I remember around seven or eight years ago either a French official or a French journalist began to bleat about the Eurostar terminus being in a station called Waterloo, describing it as unfriendly and requesting that the name be changed. Anyway, after some back and forthing, I recall a letter in, I think, The Times, saying, well, we could translate it into French for them and call it Eau de Toilette.

Posted by Verity at June 19, 2005 08:42 PM

Verity, that is hilarious!

There are quite a few boulevards in Paris named after Bonaparte's victories - Austerlitz, Jena and Wagram for instance - so why are the French so touchy about Waterloo? Oh, wait a minute.....

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at June 19, 2005 09:15 PM

I remember the row about the name of Waterloo. Of course it was utter hypocrisy from the Frogs, because Paris is stuffed with names which celebrate French victories (Pont d'Iena and the Gare d'Austerlitz springing immediately to mind). The Arc de Triomphe, too, has the names of lots of French "victories" (some of which were actually defeats) inscribed on it.

During that row, somebody wrote in to the Telegraph from Hastings saying that she wouldn't claim for a minute that her local station should be reclaimed. And some Frog official said that France should retaliate by naming stations after French victories against the English, suggesting Fontenoy to start with. But then another letter-writer wrote that, if that tit-for-tat continued, we English would have to build more and more stations, and where would we alight when we crossed the Channel?

Posted by PJ at June 19, 2005 09:51 PM

Well, if little Phoney sees fit to have to have the Eurostar now travel round the north of the Thames, cut through one of the most densely populated urban areas in Europe and end up at the most northern station in London (St Pancras) the French should feel free to do the same and have the train swing round the south of Paris and terminate at Austerlitz. Good way to compete with the airlines - have your train travel the furthest possible distance it can to reach its end destination.

Posted by Julian Taylor at June 19, 2005 10:35 PM

A visit to the Musée de la Marine at the Trocadero in Paris is always educational. From what you will learn there, you might be convinced there was ever only one sea battle in all history between the British and the French, which was the Battle of Chesapeake Bay. The French won of course, and that led to Cornwallis’s surrender at Yorktown in 1781.

Trafalgar? The Nile? Harfleur? Gravelines? Scaneroon? Cape Finisterre (thrice)? St Nazaire? The Glorious First of June? Algeciras? Santo Domingo (twice)? Lissa? Mers-el-Kebir?

No sorry, never heard of any of them. You say the British won them all? That cannot be; la gloire de la France would never permit this to have happened. Go away, you strange foreign person.

Posted by JEM at June 19, 2005 11:27 PM

May I just add one word to the debate?

Michelin.

Posted by GCooper at June 20, 2005 12:54 AM

The Eurostar? Isn't that the one which travels beneath the English Channel?

Posted by Pete_London at June 20, 2005 01:39 AM

Gotta hand it to you Brits (from a Yank). You've suffered immeasurably from the insufferable Frogs for decades (centuries), and the worst you can say/do is suggest a train terminus' name that might be unrecognizable by them. You've been on the precipice of Franco domination (the EU) for so long that I'd have thought a little more overt "retribution" would have been in order. Bully for you, but I would be trying to jerk them by their "short hairs" .

Posted by MaDr at June 20, 2005 01:47 AM

Gotta hand it to you Brits (from a Yank). You've suffered immeasurably from the insufferable Frogs for decades (centuries), and the worst you can say/do is suggest a train terminus' name that might be unrecognizable by them. You've been on the precipice of Franco domination (the EU) for so long that I'd have thought a little more overt "retribution" would have been in order. Bully for you, but I would be trying to jerk them by their "short hairs" .

Posted by MaDr at June 20, 2005 01:48 AM

Leave Saint Pancras alone. He was martyred by the Roman Empire: the victim of a previous attempt by a multinational racket to de-Christianise Europe (cf the 'Constitution', with its refusal to recognise the continent's Christian heritage). St Augustine dedicated the first British church to Pancras. The boy-saint is the patron of all who fight against liars, which makes him a suitable symbol of British resistance to Euro-federasty. Unfortunately he is also the patron saint of treaties...

Posted by Effra at June 20, 2005 01:51 AM

Until the French apologise for the Revolution and Napoleon,as did the Germans the Nazis,they are always going to be a scarred nation.

Posted by Peter at June 20, 2005 03:00 AM

After today's debacle at the US Grand Prix, yes, let's be as beastly to the French as is possible.

Here you have one of the most well-known French companies, Michelin Tires, a multi-billion dollar operation, and they could not fufill one simple contractual obligation. That obligation was to manufacture a race-worthy tire for the USGP at Indianapolis. A simple little feature like a curve with 6-degree banking completely and utterly stymied them.

Jeez, and the USA is supposed to fear competition from a continent of such incompetents. Hey, bring it on baby. I know who my money is on.

Posted by David Crawford at June 20, 2005 08:56 AM

Until the French apologise for the Revolution and Napoleon,as did the Germans the Nazis,they are always going to be a scarred nation.

To be a little bit serious for a moment:

The 20th Century was an anomaly in British relations with Europe. Our traditional enemy is France, our traditional ally is Germany—or in the past, more exactly Prussia. Just as an illustration, the British royal family is almost entirely German in origin--Victoria’s mother tongue was German, as that is what her mother spoke; she learned English later.

However the over-riding principle of British foreign policy towards Europe for over 500 years has been to prevent the emergence of a single continental superpower that would inevitably dominate over these offshore islands of ours. That is why Elizabeth I was at war with the Hapsburgs in general and the Spanish Armada in particular; why there was a series of wars with France through the 18th Century culminating in the Napoleonic Wars and that proto-EU, the Continental System; and why the Kaiser’s foolhardy ambition to build a fleet to rival the Royal Navy made common cause with France a necessity at the time.

It is also both why de Gaulle did not want Britain in the Common Market diluting French leadership there, and why for exactly the same reason Britain had to join. Only from inside the Common Market--or EU today--can Britain hope to divide and rule. Leave the EU and we become a minor bit-part player on the European stage; we would be relinquishing control over our future to others.

Therefore we must stay in the EU and ‘turn’ it from within. The arrogant and ridiculous posturing of Chirac has exposed France for the over-hyped, highly-selfish and pretentious nation it is. This is half the battle. The other half is the detachment of Germany from the French camp, and we now have a reasonable hope that the general election there in September will deliver a new government that will think like us more than like France. If that happens, we face the alluring prospect of building, with our traditional and natural allies the Germans, a Europe that suits both our desires and needs and those of the vast majority of Europeans.

