View Full Version : Tony stabs the EU Constitution in the back?
Very important news on the political developments that shall have a big impact on the future EU military and political issues. Has Tony stabbed the EU constitution in the back? How do U think?
Yesterday presented polls in UK show that about 53% of Britons would vote NO, circa 16% YES, remaninig part haven't decided yet....
BTW could You please try to summarize the commentaries on this UK's govt decision in Your countries?
EU vote comes under pro-Euro fire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3644293.stm
Lord Heseltine branded the decision irresponsible
Tony Blair's U-turn on holding a referendum on the EU constitution is facing attack from top pro-Europeans.
Ex-Tory cabinet minister Michael Heseltine said the vote would spark a spread of Eurosceptic "scare stories".
And EU commissioner Neil Kinnock said a "no" vote could be "destabilising" for Britain's place in Europe.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw denied the government was "running scared". He told BBC Newsnight ministers had listened to voters' concerns.
Watchdog holds the rulebook
Mr Straw revealed that the decision was confirmed at the weekend but had been debated for some time.
He said it had not been possible to delay the announcement until Thursday "so it could have been formally discussed in Cabinet".
Mr Straw said it was inevitable for the government to face criticism for changing its mind.
But he said "myths" about the constitution were increasingly dominating the debate and the referendum would allow public suspicions about a European super state to be dispelled.
"It is not a question of running scared at all," he said.
"If you are in democratic politics, you have to take account of what people are thinking and you have to keep listening to people and parties which don't do that fail badly."
'No resignations'
Mr Straw said it was possible the vote could be held before the next general election, although that is thought unlikely.
He insisted a "yes" vote on approving the constitution could be won, denying that defeat would force the prime minister to resign.
Although it had the wider implications, he said the question on the ballot paper would be something like: "Do you want Britain to ratify this treaty or not?"
But former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Heseltine said Mr Blair's capitulation showed he was losing control as he "floundered" over Iraq.
Provided the treaty embodies the essential British positions, we shall agree to it
Calling the decision "irresponsible", he told Newsnight: "We will have the most appalling scare stories and gross exaggerations.
"Rupert Murdoch [owner of the Sun and Times newspapers] will decide what Britain should think and what Britain should be told."
Former Labour leader Mr Kinnock said Mr Blair had plumped for a referendum because of "political circumstances".
He told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: "What could be destabilising, and grievously so, is a 'No' vote, that we were putting in question our engagement in the Europe defined by the shape of the constitutional treaty."
Keeping key vetoes
Other pro-European campaigners, however, see the vote as a chance to give the public a more balanced view of the EU.
Opponents of the constitution warn that it paves the way for a European super state.
But ministers insist they will keep the British veto on key powers.
After months of denying the need for a vote, the prime minister on Tuesday conceded it was time to "let the people have a final say" on the constitution.
The "unrelenting" hostile campaign about Europe had been partially successful and had to be confronted, he argued.
"Let the issue be put, let the battle be joined," he said.
Conservative leader Michael Howard ridiculed the change of heart.
And he demanded the vote be held soon after EU leaders agree a constitution, instead after it getting Parliament's approval, as ministers want.
"How can the prime minister say: 'Trust the people, not just yet?'"
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said the vote announcement gave an opportunity at last to "settle an issue that has bedevilled two generations of politicians".
He hoped there would be a "unloaded, unbiased question" and appealed for the government to re-establish a strong cross-party pro-European campaign group.
"Those of a Eurosceptic or hostile disposition have been allowed far too much of the running," added Mr Kennedy.
STEPS TO A REFERENDUM
Constitution expected to be agreed in June
Parliamentary approval may be sought before a vote
It could also take place alongside referendums for English regional assemblies this autumn
A vote could also be held at the time of the general election predicted next spring
It is also possible a vote will take place after the next general election
That is a call he is likely to take up on Wednesday at prime minister's questions.
COUNTRIES HOLDING OR LIKELY TO HOLD A REFERENDUM:
Denmark
Ireland
Luxembourg
Britain
The Netherlands
Poland
Latvia
Tony Blair's statement in fullhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3642713.stm
Here is Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement to MPs announcing a referendum will be held on the planned EU constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With your permission Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the forthcoming negotiation over the new European Treaty.
In parallel, the foreign secretary is publishing today a White Paper on Europe.
On 1 May the EU will enlarge from 15 to 25 members.
It will be the biggest ever increase in Europe's size.
It will reunify Europe after the travails of communist dictatorship in Eastern and Central Europe.
It is an historic event, one this British Government and the one before us have championed.
Whatever the problems it poses, and we see that in the anxiety over prospective immigration, let us be in no doubt: the prospect of EU membership, together with the courage of the governments concerned, is the primary reason why those countries have been able to reform their economies and politics so radically and so beneficially.
Such change has been in the interests of all of Europe.
I say unhesitatingly that enlargement is right for Europe and for Britain and we should support it.
In addition, Bulgaria and Romania are set for membership in future years, taking the numbers to 27.
And Turkey is now making extraordinary strides forward in democracy, human rights, in economic change, in the resolution of the conflict in Cyprus, strides that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, and all under the impulsion of future EU membership.
So within the space of a few years Europe will be transformed.
It will be easily the strongest political union and greatest economic market in the world. Britain should be at the heart of it.
That is its right and its destiny.
Because of enlargement, Europe is sensibly seeking to change the way it works.
In a Europe of 25 or 27 or 28, a rotating 6-month presidency makes no sense; the use of the veto should be confined to the areas where it is truly necessary, otherwise decision-making becomes paralysed, and in certain areas, terrorism, security, economic reform, the environment, Europe must do more and do it better.
The new constitutional treaty is designed both to answer the challenge of enlargement and also to bring together in one treaty, what is presently found in two separate treaties. Indeed, a significant part of the new treaty is a repetition of articles already in force.
I want to make clear in this negotiation that Britain will co-operate fully in helping Europe work better; but work better as a Europe of sovereign nation states.
There are certain areas of policy where maintenance of control of our affairs is essential.
In those areas like taxation, foreign policy, defence, social security, how the essentials of our common law, criminal justice system work, treaty change, we believe the national veto must remain.
We will insist on the necessary amendments to the present draft treaty to ensure beyond doubt that they do.
On this basis the treaty does not and will not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between member states and the EU.
The new treaty then would take effect, after ratification by all member states probably in 2007, with certain key provisions in 2009.
Until then, the key provisions of the Nice Treaty will remain in place.
If the new treaty contains these essentials, we believe it is in Britain's interest to sign it.
It will replace the six month rotating presidency with a full-time chairman of the council - a vital step away from federalism, enabling the council, which is of course the repository of the individual governments, to become the body that sets Europe's agenda.
The new treaty for the first time will allow national parliaments, the right to object to commission proposals for legislation, a big advance in subsidiarity.
It adds a greater ability to co-operate in areas like terrorism and cross-border crime that are crucial for the world in which we live.
It gives a bigger role for enhanced co-operation between some of the member states, where not all of them wish to participate in certain areas.
This is what the treaty, if amended in the way we seek, will actually do.
Ever since its inception, however, the myths propagated about it have multiplied in those quarters, political and media, who we know are hostile not just to this treaty but the whole notion of Britain playing a central role in Europe.
That the EU will be renamed the 'United States of Europe'. No it won't. It is to remain the EU.
That the Queen will be replaced as our head of state by an EU president of the council.
In fact, we already have a president of the council and always have had.
That Britain will be forced to join the euro, without a referendum and regardless of our economic tests being passed. No it won't.
The existing agreements on the single currency remain in the new treaty.
That Britain could not mount a future Falklands War or Iraq campaign without permission from Brussels. Yes we could.
Defence is to remain unanimous and the prerogative of the nation state.
That we will lose our seat on the UN Security Council. No such provision exists.
That Brussels will seize control of our oil supplies. No it won't and the treaty will make that clear.
That Brussels will have the power to set taxes in Britain. Taxation is to remain with the nation state.
That our Foreign Policy will now be decided by the EU because the new treaty obliges Member States to support Europe's CFSP "in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
Actually these words are taken from the Maastricht Treaty and in any event CFSP is decided unanimously.
That we will surrender control over our borders. It is already agreed that our right to control our borders will be specifically retained in the new Treaty.
That the assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty' in British law will be scrapped. No such provision exists.
All this and many others like the hardy perennials about being forced to drive on the right, the Germans taking over our nuclear weapons and no doubt the shape of our bananas too.
Even yesterday, we had the RHG the Leader of the opposition asserting that if this Treaty were in place, I would be unable as British prime minister to go to Washington to talk to President Bush.
All of it, nonsense, myth designed to distance people's understanding of what Europe is about and loosen this country's belief in its place in Europe.
It has been an unrelenting but, I have to accept, partially at least, successful campaign to persuade Britain that Europe is a conspiracy aimed at us rather than a partnership designed for us and others to pursue our national interest properly in a modern, interdependent world.
It is right to confront this campaign head-on.
Provided the treaty embodies the essential British positions, we shall agree to it.
Once agreed, either at the June Council which is our preference - or subsequently, Parliament should debate it in detail and decide upon it. Then let the people have the final say.
The electorate should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised in the House, and when Parliament has debated and decided.
The question will be on the treaty. But the implications go far wider.
It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision-making or not; time to decide whether our destiny lies as a leading partner and ally of Europe or on its margins.
Let the Eurosceptics whose true agenda we will expose, make their case.
Let those of us who believe in Britain in Europe not because we believe in Europe alone but because, above all we believe in Britain, make ours.
Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined.
And plenty of commentaries and analyses on the BBC site.
Michael RVR
04-21-2004, 04:32 AM
short version, they dont want the UK to vote because they think they'll vote no?
short version, they dont want the UK to vote because they think they'll vote no?Y (shortest possible...)
http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2004-04-21T062621Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONP_2_India-151895-6-pic0.jpg
Le Monde
Les Britanniques auront à se ****oncer sur la future Constitution européenne
LE MONDE | 20.04.04 | 18h58 • MIS A JOUR LE 20.04.04 | 20h29
Un référendum sera organisé prochainement au Royaume-Uni, selon le premier ministre, Tony Blair. Une décision qui divise déjà les dirigeants européens.
"Il est temps de régler, une fois pour toutes, la question de savoir si ce pays, la Grande-Bretagne, veut ou non être au centre et au cœur du processus de décision" en Europe, a déclaré, mardi 20 avril, Tony Blair à la chambre des Communes. Le premier ministre britannique a ainsi annoncé qu'un référendum sur la future Constitution européenne serait organisé au Royaume-Uni.
"Le Parlement devra débattre de ce texte dans le détail et se ****oncer sur celui-ci puis laissons le peuple avoir le dernier mot", a-t-il plaidé devant la Chambre basse de Westminster.
