a few things about the New Right's doctrinal wirkschaftwunder.
_____________________________________________________________
by Jerome a Paris
Sun Apr 6th, 2008 at 12:31:50 PM EDT
Quote:
Crises are endemic to financial systems. Attempts to regulate them may do more harm than good
For three decades, public policy has been dominated by the power of markets—flexible and resilient, harnessing self-interest for the public good, and better than any planner-in-chief. Nowhere are markets deeper and more liquid than in modern finance. But finance has stumbled and there are growing calls from all sides for bold re-regulation.
This is the lead editorial of the Economist, the bible of the neoliberals and deregulators around the planet, and it is worth deconstructing in detail. Just this very short paragraph above is a good example of how to set the parameters of the debate and preempt decisions:
* markets are described as an unalloyed good, better than government (caricatured as the Gosplan), even to the extent that they are said to provide for the "public good" - the biggest lie of all, but repeated endlessly until it gained "common wisdom" status, ie that of a fact that needs not be proven anymore (truthiness could be a way to describe that common wisdom);
* in that context, the use of 'stumble' is a very aggressive gambit: it means to convey that the current crisis is but a temporary hiccup after a very long and strong period of prosperity - and it is meant to separate the current consequences of deregulation from their earlier proclaimed successes, ie the way to assess deregulation is not to take boom and bust as a whole, but to focus on boom and treat the bust as an inevitable, exogenous event that must be dealt with separately;
* of course, underlying this is the fact that markets are described as a natural policy choice - a choice made by all, over a very long period of time, and justified by their supposed "power." This is a way to avoid the discussion of deregulation as an ideological choice. The use of "re-regulation" in the last sentence is the only acknowledgement that these policies are by no means irreversible nor the only way to do things;
* most importantly, in a display of how expert the right is at controlling public discourse, one finds the notion that the Economist is a solitary voice facing an overwhelming consensus ("calls from all sides"), as opposed to one of the biggest loudspeakers of the only ideology that can be heard in all official discourses and throughout "serious" media. Accuse the other side of your own failings, claim victimhood, and push forward again with the same ideas as the only solution to everything.
As the title of the piece shows, the goal is the same as it has always been: reduce regulation of finance. Whatever the facts, they never stop promoting their selfish, self-serving and destructive agenda. They claim the (supposed) good times, and say that the bad times are inevitable (and thus not their fault) and that only their solutions can bring back the good times. It's a simple recipe, and unfortunately it works.
And the looting will go on as it does.
______________________________________
Quote:
It is natural and right that regulators should seek to learn lessons. The credit crisis will damage not just the reputation of the financial system but also the lives of those who lose their houses, businesses and jobs as a result of it. But before governments set about reforming financial regulation, they need both to be clear about the causes of the crisis and to understand just how little regulators can achieve.
Again, with barely concealed contempt for the poor losers of the crisis (their plight comes after the "reputation of the financial system" and they probably deserve what happened to them anyway - suckers) this subtly underscores that notion that nothing bad happened until the crisis. Before it, all was well, prosperity was growing for all, there were no poor, no foreclosures, nothing. Financial markets were working their wonders.
The goal is to separate as much as possible the boom and the bust, in order to claim the boom and blame the bust on somethng else. But, even more importantly, it is about creating a mythical version of the boost, where the good times were shared by all - and were naturally created by de-regulation.
This is the context were governments come in - they are well meaning, trying to do their best to react to the bust - it is their responsibility, after all (another subtle reminder that it is not the markets'). But sadly, being governments, there's little they can do, you see. This has been repeated so many times that it fits naturally in existing notions (cue in Reagan "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" - he was so funny ... ah, these were the days - back when we were tough enough to beat the evil Soviets and bring back the morning). So that layer fits in - don't expect government to do much now.
Quote:
there are two reasons to hesitate before plunging headlong into a purge of the system. First, finance was not solely to blame for the crisis. Lax monetary policy also played a starring role. Low interest rates boosted the prices of assets, especially of housing, which in turn fed into complex debt securities. This created a spiral of debt that is only now being unwound. True, monetary policy is too blunt a tool to manage asset prices with, but, as the IMF now says, central banks in economies with deep mortgage markets should in future lean against the wind when house prices are rising fast.
The first paragraph is another attempt to try and separate the good of markets from today's crisis, by blaming something apparently unrelated : the monetary policy run by central banks (coincidentally, a government body).
As if lax monetary policies were not part of the same ideological corpus that sees wage inflation as evil (forced by evil reactionary collectives grubbily fighting for privileges and cutting into corporate profits, urgh) and asset price inflation as good (growth and prosperity spreading and properly valued by free markets).
As if massive debt, made possible by low interest rates, had not been the easiest way to hide to populations too brain-washed or too worried by making ends meet to notice that their incomes were stagnant.
As if Greenspan's ultra-low interest rates and Bush massive tax cuts to the rich had not been simultaneous and coordinated.
Quote:
The second reason to hesitate is that bold re-regulation could damage the very economies it is designed to protect. At times like this, the temptation is for tighter controls to rein in risk-takers, so that those regular, painful crashes could be avoided. It is an honourable aim, but a mistaken one.
And thus we come back to the claim that markets worked until the "stumble", and will work again, and it would be a horrible error to stop that. The boom should not be blamed for the bust. Why not? Just because. Booms are great - are you against prosperity, or what?
Quote:
Finance is a brain for matching labour to capital, for allowing savers and borrowers to defer consumption or bring it forward, for enabling people to share, and trade, risks. The smarter the system is, the better it will do that. A poorly functioning system will back wasteful schemes and shun worthy ones, trap people in the present, heap risk on them and slow economic growth. This puts finance in a dilemma. A sophisticated and innovative financial system is susceptible to destructive booms; but a simple, tightly regulated one will condemn an economy to grow slowly.
Note how,the problem is about a 'poorly functioning' system, not about how it parasited society by encroaching on everything and imposing its value system on the real economy (that which has no market value has no value) and then on all social behavior. Finance can be small and innovative while remaining a tool, rather than the sole driver and judge of human activity. But that's probably a debate the Economist would rather avoid...
And, again, the comparison is not between a stable economy with slow growth with a booming-and-busting one, but between that stable one and the boom times only of the finance-driven version. How convenient. Keep the profits and dump the losses into the ether. If only life were so simple for the rest of us...
Quote:
the system is stacked against [regulators]. They are paid less than those they oversee. They know less, they may be less able, they think like the financial herd, and they are shackled by politics. In an open economy, business can escape a regulatory squeeze in one country by skipping offshore. Once a bubble is inflating many factors conspire to discourage a regulator from pricking it.
Pure and simple concern trolling, tinged with more barely concealed contempt. Regulators are paid less (which means, of course, that they are worth less, ie that they must be less smart or less hard-working); they are stifled by politics (something that never happens in the private sector), and they are just following the herd (ditto). Stupid bureaucrats, what do you expect?
And business is global anyway, so they are powerless - a subtle way to make us think that such globalisation is inevitable, and was not made possbile in place precisely by government policies that can be reversed.
It is quite a sight to see the Economist lamenting about the powerlessness of regulators after having explained year after year that deregulation was the way, that trade barriers, capital controls and taxes were bad, that ever-increasing corporate profits was the best sign of prosperity and the best way to get growth, and that record incomes by financiers were a just reward for their hard work and creativity. They argued that regulators should be made powerless, and now they argue that this current powerlessness is the reason to not do anything? The chutzpah is quite breathtaking, when you actually think about it.
Quote:
The notion that the world can just regulate its way out of crises is thus an illusion. Rather, crisis is the price of innovation, so governments face a choice. They can embrace new financial ideas by keeping markets open. Regulation will be light, but there will be busts. The state will sometimes have to clear up and regulation must be about cure as well as prevention. Or governments can aim for safety and opt for dumbed-down financial systems that hobble their economies and deprive their people of the benefits of faster growth. And even then a crisis may strike.
And thus the conclusion: financiers are smarter than governments, thus they will inevitably find devious ways to crash the economy (after making loads of money in the process, of course, a just reward for their "creativity" and "innovation"), thus crises are inevitable. Apparently this applies even if you stunt the financial sector and tolerate to grow slowly (an assertion that is, of course, nowhere backed by facts, and even contradicted by earlier paragraphs of that very article). So one might as well have fast growth in-between, right? And, conveniently, governments should still be there in the bad times to pick up the pieces.