If the French really feel unhappy about this, why they can always leave the EU. Come to think of it, an EU without France would solve a lot of problems…

Posted by JEM at June 20, 2005 09:08 AM

JEM: An EU without the UK would be even better.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at June 20, 2005 10:57 AM

Andrew Ian Dodge has it right. JEM's analysis is only superficially attractive because (as even the most determinedly blind Europhiles are now starting to see) the price of remaining a part of the Franco-German empire is a complete loss of freedom at a vast price.

Better that we get out and watch as the whole mess collapses about their ears.

Posted by GCooper at June 20, 2005 11:58 AM

JEM: An EU without the UK would be even better.

...for the French, not the UK. We would be abandoning the principle objective of British foreign policy for half a millennium.

Leaving the EU would quickly prove to be not a 'reward' but a 'punishment'. The problem is not that we are in it, but that 'till now it has not behaved in a manner compatible with our needs and wishes. Now, for the first time, we have the prospect of an EU that does suit us.

The answer is to stay in and (as it were) take control. This would be the worst possible moment to throw in the towel.

Kick out the French; let them suffer, not us.

Leaving would be extremely unpleasant, however it came about.

There was a young lady from Niger,
Who went for a ride on a tiger.
They returned from the ride with the lady inside,
And a smile on the face of the tiger.

Posted by JEM at June 20, 2005 12:11 PM

The best line from the article on Mers-el-Kebir is this:

Churchill noted to a colleague that the French at Oran finally fought "with all their vigour for the first time since the war broke out". (against the British navy).

Posted by Jacob at June 20, 2005 02:15 PM

MaDR - No. We haven't suffered immeasurably from the French. To what were you referring? They're French and irritating, that's for sure, but suffering? The last time we actually suffered was at Hastings in 1066 and even then, it turned out to be a good deal for us as the Normans enriched our language by at least a quarter - maybe more; someone will know - and gave us some good laws. And a lot of single men who were made welcome by the local young ladies. That was in 1066. Since then they haven't set foot in Britain, unless they paid for their ticket.

"the name of a station that's unrecognisable"? The entire point of their snit is that Waterloo is only too recognisable. That was the renowned battle in which the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon. At Waterloo. They are very familiar with the name.

What do you think was the point of all the comments yesterday, Waterloo Day, the anniversary of that great battle - which we won.

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 03:18 PM

I make a comment here with some trepidation in case Veity makes another of her mendacious attempts at character assassination, but here goes.

The battle of Hastings did not involve the French, it involved the Normans. The Normans were of scandinavian origin and effectively had an accommodation with the French throne, whereby they nominally respected it, provided the French throne left them well alone. Unusually for foreign invaders the Normans largely adopted the indigenous French language (although etymologists often refer to the language as Angle-Norman as it significantly differed from standard French). Nevertheless they were not French.

Back to the subject of St. Pancras. perhaps the railway station should be renamed Mont St Jean, for this is where the battle of Waterloo actually took place. Wellington was in the habit of naming his battles after the place where he slept the night before the battle, so it would be appropriate if the splendid refurbished Midland Grand Hotel at St. Pancras were renamed the Waterloo hotel, so you could stay there the night before going to Mont St Jean station en route to Paris. This would be historically fitting.

The French really should appreciate the name Waterloo, in any case. The battle led to the liberation of France from Napoleon, leading to a long period of European peace. The battle also involved a truly European coalition against Napoleon (most of Wellington's troops at Waterloo weren't British) - and we all know how fond the French are of European unity.

Posted by HJHJ at June 20, 2005 04:16 PM

HJHJ - You are right. I should have written Normans. (Or Vikings.) They had their own king. I was trying to make it uncomplicated for MaDr who was under the impression that we have suffered for "decades (centuries)" at the hands of the French and seemed to think the French wouldn't know the name Waterloo. I pondered getting into the Scandinavian bit but rejected it.

How does Bollo feel about this?

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 04:24 PM

Thanks for all of these french-bashing posts. Coming from these little cunts of yankees and rosbifs, it's such a delight.
Thanks for the 1 300 innocents of Mers El kebir, another example of true "British Foreign Policy". Meanness&Betrayal Rules !

Thanks also for this brilliant demonstration of rosbif's ignorance and illiteracy.They doesn't ever know their own history! Go buy some Mers El Kebir's stuff on Amazon, Monkeys!

"Don't ever trust anglo-saxon bastards.
Always ready to stab your back."

Posted by K.Z at June 20, 2005 04:36 PM

K.Z. thanks for confirming all the stereotypes of the French.

If the French Admirals had not been collaborationists and had taken the very reasonable option to sail to FRENCH ports such as Martinique, 1300 Frenchmen would not have died. Blame Gensoul and Darlan, but of course that would require the sort of honest historical introspection that is rather a rarity in France. Soooo much easier to just blame the Brits.

Posted by Old Jack Tar at June 20, 2005 05:04 PM

K.Z. The rosbifs always win. It must be infuriating.

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 05:05 PM

How can we not beat up on French?

Peugeot France Makes Suicide Cars.

Link http://satire.myblogsite.com/

Posted by David at June 20, 2005 05:30 PM

"Dont ever trust the Anglo Saxon bastards they are always ready to stab your back"

K2 the French should try advancing then.

Posted by Peter at June 20, 2005 05:52 PM

The Germans have a song that has been silent for some time now but soon may come back into its own -- "Siegreich wollen wir Frankreich schlagen" ("We will smash France")

Germany was the key at Waterloo; Germany is the key to Europe again now. There is something insufferable about the French, you know--not just to us Rosbifs.

Posted by JEM at June 20, 2005 06:01 PM

>Old Jack Tar.
Non-sense.God Bless Ignorance!!!
The Third French Republic ended the 10 july 40. Mers El kebir was the 3 July. You can't speak so easily of collaborationism.
Les amiraux? but who fucked with them? In Alexandrie, the negociations between French and Brits were peaceful.
In Mers El Kebir, the vice-admiral Gensoul was disarming the Atlantic Force. In Toulon, the Royale scuttled all the ships in front of "the Boches", fucking germans. Frenchs officers were ready to negociate.But Sommerville was an authoritarian officer without any diplomatic talent. He was just ordering to surrender or die.He came to kill some French and He did it. Every English officers knew it was infaming to attack the former allied navy. And they attacked first.

It's just history.Take your responsability, stupid rosbif, learn history facts, and don't blame innocents victims for all your treachery.