Tony Blair a apostrophé le dirigeant conservateur Michael Howard en l'accusant de vouloir reléguer la Grande-Bretagne "en marge" de l'Union européenne. Le premier ministre a aussi longuement ironisé sur les "mythes" propagés par l'opposition et la presse populaire sur la Constitution européenne, qui obligerait les automobilistes britanniques à conduire à droite, sonnerait le glas du statut de chef d'Etat pour la reine ou conduirait inévitablement à l'adoption de l'euro...
Depuis un an, une campagne virulente de la presse conservatrice fustige les dangers de la Constitution pour la souveraineté du pays. Mais "laissons les eurosceptiques révéler leurs vraies motivations et laissons parler ceux d'entre nous qui croient en une Grande-Bretagne au sein de l'Europe, non seulement parce que nous croyons en l'Europe mais aussi parce que nous croyons en la Grande-Bretagne", argue déjà Tony Blair.
UN PARI RISQUÉ
Les Britanniques auront donc à se ****oncer par voie référendaire, pour la deuxième fois de leur histoire. Le seul précédent remonte à 1975, lorsque le chef de gouvernement travailliste, Harold Wilson, avait demandé à ses compatriotes de confirmer l'appartenance du Royaume-Uni à ce qui n'était encore que le marché commun.
Depuis son accession au poste de premier ministre, Tony Blair s'était toujours opposé à la tenue d'un référendum. Aujourd'hui encore, cette décision est très risquée pour les travaillistes. Selon un sondage de l'institut YouGov publié par le très eurosceptique Sun, seuls 16% des Britanniques voteraient "oui", si on les consultait au sujet de la constitution, contre 53% d'opinions défavorables, 28% des sondés étant indécis. Lors d'une autre enquête téléphonique réalisée lundi matin par Sky News, 86 % des personnes interrogées ont déclaré qu'elles voteraient contre ce projet constitutionnel européen.
Longtemps réclamé par les conservateurs, certains de l'issue négative du scrutin, ce référendum pourrait pourtant bien finir par servir Tony Blair. "La raison profonde, derrière ce pari, c'est de priver l'opposition conservatrice d'un atout majeur dont elle dispose et qu'elle aurait utilisée lors des prochaines élections européennes et, par la suite, aux législatives", analyse Elizabeth Bomberg, spécialiste des affaires européennes à l'université d'Edimbourg.
Aucune date n'a encore été précisée pour la tenue de ce scrutin et il est peu probable que celui-ci soit organisé avant les prochaines élections générales, prévues au plus tard à la mi-2006, attendues par les médias au printemps 2005. Mais la perspective de ce réferendum divise déjà les dirigeants de l'Union européenne.
DES RESPONSABLES EUROPÉENS DIVISÉS
Pour Ingo Friedrich, le vice-président du Parlement européen, la démarche britannique représente un risque inacceptable pour la construction européenne. "Il ne faut pas qu'un chef de gouvernement d'un grand pays européen mette en danger un projet aussi central que la Constitution uniquement pour des considérations de politique intérieure", a déclaré le chrétien-démocrate allemand. La Constitution devant être ratifiée par les 25 pays de l'UE élargie pour entrer en vigueur, le projet pourrait être avorté face au refus du peuple britannique. "Il y a un risque énorme, colossal", estime un diplomate. Le président du groupe conservateur au Parlement européen, l'Allemand Hans-Gert Pttering, craint aussi l'issue d'une telle consultation. Pour éviter de bloquer toute l'Union européenne, il a donc évoqué la nécessité d'adopter une clause de sortie de la Constitution en cas de vote négatif.
Au contraire, le chancelier allemand, Gerhard Schröder, assure faire confiance au premier ministre britannique : "Mon ami Tony Blair sait très précisément pourquoi il a fait cela et veillera certainement à ce que cela s'effectue au profit de l'Europe." Une thèse accréditée par Guillaume Durand, du Centre de politique européenne. Selon lui, Tony Blair peut obliger les conservateurs britanniques à se discréditer s'ils adoptent un discours outrancier sur l'Europe. Ce sera "un débat difficile mais qui peut être gagné", affirme le président du Parlement européen, Pat Cox, qui "refuse d'être pessimiste sur l'issue" du scrutin.
Quant au libéral-démocrate Graham Watson, un fédéraliste britannique du Parlement européen, il s'est lui aussi félicité de la décision de M. Blair, qu'il combat pourtant politiquement. Pour lui, ce sera enfin l'occasion d'avoir au Royaume-Uni un débat sur la nature réelle de l'Union européenne. "Ce ne serait pas mal que les Britanniques clarifient une fois pour toutes leur relation avec l'UE", souligne un autre diplomate. "La Constitution se prête bien à ce type de débat."
UN RÉFÉRENDUM EN FRANCE ?
Les Français se sont, eux, félicités de la décision du premier ministre britannique. "La décision de Tony Blair rendra profondément heureux tous ceux qui croient à l'Europe", a déclaré François Bayrou, qui avait demandé une Constitution pour l'Europe dès les élections européennes de 1999. Mais le président de l'UDF espère surtout de ce revirement britannique qu'il mette la pression sur le gouvernement français, pour organiser, à son tour, une consultation nationale : "La décision de Tony Blair signe en fait une grande victoire : il y aura bien un référendum en France aussi sur la Constitution européenne." Un avis que partage Francis Wurtz, député PCF européen : "Jacques Chirac est à présent au pied du mur." Christine Boutin, député des Yvelines et présidente du Forum des républicains sociaux, parle elle d'"exemple à suivre pour la France".
"Le référendum anglais est à généraliser", estime Yann Wehrling, le porte-parole des Verts, qui va même jusqu'à souhaiter qu'un référendum "soit organisé le même jour dans toute l'Union afin que la future Constitution soit réputée adoptée si une majorité d'électeurs européens s'y déclare favorable".
Avec AFP et *******
*******
Blair bets on big gamble EU referendum
Tue Apr 20, 2004 08:56 PM ET
By Mike Peacock
LONDON (*******) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged on Tuesday to give Britons a referendum on a EU constitution, a major political gamble that could threaten his future and perhaps even torpedo the charter.
His policy U-turn was greeted with concern in some European quarters -- to enter into force, the constitution must be ratified by all 25 member states of the new enlarged European Union that comes into being on May 1.
With opinion polls showing Britons are highly wary of closer integration with the EU, one senior politician in the bloc accused Blair of putting domestic politics before the interests of the Union and endangering the constitution.
Blair told parliament his Labour government was ready to do battle in a referendum with the opposition Conservatives, who oppose a EU constitution as a threat to Britain's sovereignty.
Announcing a referendum would take place after parliament had "debated and decided", Blair said: "Then let the people have the final say. Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined."
Previously Blair had said a constitution, likely to be sealed by EU leaders at a summit in June, would not fundamentally alter Britain's ties with the bloc and therefore public approval would not be needed.
Blair's public trust ratings have plunged since he became U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally over Iraq, leaving the man who vowed to put Britain at the heart of Europe badly placed to swing mass opinion.
POLLSTERS SAY MAJORITY OF BRITONS OPPOSED
"The majority of the public are against (an EU constitution)...and it's going to take a lot to persuade them to vote for it," said Roger Mortimore of pollsters MORI.
Talks on the constitution collapsed at a EU summit last December. But a change of government in Spain -- one of the major objectors -- has helped revive negotiations.
Blair has pledged to keep unilateral British control of areas like taxation, defence and foreign policy.
Denmark and Ireland will hold ballots and others, including the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain, are almost certain to do so.
If any one of the 25 EU members does not ratify the constitution, there could either be a new vote or the treaty would need renegotiating.
Critics said Blair was acting out of domestic political expediency -- neutralising a potentially damaging issue until after a general election expected in May 2005.
Even if a deal were struck, parliamentary scrutiny would not start until late this year and would take several months. Government insiders expect no referendum until late in 2005.
"The head of government of a major European country should not endanger such a central project as the EU constitution purely out of domestic political calculations," said Germany's Ingo Friedrich, Vice President of the European Parliament.
Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper accused Blair of jeopardising the constitution, predicting he would lose a vote.
"A British referendum will not only decide the political fate of Tony Blair. It will decide the fate of the European Union," it said.
Emil Kirchner, professor of European studies at Essex University, said: "It's a risky procedure (Blair is) taking... If he loses, it would be his defining moment. I think he would leave the scene."
But Foreign Minister Jack Straw told BBC radio Blair would not be forced to resign if there was a "No" vote.
Britain's ambivalence on the EU has been shaped by past wars with European nations, an island mentality, self-confidence born of victory in World War Two and earlier empire building, strong Anglo-American ties and distaste for "Brussels bureaucrats".
The Europe debate plagued Blair's two immediate predecessors -- John Major and Margaret Thatcher -- and tore apart the Conservatives, in power for 18 years before Blair's 1997 win.
© ******* 2004. All Rights Reserved.
wholagun
04-21-2004, 05:05 AM
Lost the Spainiards and Poles to protect himself letting them stop the constitution while he sat back. Now that both the Spainards and the Poles are looking like they'll agree to the constitution, Blair needs a new way of stopping the constitution without blame going directly on him.
Lost the Spainiards and Poles to protect himself letting them stop the constitution while he sat back. Now that both the Spainards and the Poles are looking like they'll agree to the constitution, Blair needs a new way of stopping the constitution without blame going directly on him.
It was not so long ago...
Poland - the EU's future awkward member
09 December 2003
Poland has gained an unrivalled reputation as the European Union's awkward future member in talks on an EU constitution which go down to the wire at a summit from Friday.
"Bloody minded". "Awkward". "Pesky". All have flowed from television interviewers' lips and columnists' pens as Warsaw prepares for a fight over voting rights in the enlarged bloc at the make-or-break meeting.
Bigger than the other nine countries on course to join the bloc on May 1 put together, Poland has dug in its heels, insisting with Spain on hanging on to disproportionate voting rights it secured under the EU's 2000 Nice Treaty.
"You have been called awkward, fighting for your rights in a Europe where there seems to be some givens in the relationship," BBC World's Lyse Doucet said as she challenged Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz head on on HARD Talk.
Financial Times columnist Quentin Peel had even less mercy, saying Poland, along with Spain, belongs to "The Club of the bloody minded."
"In the end the Club of the bloody minded helps no-one, not even themselves," he said.
The treaty gave Spain and Poland 27 votes, compared to 29 for Germany, whose population is bigger than that of the two countries combined. Poland is fighting off efforts in the draft constitution to correct the imbalance.
EU heavyweight members France and Germany are warning it will pay a heavy price for its intransigence.
And European diplomats say they fear that Poland will carry its stubbornness across the bloc's threshold, routinely blocking daily business.
Poland says it is just defending its national interests in insisting on getting what it is entitled to, the membership terms it presented to Poland's 38.3 million people ahead of a June 7-8 referendum on membership.
"I see nothing wrong in defending or presenting in an open way somebody's interests...," Cimoszewicz retorted on HARD Talk.
"We are not disrupting anything."