From the financiers, this makes sense:
* they gorge during the boom, and are celebrated for their smarts and innovation when what they are really doing is finding legal ways to loot and rape the rest of us;
* they are helped during the bust (sorry, the stumble), as that is a tolerable price to have bigger booms the rest of the time;
* they are right and deserve all of this because they are rich. That wealth has to mean something.
Vaclav Klaus, a noted "freedom fighter", is one who busily propagates the evil that masquerades as 'neo-liberalism' within the EU by seeking to divide and thus rule it.
In their enthusiasm and political naivety, the anti-EUers and Europhobes have ended up in the arms of some very nasty people. Klaus is one of those busily undermining social-democratic policies in the EU and replacing them with 'neo-liberal' globalist and neocon policies. These are the real danger which in their naivety our Europhobes are missing out on big time.
The Journal quotes the Mont Pelerin Society. Worth more investigation, methinks ...
_________________________________________
So this is what the right-wing rag, The Brussels Journal, has to say about another famous CIA-stooge much loved by George Bush, Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic. He and Vlad Bukovsky make a fine pair.
"The most impressive speech during the recent Regional Meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society* was undoubtedly Czech President Václav Klaus’s 'View from a Post-Communist Country in a Predominantly Post-Democratic Europe.'", says the Brussels Journal in this report:
Quote:
President Klaus spoke last Monday, warning for the new “substitute ideologies of socialism” such as “Europeanism” and “NGOism.” These “isms” are currently threatening Europe. “In the first decade of the 21st century we should not concentrate exclusively on socialism,” he said.
Ah, so now that Vlad and Vaclav think they've dispensed with socialism, they turn to other 'quasi-socialist' ideas like 'Europeanism' and 'NGOism'.
Quote:
Václav Klaus is an indomitable defender of liberty, Europe’s only leader in the mould of the formidable Lady Thatcher.
Well that should give us a hint where the old reactionary is coming from.
Quote:
“Fifteen years after the collapse of communism. I am afraid more than at the beginning of its softer (or weaker) version, of social-democratism, which has become – under different names, e.g. the welfare state or the soziale Marktwirtschaft – the dominant model of the economic and social system of current Western civilization. It is based on big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution.”
So Vaclav is a strong opponent of social-democracy as well. Indeed, he is one of the key conspirators within the EU seeking to undermine EU social democracy and replace it with hard-line neoconservatism.
Quote:
As substitutes of socialism, Václav Klaus cited “environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), the ideology of ‘civic society’ (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society […], multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.”
Mmm, he opposes the Greens, Earth Firsters, feminists, internationalists (and gays no doubt). He sounds like a good Catholic to me with a lot in common with 'Ratty' Ratzinger.
Quote:
He also opposed “excessive government regulation” and “huge subsidies to privileged or protected industries and firms.” He warned that Europe’s social system “must not be wrecked by all imaginable kinds of disincentives, by more than generous welfare payments, by large scale redistribution, by many forms of government paternalism.”
Yes, that's right keep the poor half-starved. It's the only way you can control 'em from breeding.
And these are, according to their self-description, the 'Champions of Democracy'!!!
According to Alexander Cockburn, citing the Financial Times' Martin Wolf, "neoliberalism has collapsed". The Telegraph reports that the Federal Reserve is considering Nordic-style nationalisations. Even New Labour is touting "socialism", albeit north of the border. The Wall Street Journal says:
Quote:
On the Richter scale of government activism, the government's recent actions don't (yet) register at FDR levels. They are shrouded in technicalities and buried in a pile of new acronyms.
But something big just happened. It happened without an explicit vote by Congress. And, though the Treasury hasn't cut any checks for housing or Wall Street rescues, billions of dollars of taxpayer money were put at risk. A Republican administration, not eager to be viewed as the second coming of the Hoover administration, showed it no longer believes the market can sort out the mess.
Are the GOP really getting all Kremlinesque? Leave that to one side for a second. It seems self-evident that the whole mythology has collapsed. Neoliberalism has just not delivered the dynamism that it promised: economic growth, labour productivity and wage growth are all down on the statist-corporatist era of 1945-1970. The 'liberalisation' of financial markets has changed the property structure and increased risks while increasing global turbulence. The growing profile of the financial markets has produced record debt, insane stock market bubbles, and fraud on a massive scale, all adding to the risk in the system. (One market that has benefited dramatically from such turbulence has been securities and post-trade markets, the latter dealing with the clearing and settlement of transactions - one European settlement firm, Euroclear, had an annual turnover of $450 trillion in 2006 alone). Like previous crises such as the 1987 crash that followed swiftly from London's 1986 'Big Bang' of deregulation, there are now widespread calls for tougher regulation. Unlike in previous crises, these could be enduring. Capital and its ideologues are seriously worried.
The US economy is not only tanking, but it is dragging down the dynamic East Asian economy with it. (Although the World Bank expects China and other 'developing' countries to soften the global economic landing). The UK economy is showing worrying signs of turning purple, despite the happy face put on by the Office for National Statistics in its most recent profitability report (pdf). It looks as if the only reason for a slight rise in profit rates recently is that the figures exclude financial corporations from the accounting and include the UK Continental Shelf, which is basically the hydrocarbons producers in the North Sea. High oil prices have dramatically increased profitability in that sector to 49.8% from a mere 25% (approx) in the second quarter of last year. On the other hand, non-UKCS companies have actually experienced a decline. Overall, the combination of high energy profits and lower profits elsewhere has resulted in a slight increase in profitability of 0.1% on the last quarter. That's the happy face. Meanwhile, profits in the financial sector are falling at their fastest rate for five years. The financial services sector could slash 11,000 jobs in response to the credit crunch, the CBI says. Annual house prices are expected to fall for the first time in years, which you could argue is good from the perspective of those who haven't got a lot of money to buy a house - the trouble is that mortgage access is being drastically restricted as well: no more 100% mortgages, not for a long time. The European banking system is being seriously squeezed as the giant Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) and Deutsche Bank announce huge write-downs of debt.
Given all this, is there any sign that the political classes are making a drastic turnaround? Not really. It is true that central bankers are considering strong interventionist measures to bail out the banking system, but this just means socialising the costs and losses incurred by the system while keeping it in private hands or restoring it to the private sector when it gets profitable again. It is exactly what they have always done. I seem to recall a financial columnist claiming to be a free marketeer during the boom and a socialist when things go bust. That about sums up the attitude of the average investor. No long term transformations of orthodoxy are in evidence. For example, this is the Treasury Department's recommendations for a new regulatory system for US finance (pdf). There is noticeably no break with neoliberal orthodoxy, and in some ways it promotes further deregulation for example by reducing the power of the SEC. It seems to be intended to deal with alleged competitive disadvantages faced by Wall Street. For example, the calls for reform in settlement and clearing are obviously a response to the growing consolidation in European settlement and clearing in which the United States is purchasing a growing interest, especially since the New York Stock Exchange acquired the pan-European stock exchange Euronext. And - I simply assume - these proposals have been written in cooperation and following extensive consultation with 'industry leaders'. It has certainly been welcomed by America's leading capitalists. There is zero probability that the regulatory framework of the Glass-Steagall Act, repealed by the Clinton administration in 1999, will be resuscitated in any form; there is no plan for improved welfare or reversing long term privatisation trends; and Bush's stimulus package was "too little, too late" according to Joseph Stiglitz.