Waterloo was a victory for England and a defeat for Corsica. Mers El Kebir nothing more than a slaughter.

>Verity
You're right. The only one time England was invaded, it was by French!! Sucker!

Posted by K.Z at June 20, 2005 06:02 PM

Peter! V good!

KZ - Normans. (They're taller than the French. No offence.)

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 06:07 PM

>Verity.
Are you trying to say, that English is not a mixed language of french, german and anthropophagist-Pictes-words for morons? Oh Fuck me! Why do you think Kings of England were servant of French King? Explain morons!

- Normands vs French? What a pity, there is no such thing that this french blood. celtic, roman, frank,normands for sure. But not a drop of barbarous pictes or fucking saxon.
Eat it.

Posted by K.Z at June 20, 2005 06:23 PM

On a tangent:

The phrase "Let's not be beastly to the X" rang a bell, but I couldn't remember who the original X were, or what the context was. So I googled "let's not be beastly", and found that we must not be beastly to the

Germans (the original X, from a Noel Coward song---though I had to dig to discover this)
Daleks
Moslems (from Samizdata)
English (something cricket-related)
terrorists
"gipsies"
Gerhard (Schroeder)
"poor old Bush"
Imams
"the Hun"
Austrians
and so forth and so on.

Just in passing, I note that "Let's not be beastly to the Americans" and "Let's not be beastly to the Yanks" yielded no google hits whatsoever.

Posted by Angie Schultz at June 20, 2005 06:41 PM

and don't blame innocents victims for all your treachery.

How amusing, being lectured by a Frenchman for treachery in WW2!

Posted by I'm suffering for my art at June 20, 2005 06:52 PM

Angie - that is because it is such a famous and funny song that British headline writers are always rewriting the title knowing that it will convey an immediate mood to the reader. Coward's "The Stately Homes of England" also gets a lot of rewrites. I believe Quentin Crisp wrote a book called "The Stately Homos of England".

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 06:54 PM

Wow, KZ really does have an inferiority complex, eh?

Posted by I'm suffering for my art at June 20, 2005 06:55 PM

The Normands and French don't have a drop of Anglo-Saxon blood? Ha ha ha! What about those 500,000 Brits who own property in France? Some of them are married to French people and have children with them!

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 07:19 PM

Probably a Coward title even more beloved of British subs because its use conveys so many layers of meaning, is "Mad Dogs And Englishmen". Another one that's right up there is "Don't Put Your Daughter on The Stage, Mrs Worthington".

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 07:31 PM

Interestingly,it was the Romans who let the Germanic tribes settle in Gaul, the Germans liked it so much they have been going back there regularly ever since.

Posted by Peter at June 20, 2005 07:48 PM

K.Z. -- "Why do you think Kings of England were servant of French King?" you ask.

We don't because they were not.

Typically of the French, you've got your history the wrong way around. More than half of what is modern France belonged to English kings, and the French king ruled as a puppet of the English king for many years after 1066.

I think Henry V's speech before the Battle of Agincourt would be apposite here. This is perhaps the greatest speech in the English language. (As per W. Shakespeare, who work is I understand not well-known in France. He's probably too cultured for Gallic tastes.)

For the avoidance of French doubt, the English were seriously outnumbered, but won decisively anyway--as one would expect.

If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Posted by JEM at June 20, 2005 08:30 PM

Oh, gosh (wiping away the tears) ... Thank you for posting that, JEM.

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 09:54 PM

Our traditional enemy is France, our traditional ally is Germany—or in the past, more exactly Prussia.

Oh yuk. Yes I do dislike having the French as an 'ally' - I think Lord Raglan had it right in the Crimean War when he mistakenly said 'we shall never beat the French at this rate', but should have meant 'we shall never beat the Russians at this rate'. But one country we have always disliked far more is Germany. Zero sense of humour (unless it involves men wearing ladies's underwear underneath their lederhosen, which suddenly falls down in the middle of a funeral) and absolutely no sense of the absurd at all. Add to that the vast numbers of British lives expended over a 'mistake' (yeah, right) in dealing with that awful country Also add to that various ranges of automobile where the seats feel like you are either sitting on the floor of the car or on a steel park bench, and that dreadful country's obession with destroying British and American famous car marques (haha now VE own zer Rolls Royce und zer Bentley!).

Our closest allies are still the USA and the other English speaking countries of the world. I say sod the Europeans, sod the French and by God sod the Germans and their 1001 uses for a dead pig.

Speaking as a previous BMW owner of course ... :)

Posted by Julian Taylor at June 20, 2005 10:08 PM

Yes those wonderful German allies who started to World Wars and have been doing all they can to undermine American foreign policy where ever they can. Have been reading the press in Germany recently? Very friendly...

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at June 20, 2005 10:12 PM

... the Germans liked it so much they have been going back there regularly ever since.

Haha Peter. Mr Pearce once said that, "Belgium has been, is and probably will always be the Little Chef stopover of the Wehrmacht, en route to Paris". The other famous joke that comes to mind is, "Why do the French have trees on their avenues? So that the Wehrmacht can march in the shade".

Posted by Julian Taylor at June 20, 2005 10:17 PM

K.Z

He was just ordering to surrender or die.He came to kill some French and He did it.

Sorry, old habits are hard to break.

Posted by Pete_London at June 20, 2005 10:43 PM

I thought our traditional allies were the Portugese. I never thought the Germans were our allies and Germany, like Italy, is a fairly recent idea anyway. The Prussians did save our bacon at Waterloo of course.

Posted by Nick Timms at June 20, 2005 10:47 PM

Pete_London,

I don't think you are really sorry.

During WW2 it makes much more sense to treat the french as AXIS members.

Posted by Rob Read at June 20, 2005 10:57 PM

Rob Read writes:

"During WW2 it makes much more sense to treat the french as AXIS members."

Or, for that matter since WWII.

Posted by GCooper at June 20, 2005 11:30 PM

K.Z., your analysis of Somerville is flawed. Somerville did not want to fire on the French fleet at all; in fact, he spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince London that the action was ill-advised. The deadline of 5:55 pm came as a direct order from the Admiralty, not from Somerville himself. The French admiral Gensoul did not want to fight either, but as an officer and a patriot he had to obey the orders of his government. In the end, what happened was that both sides had maneuvered themselves into a position where there was no honorable way out. If there is a fault here, it is Churchill's; he insisted on the French Navy either scuttling or sailing to the United States and he wanted an immediate answer. Churchill's demands for instant action was what doomed the fleet at Oran, not Somerville.