While it has secured a measure of support from Spain and Britain rofl , the stand has put Poland on a collision course with France and Germany who have called for the draft constitution to be adopted largely unchanged.
France and Germany were already deeply irritated earlier this year when Poland signed up to a letter putting itself firmly behind the US stance on Iraq, without informing Paris and Berlin first.
The support led to the German press calling Poland a "Trojan donkey" :bash: defending US interests in the bloc, while French President Jacques Chirac said Poland had "good opportunity to shut up." :bash:
Poland's tough stance could be rooted in pride and independence after a tragic history of invasion and occupation, most lately by Germany and Russia around World War II, putting up heroic resistance.
"We are open for discussion, but we are not open for political pressure. We have our national experience of that kind and we will never repeat that experience of allowing anybody to tell us what is good for us, what we have to do, what we have to accept and so on," Cimoszewicz told the BBC. :hug:
However, Krzysztof Bobinski, the Editor of Unia and Polska magazine on European integration, said Poland could be digging in its heels too soon.
"If you do fight for too much too early you generate a feeling of resentment within the country and you begin to whip up anti-EU sentiment. This is happening," he said.
He pointed to a recent poll which showed local support for its entry into the bloc has declined to 64 percent, a seven percent drop from June. Now they have to deal not with a stubborn Poland that was opposing as winking for the compromise at the same time... but with British Public Opinion... Will they also call them Trojan Donkeys?
http://www.dvd365.net/gallery/shrek/shrek05.jpg
Kitsune
04-21-2004, 09:13 AM
Well it is no secret that the US is somewhat opposed to a strong unified Europe. With the Europeans the old "divide et impera" rule applies.
When I heard that Spain and Poland oppossed the constitution but Britain didn't, I was somewhat surprised. Now that the Spanish have changed their mind and possibly even the Polish will do it, the British re-emerge as Europes long term brake hitter. If Poland is a trojan donkey, Britain is a full fledged trojan horse. But in contrast to Poland they have a special relationship to the US, closely co work with them in intelligence matters and do not need visa tor travel to America, too.
But as far as T. Blair is concerned, he was always one of the most pro European Brits. In fact I don't see how he could rule on when such a referendum fails...he simply has to step back in that case. And the opposition? The tory top guy is the one who wants Britain to step out of the Union and to become an "associated member", right?
Well, while we find the word "union" in "European Union" as well in "Soviet Union", there is one big difference: with the first membership is voluntary. Its a British decision to be in or out, in the middle of the process as a core member or standing at the sidelines as a reluctant brake hitter.
My view, that for the Union to step forward with all 25 at once will not work, is proven right again and again. A core-Europe going onward is the way to go.
If one turns to history and looks how these "union" things work, the Italian states combining, the German states combining and most notably the American states forming a federal state...its always a process of fits and starts.
Also that military things or security policy lagging decades behind the economic integration is somewhat typical. Take the US for example:
In 1860 the United States had a combined economic size comparable to Britain. But there was a lot of mistrust towards a central governent in Washington, with federal institutions being quite weak. The US Army was comprised of only 16.000 men (working mainly on the indian porblem), the US Navy had 7600 seamen on their ships....compared to more than 75.000 of the Royal Navy (and the US had no battleships, mainly light cruisers). So the British did not take them serious as a world power.
A year later the secession war broke out: the dream of American unity is at an end the Europeans said. (Lee was actually offered the command of the union forces to end the southern "rebellion"...he declined. He took the command of the Virginian state forces instead. He made it clear that he felt first and foremost as a Virginian, not as a US American).
But after this war, after its biggest crises, or perhaps because of it, the idea of a union thrived: the union institutions were strengthened, from the 1890ties on the US Navy and Army grew immensly.
The US became a world power. And the British had to accept it.
I am convinced it will be the same with Europe. The process takes time, there will be fits, starts and setbacks. Europe will integrate, nonetheless. It may never be a nation, and Britain may decide to have no part in it, but if only Germany, France and Belgium integrate to pull the "rope in one direction" when it comes to foreign policy and military things it will be a great power second only to the US. If the Dutch, the Italians, the Spanish and the Polish join in, it will come quite close to America.
In any crisis there is also a chance. As it was with the American civil war.
ShadowNeo
04-21-2004, 09:18 AM
I think this is more down to pressure than Blair's personal choice.
He has always been hounded about the opposition for his choice to originally not hold a referrendum, I think this has been one of the major factors in this decision.
It means the end of the close and unified EU defense and foreign policies, it means the end for the EU president and the dream of the EU as a counterbalance for US...
Is a new constitutional platform to be worked out? Is that feasible now or in close future? What are the media reaction outside UK (what The Sun and Murdoch say... we all know :lol: )?
Pad75
04-21-2004, 10:52 AM
If the UK reject the Constitution the German, Belgian and French Public Opinion will push hardly in the 2 speed Europe and will do a political integration with the one who will wants it. The gate of a federal REurope will be open if the UK is set aside.
Europe will be united with or without UK. It's just a matter of time.
I don't mind if a federal Europe is equal to:
France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Italy and Netherland.
Pille1234
04-21-2004, 10:56 AM
It means the end of the close and unified EU defense and foreign policies, it means the end for the EU president and the dream of the EU as a counterbalance for US...
No, but it most probably means the end of a britsh full membership in the EU. Im not happy about that, on the other hand I'm tired about the British "Yes we are part of Europe, but no, we aren't Europeans"-attitude. As Tony said, once and for all, that question will be answered.
MaDuce
04-21-2004, 10:56 AM
Maybe people in the UK don't to be subject to the rest of europes will.
martinexsquaddie
04-21-2004, 10:57 AM
the consituation is a dead dog 600 pages of brussesls waffle leaving a nasty taste in the mouth :(
really going to look forward to reading that :(
mindyou firearms laws may change underneath it so there may be an up side :lol:
Maybe people in the UK don't to be subject to the rest of europes will.
stop trying to get a reaction out of people and piss off
MaDuce
04-21-2004, 11:01 AM
WTF are you talking about maybe they want to be part of the EU as an alliance but not as one huge nation how isthat inflammatory.
If the UK reject the Constitution the German, Belgian and French Public Opinion will push hardly in the 2 speed Europe and will do a political integration with the one who will wants it. The gate of a federal REurope will be open if the UK is set aside.
Europe will be united with or without UK. It's just a matter of time.
I don't mind if a federal Europe is equal to:
France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Italy and Netherland.Well that matches the Charlemagne Empire... Whattabout the "old" EU this based on the Nice Treaty... shall it be disbanded?
And what makes you so knowlegeble about our thoughts?
Mabye you weren't trying to piss people off but you almost always do, call it an US style pre-emptive strike. ;)
Kitsune
04-21-2004, 11:06 AM
How many Europeans said "this is the end of a unified american nation" when the civil war borke out? And they were wrong.
In contrast to the american union there will be no war to keep the british in.
In the end I think, even the British will realize that they will be pretty insignificant on their own. But this may well be in 30 years...until then they will have lost the chance to be part of the formative phase of the EU as an political entity.
I agree with pad75: the British will be missed but a viable Europe is possible without them.
But wait. Perhaps this is a bit premature. Perhaps the British agree to the constitution with their referendum, despite of R. Murdoch.
We should wait and see...and drink another cup of tea. ;)
MaDuce
04-21-2004, 11:08 AM
Ok I have put things that have been flame bait in the past I admit it but this is not one. And you all people should be bitching about this. You are constantly criticizing and taking a interest in our business.
How many Europeans said "this is the end of a unified american nation" when the civil war borke out? And they were wrong.
In contrast to the american union there will be no war to keep the british in.
In the end I think, even the British will realize that they will be pretty insignificant on their own. But this may well be in 30 years...until then they will have lost the chance to be part of the formative phase of the EU as an political entity.
I agree with pad75: the British will be missed but a viable Europe ia possible without them.
Yeah that's always been my fear. But maybe a two tier system would give us the best of both worlds
How many Europeans said "this is the end of a unified american nation" when the civil war borke out? And they were wrong.
In contrast to the american union there will be no war to keep the british in.
In the end I think, even the British will realize that they will be pretty insignificant on their own. But this may well be in 30 years...until then they will have lost the chance to be part of the formative phase of the EU as an political entity.
I agree with pad75: the British will be missed but a viable Europe ia possible without them.
Yeah that's always been my fear. But maybe a two tier system would give us the best of both worldsEverybody talks it over and over again... but what the heck is this "two tier system" in detail... Sometimes I have impression that TTS means different things depending on who is saying this... Could You try to define Your view of this?
Ok I have put things that have been flame bait in the past I admit it but this is not one. And you all people should be bitching about this. You are constantly criticizing and taking a interest in our business.
Like?
How many Europeans said "this is the end of a unified american nation" when the civil war borke out? And they were wrong.
In contrast to the american union there will be no war to keep the british in.
In the end I think, even the British will realize that they will be pretty insignificant on their own. But this may well be in 30 years...until then they will have lost the chance to be part of the formative phase of the EU as an political entity.
I agree with pad75: the British will be missed but a viable Europe ia possible without them.
Yeah that's always been my fear. But maybe a two tier system would give us the best of both worldsEverybody talks it over and over again... but what the heck is this "two tier system" in detail... Sometimes I have impression that TTS means different things depending on who is saying this... Could You try to define Your view of this?
well the way the press refers to it the two tier system would mean that the countries that are totally pro-euro would fast track their way to where they want to get to without having to waste time waiting for those are getting cold feet about the whole thing and those who are new and have a lot of catching up to do.
Another TTS although it probably would be called that or referred to as that would be to have a core of countries unite and become the greater european state the other countries would have very good ties with the superstate and would be part of the trading bloc but would be independent or semi independent of it.
Pad75
04-21-2004, 11:27 AM
I have heard here, that some people in the UK seriously believes that the European Constitution will force them to drive on the right side of the road...
Is that real?
How many Europeans said "this is the end of a unified american nation" when the civil war borke out? And they were wrong.
In contrast to the american union there will be no war to keep the british in.
In the end I think, even the British will realize that they will be pretty insignificant on their own. But this may well be in 30 years...until then they will have lost the chance to be part of the formative phase of the EU as an political entity.
I agree with pad75: the British will be missed but a viable Europe ia possible without them.
Yeah that's always been my fear. But maybe a two tier system would give us the best of both worldsEverybody talks it over and over again... but what the heck is this "two tier system" in detail... Sometimes I have impression that TTS means different things depending on who is saying this... Could You try to define Your view of this?
well the way the press refers to it the two tier system would mean that the countries that are totally pro-euro would fast track their way to where they want to get to without having to waste time waiting for those are getting cold feet about the whole thing and those who are new and have a lot of catching up to do.