The European Union, for its part, is still pushing the agenda it decided upon in Lisbon in 2000 at the height of the dot.com boom, when it declared that thriving financial markets were the best source of a dynamic knowledge-based economy, the best way to allocate resources efficiently and thus the best way to promote the entrepreneurial spirit. Rapid deregulation was accompanied by reduced labour productivity for several years, but recent improvements are now being cited as the basis for continuing the reforms, even though it isn't evident that these have anything to do with what are temporary gains. The EU's internal competitiveness rules continue to be used to erode workers' protections and welfare systems, and the European Commission under the influence of right-wing Irish Fianna Fail politician and internal markets commissioner Charlie McCreevy - a lover of horses, markets, and all things American - is sticking to a 'non-interventionist' orthodoxy (which means intervening on behalf of investors). McCreevy's response to the Northern Rock disaster was to blame excessive transparency in the banking industry. The commissioner is currently considering a complaint by the postal firm TNT against Germany's minimum wage laws, which the company says violates fair competition rules, and at the same time lodging complaints with six EU states over the lack of competition (ie, efficient public sector monopolies) in postal services. There is of course a cleavage in European finance-capital between those who seek to create a pan-European economy with a Franco-German hub, and those Atlanticists who want to gravitate toward Washington via London. This was given recent expression by the announcement that Deutsche Boerse (the operator of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and providor of transaction services) and six other European companies that handle post-trade transactions will be setting up a joint exchange, which will exclude NYSE Euronext and the London Stock Exchange. But they all agree on the need to continue the 'liberalisation' process.
Even if the crisis deepens radically, we will not see any fundamental departures from the orthodoxy unless there is a concomitant rise in class struggle and a rapid revival in the fortunes of the global Left. Those would in principle be likely outcomes. At the moment, however, the big hope for the American liberal-left is a candidate who has done many favours for Wall Street, including voting to limit class action suits against corporations. And the other two candidates are just as bad, and nuts to boot.
The previous writer claims that the EU is a "stepping-stone" to fascism. I disagreed and he replied:
Quote:
You are totally wrong imo Rory, so we will have to agree to disgree on this issue.
Touché, Pikey. Looking at it in a rational, unemotional and unprejudiced way I don't see the EU as different to any other government or nation-state in the capitalist world! I repeat, they are all affected and infiltrated by the fascist forces you describe!
You want to talk seriously about fascism? Ok, let's talk about fascism:
Without a few exceptions given by those such as the leaders of Cuba and Venezuela every single government on this planet by token of its dependence on the IMF, the World Bank and the like, are now implementing 'neo-liberal' economic programmes whose effect is to consolidate fascism in the sense of state-corporate rule, ie that the state is run in symbiosis with big business.
In other words, fascism is the status quo. It's here already. We're living in it!
To continue: the USUK claims to be democratic but has turned Nazi in nature. During the period 1991 (Gulf War I), through Clinton's sanctions to the present, 2008, the USUK Coalition forces have been responsible for the unneccessary deaths of over 8 Million innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan (see figures by Dr Gideon Polya: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11670 put there by Tony, all credit to him)
Eight Million!
This is two million deaths more than the popularly accepted figure of 6 Million deaths by Nazis. Naturally, we hear nothing of this from our Government that is led by a War Criminal and by a complicit MSM full of war criminals and a Nation which, by not actively resisting its government's crimes, has become complicit in war crimes!
See the International Court Criminal Act (UK) 2001. It is no longer enough to claim, "We didn't know!". We do know and we're all part of a huge war crime!
That, is how fascist our society has already become! That is what we should be doing everything to fight against!
Never mind what you call a "stepping-stone" to fascism, wake up! You don't need a stepping stone to get somewhere when you're there already!
Compared to the rule-by-terror that the present UK government is implementing (on direct orders from Bushco in Washington, DC) the little offered us by a much-curtailed Charter of Human Rights (curtailed by our Government!) and access to the European courts where we are treated as citizens, not subjects, affords us a modicum of rights.
God help us all if we ever left the Union and became a tiny rump state of the USA under total police-state control. For that's what we'll get if we leave the EU.
And if the level of thinking about the European issue I read in these columns is anything to go by --unlike that I have heard expressed by all sides in the Dublin Castle Forum debate-- if this is to be understood to be the level of thought nationally then we are already in very deep nonsense.
Before one has a referendum it behoves us all to have a thorough, informed, objective debate, not only about the Lisbon Treaty but about our present parlous state of 'democracy' in Britain. Let's not remain blind, prejudiced hypocrites, fooling ourselves that we live in anything but a feudal state run in their interests by respectably dressed Nazis.
Gordon Brown's give-away Promoting Prosperity Nazi logo, now replaced by something less obvious!:
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: In the UK we are already living in a Fascist, Police-State!
We All Agree about the British Police-State
It may shock certain good folk to wake up to the fact that due to the evolution of capitalism and its take-over by corporate and multi-national interests that we are already living in fascist, police-states.
Fascism is basically about the marriage of big business with the state, Mussolini-style. It's not about Hitler uniforms and goose-stepping soldiers in coal-scuttle helmets (the latter which the USA has adopted curiously enough!). In the early days, Mussolini and even Hitler wore morning suits. It was only after the outbreak of WWII that they regularly wore uniform (and even Churchill began to wear his boiler-suits).
Disturbingly, Common Purpose appear to be adopting fascist attitudes. The fact that it does this by infiltrating various levels of society is extremely disturbing. Brian Gerrish, himself, expresses certain crypto-fascist views when he gets paranoid about what he calls Reds and in attempting to present Common Purpose as a front-organisation for the European Commission! When Gerrish can produce a credible argument with credible proof linking CP with the Commission I'll take him seriously.
Meantime, there is a very interesting convergence of opinion amongst us all which I feel is vitally important to look at. We know that we are all united on the 911 Conspiracy issue (together with similar conspiracies relating to Madrid, Bali, 7/7 and Bombay). We may disagree on the EU issue but, of more immediate concern, is the common threat we see in the growth of the British police-state.
In the 'seventies when Lech Walensa and the Polish unions helped create Solidarnosc (Solidarity) to initially protect Union rights against the State it led to the mushrooming of people's Defence Groups across Poland whose purpose it was to defend the rights of the people against a centralised State apparatus.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: The John Harris Affidavit
The John Harris Affidavit
Having read John Harris' website in more detail, it appears that this Affidavit refers to the EU Lisbon Treaty, although no mention of such is included in the body of the Affidavit.
If it is the case that the Affidavit is meant as an attack on the EU then that makes it part of a campaign that is not so much against the Treaty but the EU itself. That gives it a divisive nature making it impossible for a considerable section of the population to support.
Certainly in my country, Scotland, a party like UKIP will never achieve much support if for no other reason that it supports a Union whose popularity, north of the border is decreasing inexorably. The latest headlines in the Scottish Daily Mail today indicate a further lead for the SNP.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: How the Right are taking Over this Forum
How the Right are taking Over this Forum
I am at a loss for words how those responsible for administrating this Forum have allowed their political bias to overrule impartiality. Not satisfied in using the 911 Truth Forum as a party political vehicle for advertising UKIP, a fringe extreme right political party, the very same people are abusing their power by advertising a meeting by a man whose McCarthyite anti-Communism and Europhobia is no secret.
Mon07Apr - BLACKPOOL - Gerrish - The Subversion Of Society
While this man, Gerrish, has on the one hand appeared to have conducted a revealing investigation into an organisation, Common Purpose, whose methods of infiltrating all levels of society make it at once suspect and meriting investigation he then goes onto make wild accusations about it being Communist in nature and a front-organisation for the "Socialist European Union" (sic).
These accusations have never been substantiated with reliable evidence and when Gerrish's supporters on this Forum are challenged to supply evidence they are, of course, unable to. How can they supply evidence when Gerrish himself has none?
We keep hearing promises from the Gerrish supporters, "wait and see, he has got evidence, he told me so!" Well, the waiting game goes on, no evidence is forthcoming and the 911 Truth columns continue to be used to celebrate an odd little man who, while phobic in the worst manner of McCarthyism, has got clear political sympathies with extreme rightwing, pro-Thatcherite groups like the Freedom Association.
I have exposed Gerrish's extremist connections on this Forum before. But his supporters seem determined to ignore those warnings and continue to proselytise their new-found guru.
I have argued all along that it was an abuse of this forum to allow it to be associated with a political party --an extremist one at that. Now, the very same people after having done so are pushing Brian Gerrish, Britain's would-be Senator McCarthy.
It is very clear to me that this Forum has been taken over by an interest group which, while claiming the most tortuous argument as a justification for doing so, is pushing extremist and right-wing views in the name of freedom and truth. It is an old, old tactic. Hitler knew it well.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject:
The Day of Our Independence draws Closer!
Scottish Daily Mail, Thursday, 10 April 2008
Those of us North of the Border may feel encouraged by a recent Poll showing the growing popularity among Scots for independence and for bringing to an end the present Union.