Posted by akaky at June 20, 2005 11:34 PM

G Cooper - Quite.

Posted by Verity at June 20, 2005 11:41 PM

JT: But one country we have always disliked far more is Germany.

I see your ignorance of history is profound indeed. Prussia had been our principle and most consistent and reliable European ally for centuries. Hannover was under the British Crown for well over a century. Long before the unification of Germany under Prussia in 1871, numerous other smaller German states were British allies or clients. We had a sort of proto-NATO there in the 18th Century, specifically to contain France.

Dislike of Germany dates quite precicely from the propaganda campaign to persuade the British people that Germany had behaved so badly towards 'plucky little Belgium' in 1914 that Britons had to suppress their traditional inclination and instincts, to join in on the French side. In fact the real reason was preservation of the balance of power in Europe (I discused this earlier) and although some Germans did some bad things in Belgium, it was nothing worse than what everyone else, including the Belgians and the French, were also doing.

The reason for such an over-the-top campaign was precisely because the traditional British reguard for the people they regularly called their 'German cousins' and dislike of the untrustworthy French had to be overcome rapidly. Effectively, the real 'German-as-enemy-instead-of-France' period only lasted for about a third of a century, from 1914.

And until you can figure out how to get the British Isles to slip their moorings and move out to mid Atlantic, we cannot just 'sod the Europeans' as keeping Europe on-side is the single most important strategic goal of any British government, whatever they might think they would like to do before getting into power. There is a word--it happens to be German--to describe ths bleak fact: Realpolitik.

To 'manage' Europe we need to be inside the EU and we need allies. France has never been reliable. Despite Schröder's stupid dalliance with Chirac against US Iraqi policy (and his days are clearly numbered) Germany has in fact been a consistent ally of the UK & US for decades, which is more than you can say of France.

Now here we are on the brink of wrestling leadersip away from France and in our direction at last, and you would have us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Get real!

The famous reputed lack of a German sense of humour is soon exposed as utter rubbish if you speak German and live and work among them of course--although they are a serious people. Oddly, I can say from the experience of living and working in both Germany and the United States in my time, that one of the commonly disregarded realities is that Germans and Americans are in many ways very similar. I do believe Americans tend, if anything, to be closer in thinking to Germans than they are to Brits. The reason for the similarity is not hard to find: there is at least as large a German component in the American immigrant makeup as British. And if the Americans did not happen to speak English (there is a persistant story that German was considered instead of English as the national language during the 19th Century) we might realise that they are not really so similar to the British as all that.

This should not be interpreted to imply that I do not value or appreciate our American Allies.

Posted by JEM at June 20, 2005 11:45 PM

Ah "Plucky Little Belguim" lovely place,wonderful tank country.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 12:22 AM

JEM writes:

"The reason for the similarity is not hard to find: there is at least as large a German component in the American immigrant makeup as British."

The last time I bothered to consult the CIA world fact book (not always a reliable guide, it has to be said) I seem to recall the percentage was skewed in Germany's favour.

Indeed, my own experience with the USA suggests this is quite accurately reflected, though it depends where (geographically speaking) in the US you are. The glorious South for example, tends to feel far more like home to me, as a Brit.

For all that, your analysis of the EU is still fatally flawed. There isn't a scrap of evidence that Germany is a proponent of free trade - nor that it has ever been. Even in the 18th Century one of the prime forces driving Germans to the USA was collectivism (the guild system). German states, and later Germany itself, have hardly been engines of free market policies.

Your dream of wresting control of the EU from the Franco-German elites, is just that - a dream. You won't drive a wedge between those two, and there isn't even a glimmer on the horizon suggesting that Germans are less collectivist than the French. In some respects, it could be argued that they are even more so. Germany, after all, is a major force in the tranzi "Green" world.

Your historical argument, which seems to be that Germany is England's traditional ally, stumbles and falls on the evidence. Germany (as Ralf Goergens of this parish has recently bemoaned) is an engine for stagnation - far from a potential free trade ally.

As I have said before, we should be like the cat: out - now. Leave them to stew in their own juices, while we continue to trade with the world.

Posted by GCooper at June 21, 2005 12:54 AM

As always, I support G Cooper's cat analogy. Once a cat senses danger, it does not sit around considering. It looks round for an exit and is out in the blink of an eye. Gone. Safe. Still the master of its fate.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 01:24 AM

Tony Balir will end his presidency a sadder if not wiser man,France and Germany with the aid of Brussels will simply stitch him up just like the IRA did.
He will be announcing triumphs for the six months,at the end the waters will close over his term of office as if he had never been.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 01:44 AM

Peter, careful what you believe ...

Did you read Melanie Phillips on what Blair's plan is? (Link)

He intends further multi-culti, anti-family, anti-society authoritarian theft of British freedoms. She was talking to a patron's society and this is breathtaking in its starkness. Blair is no friend of Britain.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 02:09 AM

'Germany', like 'Italy', is an artificial entity dating only from the mid-19th century. Once Britain has dismantled the EU, we should continue our traditional divide-and-maintain-balance policy vis a vis the offshore landmass by facilitating the unpicking of these historically dangerous, neurotically aggressive amalgams. If Yugoslavia and Czecho-Slovakia and the USSR can be dismembered, so can the nasty neo-nations of Bismarck and Garibaldi. Bring back the Kingdoms of Bavaria and Savoy and Naples, the city states of the Hanseatic League and so forth. Small is beautiful, and safer.

Posted by Luniversal at June 21, 2005 02:18 AM

Verity,
Oh,he will try to screw up Britain,but he will get no change out of Europe,I'm afraid his legacy is going to be "What?"

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 02:30 AM

Peter, having outgrown Churchill and Maggie, he is now posing as St George. But he means Britain harm. He should not be dismissed too lightly, because his Gramscian programmes of social maladjustment and everyone dependent on the state have worked very well over the past seven years.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 02:39 AM

Verity,
Baloney is already cutting a deal with Brussels to reduce or give up the rebate,he thinks he is out manoeuvring Chirac.My bet is that the rebate will be gone and the CAP will still be with us.
I share your concern but politicians don't really have as much effect on people as they would like to think.What is happening in response to the Blair terror is people are disengaging from our institutions and treading an alternate path.This is Blair we are talking about he only ever got one thing right.
BTW,The link doesn't work.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 02:56 AM

Peter - I take your points, but I believe he is more threatening than you think. Look what he has done to Britain already. The curtailments of ancient liberties, laying about him with a wrecking ball to the pillars of the constitution. ABSOs, with magistrates making up laws on the hoof without bothering parliament. Birth control pills for 10-yr olds. (Why not, as long as they are making "a mature decision"?) Blair's a fanatic, although I must confess he camouflages himself quite well.