Another TTS although it probably would be called that or referred to as that would be to have a core of countries unite and become the greater european state the other countries would have very good ties with the superstate and would be part of the trading bloc but would be independent or semi independent of it. am affraid that in all variants You get a competention hell... There will be 1; Hard Core (a sort of Unitary State) 2; National Govts of Hard Core and Outsiders 3; Wider EU based on Nice Treaty... Every of those will have it's own Legislative and Executive... What batch of rules and laws will prevail... HC or EU? What in case when they collide.... Ufff that's a first few thoughts, but I am sure there will be more of such...
@ Pad75
Could You answer the Q; I asked You before...?
Pad75
04-21-2004, 11:53 AM
If the UK reject the Constitution the German, Belgian and French Public Opinion will push hardly in the 2 speed Europe and will do a political integration with the one who will wants it. The gate of a federal REurope will be open if the UK is set aside.
Europe will be united with or without UK. It's just a matter of time.
I don't mind if a federal Europe is equal to:
France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Italy and Netherland.Well that matches the Charlemagne Empire... Whattabout the "old" EU this based on the Nice Treaty... shall it be disbanded?
Yes.
I'm for a Federal European Union.
The Nice Treaty was the worse Treaty ever discuse inside the Union.
If the UK reject the Constitution the German, Belgian and French Public Opinion will push hardly in the 2 speed Europe and will do a political integration with the one who will wants it. The gate of a federal REurope will be open if the UK is set aside.
Europe will be united with or without UK. It's just a matter of time.
I don't mind if a federal Europe is equal to:
France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Italy and Netherland.Well that matches the Charlemagne Empire... Whattabout the "old" EU this based on the Nice Treaty... shall it be disbanded?
Yes.
I'm for a Federal European Union.
The Nice Treaty was the worse Treaty ever discuse inside the Union.What means a final end of the European Unity dream... Instead there is to be created a Federation of the Rich... No more nursing the poor, going forward to create the Superstate that could be a counterbalance for USA... Smth like that?
Pad75
04-21-2004, 12:17 PM
What means a final end of the European Unity dream... Instead there is to be created a Federation of the Rich... No more nursing the poor, going forward to create the Superstate that could be a counterbalance for USA... Smth like that?
No.
Why the creation of a federal Union would leed to that?
Look at the political system in Germany.
What means a final end of the European Unity dream... Instead there is to be created a Federation of the Rich... No more nursing the poor, going forward to create the Superstate that could be a counterbalance for USA... Smth like that?
No.
Why the creation of a federal Union would leed to that?
Look at the political system in Germany.Disbanding the present EU would mean that we start all over again... The Hard Core of the rich would again have a position "we will let You to join, but there are our conditions"... Do You think that this would mean a better conditions of joining for the potential candidates left outside? Or... the more effective leverage to make'em change their mind about the political conditions and the power share within a Hard Core...?
Germany? What do U refer? Germany as a political model or the internal policy circumstances that makes their policy look like it does?
Pad75
04-21-2004, 12:36 PM
Disbanding the present EU would mean that we start all over again... The Hard Core of the rich would again have a position "we will let You to join, but there are our conditions"... Do You think that this would mean a better conditions of joining for the potential candidates left outside? Or... the more effective leverage to make'em change their mind about the political conditions and the power share within a Hard Core...?
Germany? What do U refer? Germany as a political model or the internal policy circumstances that makes their policy look like it does?
I was talking about the German federal state.
Actually the European Union does not work because some country are still thinking in term of National interest. Look how Poland and Spain acted.
It's not a question about rich and poor, but a question of people who wants to live in the same country and who are not afraid about their own shade.
This continent should be a great power and we will make it.
European Union is the most important project that this continent have seen. For example, I'm the first male in my familly that did not have to go to war since 250 years.
Disbanding the present EU would mean that we start all over again... The Hard Core of the rich would again have a position "we will let You to join, but there are our conditions"... Do You think that this would mean a better conditions of joining for the potential candidates left outside? Or... the more effective leverage to make'em change their mind about the political conditions and the power share within a Hard Core...?
Germany? What do U refer? Germany as a political model or the internal policy circumstances that makes their policy look like it does?
I was talking about the German federal state.
Actually the European Union does not work because some country are still thinking in term of National interest. Look how Poland and Spain acted.
It's not a question about rich and poor, but a question of people who wants to live in the same country and who are not afraid about their own shade.
This continent should be a great power and we will make it.
European Union is the most important project that this continent have seen. For example, I'm the first male in my familly that did not have to go to war since 250 years.Of course You realize where I am from?
Threelions
04-21-2004, 12:50 PM
this will get a big NO vote from me! I think the EU is a pile of horse crap and one more step towards giving up our sovereignty. Its about bloody time the government took stock of what the nation wants. With the EU's grand schemes of expansion the richer nations will suffer financially as they make up for the short comings of the poor eastern members. the trickle down effect means averge blog will have to pick up the tab for some other nation. I think this will help influence a no vote in the refernedum. I truely hope that a no vote on that constitution will be the begining of the end of EU occupation in England especially, and GB.
cheers
this will get a big NO vote from me! I think the EU is a pile of horse crap and one more step towards giving up our sovereignty. Its about bloody time the government took stock of what the nation wants. With the EU's grand schemes of expansion the richer nations will suffer financially as they make up for the short comings of the poor eastern members. the trickle down effect means averge blog will have to pick up the tab for some other nation. I think this will help influence a no vote in the refernedum. I truely hope that a no vote on that constitution will be the begining of the end of EU occupation in England especially, and GB.
cheersCharming, egoistic but fair statement... At least You are honest.
Threelions
04-21-2004, 01:02 PM
this will get a big NO vote from me! I think the EU is a pile of horse crap and one more step towards giving up our sovereignty. Its about bloody time the government took stock of what the nation wants. With the EU's grand schemes of expansion the richer nations will suffer financially as they make up for the short comings of the poor eastern members. the trickle down effect means averge blog will have to pick up the tab for some other nation. I think this will help influence a no vote in the refernedum. I truely hope that a no vote on that constitution will be the begining of the end of EU occupation in England especially, and GB.
cheersCharming, egoistic but fair statement... At least You are honest.
Yep, then again arent all comments egoistic in there essence?
Cheers
this will get a big NO vote from me! I think the EU is a pile of horse crap and one more step towards giving up our sovereignty. Its about bloody time the government took stock of what the nation wants. With the EU's grand schemes of expansion the richer nations will suffer financially as they make up for the short comings of the poor eastern members. the trickle down effect means averge blog will have to pick up the tab for some other nation. I think this will help influence a no vote in the refernedum. I truely hope that a no vote on that constitution will be the begining of the end of EU occupation in England especially, and GB.
cheersCharming, egoistic but fair statement... At least You are honest.
Yep, then again arent all comments egoistic in there essence?
CheersFrankly speaking it's hard to tell in general, but Your egoism is definitely a honest one, what I appreciate.
wholagun
04-21-2004, 01:07 PM
I love it how France and Germany point out how other countries act in thier own self interest, when France has the most cases pending in the EU for breaking EU rules. I also like how press in countries like Norway and Swisterland after the december burssels summit wrote that we should be a clear conscience cause it not like Germany and France never done it before.
**** i know it, Poland and the other 9 countries will be scapegoats for the rest of the EU for some time to come.
Pad75
04-21-2004, 01:52 PM
Of course You realize where I am from?
Not a single clue.
Ian H
04-21-2004, 01:58 PM
Yeah, one problem in the old MS' will be that with the new poorer MS's needing more structural funds, areas that currently recieve them no longer will, and the same MS's will end up being net contributers to the EU, whilst the new MS's will be net recipients.
Basically, enlargement means some areas losing out, and that is what people will concentrate on.
That said, I went to a talk Peter Hain (UK Minster for Europe or suchlike),where he quite persuasively outlined what the Constitutional Treaty would consist of, and basically it is streamlining the massive amount of extant treaties and the like into one document, which also helps reform the EU in preparation for enlargement.
It worked on me I must say; some of the bull**** the rightwing press prints about Europe is just laughable. If they printed lies of this magnitude against a person, they'd be sued to bankruptcy.
I'll vote yes, we need a working EU, and we need to be wellinside it.
Of course You realize where I am from?
Not a single clue.Pologne, mon chere :D .
Threelions
04-21-2004, 02:04 PM
If eventually only one country holds out against the constitution, it could, as a last resort, be asked to leave the European Union.
-BBC Online-
Well here is one way out! Unfortunetly the great democracy that is the eu would never do this. Instead, like they did with eire, they will make the british continue to vote until a yes is reached.
**** i know it, Poland and the other 9 countries will be scapegoats for the rest of the EU for some time to come.
And why shouldnt they be? According to the original establishment of the EU certain financial requirments had to be met. This rule has allready been strteched wby the likes of italy, spian, and portugual to the detriment of other nations, especially GB. These new nations are going to be an even larger strain on the larger western nations. With all the problems that GB has those funds which will be used to bolster the east's economic standing could be much more effectivly applied to the british people. It is after all the role of government to look out for the best interest of their nations people.
Cheers
Kitsune
04-21-2004, 02:22 PM
@ThreeLions:
The net payment of Britain (what it gives to EU minus what it receives) is 2.9 billion €. Germanys is 5.1 billion €.
Talking about British "freedom". What freedom? You are meekly following the US policy whatever they do since the Suez crisis 1956 (which was the last and unsuccesful try of independence. Britain can hardly use her nuclear weapons without US consent, so large is aour dependancy. Ever thought aboout that? With the EU you have at least a say...things will not always go the British way, but they will not always go against it either.
Threelions
04-21-2004, 02:40 PM
@ThreeLions:
The net payment of Britain (what it gives to EU minus what it receives) is 2.9 billion €. Germanys is 5.1 billion €.
Talking about British "freedom". What freedom? You are meekly following the US policy whatever they do since the Suez crisis 1956 (which was the last and unsuccesful try of independence. Britain can hardly use her nuclear weapons without US consent, so large is aour dependancy. Ever thought aboout that? With the EU you have at least a say...things will not always go the British way, but they will not always go against it either.
What are you talking about? You seem to forget the Falkland war, or oman were done without ANYONES help. I, like many of my country men fully disagree with being in Iraq. But, as you said Blair is following. The difference between that and Europe, is that europe can TELL us what to do, where as the states can ask us. Its been a 1000 years since a foreign power controled us, and i dont much fancy changing that. Maybe you Euros are use to being dominated by foreign governments, but i know that we aren't!!
2.9 Billion euros that could be used to help the british!!
Cheers
@ThreeLions:
The net payment of Britain (what it gives to EU minus what it receives) is 2.9 billion €. Germanys is 5.1 billion €.
Talking about British "freedom". What freedom? You are meekly following the US policy whatever they do since the Suez crisis 1956 (which was the last and unsuccesful try of independence. Britain can hardly use her nuclear weapons without US consent, so large is aour dependancy. Ever thought aboout that? With the EU you have at least a say...things will not always go the British way, but they will not always go against it either.