The latest Poll suggests 41% are for independence and 43% against with 16% undecided. I have long felt that the ratio was more like fifty-fifty with the trend going for independence. The Daily Mail appears to agree by observing that if you factor out the undecided 16% you get a 50%-49% split. While only a Poll it's an encouraging one at that.
Scottish Daily Mail, Thursday, 10 April 2008
Today's Scottish Daily Mail carries it on the front page, Alarm at Growing Threat to the Union!, but as the UK Daily Mail does not believe that we Scots deserve an online edition you won't find it on the Net. Much against the idea of subsidising the Mainstream Media, I forked out 45p just to get hold of the article which I am now typing-up for us all to read.
SNP leaders today hailed a poll which showed support for independence had increased, with two fifths of Scots now in favour of ending the Union.
The survey found 41% of those questioned approved of Scotland becoming independent - only slightly less than the 43% who disapproved of such a move.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the poll put support for independence and the status quo at "neck and neck"
Progressive Scottish Opinion carried out the survey, questioning 1,112 people between April 2 and 8.
The results showed a rise in support for independence compared to a survey carried out by the same firm in August last year.
Then 31% said they backed independence, while 49% were against.
This latest poll suggested support for independence was greatest amongst younger adults and lower earners, with 47% of both 25 to 34 year olds and the C2 socio-economic group giving it their support.
Those in the oldest and youngest age groups were least in favour, with 50% of those aged 65 and over against independence and 48% of those in the 18 to 24 age range also opposed.
And men are marginally more in favour of Scotland becoming independent than women, with 42% of males surveyed supporting this compared to 40% of females.
Ms Sturgeon, also the SNP depute leader, commented: "The poll shows a surge in support for independence of 10 points since last summer, and is now running neck and neck with the status quo.
"It clearly demonstrates that support for equality for Scotland is on the increase, along with the SNP's poll ratings, and is being boosted by our solid record of delivery in office - including freezing the council tax, cutting business rates, abolishing prescription charges, and restoring free education in Scotland.
"As the SNP administration delivers good government in the devolved areas, so we will build the case for Scotland to be governed equally well in all areas."
She also claimed that the "negative attitude" of the UK Government to the Scottish administration was helping increase support for independence.
There have been rows between Holyrood and Westminster over issues such as whether Scotland would keep the money it currently receives in council tax benefit if a local income tax was introduced.
But Ms Sturgeon said: "The more the London Treasury tries to lay down the law to Scotland, the greater the support there will be for independence and equality for Scotland."
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject:
Give England back its Independence!
Treaty of Union between England and Scotland
Amongst all the talk about independence, sovereignty, the truth and a "socialist police state" takeover of Britain by the EU, one thing is always conveniently forgotten. The so-called United Kingdom is already way down on the skids and soon it will cease to be. The days of the Union are almost over and outside some form of military intervention from London the people of Scotland will have their referendum.
Between now and then we can expect more anti-Independence campaigns generated by the south and their local poetasters. And we shouldn't even be surprised to see the intervention of the department of dirty tricks come up with something nasty from their home on the Thames Embankment.
After all, we've seen what they did to Ireland.
Britain's feudally-minded rulers won't give up their rotten old Union easily. They know that it means an end to their dirty class-based game and their vile 'special relationship' with Washington DC. For even were that relationship to morph into something else where Scotland is treated as an equal partner then things could never be the same again.
The hypocrisy of our anti-EUers, UKIP, Brian Gerrish and his British Free Press, the Freedom Association, Gerrish's sister-organisation, and the rest of the rag-tag of McCarthyite right-wingers has been exposed. While they decry the threat to their precious "sovereignty" (what sovereignty and whose?) from a Federal Europe they treat with scorn and hostility the desire of an increasing number of Scots for an end to the Union.
Articles of Union
So we have two laws: one for the English "freedom fighters" who are valiantly defending our shores in another Battle of Britain no less and entirely another for those ungrateful Scots who bite the hand that feeds them (sic) and who are determined to throw a spanner in the works of their grand plan for the New Jerusalem in a renascent Britannia!
Of course, it's all nonsense. How can independence for the English once free from Brussels be good when independence for a Scotland once free from the Union be bad? Seems to me the English national-chauvinists want it both ways.
My suggestion to the Ukippers, the anti-EUers, followers of the Gerrish guru and the like is this: let England have its independence from the EU as well as the Union, let the English pull out of both and see how they manage. Scotland was always a different country so concede to us back our nationhood and let us choose if we wish to continue within a community of nations in the European Union --and, should our people wish it, federal statehood in a future Confederation.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:51 am Post subject:
ALARM AT GROWING THREAT TO THE UNION
by Stuart Nicolson, Scottish Political Editor
Scottish DAILY MAIL, Thursday, 10 April 2008
Growing numbers of Scots now support independence in the greatest ever threat to the Union, it emerged last night. A Scottish Daily Mail poll shows a dramatic surge over recent months in the number of people backing a separate Scotland.
While those backing the Union remain narrowly in the majority, Alex Salmond has succeeded in closing that gap over recent months.
The findings suggest that support for home rule has grown as he enjoys an extended honeymoon as First Minister. The Union is now backed by only a slim majority, according to the poll, which shows that 43% do not want independence. However, 41% do favour a separate Scotland --10% more than when the same question was asked only eight months ago.
Mr Salmond's SNP administration has seized the agenda with a string of eye-catching policies, such as an end to student fees, the abolition of road bridge tolls and the council tax freeze. He has said he wants to hold a referendum on independence in 2010, although the Nationalists will struggle to get the necessary Bill for such a vote through Holyrood.
The main Unionist parties remain opposed to a referendum but Mr Salmond has challenged them to suggest an alternative to independence to put on the ballot paper.
The Daily Mail's opinion poll shows that when the question is a straightforward query, asking people whether they approve or disapprove of Scotland becoming an independent country, the result is poised on a knife edge.
When the 16% of those who said they were unsure are factored out, the Union enjoys only a wafer-thin majority among the remaining 84% who expressed a preference. Only 51% of them favour the Union while 49% back independence.
The poll suggests that the SNP's performance in power at Holyrood has persuaded more people to back independence.
When the same question was asked last August, marking the Nationalists' first 100 days in power, only 31% said they favoured a separate Scotland, with 49% against.
Both polls were conducted by Progressive Scottish Opinion and the latest survey shows that independence enjoys most support among younger adults and lower earners such as skilled workers.
A total of 47% of 25 34-year-olds and of the C2 socio-economic group support a breakaway Scotland. Backing for independence falls to 36% among 55 to 64-year-olds and to only 32% among those aged 65 and above. High earners also remain less convinced by the case for a separate Scotland, with 35% of C1s in favour.
Men are marginally more supportive of independence than women, with 42% and 40% in favour respectively.
The highest disapproval ratings for Scotland going it alone came from high-earning ABs, with 53% against. The oldest and youngest voters were also the most sceptical, with 50% of those aged 65 and and over against, and 48% of those aged 18 to 24 opposed. The area most in favour of independence was the Central region, where exactly 50% backed a separate Scotland.
Tayside was least in favour of separation, on 26%. Tayside was also the most strongly opposed region, with 52% against independence.
The SNP last night seized on the poll as evidence that it was on course to persuade a majority of Scots to go for independence. Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "the poll shows a surge for independence of ten points since last summer and is now running neck and neck."
"It clearly demonstrates that support for equality for Scotland is on the increase, along with the SNP's poll ratings, and is being boosted by our solid record of delivery in office."
"This includes freezing the council tax, cutting business rates, abolishing prescription charges and restoring free education. As the SNP administration delivers good goverment in the devolved areas, so it will build the case for Scotland to be governed equally well in all areas."
She added, "The Poll also indicates that the negative attitude being shown to the Scottish government and Scotland by the UK Labour government --on issues such as threatening to withold council tax benefit and prisons spending-- is getting a strong reaction in Scotland."
"The more the London Treasury tries to lay down the law to Scotland, the greater the support there will be for independence and equality for Scotland. The Unionist parties are running scared of the right of the people to decide Scotland's future in a democratic referendum --and no wonder, on the basis of these figures. The other parties are deeply split on the issue and are finding it impossible to justify, refusing the people of Scotland that democratic right."