I'm sorry about the Melanie link, but the address is: melaniephillips.com and the piece you want to read is at the top, Talk to Patron's Society. It is a mind-blower.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 03:18 AM

A few general points:

1 To say Germany is historically anti-free trade is to fly so blatently in the face of the facts as to be laughable. Indeed the entirely-German medaeval Haseatic League was the very entity that started up free trade in the moderm sense. The next major step towards European free trade was also German, the Zollverein (see next)

2 One of the principle forces causing Germans to emigrate to America was not the guild system (which was for long more powerful in Britain than Germany anyway) but the damage done to German prosperity generally by the lack of a proper united German economic space until the arrival of the Zollverein (Customs Union) in 1834--the highly successful step towards German unification that was the model for the Common Market over a century later. BTW, the Zollverein had acquired a constitution, a Zollbundesrat (a federal council of representatives of the several individual German states) and a directly elected Zollparliament by 1867. Now, does any of that sound familiar?

3 The traditional way in which French governments raised revenue was to divide the country up into counties (later, departéments) and impose internal customs duties on all goods transported between these regions. There was a particularly high tarrif on goods (including food) brought into Paris. This exceptionally regressive and counterproductive arrangement did more to hold back the French economy than any single other factor. So much so that France, the former leading economic and military power in Europe, had been overtaken by Britain by 1800 and Germany by 1870 and France was rapidly becoming a second or third rate ecomonic power.

4 Yes, Germany has been 'an engine for stagnation' of late. But not so much as France. And unlike France, there are both ways for Germany to change itself and evidence that it is going to change soon. We can work with Germany to help them abandon the bankrupt French model and change back to the traditional free-trade path that has always been so successful for them. Succeed here, and we have isolated France. And won.

5 And no, Luniversal, small is not beautiful, or safer. It is deadly in this context. leaving aside the fact that it is not in our gift to destroy the EU (only to destroy ourselves in trying) a Europe taken back to its constituent parts would not just be a guaranteed way to continent-wide (including the UK*) economic ruin on a scale not yet imagined, but having thought we had got rid of the danger of general European war for ever, it would be back with a vengence. It's difficult to imagine a more stupid idea.

6 *Logically, if Luniversal were right, the UK should be broken up as well. Not just into England, Scotland, Wales & N Ireland, but also Cornwall, Yorkshire, East Anglia, Orkney, Shetland, Fife, etc., etc. And we thought the Civil War ended 350 years ago...

7 As I keep pointing out, the problem is not that there is an EU and we are in it, but that it does not go our way. If it went our way, why would we ever want to leave it? And now, here we are on the brink of achieving just that, but the knee-jerkers haven't yet noticed that all the rules have changed. Getting out always was simply a policy of dispair, based on a belief that we could not change things. Well, now there is an excellent prospect that we can change things--and you STILL want to leave?

8 Perhaps we will not succeed in changing the EU; then perhaps we should consider our position again. But right now, leaving would be a lunatic thing to do.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 08:33 AM

As I keep pointing out, the problem is not that there is an EU and we are in it,

Whether or not there's an EU, being in it is a problem. If you believe in liberty, the more distant and out of control government is the worse. Hence supra-national institutions present abouit the worst possible threat to liberty. Some sort of state is a necessary evil; clubs and cartels of states are undesirable and rarely necessary; ueber-states wholly evil.

Though many Samizdata visitors reserve their greatest hatred for UN institutions, by my reckoning being in the EU is much worse than being in the UN.

Posted by guy herbert at June 21, 2005 10:05 AM

As I keep pointing out, the problem is not that there is an EU and we are in it, but that it does not go our way. If it went our way, why would we ever want to leave it? And now, here we are on the brink of achieving just that, but the knee-jerkers haven't yet noticed that all the rules have changed. Getting out always was simply a policy of dispair, based on a belief that we could not change things. Well, now there is an excellent prospect that we can change things--and you STILL want to leave?

As for a 'policy of despair' the answer is quite simply that the UK shouldn't have been in the EU at all in the first place. Even Edward Heath now recognises the error of his judgement, that something he envisaged as a way to compete with the rest of the world, via a united European trading bloc, has been degraded into a centralised and unaccountable (both financially and bureaucratically) quagmire, with the abhorrent intent of the destruction of the individuality of the nation states that comprise its members. As for 'going our way' the EU has only 'gone our way' once, and only then when Margaret Thatcher was forced to handbag the EU in order to get a few of our billions back.

On the other point you are quite correct, we want out because we pretty much know the direction that the EU is headed in and we are pretty much aware that we can not change things. Having rattled his toy mug once on the bars of the EU playpen Tony Blair is not about to attack the French yet again, especially given his recent attack on the one thing close to all French farmers' hearts - the CAP - so I seriously doubt that he would attempt any further featherruffling in either Paris or Brussels.

Posted by Julian Taylor at June 21, 2005 10:34 AM

...being in it is a problem

Not being in would be a far worse problem. We would be handing over our fate lock stock and barrel to those who remain. It would be like abandoning a thousand years of actual independence for the appearence of independence but actually the very opposite -- and just at the very moment when we might be able to get the EU working the way we want.

Inside we have a chance to influence events, outside we become a satellite state of no consequence, and an irrelevance not only to Europe but also in American eyes--who consider us important only because we are a sort of bridge between America and Europe. Leave and the bridge has gone.

Let the scales fall from your eyes. We cannot leave because there is nowhere else for us to go. And leaving now just as things look likely to go our way would be just plain daft.

...we want out because we pretty much know the direction that the EU is headed in and we are pretty much aware that we can not change things

That's right, give up just as thing begin to turn our way.

We do NOT know the direction the EU is heading in any more--it's all up for grabs, in case you haven't noticed-- and we are NOT aware that we cannot change things until we have at least tried. What a pathetic and stupid policy of dispair you advocate.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 11:52 AM

If you believe in liberty, the more distant and out of control government is the worse.

Have you passed on this gem of wisdom to our American friends yet, as clearly if you're right this so-called "United States" idea of theirs is not going to work out.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 12:12 PM

If you think those Germans are our allies and pro-American take a gander at David's site.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at June 21, 2005 12:33 PM

JEM: " It would be like abandoning a thousand years of actual independence for the appearence of independence but actually the very opposite."

