World Forums

I don't share your destructive view on politics

Nor do I expect you to. Heavens, there is no debate when everyone agrees. Get used to it. It's just words.

My pessimism is born out of a frustration with a political system that is archaic and myopic because it refuses to change in the face of New Realities. It's like the King who wore no clothes ... and no one had the courage to tell him.

The world economic paradigm has shifted for Europe. There is no common market tariff barrier to protect us from low-cost manufacturing - as has been the case since almost the inception of the Common Market and was its CHIEF purpose.

If you want to blame someone for the ingrained political class that exists today, then blame the Yanks. Yes, the Yanks. They wanted to rebuild Europe as a bulwark against Communism and gave Marshall Plan aid to state governments who spent it as they saw fit. This had a certain logic at the time since postwar rebuilding was the prime concern. But, it institutionalized a political class that made a career of politics.

Europe was largely rebuilt by the early sixties, but the political class blithely kept to its own ways of deciding who did what. Supposedly this was in the face of the "Communist Threat from the East". That threat proved to be the Teddy Bear that it was ... no teeth.

No matter, the ball was rolling in Brussels. It was a game of musical chairs at the top - bureaucrats (read 'cronyism') were intent on keeping thier know-nothing/do-nothing jobs, with high salaries and no taxes and perquisites of all sorts. It was the heyday of the New Rome.

It's over, Boye. Read the handwriting on the wall. The people want relevance from Brussels. And, they aint gettin' it.

I love the CAP more and more each day. The Queen got 750,000 pounds out of it over the last 2 years; dumb Prince Charlie even bagged close to 1/4 mil for himself Many large landowners in the UK have benefitted in the same way.

EU: Common solutions to non-existent problems

Many large landowners in the UK have benefitted in the same way.

There is a certain injustice to the CAP. So, when the French get all soppy about their poor farmers, they should be reminded that most of the CAP goes to very large farm-holdings, mostly co-operatives (who are large donors to political party coffers in France).

I suspect that the case is not the same in Germany, where much of it goes to old milk-farmers who are simply trying to make retirement before giving it all up.

The EU has a fundamental role in the development of the European community and it is through state "investments". Farming is no solution for the future, not in most countries in the Northern Hemisphere. Besides, the subsidies simply mean that poor African farmers find, for instance, European/American wheat on their local markets, which they cannot compete against.

The CAP is nothing but social welfare and, as such, I see no reason why the net creditors should be subsidized by the net debtors for a "problem" that is purely national - even if comparative across Europe. Blair is right to open a festering sore.

It's a bad subsidy all around. Europe should get rid of it or draw it down to size. The latter was on the table two years ago, when a talented EU Farm Minister proposed a solution. France and Germany torpedoed it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4625797.stm

EU crisis talks shift to Poland: Poland is hosting talks with the foreign ministers of France and Germany - countries which are at loggerheads with the UK over the EU budget.

The BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw says Poland supports the UK's vision of a more economically liberal Europe, but it also wants a Europe with stronger political institutions, as do France and Germany.

Otherwise known as: Wanting the cake AND eating it.

Tough choices are ahead. Poland cannot have both infrastructural funding AND farm subsidies. It has to decide between them.

If I were Poland, I'd go for the former, which increases nationally economic efficiency. The young are quitting the farms, anyway, which is precisely what should be happening. This will lead to a consolidation of farming under co:operatives that have fewer people working more acreage.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.c ... id=4100564

Transformed; EU membership has worked magic in central Europe: It was only when you asked people what they earned that the real division between the West and the rest became clear. When you crossed the border from Germany into Poland in 2003, average income per head fell by four-fifths, from $27,600 in Germany to $5,400 in Poland. When Romania and Bulgaria join the EU in 2007 or 2008, they will be poorer even than the central Europeans. According to Deutsche Bank, Romania's average income per head in 2005 will be $4,084 and Bulgaria's only $3,735, roughly half Poland's current level.