What are you talking about? You seem to forget the Falkland war, or oman were done without ANYONES help. I, like many of my country men fully disagree with being in Iraq. But, as you said Blair is following. The difference between that and Europe, is that europe can TELL us what to do, where as the states can ask us. Its been a 1000 years since a foreign power controled us, and i dont much fancy changing that. Maybe you Euros are use to being dominated by foreign governments, but i know that we aren't!!
2.9 Billion euros that could be used to help the british!!
CheersYou got Your point of view. Good. You made it here clear enough. You will have a chance to vote whether You want or not to have EU Constitution. The thread was supposed to be about the EU future as the Constitution idea seems to be a failure.... not about how much UK doesn't need EU. So pls, stop that pointless quarrel here BOTH of You gentlemen.
Pad75
04-21-2004, 02:57 PM
Of course You realize where I am from?
Not a single clue.Pologne, mon chere :D .
Great I love your anthem. A great man is praise in :).
The problem of how the European construction is seen for a big part of the members is that we have seen a great and huge work done until the Euro.
Now, with the entry, all the work turns to a big mess because most of the people think about National interest and not about European interest. What happend with Irak was instructive.
I trully believe that the construction can't be less than a European Power, independant and free who can have a common defense and foreign policy.
For me to open the gate to the eastern country before the political union was a mistake. Of course all the eastern european country have their place in EU. Then eastern country could have freely say I want or I don't want to go in this Union.
Unfortunatly UK have played the one step in/one step out politics. And gave the exemple to the new commer, that to play the bad guy can pay...
IMO UK have done that in order to be sure that the political union will never be build.
The way Poland and Spain acted on the Constitution have been seen nearly like an act of trahison. You have to understand that some country work on that since 50 years. And the most that you can hope from a new commer is, not a fight the day after he has join the club.
Sincerely a lot of European are fed up about this type of policy.
There is no other way than a total European Federal Union.
You can't imaging how the purchase of the F16, the backing of W in Iraq and the lobbying against the European Constitution change the image of Poland in France.
But Hey! I still remind the time has a child when we have send some money and items to Solidarnosc. I still have my button badge :)
Threelions
04-21-2004, 03:08 PM
[/quote]
For me to open the gate to the eastern country before the political union was a mistake. Of course all the eastern european country have their place in EU. Then eastern country could have freely say I want or I don't want to go in this Union.
Unfortunatly UK have played the one step in/one step out politics. And gave the exemple to the new commer, that to play the bad guy can pay...
IMO UK have done that in order to be sure that the political union will never be build.
[/quote]
I dont think the Uk has done this on purpose at all. The problem is that unlike many EU nations, public opinion in england is fairly evenly divided on every topic in europe. This makes it very hard for to step in either direction without creating uproar.
Cheers
Mr Gently Benevolent
04-21-2004, 03:13 PM
Still not sure what way I will go and this is unusual for me, I am feeling f*cked over by the common fishery policy but wise enough to know that European consumers are my bread and butter. If the standardisation of European food rules is an indication of the supposed harmonisation of rules and standards then I think its back to the drawing board before we go any further. I want all the kinks sorted out and the corruption squashed and then I can be a little more positive on further integration.
Kitsune
04-21-2004, 03:34 PM
@Threelions:
You seem not to know what this constitution is about.
"The EU can tell you what to do?" Thats plainly wrong. Britain stays a sovereign nation, no one can order her to got to a war or not. Britain keeps national armed forces, the Queen stays in power, the British continue to drive on the wrong side of the road.
Britain is no part of the monetarian union and stays away, the constitution does not change this, Britain did not sign the Schengen agreement so Foreigners cannot simply work in Britain (and Brits cannot simply live and work in France, Germany or Italy) and this is also not changed.
Its mainly about economic things that concern everyone, that are decided on EU level. And here the voting system is changed. As you can plainly see, a voting system were everyone has to agree does not work. There is always a troublemaker popping up, who presumes to block a decision for his personal gain. (And @fdt: the idea of a constitution is by no means a fallicy. Nor is it dead. In fact I do not know why the well we let us been blockaded by everyone. Let those who want to sign it, sign it. The others simply don't. Where the hell is the problem? Well, ok, it is maybe not that easy, but the problems here can be worked out.)
What is your problem anyway? The English conquered and oppressed the Scots and Welsh centuries ago. They are now ruled by London. How does the people of Birmingham stand the dominace of London? What do you do when there is a vote but not the guy you voted for gets to power but the other one? What do all the people do, who are now dominated by the others?
How does Pennsylvania in the US cope with not being able to make an independant foreign policy or having their own currency? What is your problem? Probably You read the sun to often.
It is the language? I tell you what: There is a people called the Swiss. They have three population groups, German speaking, French speaking, Italian Speaking. They are comprised of Cantons whos laws are so different that there is one Canton were women had no right to vote until recent times. But if they are attacked they stand together. Because of this do not need help from bigger nations to protect themselves. And it works since more than 150 years.
Why can't Europe work like this? Well it can. With or without Britain.
Fdt is right. Its your decision. I admit I never understood the sentiments of many British with this and probably I never will. Probably the Bri****h boon of being an island in a Europe of rival wars is turning to a curse in a Europe of cooperation: it promotes separation.
Whatever. It is more your problem than mine.
Kitsune
04-21-2004, 03:47 PM
Threelions wrote:
For me to open the gate to the eastern country before the political union was a mistake. Of course all the eastern european country have their place in EU. Then eastern country could have freely say I want or I don't want to go in this Union.
Unfortunatly UK have played the one step in/one step out politics. And gave the exemple to the new commer, that to play the bad guy can pay...
IMO UK have done that in order to be sure that the political union will never be build.
Here I agree. Thats precisely the problem. Poland has learned very fast that it can pay to be a troublemaker. And we Germans have been way to generous. Did you know that our votes haven't changed a bit with Reunification? In other words: East Germany is represented in no way in the Union. Not one vote. Who else if not generous Germany would have accepted such a thing? (France? Britain? Italy? Spain? Poland? LOL! In fact its not generous Germany, it is nutty Germany).
As I said before: fits and starts. And this will go on that way for some time.
The way Poland and Spain acted on the Constitution have been seen nearly like an act of trahison. You have to understand that some country work on that since 50 years. And the most that you can hope from a new commer is, not a fight the day after he has join the club.
Sincerely a lot of European are fed up about this type of policy.
There is no other way than a total European Federal Union.
You can't imaging how the purchase of the F16, the backing of W in Iraq and the lobbying against the European Constitution change the image of Poland in France.
But Hey! I still remind the time has a child when we have send some money and items to Solidarnosc. I still have my button badge :)You say act of treason... That's what You feel I believe... What way? What have we betrayed? Who have we betrayed? Or maybe we haven't betrayed, but just only we have disappointed someone's expectations? What were the expectations? Were they realistic? Have they considered the complex situation of our country? Have they considered the historical context? What were those expectations based on?
You say 50 years of work, I agree... but have You expected that smth that took You that amount of time, we will repeat in just 14 years of our independence from Communism. Why such rush? Where was France psychologically 14 years after it's liberation in 1944? Was it as European as today? How many years took France to overcome egoism and fear of Gemany?
Do You consider EU as a club? For us all this time under Communism EU was a communtiy of free and equal, where all specific problems, fears and hostilities were facilitated bona fide on equal terms. Everyone was equal there... When we want to join, we hear "It's time to give up the equality principle because the newcomers will ruin all the beautiful things we achieved" ... wow that's smth like "honey hide the porcelain, our dear visitors have arrived"... I can assure You that five or six years ago, we were more european than many present members... The Euroscepticism of some Poles is a breed of last 2 or 3 years where all the prejudices on both sides (some were and are on Your side too, isn't it?) were voiced loudly. Instead of pushing it down, some French and German politics have fueled the sense of insecurity in Polish society (what was very efficiently used by domestic Eurosceptics). The Polish "bad behaviour" was born of these fears...
Why there is no way other than Federal EU? Aren't You self limiting the options? Hey the imagination was always Your strong side...
As it comes to the things You mentioned... that ruined the image of Poland in France...
What was the fuss of the F-16 contract? What infuriated You so much? During the whole bidding procedure there was NEVER an issue Mirage 2000 or F-16. It was Gripen vs F-16. French offer was least satisfying because of it's indigenouity. French airplanes meant French armament, French standards and what's for worst Mirage 2000 is not expected to be modernized anymore as French (who turn to Rafale) and Greek AF don't want it. M2000 is a typical fighter not multirole. Believe me in case of Mirage it was not a political decision... in case of Gripen - it might be... but it's the Swedes and Brits who could complain which they didn't. Wasn't it again a case of ill placed expectations based on.... what?
Backing the war in Iraq... well it was 8 countries who signed the letter supporting the USA. Why all the criticism was fired upon us? Why not the Denmark, not Italy, not Spain... In Poland it was perceived as a double standard - "members of the club" can make sins ang go untouched... the newcomers must crawl... Was such perception sensible I don't know, but emotions rised by rude remarks of Chirac have ruined the image of France in Poland... Pity - image for image... but was it worth?
Lobbying against Constitution... tell me what would the public opinion in France say if at the time of the EU entry referendum were one conditions of France's membership and 5 months before entering, those conditions would be changed for worse... huh? It takes a lot of political naivity to believe that any govt in the World would accept such turn of the terms facing the elections... Again, You were expecting Polish government and society to take more than You would stand Yourselves... Bad timing, bad approach... it was not the anti anti ... look what's happening now... we are negotiating... because the politicians on both sides (French too) have finally noticed the pointless stupidity of their former approach. Couldn't it be done like this from the beginning?
As it comes to Your help to "Solidarnosc" movement in eighties... well Thank You Very Much!
Threelions
04-21-2004, 04:16 PM
@Threelions:
You seem not to know what this constitution is about.
"The EU can tell you what to do?" Thats plainly wrong. Britain stays a sovereign nation, no one can order her to got to a war or not. Britain keeps national armed forces, the Queen stays in power, the British continue to drive on the wrong side of the road.
Britain is no part of the monetarian union and stays away, the constitution does not change this, Britain did not sign the Schengen agreement so Foreigners cannot simply work in Britain (and Brits cannot simply live and work in France, Germany or Italy) and this is also not changed.
Its mainly about economic things that concern everyone, that are decided on EU level. And here the voting system is changed. As you can plainly see, a voting system were everyone has to agree does not work. There is always a troublemaker popping up, who presumes to block a decision for his personal gain. (And @fdt: the idea of a constitution is by no means a fallicy. Nor is it dead. In fact I do not know why the well we let us been blockaded by everyone. Let those who want to sign it, sign it. The others simply don't. Where the hell is the problem? Well, ok, it is maybe not that easy, but the problems here can be worked out.)
What is your problem anyway? The English conquered and oppressed the Scots and Welsh centuries ago. They are now ruled by London. How does the people of Birmingham stand the dominace of London? What do you do when there is a vote but not the guy you voted for gets to power but the other one? What do all the people do, who are now dominated by the others?