Polling expert Professor John Curtice, of Strathcyde University, described the findings as an 'interesting straw in the wind'. But Labour and the Tories both played down the significance of the poll. Senior Labour MSP Jackie Baillie said: "This is out of line with all other recent polls. Consistent long-term polling has shown support for independence to be as low as a quarter of the electorate.."
"What Scots want is to walk tall in the Union, not to walk out."
A Scottish Tories spokesman said: "The task for the SNP is simple -- win a majority at an election and have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, then it can press the separatist case. Until then, let's get on with making devolution work."
The poll questioned 1,112 adults across Scotland. Interviews were conducted by telephone between April 2 and April 8 with people living in all Holyrood constituencies.
The results come only days after a YouGov survey showed Labour is losing more ground to the Nationalists. That poll put the SNP on 40 points for Holyrood's constituency vote, 8% ahead of Labour.
Earlier this week Mr Salmond predicted that Scotland would become independent in his lifetime. He said: "Wendy Alexander said I wouldn't become First Minister in my wildest dreams. The forecasting powers of my opponents are not fantastic and, yes, I believe I will see independence in my lifetime."
"A lot of people believe the guff about the economy --that Scotland is a poor, wee dependent place. In fact, Scotland is potentially one of the richest countries on the planet. If we become independent next week, we would be the third most prosperous country in Europe."
At the weekend, former Labour First Minister Henry McCleish backed SNP plans for an independence referendum in 2010. In an interview published yesterday, he said: "The issue has to be resolved at some point with a referendum."
Left Actors and the European Social Model. In June, the European Commission opened the pilot phase of the upcoming European Political Foundations by issuing a public call for projects which have to be submitted to the Commission by September.
Left Actors and the European Social Model
In June, the European Commission opened the pilot phase of the upcoming European Political Foundations by issuing a public call for projects which have to be submitted to the Commission by September.
Responding to the call of the E.C., Transform! and the European Left Party (EL) will submit a project proposal under the title “Left Actors and the European Social Model”.
The orientation underlying the proposal is the conviction that to cope with the new political challenges presented by the neoliberal restructuring of capitalist societies, the left must come to terms with at least five aspects of the new reality:
a) the increasingly clearer globalisation of the social question and its objective link with the problem of ecology
b) the imposition of a crisis-ridden new worldwide type of capitalism with new structures and power relations;
c) the revolution in the world of work caused by new technologies, which makes new demands on the subjects, feminisation of the labour force, changes in the labour markets, social fragmentation, chronic mass unemployment as well as the growing precariousness of work and conditions of life;
d) the world-wide migratory flows that also affect the developed capitalist countries and lead to permanent social, political and cultual changes there;
e) the emergence of new social movements particularly involving the young generation and developing from the critique of globalisation. The new actors emerging from these movements are articulating new social demands, which offer challenges to traditional groups of the left.
In other words, we have to reach out to a newer, more integrated view of society, one that incorporates gender equality, democracy and the ecological dimension.
This entails a number of questions, e.g.: what are the main proposals of key left actors for dealing with the contradictions between the social and the ecological question, how are they related to the interests of concrete social subjects and what is the interplay between the national and the European level of politics.
The kind of institutional restructurings that are needed result from the demand for consistent gender equality in all social sectors, for social equality between citizens with or without immigrant background, for overcoming social exclusion, social splits and territorial disparities. In reaction to this challenge, what were the institutional changes in the social security systems that the different social states made, and what were the results? What political consequences in terms of labour, social and health policy result from society’s aging process and the opening up of borders to immigration.
Developing the Common Project
In the first stages of research only a few of these questions will be selected as the basis of analysis. Despite its financial and temporal limitation, the project is to be understood as a starting point of a complex long-term research on European social policies, which however is also intended to furnish practically useful results:
• a data-based documentation of programmes, platforms and political proposals issued by key actors of the left on the national level (parties, trade unions, social movements, women’s
movements etc.) as well as on the European level;
• a comparative content analysis of these texts according to a set of selected questions that identify existing political convergences and diverging points;
• a seminar to summarise and document the results of the research work and to propose guidelines for its continuation.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: EL calls for a Europe without NATO
EL calls for a Europe without NATO
The outcome of the NATO summit in Bucharest reveals the deep disruption of the transatlantic alliance. While the Bush-administration tried to continue it’s inconsiderate approach towards integration of the Ukraine and Georgia, some European countries were clearly opposing this procedure.
The Party of the European Left supports the suspension of the decision. We refuse not only the extension of the NATO because of its non-predictable implication for global stability, but the NATO in general. Especially the European relations with Russia would suffer. The European Left disapproves the decision to push forward the expansion on the Balkans because this would pave the way to transform every corner of Europe into a NATO base.
The existence of the NATO hasn’t been justified for almost twenty years now. The Treaty of Warsaw was dissolved and the same should have happened to its Western counterpart. The European Left stands for a peaceful Europe. In contrast to our position, the NATO is leading a war against Afghanistan and promotes an expanding militarism all across Europe. Even if the new Afghanistan-strategy is taking into consideration the hesitation of the most convinced supporters who are forced to think over an exit strategy for ISAF, they keep track of further military build-up. We reject this: it does not make any sense and will be another step into the wrong direction.
The majority of the population in the member states is opposing the military alliance. The European Left will continue to show the negative effects that the policy of the NATO is having in consequence. The call for its dissolution is prevalent and will not ease off.
The European Left opposes the policy of solving conflicts by using military forces and calls for a Europe without a NATO. The only viable prospect for the 21st century is one defined by peace. We support the strengthening of the UN in order to allow global security that is suited for the challenges of our time.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject:
Yeah NATO should be scrapped.
Because of the huge US military input to it by the US, compared with relatively small contributions form other countries, even from Britain, which is I believe the second largest military spender with our taxes, it amounts to a means of Washington's military domination.
But will people in Britain be prepared to campaign for its demise? They seem far more fearful of domination by bureaucrats in Brussels, or by non-English-speaking "foreigners" on the continent, than by the agents of US imperial control, and appear to have no interest in making the Brussels Commission answerable to the people.
Many years ago I took my octogenarian Auntie Greta to Paris. She was a painter and particularly wanted to see French impressionist paintings close up. After the journey I went for a rest in my hotel room, but she went for a walk and found a cafe where they would serve her a good old English cup of tea. In the cafe she fell into conversation with an American woman who told her that she had just arrived from the States but her luggage had not. Apparently it had in error been sent on to Tel Aviv. She had flown on El Al.
"Wasn't she silly," said Auntie Greta, "Not to have flown on an English or American airline where that would never have happened?"
On another occasion Auntie Greta spotted on my bookshelf a book named "The Fall of the British Empire".
"The Fall of the British Empire!" she exclaimed. Oh! That would be dreadful. I hope that never happens."
I was unable to convince her that it had already happened.
Such innocent attitudes die hard in England. The faith in the superiority of English-speaking people, particularly the white ones, surely has much to do with the tendency to blame Brussels for our misfortunes and to neglect addressing the autocratic military hold that the US has over us.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject:
Yes, Xmasdale, I despair at the low quality of debate there is on this Forum in regard to an issue that is of such great importance to us all. It was for that reason that I opened this thread in the Scotland Group. But there appears to be little interest in it overall.
I think this lack of interest is an accurate reflection of national apathy. The only group that expresses concern is what I call the Little Englanders or national chauvinists characterised by people like Brian Gerrish and the right-wing organisations they represent such as the Freedom Association, the Campaign for an Independent Britain, the Democracy Movement, UKIP and similar.
The Right-Wing, Reactionary Nature of Gerrish & His Fellow-Travellers
The Freedom Association (FA) is peopled mainly by extreme Right Tories and is currently chaired by the Tory MEP, Roger Helmer, who was the guest at the videoed Leicester meeting where Gerrish spoke. Not many readers here will recall that the FA took an active part in union-busting during the days of Maggie Thatcher. One of its founders, I believe, was also in the CIA-led Campaign for Cultural Freedom (CCF).