No, It would be like abandoning three decades of pseudo independence and lies for actual independence.

Why don't you throw one or other of the Europhilic exhortations? You know the ones, "We might miss the boat,." or "The train will leave the station without us.." or "We must be at the centre of Europe...".

JEM: "That's right, give up just as thing begin to turn our way. ..... What a pathetic and stupid policy of dispair you advocate."

Here is the thing. On the one hand we have thirty or so years of actual experience. Everyone over 40 KNOWS what effect the EU has had on the UK.

On the other hand, JEM, urges us to wait for more jam tomorrow.

Bitter experience verses more propaganda and promises?

Difficult decision.

Posted by APL at June 21, 2005 01:29 PM

The EU costs us money at the very least !2 billion a year probably with compliance costs and othere hidden costs more.
Europe sell more to us than we do to them, also the Rotterdam effect has to be taken into account.

Britain is deliberately made the destination of all those immigrants that Europe does not want.

We have regulations thrust upon us which we neither nor suit or circumstances.

There will eventually be majority voting,which will in effect mean that we never have a say in important matters concerning our nation.How do I know,they will bribe the poorer countrties with our money to vote agains us.

Many regulations have be forced upon us because they are already in existance in another EU country.This is a wonderful way to destroy domestic businesses in favour of those in Europe,Anyone examinig droit du suite for example, will realise that whilst it had no effect on Germany,it will be devastating for the British Fine art market.Britains world leadership in this will go abroad.
There are many more examples of how wonderful the EU is for Britain.
We would be better getting out and declaring ourselves a tax haven and free trade zone.with low costs for foreign business.
It might put house prices up with all those German industrialists and French arms dealers but it would be worth it.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 02:12 PM

If you think those Germans are our allies and pro-American take a gander at David's site.

If I had the time and inclination I'm quite certain I could concoct a similar farrago of nonsense about anti-American bias in British media... or even in American media!

This 'Mediankritik' site is not to be taken seriously. If you do, more fool you.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 02:15 PM

Everyone over 40 KNOWS what effect the EU has had on the UK.

No they don't. They only think they do, fed on a daily diet of lies and half-truths from the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun.

I am not a europhilic nor yet a euroscetic; I am a eurorealist. You should try it sometime. It involves puting away your prejudices and looking at the objective facts. I don't suppose you've ever tried that yet.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 02:28 PM

As for Peter's most recent rant (incoherence level Grade 1) I suggest he would find a natural home in the British National Party--if he's not there already.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 02:32 PM

JEM - Even the fact that you see a necessity to proclaim yourself a "eurorealist" speaks volumes. Were there no artificial EU construct, there would be no necessity to be a eurorealist, a eurosceptic, fret about being "at the heart of Europe" or "the euro train starting without us" or any other silly thought which springs from this overlay of a vast, anonymous government by powerful, anonymous eurocrats.

There is absolutely no reason for us to be in this artificial and unworkable machine. They won't stop selling to us if we go.... if we control our own borders, as we have done for thousands of years, choosing who we want to live among us (we are British, not multiculti), choosing our own trading terms strictly to suit ourselves, making treaties with whoever the hell we feel like making treaties and accords with, etc etc etc.

We can still own houses on the continent (they need British money), we can still send children over for the summer to learn French or whatever, we can still import cheese and wine; we can to go war with whomever we think needs a lesson in civility without permission of a bunch of effete frogs, we can make our friends wherever we find them, even the crude, overbearing, ignorant and wicked United States - our cousins; and we can get back to nurturing our ties with the Commonwealth, to whom we owe a duty that we do not owe to the Europeans.

The sooner we get out, the sooner a vast surge of prosperity will overtake Britain. This totally weird experience, of countries willingly giving up control over their own laws and their own exchequers and their own borders will be viewed with wonder by future students.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 02:45 PM

JEM

As for Peter's most recent rant (incoherence level Grade 1) I suggest he would find a natural home in the British National Party--if he's not there already.

Well there you go, what a truly idiot response. Thank you and goodnight.

Posted by Pete_London at June 21, 2005 03:16 PM

JEM: "No they don't. They only think they do, fed on a daily diet of lies and half-truths from the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun."

's funny. I know I have been fed on a daily diet of lies and half truths from the likes of Hesltetine, Clarke, Goon, Blair, Heath, Mandleson - in no particular order and by no means an exaustive list. I don't need my lies cooked up second hand by the Mail or the Sun. I can get them directly from the horses mouth.

But If I wanted second hand lies, I might go either to the Guardian, the Independent or perhaps the Financial Times. All three raving Europhilliac newspapers.

The dire political condition of the UK today stems DIRECTLY from the central lie at the heart of our membership of the EU. "No essential loss of national sovereignty".

They have got away with telling one big WHOPPER, all the rest follows naturally.

JEM: "I am not a europhilic nor yet a euroscetic;"

Methinks you doth protest too much.

JEM: " am a eurorealist. You should try it sometime."

No, But good try. I am a eurorealist, which is why I hold the opinions on the EU that I do.

What we seem to have here is the Marxist tactic, take your enemies words and twist them to your own meanings. Thus a Eurofanatic becomes a Eurorealist.

The more I hear from you on the subject of the EU, the more I recognise Orwellian double speak,

JEM: "It involves puting away your prejudices.."

Why would any sensible person who has spent the best part of his/her life grounding his prejudices on fact, dismiss them for self evident untruths?

JEM: "...and looking at the objective facts. I don't suppose you've ever tried that yet."

Funny, I have rather the same opinion about your opinions of the EU.

Posted by APL at June 21, 2005 03:21 PM

Criticising and moaning is the preserve of socialists, teenagers and eurosceptics.

JEM makes some very valid points. We have a unique opportunity to positively influence the future direction of the EU.

Verity and crew - the EU just isnt going away. Implosion will be even worse. In a perfect world, the EU wouldnt exist. But it does.

Our only option is to attempt to change course from the present bureaucratic, unaccountable nightmare.

France's socialist model is not popular with the new members. That the UK's recent economic success is directly attributable to Thatcherite, free market policies is not lost on Europeans.

The onus is on the eurohaters to articulate a better solution. None have been offered so far.

Posted by pommygranate at June 21, 2005 03:49 PM

This 'Mediankritik' site is not to be taken seriously. If you do, more fool you.

Funny you should say that because other media seem to take him seriously...all over the world. Don't you think saying anyone that reads that blog is a fool a bit simplistic? Or is it just that it might be spot on but you don't care to face facts and prefer to attact those pointing out those facts?