How does Pennsylvania in the US cope with not being able to make an independant foreign policy or having their own currency? What is your problem? Probably You read the sun to often.
It is the language? I tell you what: There is a people called the Swiss. They have three population groups, German speaking, French speaking, Italian Speaking. They are comprised of Cantons whos laws are so different that there is one Canton were women had no right to vote until recent times. But if they are attacked they stand together. Because of this do not need help from bigger nations to protect themselves. And it works since more than 150 years.
Why can't Europe work like this? Well it can. With or without Britain.
Fdt is right. Its your decision. I admit I never understood the sentiments of many British with this and probably I never will. Probably the Bri****h boon of being an island in a Europe of rival wars is turning to a curse in a Europe of cooperation: it promotes separation.
Whatever. It is more your problem than mine.
I am very well versed as to what the constitution is. My fear is that it establishes a dangerous precedent of control. It is my fearthat it is one step deeper into a centralized Federate nation of europe, something i am whole heartedly against. I dont think england ever should have been envolved with the EU from day one, consequently every signature that we place on euro paper (which isnt a resignation from the EU) further embroils us in a mess we dont need.
As far as economics go, i have made my stance very plain and simple, we should keep our money to help the british, not the cypriotes, spanish, polish, slovenians, so on and so forth.
How does birmingham deal with the dominence of london? Easy, there in the same nation. LOL!!! Completely different then having a frenchman (no offence) tell us how and what to fish, or who to by from.
If this is what you lot want, then by all means go nuts. But from my vantage point GB stands more to lose then gain from euro envolvement.
Cheers
Here I agree. Thats precisely the problem. Poland has learned very fast that it can pay to be a troublemaker. And we Germans have been way to generous. Did you know that our votes haven't changed a bit with Reunification? In other words: East Germany is represented in no way in the Union. Not one vote.
1. Poland learned fast... from whom? Who is the best at this game? Who has pressed for the ill voting system in Nice? I believe it was no Poland as it had no right to vote then (and has not so far).
2. Yes. After reunification Germany haven't gained even one vote. Guess who opposed most? Was it Poland?
3. Isn't Poland a too easy to blame bad guy...?
BTW Isn't the German example a best illustration of the fact that being in the EU doesn't auomatically assume fair and square distribution of the membership costs? Why then the expectations that Poland should be happy to join EU at all cost? We wanted to assure the best possible terms of membership... are we only to blame such attitude... or there are some more EU countries who pursued similar pattern... Pls blame us, but do it fair. Criticise us and all who do things wrong... on equal terms...
Pad75
04-21-2004, 04:51 PM
fdt your response deserve a answer and I'll give it tomorrow.
I want you to understand that I don't speak here as a "french" but as a European wich is a huge difference.
fdt your response deserve a answer and I'll give it tomorrow.
I want you to understand that I don't speak here as a "french" but as a European wich is a huge difference.One thing is who You feel You are, another is how are ou perceived... but that's a different story. Unpatiently waiting to continue our dialogue.
Kitsune
04-21-2004, 04:59 PM
I dont think england ever should have been envolved with the EU from day one, consequently every signature that we place on euro paper (which isnt a resignation from the EU) further embroils us in a mess we dont need.
Thats quite a statement. Britain entered the Union for economic gain. Unfortunately there is no way of telling were you would be without the EU trade...but if you want find out, simply cancel each and any trade agreement you have with the other EU states and see were this leads. (I advice against it, you may find the results not to your liking).
I agree with you in so far that I do not like the idea of a centralised Federation, US style. But I think to strenghten the bonds of the European nations is simply a nessecity. Europeans simply should be able to defend Europe by themselves without help of outsiders. And we can, this is one of the richest and most densily populated regions of the world.
Our interests to "live long and prosper" :roll: are shared by all. If it comes to foreign policy even the biggest European nations have not enough weight anymore. What makes more sense than to bundle our efforts? If we have a system in which we first try to discuss the matter and find a common direction for our policy and THEN put our whole European weight behind it we can atleast move something. And those who minority who voted against it? Well, they do what they do in Great Britain as well...accept it. Next time you win. Thats how democracy works. Only in the direst of straits a nation should step out of this process, only if there is absolutely no ground for compromise. But I think these instances will be quite rare.
Nonetheless I believe a nation should have this right.
To sum it up:
The EU already is a free trade zone with common values.
It should become, additionally to that, within 20 years
an alliance of nations conducting a coordinated security and foreign policy not unlike NATO. NATO should more and more evolve into an partnership organisation between the USA and Europe.
Then we will have to see wether this is is seen as enough. Possibly the EU could further evolve into an Confederation (which, in contrast to a Federation, gives more power to the single memberstates) similar to the shortlived Confederated States of America or a structure similar to the Swiss Cantons. In any case I think a nation shall always have the right to leave the EU, even on this confederated level.
Will there ever be a "United States of Europe"? I do not know, I do not like the idea much, but I tend to leave that to future generations. It is simply not our right to decide that from todays viewpoint. In 50 or 75 years things may look very differently from now. Americans who lived during the civil war saw things differently from todays Americans. Things simply change.
martinexsquaddie
04-21-2004, 05:14 PM
I don't like the Eu
I REALLY don't like the Commission Unelected wankers kinnock could'nt get voted in here but gets a well paid job in brussels \WTF.
i DON'T SEE EUROPE BECOMING MORE DEMOCRATIC i fear the future of the eu and have taken steps accordingly :(
tony6
04-21-2004, 05:18 PM
I have to admit that Chirac's rude remarks about "keeping tha mouth shut" have ruined totally image of France in Poland.
That was so damn unsuitable...
Threelions
04-21-2004, 05:44 PM
Thats quite a statement. Britain entered the Union for economic gain. Unfortunately there is no way of telling were you would be without the EU trade...but if you want find out, simply cancel each and any trade agreement you have with the other EU states and see were this leads. (I advice against it, you may find the results not to your liking).
This has been a common defence of the EU. All i have to say is that Norway is doing just fine without! This idea that some would have us believe that trade would be non existent if we weren't envolved in the EU is a load of bullocks. Although it makes trade easier, GB is still a huge market which the EU would not be able to ignore.
I agree with you in so far that I do not like the idea of a centralised Federation, US style. But I think to strenghten the bonds of the European nations is simply a nessecity. Europeans simply should be able to defend Europe by themselves without help of outsiders. And we can, this is one of the richest and most densily populated regions of the world.
Our interests to "live long and prosper" are shared by all.
Here we will have some agreement. But the difference between us is that im not content to sit and watch as the EU becomes a federated state. I would rather voice my disgust with this idea in the hope that it wont come.
Cheers
wholagun
04-21-2004, 07:39 PM
good point fdt, a few EU countries and even new 10 supported the war but only we got bad publicity. That was pure BS for us. Really goes to show how unfair things are in the EU and the double standards. Czech Rep is in Iraq and no one was bitching about that??? Why not?? Belgium and other European countries have F16s and F18s and no one is bitching about that!!! All of a sudden Poland goes to Iraq and buys F16s and OMG - the sky is falling. We are just a scape goat for the EU its sad. We are clearly not welcome and its pure economics more then commrodery
The biggest BS about the EU is France. They get to say that we missed a good time to shut up. WTF is that. So now we have meet your terms in our foriegn policy to join the EU or France will not let us join. BS.
I like the EU and its a positive thing. however, the problem is that people view things int he short term and this is the problem. The EU was created as a long term project, not short term. Despite this all states view only the short term. Look at Spain, and Ireland, and what they've done with EU's help. Now, i know the only way to put critics to rest is to do the same thing but the only way to do that is to view things for the long term and not the short term.
Kitsune
04-21-2004, 08:50 PM
@wholeagun and fdt:
It was like this from my viewpoint:
Some years ago Poland was in its negotiations for its EU entry. This was strongly backed by Germany, because of our historic guilt and responsibility towards Poland, because of the role the Polish played in the downfall of the Warsaw Pact (they were seen as troublemakers even by the Russians back then ;) ), the role the Polish Pope played and what not. I saw no problem with it.
Then one could read here that the Polish were especially hard brokers, when it came to the money they would receive from Brussels. The negotiations were lenghty and hard.
"Well..." I thought.
A few years ago there was this summit in Greece, watched on TV. Erveryone of the statesmen held a small (and thankfully short) speech, said some civilized niceties, stuff like that. Then the Polish swaggered to the speakers desk. And his speech was a bit different. I do not remember the exact wording, but the gist was how glad the European Union could be to be finally allowed to join Poland.
"Well..." I thought.
Then one could read reports that the Polish made a huge weapons deal with the US, buying F 16s.
"Well..." I thought. (Its their money after all).
When the US wanted to invade Iraq, a group of 8 European heads of state conspirativley agreed on signing a letter of support, without asking for any consent with those who might disagree, thereby opening a deep rift within the EU. On of those: the Polish PM, Miller. Not yet member but already teaming up with the likes of Aznar, whose destructive policy towards the Union, just for the sake of Spains grandeur, I whole heartedly despise.
"Well..." I thought.
Then there were the constitution talks. Spain (biggest EU money receiver) was opposed as well as Poland (big money receiver to be). From Poland one heard things like "Nizza or Death" (Do not tempt us...grrrr p-) ).
"Well..." I thought.
The constitution summit failed...the most ambitious project in EU history, the diplomatic work of more than a year....gone. Long faces everywhere with politicians here in Germany. Especially those who had staunchly backed Polands entry seemed now to regret it. A Polish delegation visited Germany a few days later. As they entered the conference building, heads held high, they sang this American song: "We shall overcome...)
"Well..." I thought.
A few days later there was an interview with the Polish foreign minister to be seen...one sentence was interesting: "Schröder seems not to know what the European Union is about." Thats a whopper of similiar size as Chiracs "STFU" statement. Imagine the screaming from Poland if Fisher had said that about Miller. But there was nothing of the kind from Germany. We Germans have become a civilised, understanding people. Perhaps a bit too understanding.
"Well..." I thought.
This morning I opened the newspaper and read that ther seems to be discussion going on wether the Polish PM could use a German Luftwaffe Jet to go to Ireland...some Polish seem to feel offended by this idea. (Offended not by the foreign but by the German). Interesting.
Added to this there were the things written by the Polish members of this forum : "EU is only buisiness", "I love only Poland and my saber", "I simply cannot imagine a German watching my back" and so forth.
Well, well.
Is there a bad press towards Poland here in Germany? If there is it is quite subtle. After the failed summit, one could read and see a lot about the Polish problems with the EU...a nation that is truly free for about 14 years now and fears to loose its precious sovereignity again. Understandable.
My conclusions:
1) Poles are a proud lot.
2) Poles are a touchy lot, when it comes to land or sovereignity. One is better careful with these topics.
3) Poles tend to swaggering. Needs getting used to.
4) Poles have still not got over WWII.