Clearly the FA has a hard-Right agenda. What concerns me about Gerrish is to hear him talk about Reds attempting to take over Britain through Common Purpose and to hear him describe the latter as "the Communist Party of the EU"! I understand that Gerrish's daughter was involved in CP after which her mental health deteriorated. This may have motivated Gerrish to take up cudgels against the CP.
What alarms me, though, is when he starts ranting about the CP being some sort of front organisation for the EU (presumably he means the Commission) and when challenged is unable to provide the smallest scrap of evidence to bear out his allegations. What I have detected in Gerrish, moreover, is a ruthless streak which he aims not only against CP but against Socialism, Communism and the European Union.
He admits that as an ex-Royal Navy man he has no compunction about treating the enemy quite ruthlessly. What concerns me is not so much how he treats his enemy but how he seeks to indoctrinate his audiences by the use of a crude form of subliminal sleight-of-hand!
I have studied many of his videos carefully and observe him doing this over and over again. For example he will begin an introduction to explain the way that CP works, then he introduces a highly emotive illustration on screen and follows it up by associating CP with the EU suggesting, in not so many words, that CP is a front for the EU (meaning presumably the Commission). Into this he throws the alarmist idea that Britain is under attack by some kind of unseen force which as the audience soon discover is the CP working for the EU to introduce what he calls a "socialist police state"!
The audience, mostly middle-aged and middle-class of the Daily Mail readership variety, lap up this stuff with gusto. One or two of the blue-rinse brigade stand up and mutter about revolution. A man with a plummy southern accent vents his spleen. It's all quite disgraceful and ungodly. Britain is being taken over by satanists, children's books are intended to indoctrinate them into obeying the EU, art is corrupting (a la Mary Whitehouse), councillors have made death threats against his crusading and so on.
I'm tempted to think I'm dealing with a bitter little man suffering from an Adolf Hitler syndrome, ie. while being psychotic is able to influence and magnetise others with his psychosis. Perhaps he encapsulates a mass psychosis which is affecting us all today? Certainly, Gerrish capitalises on the Fear Factor to move his audience.
He tells us that when he talks to young folk about the threat from Europe they express apathy. But then he tells them that if they don't heed this threat they're all going to die. At this point these gullible youngsters become alarmed and start listening to him! Well, who wouldn't?
Gerrish uses innuendo, alarmism and McCarthyite techniques to get into the minds of his audience. Some of these he might have learnt during his Navy training. His talks are loaded with negative emotion and calculated to appeal to conspiracy theorists. It's no wonder that he is so popular on this Forum peopled as it is by 57 flavours of 911 theory!
What concerns me is that these witch-hunters are organising themselves into a much larger group of negative thinking reactionaries who are addressing society through the internet. A lot of gullible people are being attracted to his version of conspiracy: England is under attack! Our sovereignty is under threat from the foreign enemy!
Never once is there an attempt to look at the meaninglessness of a sovereignty which for so long now has been under sustained attack by our own domestic rulers! Never once is the destructive nature of the USUK Alliance put into question (What? By an ex-RN officer? No, only ex-Luftwaffe generals make that sort of criticism!).
The Shire is under attack by the dark forces of Mordor. Now is the time for all true-blue patriots to take up their cudgels against the traitors! Threaten them, call them liars in public, terrorise them and see them wilt before you!
What alarms me is that this is the same sort of paranoid scape-goating technique used by Hitler to rouse the Germans against the Traitors of Versailles. Surely, Gerrish must realise that he comes over as a petty bourgeois social fascist? Maybe not, when people warned Basil Fawlty about the strange way he was walking his reply was to hit Manuel from Barcelona very hard over the head!
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject:
Britain's Pound Falls to 80 Pence Per Euro on Housing Slump
By Stanley White and Lukanyo Mnyanda http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aGSrA736fthM&refer =uk
April 9 (Bloomberg) -- The pound weakened to 80 pence per euro for the
first time after U.K. consumer confidence slid to the lowest in almost four years, boosting speculation the Bank of England will cut interest rates tomorrow.
Britain's currency also declined to a six-week low versus the dollar after HBOS Plc said yesterday the average cost of a home fell the most since 1992 as banks curbed mortgage lending due to a lack of confidence in credit markets. The central bank will lower its main rate a quarter-point to 5 percent, according to 50 of 61 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
"We have a reasonably pessimistic view on the currency,'' said David Forrester, a currency economist at Barclays Capital Inc. in Singapore. "We expect house prices to weaken further and that will encourage more rate cuts. Falling house prices might have a negative impact on consumption.''
The pound dropped to 80 pence per euro, the lowest level since the 15-nation currency's 1999 inception, before trading at 79.93 pence by 7:44 a.m. in London, from 79.77 pence late yesterday. It has declined almost 9 percent versus the European currency this year.
Britain's currency also weakened to $1.9650, the lowest level since Feb. 26, before trading at $1.9681 from $1.9697. It may fall to $1.93 at the end of this year, Forrester forecast.
Consumer Confidence
Nationwide Building Society said its index of consumer confidence declined 1 point to 77, the least since it began publishing the monthly gauge in May 2004. The result is based on a survey of 1,204 people conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres between Feb. 18 and March 20, Britain's fourth-biggest mortgage lender said in an e-mailed statement today.
House prices fell 2.5 percent in March, according to data from HBOS, the U.K.'s biggest mortgage lender. Economists had forecast a 0.3 percent decline, according to the median of 12 estimates in a Bloomberg survey.
Abbey, the U.K. unit of Spain's Banco Santander SA, became the latest major British lender to withdraw its 100 percent or deposit-free mortgage today amid spiraling money-market borrowing costs. Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Co-Operative Financial Services and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. are among other lenders to withdraw deals or raise rates in the past week.
Financial losses stemming from the U.S. subprime-mortgage collapse may approach $1 trillion, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday, citing a "collective failure'' to predict the breadth of the crisis.
'Under Pressure'
"There is now speculation that some members of the BOE may vote for a larger half-percentage-point easing,'' BNP Paribas SA analysts led by Hans-Guenter Redeker wrote in a research note dated yesterday. ``We expect sterling to remain under pressure.''
The pound may fall as low as 80.80 pence per euro, the report said, without providing a time frame.
The implied yield on the sterling interest-rate futures contract due December fell to 4.86 percent yesterday, from 4.89 percent, on expectations of lower borrowing costs. It has declined 25 basis points in the past two weeks.
Last week's Nato summit in Bucharest was presented to us as a return to the fold for the French under President Sarkozy and an acceptance by the US of a greater defence role for the European Union.
The Americans have wanted European countries to play a greater role in defence for some time. But there are serious risks in the implications for Nato of the Lisbon Treaty - the European Constitution by any other name - which have received too little attention.
advertisement
So let me be clear what we are talking about. This Treaty proposes giving the EU a defence capability that will duplicate many of the functions of Nato. Worse, it will potentially compete with, rather than complement, Nato. We had a total of three hours' debate on this most crucial issue during the passage of the Treaty through the House of Commons and no chance at all to debate a single one of the defence amendments.
Why does this matter? It matters because I believe that Nato, which has been the cornerstone of our defence for 60 years, should continue to have primacy. I believe that the transatlantic bonds with the United States and Canada should not be weakened. It is largely the Americans and Canadians who are fighting and dying with British troops on the frontline in Afghanistan while, with a few honourable exceptions, notably the Dutch, the majority of our EU partners do not. As David Cameron said at Chatham House last week, Atlanticism is in his DNA and in the DNA of the Conservative Party.
EU integrationists have slowly been constructing institutions to build an EU defence identity by duplicating Nato institutions - planning cells, an EU military staff, a European Defence Agency (concerned with issues such as procurement), the European Rapid Reaction Force and then the Battlegroup concept. The European Security and Defence Identity became the European Security and Defence Policy - a telling change of name.
None of these have expanded European military capability, led to increased military spending or given the EU more "teeth" when it comes to executing policy decisions.
The Lisbon Treaty is likely to (and may be designed to) encourage deeper defence integration at the expense of Nato. The treaty creates the Solidarity Clause - a mutual defence commitment that obviously duplicates Nato's Article V. There is no mention of Nato's right of first refusal or Nato's primacy for all military missions pertaining to European security. It means that we have to give a security guarantee to every EU member - irrespective of their commitment to their own, or our, defence.