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at June 21, 2005 04:07 PM

No, Pommygranate - Hitler was also a reality. The excellent German war machine was a reality. So bloody what? You want to compromise.

There is no compromising with the theft of liberty.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 04:31 PM

Verity

What are the chain of events that would happen if we pull out of the EU?

A British exit would leave behind scars that would take a generation to heal. The core of "old Europe" would do everything in its power to make us regret our decision. New laws would be enacted to impose trade tarriffs on those countries outside the EU.

Meanwhile, Europe would descend into an over- regulated, statist hell which would further depress economic growth and push countries such as Italy, Holland and Portugal into a deep recession. This would cause further economic migration in to the UK, not only of non-Europeans (why would a migrant seek out a country with an unemployment rate of 15%?) but also of fellow EU citizens unable to find work in their home countries.

Turkey would be politely told where to go, accentuating an already volatile Christian/Moslem split.

Britain would be isolated diplomatically and lose influence with the US.

Shouldnt we at least try and make it work?

Posted by pommygranate at June 21, 2005 05:04 PM

Britain would be isolated diplomatically and lose influence with the US.

How? How would the world's 4th largest economic trading country lose influence with the United States, because we are no longer affiliated with, or indeed afflicted by, France or the Germans? Would BAe Systems no longer be the USA's top defence contractor? Would BP no longer be one of the USA's top gas retailers and oil producers? Would Americans stop buying Burger King burgers, simply because its a British company?

I don't think so.

If anything I should think that the USA would be far more receptive to a British economy free of the burden of Napoleurocratic red tape and oneway controls than it is at the moment.

Posted by Julian Taylor at June 21, 2005 05:28 PM

Pommygranate: A British exit would leave behind scars that would take a generation to heal.

So? It took four or so generations to set in place.

"Europe would descend into an over-regulated, statist hell". So?

"This would cause further economic migration into the UK." Again - so? Just because they come doesn't mean they get in. Send 'em back. It's their fate. Let them deal with it.

"Turkey would be politely told where to go, accentuating an already volatile Christian/Moslem split." So? We should commit suicide so the Turks won't be offended? Who gives a shit? Britain's going to commit economic and social suicide so we don't offend the Turks? I - think - not.

"Britain would be isolated diplomatically" (oh, I thought we were already "isolated in Europe"). So? First, it's not true; millions of N Europeans would follow us. Second, so what? It's a big world out there. Why would we want to be currying favour with a bunch of socialist losers?

"Lose influence with the US". Let me explain the facts of life to you, Pommygranate, because you appear to be very young. Britain has no influence with the US. None. We are friends, but the US goes its own way and does what's best - quite rightly - for the US. Please name one single tiny policy on which we have influenced the US to change its mind. I'm waiting..... Yeah, I thought so.

As long as the US knows we are still committed to fighting Islamic terrorism, which will be much easier once we're free of the Stalinesque constraints of the European courts, we will still be pals. Trust me.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 05:32 PM

JEM,
Eurorealist is an oxymoron you are simply the last part of the word.
Not a Europhile?What would you be like if you were being paid to write this rubbish?

Keep quoting your briefing.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 05:43 PM

The core of "old Europe" would do everything in its power to make us regret our decision. New laws would be enacted to impose trade tarriffs on those countries outside the EU.

Oh, come on. International relations are not analagous to a tit-for-tat slapfest. If Britain left the EU, I'm absolutely sure the commercial elements within the EU countries that make a pretty penny out of trading with the UK would make damn sure their livelihoods weren't threatened. Continental Europe couldn't afford to quarantine the UK, in the same way the UK couldn't afford to quarantine continental Europe. That's the bottom line. Subtract the European Union from the equation, and it still remains the same.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at June 21, 2005 05:44 PM

JEM - Your ignorance of the United States passeth all understanding, which is worrying, because it means you are formulating and propagating opinions based on serious misapprehensions.

The federal government is in DC. Every one of the 50 states has a state capital and what we call a "governor" (who is elected). The governor is the chief executive of the state, and in any American state has more executive power, it will clearly stagger you to learn, than does Tony Blair or any other EU prime minister.

American states have the power to raise taxes. Some - in fact, most, have a state income tax. Did you know that? Some have capital punishment. Some not only allow people to arm themselves for self-protection, but in some, like Texas, people are even allowed to walk around "carrying concealed". These and other critical decisions about how you life your life are all made right round the corner, in your state capital. Not in DC. In New York, they're made by state senators and representatives in Albany. Never heard of it? It's a very powerful city. In Texas, the state capital is Austin. Never heard of it? If you ever travel to Texas, these guys have the power of life and death over you. In Louisiana, you've probably heard of New Orleans. But the power resides in Baton Rouge.

This is why the United States works and the EU cannot. Ever. Except by coercion. Capice?

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 05:47 PM

Forget about reforming the EU,let's just go to the bottom line.Europe is in decline and heading for extinction.The Demographics show clearly that Eurpoean countries are not replacing their populations.There will not be enough workers to support the giant ponzi scheme of welfare and pensions.
This century will see China and India leave Europe behind,Europe is the past,Btitain needs to align with the nations of the future instead of being a member of what is an insular protectionist cartel.
Much is made of the size of the European market ignoring the vast world market which is the future.
Little Europeans indeed.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 06:03 PM

Peter - We've all been saying - including you - that India and China will become powerful very fast. India, specifically, because not only does it have a large, well-disciplined and powerful military, but it is a democracy (it's been a democracy longer than any European country save the Scandinavians; think about it), it has a vigorous educational system and it is turning into a commercial and medical firehouse. It's dynamic and ambitious. Compare with the old slags in the EU. France? Dynamic? Greece? Dynamic? Belgium? Dynamic?

Blair, in his lying way, has yet to enunciate, even with reams of lies, why on earth Britain would want to put on a pair of concrete overshoes and join Europe in its plunge into chaos.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 06:25 PM

Verity,
Blair and the Eurodwarves are trying to sell us tickets for the Titanic.
It is puzzling how one canshare sovereignty, a bit like sharing ones virginity.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 06:54 PM

Verity -- Your ignorance of the European Union passeth all understanding,

The European Commission is in Brussels. It is not federal nor even a government. Every one of the EU 25 nations has a national capital and what we call a "government" (which is elected). The government governs the nation, and any European nation has vastly more executive power, incuding the power of peace or war, it will clearly stagger you to learn, than does any US state or any US state governor.