All in all, I think, the Polish EU entry is overshadowed by a chain of events that is a bit unlucky. Here in Germany, many feel disillusioned with the Polish attitude, others feel even mildy (but only mildly) offended.
If we try to understand each other, there is nothing that cannot been overcome with few years of working cooperation. Within one or two decades real trust and even friendship may evolve.
Would be nice.
wholagun
04-21-2004, 10:19 PM
@ Kitsune, understandable. I can understand how Germans can be diassapointed with the politics and the attitude of most Poles.
First off let me start by saying that "Nice or death" is dead. Jan Rokita is prepared to accept Nice voting system, as is Miller (which is gone in a matter of days anyhow).
Secondly. Most Europeans are changing thier opinion on the EU and Poland due to recent events which you outlined. However, what you failed to write about is our story.
We were promised no work restrictions to several countries: Sweden, Holland, GB, and Ireland. Currently only Ireland is opening its borders to workers. Sweden and GB are doing the same but workers can't claim for social benifits. I understand that Germany wants to protect its workers, thats fine. The problem lies int he fact that as time went on, more and more countries began closing off their borders to workers and began putting restrictions on the wokers.
We were promised (x) about of money back originally. Then suddenly, Germany, France and others began saying they wouldn't give us (X) any more but rather (y). We were mad but we came to an understadning. Beggers can't be choosers some say. true they can't. But its interesting as things progressed closer May 1st the list of things we're gonna get and promises got shorter and shorter.
Internal politics have not helped much. Miller won't last long and hopefully Jan will be better, although he's EU friendly, he's one tough negotiator.
Press coverage from Germany hasn't always helped the situation. Calling us Trojan Donkey's doesn't really help relations. Especially when EU member countries were with the US and got nothing. All blame went to us. Double standards won't help to mend relations.
UK is not the only nation with special relationship with US. Almost ever Polish family in Poland has relatives living in the US or Canada (like me) :D . thus the US is a special circumstance.
Like I said before, you think short term its all negatives and nothing will get done ever. You gotta think long term with the EU. If states thought short term from the begginging then who knows if there would still be an EU.
@wholeagun and fdt:
It was like this from my viewpoint:
Some years ago Poland was in its negotiations for its EU entry. This was strongly backed by Germany, because of our historic guilt and responsibility towards Poland, because of the role the Polish played in the downfall of the Warsaw Pact (they were seen as troublemakers even by the Russians back then ;) ), the role the Polish Pope played and what not. I saw no problem with it.
Then one could read here that the Polish were especially hard brokers, when it came to the money they would receive from Brussels. The negotiations were lenghty and hard.
"Well..." I thought.
A few years ago there was this summit in Greece, watched on TV. Erveryone of the statesmen held a small (and thankfully short) speech, said some civilized niceties, stuff like that. Then the Polish swaggered to the speakers desk. And his speech was a bit different. I do not remember the exact wording, but the gist was how glad the European Union could be to be finally allowed to join Poland.
"Well..." I thought.
Then one could read reports that the Polish made a huge weapons deal with the US, buying F 16s.
"Well..." I thought. (Its there money after all).
When the US wanted to invade Iraq, a group of 8 European heads of state conspirativley agreed on signing a letter of support, without asking for any consent with those who might disagree, thereby opening a deep rift within the EU. On of those: the Polish PM, Miller. Not yet member but already teaming up with the likes of Aznar, whose destructive policy towards the Union, just for the sake of Spains grandeur, I whole heartedly despise.
"Well..." I thought.
Then there were the constitution talks. Spain (biggest EU money receiver) was opposed as well as Poland (big money receiver to be). From Poland one heard things like "Nizza or Death" (Do not tempt us...grrrr p-) ).
"Well..." I thought.
The constitution summit failed...the most ambitious project in EU history, the diplomatic work of more than a year....gone. Long faces everywhere with politicians here in Germany. Especially those who had staunchly backed Polands entry seemed now to regret it. A Polish delegation visited Germany a few days later. As they entered the conference building, heads held high, they sang this American song: "We shall overcome
"Well..." I thought.
A few days later there was an interview with the Polish foreign minister to be seen...one sentence was interesting: "Schröder seems not to know what the European Union is about." Thats a whopper of similiar size as Chiracs "STFU" statement. Imagine the screaming from Poland if Fisher had said that about Miller. But there was nothing of the kind from Germany. We Germans have become a civilised, understanding people. Perhaps a bit too understanding.
"Well..." I thought.
This morning I opened the newspaper and read that ther seems to be discussion going on wether the Polish PM could use a German Luftwaffe Jet to go to Ireland...some Polish seem to feel offended by this idea. (Offended not by the foreign but by the German). Interesting.
Added to this there were the things written by the Polish members of this forum : "EU is only buisiness", "I love only Poland and my saber", "I simply cannot imagine a German watching my back" and so forth.
Well, well.
Is there a bad press towards Poland here in Germany? If there is it is quite subtle. After the failed summit, one could read and see a lot about the Polish problems with the EU...a nation that is truly free for about 14 years now and fears to loose its precious sovereignity again. Understandable.
My conclusions:
1) Poles are a proud lot.
2) Poles are a touchy lot, when it comes to land or sovereignity. One is better careful with these topics.
3) Poles tend to swaggering. Needs getting used to.
4) Poles have still not got over WWII.
All in all, I think, the Polish EU entry is overshadowed by a chain of events that is a bit unlucky. Here in Germany, many feel disillusioned with the Polish attitude, others feel even mildy (but only mildly) offended.
If we try to understand each other, there is nothing that cannot been overcome with few years of working cooperation. Within one or two decades real trust and even friendship may evolve.
Would be nice. Fair enough.
tony6
04-22-2004, 02:41 AM
Yeah-that was fair enough.
I can understand that Germans could felt offended when Miller signed "the letter of 8". Poles are troublemakers-but hey-that's why we're still here, mate :D
Although some people in Poland have tendency to WWII-hysteria, things like "Nizza or death" were used for political pressure during the negotiations, that's all.
I cannot understand one thing: why did you feel not comfortable with us buying those damn F16?
What did you expect? That we buy Tornados? :D
I don't think it has something to do with EU business.
French Mirage was lost from the beginning (price!!!). It was all about F16 vs Gripen and choice was political.
One more thing... Polish attitude to EU and US.
We are said by EU politicians and media to be a US fifth column in EU. A Trojan Donkey bought by Yanks to sabbotage the European Unity. Troublemaker for peanuts, a hired miserable hooligan that is destroying the carefully built Common House for all Europeans... and so on. Isn't that the publicity we get?
Huh... are You interested what is our perception or You know better? If someone feels he knows better, take my advice... stop reading here.
Poland was since 1945 forcifully included into a block and system (social, economical, ideological) that was alien to us. We had no choice... pre war alliances were forgotten. France and Britain had their problems in 1945. Nobody, including the US, wanted a new conflict to ignite because of Eastern Europe (yeah. Whole Eastern Europe what makes our historical experience similar). For the 44 years of being stuck in the Communist block we used to watch carefully how is US and Western Europe doing. What we saw? Economical development, close co-operation in defense and economy between US and EU. This looked like the co-operation is working good for the benefit of wealth and security of the participants... It was all we weren't experiencing at home. It was an example, a promised land. Sorry for pompous comparison, but it was a sort of orphan watching a well going family with a strong father and careful mother.... and wishing to be adopted.
Communism has fallen, we became an effort to join that "family"... and then the happy family has decided to divorce... Problem was then we had an equal respect for both sides. We wanted to join You both... NATO and EU, US and EU.... We were told "This fairy tale marriage is over, it's a time to choose".... but we wanted not to choose between, because we didn't understand then (and we still don't) why this has to split?
;) Why our beloved and respected mom likes the "chinese or russian uncles" more than this fine and mighty dad we like very much. What has happened to mom and dad? Have they gone mad? ;)
Anyway let's take it as it comes. The "marriage" has split. Nobody can seal it back (we still have hope that it will happen anyway)... but why are we forced by "mom" to split too? We have nothing against the "dad", we like him still, even if he has done smth wrong we feel he is worth forgiving. Why are we being forced to choose between opposite sides when we see no contradiction?
Forgive me this childish example, but IMHO it shows well not only the political but also the emotional dimension of Polish attitude towards EU and US.
wholagun
04-22-2004, 04:19 AM
with time we will grow more and more pro EU as our hiways are built by EU and we get EU money in aid we will grow more pro EU as US won't offer us 70 billion Euros.
If anything we will help mend fenses with the US+EU int he future.
tony6
04-22-2004, 05:00 AM
Something to our Poland and EU/US discussion:)
Polish motto "Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna" (God, Honor and Homeland) today:
http://img.interia.pl/rozrywka/nimg/roz308419.jpg
Something to our Poland and EU/US discussion:)
Polish motto "Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna" (God, Honor and Homeland) today:
http://img.interia.pl/rozrywka/nimg/roz308419.jpgWould be quite funny if not the fact that's bitterly true. We are forced facing the choice between Bush vs Chirac/Schroder not... the constructive EU/US common interest debate... Shame & pity... but politicians often tend to hijack the wider perspective for the sake of current political and personal interest. IMHO societies on both sides of Atlantic sooner or later will find a way to rebuild the platform of the natural co-operation based on obvious common interest. Power of democracy is that politicians can be changed despite their efforts to show themselves as indispensable...
Marmot1
04-22-2004, 06:47 AM
I never realized that EU is so pissed off because of F-16....
And yes I can confirm that French image is going down in Poland... But on the other hand German image keeps quite well (my opinion).
Pad75
04-22-2004, 07:23 AM
Sorry I mess and hit the wrong button :)
Pad75
04-22-2004, 07:46 AM
You say act of treason... That's what You feel I believe... What way? What have we betrayed? Who have we betrayed? Or maybe we haven't betrayed, but just only we have disappointed someone's expectations? What were the expectations? Were they realistic? Have they considered the complex situation of our country? Have they considered the historical context? What were those expectations based on?
I won’t rewrite what Kitsune wrote in is big post it resume what I think.
My problem with Poland (but your point is perfectly understandable due to Polish history) is that you are still in a post WWII way of thinking. Europe mentality have evolve since 50 years with the renouncement of Patriotism and Nationalism. You can’t build what have been build without the culture of compromise and without the will to drop Nationalism. As I tried to tell you we have made huge effort to drop National interest and to build something in common. This took us 50 years. I know perfectly that this European building as a “Power” is seen for people in Europe as an hypocrite attempt from the French to build a French-Europe.
But my country wants that for Europe. You will probably say that France does that for it's own interest, but for me the French wants to build an independent union. In France independence is the most important thing (due to our past) and it’s something that you can understand. We learned that in 1940 and in 1956 (with the Suez Crisis). The UK took the opposite way in 1956 and tried to keep the relationship with the US at all cost as strong as it can be, while France understood that if we wanted a voice in the world there was no other way than independence. At all cost. And hopefully this idea is share by a big part of the European population and by others country who wants this strong Europe. It must not be understood as “another French thing”. It’s not because the French show some will that it’s selfish. Common interest exist believe me.