The creation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation clause in the Treaty is defence integration by stealth and will damage Nato. Pierre Lellouche, a member of the French parliament and a spokesman for Nicolas Sarkozy's party, the UMP, made clear France will push Permanent Structured Cooperation to the limit and create a six-nation "hard core" of EU members who want to further EU defence integration and establish an EU pillar in Nato.
This is absolutely unacceptable.
There are also problems with democratic legitimacy. Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, qualified majority voting will now be applied to three areas pertaining to defence: the appointment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (aka foreign minister), the selection of EU members who will participate in the Permanent Structured Cooperation clause, and certain aspects of the European Defence Agency.
Furthering the democratic deficit in the EU, the new role of High Representative - who will also be the head of the European Defence Agency - will serve as a vice-president in the Commission and have a right of initiative for proposing military operations. This will bring supranationalism into EU defence planning for the first time. Consequently, foreign and defence policy in the EU will not longer be strictly intergovernmental.
It all sounds technical, arcane and dull. But it matters. Conservatives have always been happy for the EU to have a delivery role in defence policy under the Nato umbrella. This is what we had under the so-called Berlin- plus arrangement where EU nations took the lead where the United States could not, or would not, get involved. But we need to have Nato primacy and there is no mention of this in the Lisbon Treaty. Equally, there are a number of areas such as peacekeeping and training where the EU can play a useful role.
Britain cannot have two best friends when it comes to defence - Nato and the EU. A Conservative government will not weaken our transatlantic bonds. We will continue to choose Nato and cannot support the provisions of this Treaty that will damage Nato while deepening defence integration by stealth. Those who share our views need to wake up to this reality. Gordon Brown can break his word and deny the British people the say they were promised in a referendum. The issues will not go away. The Conservative party won't let them.
"Naturally little-British nationalists - of the left as well as the right variety - object to the draft virtually as a matter of principle. They loath everything European, fear any further loss of sovereignty and want to keep the pound in perpetuity.
Revolutionary socialists and communists would, of course, make a big political mistake if they merely echoed the objections of the nationalists. Our movement also surrenders its political independence whenever it indulges in the sterile politics of automatically saying ‘no’ when the incumbent government says ‘yes’.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject:
The discrediting of Westminster politicians such as Michael Martin etc etc etc is clearly designed to make the fascist EU seem more attracive.
Anyone who falls for the ruse is a moron or a fascist.
There's just no kind way to put it.
Why should a United States of Europe controlled by a handful of politicians be any less corrupt that 12 sovereign systems controlled by thousands of politicians?
The answer is of course that it won't.
Though the UK has been part of what is today the European Union for over 35 years the people of this country --and in particularly in England-- have never been very enthusiastic about a united Europe or what is known on the Continent as the European Project.
As the European Project has developed and evolved, bringing into it more and more countries, there has, at the same time, grown an increasing feeling of concern amongst some Europeans that the increasing centralisation of power to Brussels is a threat to their respective national identities. The rejection in Holland and France of the proposed European Constitution reflected, at least in part, that concern.
It wasn't the whole story by any means. Those on the Left were equally if not more concerned about the effect of the neo-liberal economics adopted by the Commission over the last eight years which have superseded its old social-democratic policies. The Commission was not entirely to blame for this coup from the Right for it was merely reflecting the policies filtering down to it from its Council of Ministers and its unelected Round Table of Industry which plays such a major role in policy-making. The Council and the Round Table in their turn reflect the 'neo-liberal' policies being laid down by diktat via large financial organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
But by the time this sea-change in economic and social policy manifested itself at the grassroots of European society it was seen, understandably, as a threat to the national way of life associated with an ever-more centralised and distant Brussels eurocracy.
This has led to a resurgence of nationalist reaction in certain EU countries and never more so than in the traditionally insular island-nation that is the United Kingdom. A similar reaction appears to be taking place in Eire which from having been an enthusiastic partner in Europe during the days of industrial boom has, it appears, to have gone sour on the idea when boom turned into recession. Was the old Irish enthusiasm for the European Project never more than opportunistic? And in that sense was Britain's decision to join the EEC and to remain in it based more on popular feelings of anxiety and insecurity than on any real enthusiasm for European unity?
Faced with the collapse of 'neo-liberal' capitalism and something even more fundamentally serious pointing to the culmination of a Kondratieff Cycle, no less, Europe along with the rest of the Planet is facing a time of re-evolutionary change. During such a time everything goes up into the air and especially old, unresolved business. The current upsurge of a proto-fascist nationalism in countries like the UK are very much part of this phenomenon.
The emerging nationalism is characterised by being both of the Left and the Right and within it is to be found a chauvinist, if not quite racist, undercurrent that is fuelled by opportunist social fascists who whip-up paranoia among the more gullible of an attack on society by unseen or undefined forces. This idea is particularly a favourite of the middle-aged 'grey revolutionaries' who see their comfortable and relatively secure way of life under threat in a country like Britain which is undergoing a downward slide in its quality of living, entirely predictable as, at least in part, being the result of its post-imperial hangover.
The British people never came to terms with themselves as to their new sense of post-imperial identity. Alf Garnett-style chauvinism was portrayed to look rightly ridiculous. Al Murray's Happy Hour followed the tradition of self-parody but in a disturbingly ambivalent manner where you can never be quite sure whether he's really taking the piss out of British xenophobia or not.
Alf Garnett, the Quintessential Bigot
But it's true and there's no point in trying to side-step the issue. Despite or due to an influx of immigration, Britain remains an insular and xenophobic culture. Years ago this was explained to me by a Dutch-woman with whom I was discussing the peculiarly British sense of insularity and superiority. "It's quite natural," she said, "and only to be expected from an island nation. People who live on islands are more wary of outsiders."
Well, I think that she had a good point but her explanation could not account for the totally unfounded sense of superiority/inferiority that, despite all the changes, lies at the heart of the British make-up together with a stubborn monolingual outlook which when challenged invariably is met with the retort, "Everyone else speaks English so why should we bother to speak their language?" Which entirely misses the point: the reason why we might bother to learn another's language is really more from a curiosity to learn about other people, their cultures and way of thinking and living. As a nation, we in Britain don't much care for that.
Until recently, that singular and self-congratulatory attitude could be attributable to a natural sense of superiority inculcated in the British mind by centuries of imperialist, Kiplingesque values. Britannia could do no wrong in the manner in which she ruled. But that sense of innate superiority took a thorough bashing some decades ago, leaving the average Brit confused and without any sense of national identity with which to replace the old myth.
The present attempt by British politicians to make new citizens swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and Country and the like comes not so much from a sense of innate superiority of the old kind but of a terrible feeling of insecurity and panic that the traditional tapestry of British culture, whatever that was, has become so moth-eaten that it's coming apart at the seams. The last straw, it was perceived, was the fake threat of Islamisation --deliberately created as an ideological weapon by Washington's neocons-- which has given vent to a deep vein of racism and national insecurity that runs through the British psyche.
Islamophobia, however, is not something peculiar to the social fascist attitudes of the British middle-classes and what used to be thought of as the lower or working-classes. It runs right across the nominally Christian cultures of Europe, North America and Australia and has something to do with the collision between a White and predominantly non-White culture and worldview. The danger, though, is that it stokes up all the old anti-semitic traditions of western Christianity which we are seeing now re-presented in a different form under the pretence of an entirely spurious 'War on Terror'. This so-called clash of cultures was deliberately stoked-up in order to justify the new imperialism of the United States and its ever-willing sidekick, the UK government.
Combined with the insecurity and confusion caused by a changing world all this coagulates in the British mind to look as if it really is under a terrible attack from outside. Rather than any attempt at self-analysis, the fear is then projected outwards to be seen as a threat from beyond our borders. It's immigrants, it's coloureds, it's Islamic terrorists, it's the Eurocrats who are determined to subvert and change our lives. They're going to take away our freedoms and turn us into "a socialist state" as one of the more notable scare-mongers of the Right presently doing the circuit, Mr Brian Gerrish, would have it. And not only that says Mr Gerrish, who is in a habit of terrifying young people with the story, but "they're out to kill you!"