European nations have the power to raise taxes. The Commission in Brussels has no power whatever to raise taxes. All EU income comes from an agreed 1% tranch of the value added tax raised by each national government. All nations have a national income tax, but of course (see earlier) there is not and cannot be a European income tax. Did you know that? None have capital punishment. In most nations people are not allowed to walk around carrying concealed firearms--and quite right too--but if a member nation wanted to emulate one of the most ridiculous US customs and permit this, it would be entirely free to do so. These and other critical decisions about how you live your life are all made right round the corner, in your national capital. Not in Brussels. In Britain, they're made by members of parliament in London. Never heard of it? It's a very powerful city. In France, the national capital is Paris. Never heard of it? If you ever travel to France, these guys have the power of life and death over you. In the Netherlands, you've probably heard of Amsterdam. But the power resides in The Hague.

As Guy Herbert put it, "If you believe in liberty, the more distant and out of control government is the worse."

This is why if the EU cannot work, the United States is a total impossibility.

I would never pretend the EU is perfect; of course it's far from that. But the same it true in spades of the United States.

[BTW, I'm perfectly familiar with how the government of the United States works, thank you very much; clearly more than could be said for your knowledge of how the the EU functions.]

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 08:39 PM

Eurorealist is an oxymoron...

I see you don't know the meaning of the word, Peter.

And it's good to see you're still at Grade 1 incoherence level.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 08:49 PM

JEM - Why are all europhiles Americaphobes? One wonders what makes them so defensive and chippy. All Americans aren't europhobes, after all.

BTW, European countries' ability to raise their own taxes is being phased out under the grand-sounding name "harmonisation". So even now, save the UK, euoslaves do not have the power to raise their own taxes, as American states do. Nor do they have the power to bring back the death penalty, as American states (who abandoned it and wished they hadn't) do. Nor do they have the power to halt immigration.

The comparison between a free country like the United States and a slavery like the EU is fatuous. Americans can vote for anything they damn' please. EUslaves can only vote for what their government allows them to vote on. All other decisions go to the Faceless Ones in the anonymous carpeted corridors of power in an anonymous building Somewhere in Brussels.

Patrick Henry never cried, "Give me liberty or give me a directive!"

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 09:17 PM

JEM: This is why if the EU cannot work, the United States is a total impossibility.

But I never suggested the EU cannot work. It clearly does. (And do I know something about it, though life is too short to memorise all the directorates and other subsidiary bodies and what they are supposed to do.)

What I do suggest is that it is a bad system of Government, under which I do not wish to live. Elsewhere you may see me suggest that I believe it is a better prospect than unrestrained Blairocracy, and this is true too. Better need not imply good.

Nor does my disapproval of the EUber-state mean I am an unreserved fan of the US polity. Though I can see distinct advantages in a federal republic, and it does in practice have a lot more constraint on its government domestically, those are somewhat academic topics to an Englishman.

It seems to me I don't have much standing to try to alter US domestic policy, even though I may morally object to it, comment on it and try and persuade the yanks to do better. I may object and seek directly to alter, or try to escape US foreign policy and extraterritoriality because I am subject to it. I may object to and seek directly to alter, or try to escape, EU domestic policy because I am subject to it.

Posted by guy herbert at June 21, 2005 09:18 PM

Anyone who proclaims the wonders of the EU should at least examine the original intention of its founders.
Reading Jen Monnets blueprint for Europe makes it quite clear that it was never meant to be,an is not a democracy,it was intended to be a benign oligarchy

If one wants to live in a Bureaucracy in the literal sense,fine,but don't try and pretend that giving up freedom and the accountability of ones rulers is progress.
This project was conceived by 19th century men for an early 20th century problem and ia being applied in the 21st century.
It is all so Soviet Union.

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 09:56 PM

It is totally totalitarian and Soviet Unionesque. And the EUSSR apparachiks are trying to sell this as a system which works and is benign. This is how stupid they think the voters are . And they are absolutely correct. A vote for Blair is a vote for servitude.

And, to use a hackneyed old phrase, to all those turkeys voting for Xmas, I included myself out some time ago. And all the sophistries in the world, and all the intelligent thought in the world, ared not going to stop this jaganath - because that is how they planned it to be. You're not going to win a war of words.

Posted by Verity at June 21, 2005 10:07 PM

JEM,
I see your English isn't very good,but then that is obvious from the infantile neologism "Eurorealist"
Are you realistic about a currency?
An abreviation of a name?
What? We should be told.
I get the impression that the European Union isn't costing you anything,in fact you might even be a beneficiary.
Your insults are somewhat below par as well,do buck up

Posted by Peter at June 21, 2005 10:08 PM

JEM - Why are all europhiles Americaphobes?

I wouldn't know. I'm neither.

BTW, European countries' ability to raise their own taxes is being phased out under the grand-sounding name "harmonisation".

Total and utter crap. Stick to what you know, which is not this.

One: the UK is no exception on this.

Two: EU member nations can and do raise their own taxes exactly as they wish. There are NO "EU" taxes of any sort whatsover. On that basis and in your own chosen terms, the word 'slave' apples more to Americans than Europeans. Not that 'slave ' is appropriate in either case actually.

Three: EU nations DO have the power to bring back the death penalty if they so wish. It just so happens they don't so wish.

Four: They can take any power they wish to halt immigration from outside the EU. And they do.

Your comparison between the US and the EU is not just fatuous but laughable. I would not have believed anyone could be so uttery and completely ignorant about the true situation

Americans can vote for anything they damn' please--just like Europeans.

You really do spout the most ridiculous and ignorant rubbish about something you clearly know less than nothing about.

Did you make this nonsense up, or did someone else feed you a pack of lies?

I rather resent being forced by your drivel to appear to be a fan of the EU, when all I'm trying to do is get back to reality from your peurile dreamworld.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 10:23 PM

You're not going to win a war of words.

I just did. What you have to say on the EU is so comprehensively wrong on the facts alone it beggars belief.

If I were you, I'd consider sticking to a topic you actually know something about; this is clearly not it.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 10:32 PM

Your insults are somewhat below par as well,do buck up

I'm not insulting you, Peter, when I tell you your posts are incoherent drivel; that's just a fact.

Posted by JEM at June 21, 2005 10:39 PM

Memo to Verity

When one's objections to the EU are based on a serious of 'facts' that are a clearly demostratable farrago of nonsense, it is probably time to do one of two things:

-- Give up and go away before you become more of a laughing stock than you already are.

-- Or go away and find out the real facts and come back, aplogise for your gross errors, and continue the debate.