This will, can be very successful like with Airbus or Ariane.
What we expected with the entry of Poland is that the polish would push with optimism in this way and would not think in Polish interest on the short term. Every one (trust me) had in the past to do compromise to build this Union. And Germany paid a huge price for this union (€).
So the expectation was that you would fully understood that the European Union was your family and that you would play a fair game in a positive action in the political construction.
Aznar played indeed a selfish game just in order to build an old fashion style Spanish Grandeur (I don’t speak about UK who have played that since the beginning) and surprisingly Poland choose to do the same.
That’s why we have feel to be betrayed.
The announcement of the signature of the F16 contract two days after the signature of Poland into the Union was quite a timing mistake IMO… I develop that point below.
You say 50 years of work, I agree... but have You expected that smth that took You that amount of time, we will repeat in just 14 years of our independence from Communism. Why such rush? Where was France psychologically 14 years after it's liberation in 1944? Was it as European as today? How many years took France to overcome egoism and fear of Gemany?
Because we don’t want to wait 50 years that Poland decide to change and share the same point of view. And it’s not us who have to adapt but the new comer. After all no one forced you to join the Union and to make it short it looks like “hey guy’s I truly want to join your club but it sucks!” I know that we ask a lot to Polish to drop that Nationalism but hey what do you have to fear from Germany??? Germany made so much to show to all European that the lessons of the past have been perfectly understood that I have the feeling to go back 100 years in the past when I read comment like :
I simply cannot imagine a German watching my back.
To step back to Nationalism would be a regression for us. So...
The Baltic country for exemple don't have this sort of problem.
As it comes to the things You mentioned... that ruined the image of Poland in France...
What was the fuss of the F-16 contract? What infuriated You so much? During the whole bidding procedure there was NEVER an issue Mirage 2000 or F-16. It was Gripen vs F-16. French offer was least satisfying because of it's indigenouity. French airplanes meant French armament, French standards and what's for worst Mirage 2000 is not expected to be modernized anymore as French (who turn to Rafale) and Greek AF don't want it. M2000 is a typical fighter not multirole. Believe me in case of Mirage it was not a political decision... in case of Gripen - it might be... but it's the Swedes and Brits who could complain which they didn't. Wasn't it again a case of ill placed expectations based on.... what?
Now regarding the choice of the F16.
I truly believe that the US have lied to you with the 12 billion $ Offset contract. You will never get what the US promise you in Peace Sky I, and you will not have the will to complain. The USA did that in order to kill the European Air industry like the F35 program (but that is another topic ).
This contract was at 100% a political one. You think that the US will give you protection in the future with the NATO umbrella. And to make your choice perfectly understood you have choose the US F16. But what gives you this certitude that the US will defend Poland in any case? You can’t be sure and I would have prefer that Poland choose to back 100% a European Defence.
Then regarding the Mirage 2000, I’m afraid that your are wrong on the characteristic of this plane. First the Mirage 2000 is a perfect multi-role airplane. The Mirage 2000-5 is one the most modern aircraft and totally multi-role. The improvement of the Mirage 2000 will be made for a lot of years.
Greece is perfectly happy with it and there is a big probability that India buy 150 more to the one that they already possess and that Brazil get some too.
So I won’ say that the plane will not be improve. The Armée de l’Air will use the plane for 20 year with the Rafale and you can be sure that the standards of it will be maintain (like the F16 :) ).
I would have not complain at all if Poland have choose the Gripen. The money that Poland will receive as legitimate aid from European solidarity need to go to the European industry not in the US pocket. This complain I do it toward all the European country who still buy to the US to arm the European defence. France and Germany understood long time ago that there is no independent defence without an independent defence industry.
Now for Nato. Just look at your history and you will know what price you can give to an alliance…
We have learned that lesson and build an autonomous Defence force and an autonomous Nuclear defence. EU will be in the future your country and Nato is not a country. You have to understand that the idea that EU is only an economic alliance is false. The 6 first European countries involve in this union since 50 years did that in order to prevent another bloodbath on this continent and only a political union will prevent such a thing. We did not that just to improve our economy, but we did that to be sure that a War in Europe would be seen as our own suicide and a civil war.
[Backing the war in Iraq... well it was 8 countries who signed the letter supporting the USA. Why all the criticism was fired upon us? Why not the Denmark, not Italy, not Spain... In Poland it was perceived as a double standard - "members of the club" can make sins ang go untouched... the newcomers must crawl... Was such perception sensible I don't know, but emotions rised by rude remarks of Chirac have ruined the image of France in Poland... Pity - image for image... but was it worth?
On the Iraq issue, whose political voice was the voice of the European Opinion?
Schröder /Chirac or Blair/Aznar?
The letter of the 8 have been seen like an act of tender toward the Bush administration and was indeed seen as an act of treason when the European tried desperately to find a political agreement. That was a real backstab. Chirac was rude in fact. But he express frankly what a lot of European thought. I regret personally what he said but I have been much more upset when I saw the letter.
Lobbying against Constitution... tell me what would the public opinion in France say if at the time of the EU entry referendum were one conditions of France's membership and 5 months before entering, those conditions would be changed for worse... huh? It takes a lot of political naivity to believe that any govt in the World would accept such turn of the terms facing the elections... Again, You were expecting Polish government and society to take more than You would stand Yourselves... Bad timing, bad approach... it was not the anti anti ... look what's happening now... we are negotiating... because the politicians on both sides (French too) have finally noticed the pointless stupidity of their former approach. Couldn't it be done like this from the beginning?
Personally I would say that this changing attitudes comes directly with the disappearance of Aznar from the European political scene :) . Poland understood perfectly that it could not be a successful politics and that absolutely no reward could be obtain from such a lobbying.
Now as you said I hope that Poland will change the relation ship with the rest of the Union and be sure that your are still welcome :hug: .
My question is what does Poland wants to bring to EU?
Do you believe that euro-scepticism in Poland will lead to something? What is the alternative to a full optimistic push in Euro Construction? What future do you want with your eastern neighbour ?
Poland will be welcome if she wants to play a fair game and push for construction. I have no problem to give, by my European tax, money to Poland because I want that this part (Poland) of my country (Europe) develop and share the same life standard. And I sincerely hope that one day in the future a Polish President will lead this Europe.
Regards.
I must say that Your post saddened me gravely... You don't trust us and our constructive ability to contribute anything to common Europe. :( We are the nice but lost kids that need to be led by hand, Rousseau's "Noble Savage" - exotic peoples who don't belong to the higher culture so they must be paternally assisted in achieving the levels of civilisation they are not able to understand... :( You help us wholeheartedly to rise from the depth of prejudice and obscurantism, what we are not able to overcome on our own.
Why so bitter ? You may ask... Look at the method of answering my post You've choosen. I tried to make clear what are the reasons for the Polish way of seeing the things. I thought that many of the misunderstandings comes from lack of information or misinformation. I tried to make my point as clear as possible. Instead of showing me, the inconsistencies in my logic, You presented Your own point of view for every issue mentioned. A sort of a method that assumes us to watch the things Your own eyes.... which is impossible... We have only our own eyes, our own perception and experiences.... who may evolve only... The revolutionary change of the World perception is a philosopher's dream not real option.
You say: "We don't want to wait another 50 years..." Nobody says it will take that long... But what if... the process of building the common Europe requires let's say 10 years of time more... is it a price worth paying or not to achieve the final goal (common Europe) safely? You can't hurry flowers to grow as You can't hurry the societies to mature... unles You use a guilottine.
Do You really believe politicians saying that "now or never"? Why that? Because we are not able to build anything? Because we are only capable to destroy, destabilize and to prevent others from building? Hope You don't think so... :(
Why are we willing to trust Yanks in security matters...? What guarantees we have that they would help us in need? There are no final guarantees ever... as there were no such in 1812 or 1939. We choose the common effort of US and EU in defense matters... but wait.... there is no such option available now.
I think we should end this France vs Poland talk here.
Pad75
04-22-2004, 09:22 AM
I tought that you wanted to hear my opinion. If you don't want it, don't ask.
It surprise me that you take it that way.
I can understand that your are desapointed but I'm not force to have the same point of view. I think it's call democracy.
I never seen you as lost kids. Polish politician took some act and personnaly I did not like there choice.
Did I wrote that?
I must say that Your post saddened me gravely... You don't trust us and our constructive ability to contribute anything to common Europe. We are the nice but lost kids that need to be led by hand, Rousseau's "Noble Savage" - exotic peoples who don't belong to the higher culture so they must be paternally assisted in achieving the levels of civilisation they are not able to understand...
Threelions
04-22-2004, 09:39 AM
The UK took the opposite way in 1956 and tried to keep the relationship with the US at all cost as strong as it can be, while France understood that if we wanted a voice in the world there was no other way than independence. At all cost. And hopefully this idea is share by a big part of the European population and by others country who wants this strong Europe. It must not be understood as “another French thing”. It’s not because the French show some will that it’s selfish. Common interest exist believe me.
“Britain is insular, bound up by its trade, its markets….with the most varied and often the most distant countries. Her activity is essentially industrial, commercial, not agricultural. She has, in all her work, very special, very original habits and traditions. In short, the nature, structure, circumstances, peculiar to Britain are different from those of the other continentals… How can Britain, being what she is, come into our system?
-charles de gaulle - some french bloke named after an airport (1963)
See thats what happened originally. GB was excluded from the Euro club. That did more to damage the cause in britain then anything else. Now, GB is ful of people like me!
Cheers
Pad75
04-22-2004, 09:46 AM
That is why I would like a political merge now in a European federal union with :
Germany, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Spain, Greece, Italy and Netherland.
There is no dought that the constitution is dead with the British vote and that we will have to rewrite the whole copy for the next political step.
The EU has turned to a :
"lets keep that economical"
Kitsune
04-22-2004, 10:32 AM
charles de gaulle - some french bloke named after an airport (1963)
rofl
The Americans even had some Presidents who were named after aircraft carriers... :lol:
n.ignomo
04-22-2004, 12:37 PM
Not only british citizens ! I thing many of the 15 d'ont want this constitution. If a referendum took place in France it wouldn't pass. That's why the Predident will chose to make the congress vote the referendum instead of the Nation.
Don't forget that Blair was for € in UK, he was for Europe (with a big E).
Threelions
04-22-2004, 01:00 PM
Not only british citizens ! I thing many of the 15 d'ont want this constitution. If a referendum took place in France it wouldn't pass. That's why the Predident will chose to make the congress vote the referendum instead of the Nation.
Don't forget that Blair was for € in UK, he was for Europe (with a big E).
Which is one of the main reasons i cant stand Mr. Blair.
Cheers
n.ignomo
04-22-2004, 01:06 PM
Every point of view is welcome ! :P
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.