Gerrish reminds me of a bitter old man who picks on children to terrify them with his horror stories. It's a kind of power trip which today would normally be met with ridicule or reported to the police as harassment or worse. But Gerrish is talking about the EU, not nasty serial-killers. And kids will believe that stuff because it sounds like a juicy conspiracy theory. Not only kids but perfectly grown-up adults who like nothing else but a conspiracy to get off on and wet their libido. In a blame culture such as ours conspiracies abound. It's easy to blame others for the state of denial in which we stubbornly remain.
And there's the rub. For it was precisely out of a similar blame culture in the German Weimar Republic that Adolf Hitler rose to power, not through a coup but the ballot-box. If ever there was an example of the imperfections of democracy that had to be it. It was easy to blame all the problems of Weimar Germany on the treachery of the Allies in the Hall of Versailles. Just as it is easy to blame the miseries of contemporary Britain on immigrants, Muslims and the EU. What is not so easy is to look at ourselves honestly and to ask ourselves what it was we did as a nation that got ourselves into the state we are today. For to do so means coming out of denial. It means facing up to some unpleasant truths about ourselves and our past and accepting responsibility for it all.
It means an accepting of our own accountability for events. No more passing the buck, no more blame-culture, no more nationalist chauvinism. It means growing-up as a culture, a society and a nation. It's nothing less than our part in an evolutionary challenge that the entire human race now faces. And in Britain it's the challenge we face within the character of things as we find them. And part of our challenge is to decide whether we choose an inward-looking separation from the rest of the world or an acceptance that the world has moved on and it's time we moved with it.
Up to now, the controversy about Europe has been polarised deliberately between the centralists of the Eurocracy and the nationalists who loathe the idea of European union to be somehow a threat to their imaginary, domestic Utopias. Whilst the current reality within the countries of Europe is really about whether or not to accept a Constitution masquerading as a Treaty this is being presented to the British public in a characteristically dishonest manner by the Europhobic nationalists as a call for withdrawal.
Nothing could be further from the truth! No one, other than the minority of nationalists who are out to destroy and impose their own tyrannies, is talking about leaving the European Union. What is being hotly debated, and rightly so, is the kind of Europe that we its people would wish to see created. That, for example, is what the admirable Dublin Castle Forum and the national debate surrounding it in Eire is all about.
And clearly, as the video below shows, the Europarliament is very far from being the toothless, mishappen creature it is so often made to seem by those who have no real love of European democracy. We should be supporting, not sneering at it:
But tell that to the nationalists --by nationalists I mean that motley group of Left and Right we find in Britain today-- and you are met with a vacant silence. They have no reply and for good reason. The nationalist view is, as always, one that is founded on untruths and convenient fictions. The Little-British nationalists of both the Left and the Right are really not interested in debate. They don't want to know the truth about the Dublin Castle Forum debate. They just want out. And anyone who dares to question their intolerance is straightaway denounced as some form of traitor or saboteur!
This unhappy band of nationalists are no more than spoilt grown-ups who insist on having everything their own way. While accusing others of intolerance and fascism they are quite unable to see that all they are doing is to project their own inner demons on the rest of us. God help us if these people were ever to gain any real position of power!
It is often said that Britain today is a place of angry people. Given the form of misgovernment and abuse we have to suffer from our collectively corrupt and opportunist politicians who, in all fairness, can do nothing more than to rearrange the deckchairs on the sinking Titanic of capitalism, it's hardly surprising that we should be angry. We are treated in the most disgraceful manner by a secretive and feudal-minded clique of rulers who are determined that the very last thing we should have, and even then God forbid, is anything vaguely resembling a true, representative and accountable democracy.
But it is not just anger, which channelled properly can become a most effective tool for creative change. It is something far worse. It is intolerance all dressed-up in disguise like the wolf after Little-Red-Riding-Hood. And the nationalists, always quick to smell the toxins that anger and intolerance give off, have been very quick to jump in and stir the poisoned cesspit to their advantage. The Gerrish's, the Freedom Associations and their ilk don't fool me. I've been in this game too long. But they are fooling a lot of good but gullible folk --and now particularly among the younger generations. And that is when I say, Basta! Enough!
What has happened to the tolerant, liberal-minded society we Brits so prided ourselves on? What exactly is it in our own mental make-up --never mind others, just leave them out for now please-- that has made us angry and intolerant? Just what has replaced our famed liberal-mindedness with a form of insidious social fascism? For it is this malaise upon which the Little-British nationalists feed upon like vultures.
So, enough! It is time for those of the middle-path to regain the high ground. It is time that good democrats in this country understand the need for and partake in a Campaign for a Democratic Europe. For it is in such a campaign that our collective future lies as a European people, not in some retrogressive return to a past that never was of the kind that our nationalists peddle. The battle between democracy and tyranny is once more astride the stage and we are all actors in this drama whether we admit it or not.
We are truly at a critical moment, not just in Europe but everywhere across this Planet. You could look at it almost as a battle between the forces of Progress and Retrogression. In every sphere, whether it be in our personal, subjective world or in our outward, collective experience we are faced with this evolutionary challenge. In the political world, it is very much another step along the road of democracy versus tyranny.
And in the theatre we find ourselves in on this Planet, the place we know as Europe, the struggle is on. It is but a natural part of the political evolution of a united Europe. I appeal to all fellow-Europeans and Britons, do not allow yourselves to return to the darker days of national revanchism and chaos. To paraphrase Hermann Hesse's, Blick ins Chaos, there exists for us today a window of opportunity, a view through chaos, which we have no real choice but to set our sights on and fly courageously through! _________________ One Planet - One People - One Destiny http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com http://eurodemocrats.blogspot.com/ http://x09.eu/splash/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK_FREE_UNIVERSITY/
Last edited by Rory Winter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:12 am; edited 13 times in total
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:34 am Post subject:
Quote:
Anyone who falls for the ruse is a moron or a fascist.
There's just no kind way to put it.
My dear Tony, I think you'll find most of the answers to your fevered questions in my essay above. Please read & inwardly digest (if that is at all feasible for a Little-British nationalist).
Quote:
The discrediting of Westminster politicians such as Michael Martin etc etc etc is clearly designed to make the fascist EU seem more attracive.
And by the way, who exactly is slagging off Mr Martin on this Forum, mmm?
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:37 am Post subject:
Owch! he called me a nationalist.
Actually I'm a democrat young fellah me lad and you're clearly not.
This is a bit of a crude tactic Rory, posting multiple massive chunks of text and not enaging in any discussio about the fascist nature of the EU
I thought I made quite a good point there about it being much easier for fascists to control us and the rest of Europe through the EU than through Westminster or individual national parliaments.
Didn't you?
TonyGosling wrote:
The discrediting of Westminster politicians such as Michael Martin etc etc etc is clearly designed to make the fascist EU seem more attracive.
Anyone who falls for the ruse is a moron or a fascist.
There's just no kind way to put it.
Why should a United States of Europe controlled by a handful of politicians be any less corrupt that 12 sovereign systems controlled by thousands of politicians?
The answer is of course that it won't.
The good news though is that the EU can never work - unless it's main objective is to foment Civil War across the continent.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:14 am Post subject:
You keep on repeating the same meaningless phrases ad nauseam, Tony. My purpose of opening this thread was to encourage intelligent, analytical discussion and not the kind of yah-boo Sun mentality stuff that you and the others indulge in.
You may consider yourself to be all the the wonderful things you advertise yourself to be but at the end of the day your intolerance and arrogance shows through. Read the definition given by the CPGB above. And if the hat fits then wear it. It's very clear that your refusal to discuss this issue in an intelligent and unemotional manner is because you have no wish to do so. As you have suggested elsewhere, your essentially nationalist views are right & everyone else is wrong.
Clearly you haven't read what I have written elsewhere. Otherwise you wouldn't keep parroting the same inanities. So I propose to ignore you from now on until I see a marked improvement in your preparedness to discuss the issue in a rational and civilised manner.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: All-European Referendum
To all those who believe along with our illustrious Administrator that I am "a fascist moron" please see the file below. As a committed European democrat I find no difficulty in signing the all-European call for a Lisbon Treaty Referendum. As well as this I wholeheartedly applaud the revolt in the Europarliament as shown in the video above.
All this fits perfectly in line with my call for a Campaign for a Democratic Europe and in no way compromises my aspirations for a democratic, federal Europe of sovereign, federated states.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