This summarizes nicely the EU challenge over the next decade.

Europe will never be able to compete in low-tech product marketing. With Chinese goods avalanching into Europe, one wonders why we cannot produce export products (typically hi-tech) in the east of Europe, putting money in the pockets of people who are far more likely to be buying products from the EU.

Another example: The low-tech products (household appliances) have displaced common European brand names on market shelves. However, the latter are sometimes the favorite of consumers and the price premium, for this kind of consumer, is not a hindrance if it remains reasonable. Many European companies have dislocated to the near east with just that strategy in mind.

The Germans do it best. They have much business experience in the eastern Europe countries and they can dislocate production with relative ease. Of course, the consequence is increased unemployment in Germany.

What should be done about that? Well, we take some of those farm subsidies and we retrain the unemployed in skills that the German economy will hire - namely in the service industries.

Synthese:

This referendum WAS about national sovereignty in matters that most people care about, their lives.

Nope, it wasn't. It was about how to make decisions at the supranational level, and partly what decisions to make at the supranational level. A large faction of the French no camp talked about renegotiation under the slogan "un autre Europe est possible". And that's fair enough, though the idea that "un autre Europe" will be a non-capitalist one, is a tad naive.

But the referendum was not on restoring national sovereignty. Far from it. If the referendum had been "in or out" of the EU, then there would have been a massive 'oui' vote.

One answer is this: We don't want it to be what it was. A bureaucratic monster dislocated from our concerns and our lives.

Haha, that's funny. The people just voted for the EU to stay the way it is. They rejected changes to make the EU more democratic and less bureaucratic. Now they - and we - have to deal with it.

Whatever the reason people voted no, the result is that the EU stays the way it is.

There is no common market tariff barrier to protect us from low-cost manufacturing

Well, there is. There shouldn't be, but there still are tariffs whose primary purpose is to save uncompetitive jobs.

If you want to blame someone for the ingrained political class that exists today, then blame the Yanks.

I see no reason to blame anyone, but I find placing the responsibility of the people's choice into third party hands is a poorly hidden expression of contempt for the common man. Do you really think America is to blame for the French voters' election of Jacques Chirac as President de la Republique? Or for any other French politician serving in government or parliament? Do you really think that little of the French people? All this talk about 'vox populi', what was that?

Mark:

EU: Common solutions to non-existent problems

Well, it's that, too. And the CAP is a great injustice - as is all and any industry subsidy, but agro-protectionism is the worst type of protectionism because it hits the world's poorest. Agro-protectionism is transfer of wealth from third-world farmers and first-world families with children to rich first-world farmers and landowners such as the British queen.

LOL Boye. I should ask my cousins what they got out of it.

I don't think the CAP has benefitted middle-class people at all. That's why they mainly do B&B and charge people to fish in their lakes these days, and have moved away from farming.

BTW: I joined the CLPT but seems this place is empty these days? Did anyone else sign up? I'll be secretary again if enough people do. You should advertise it everywhere. Use your powers of moderation : >

The CAP has benefited no one except farmers and landowners. And the more land, the higher the benefit. But all farmers and landowners that grow crops or raise livestock benefit from the CAP, even if it's only peanuts for small-scale producers.

As for the CLPT, you can see who's signed up on the participants' page. Six so far. I've just sent out an e-mail to everyone who participated last season but has not signed up for the new season yet. And I'll take your advice and do some more advertising in this forum as well.

Thanks for volunteering to be secretary again. I was going to ask you.

You are doing a great job! It's pretty cool to see CLPT advertised on the main page lol. I'm absolutely wrecked :idea:

And as always, advertising pays. I've received two new registrations already.

Great work I'm still completely mullered, or mullahed?

Boye: Nope, it wasn't.

Myopia from the north? Get a set of new glasses, Boye.

One reprint, or hundreds, in the Economist doesn't make you a political visionary.

The people just voted for the EU to stay the way it is. They rejected changes to make the EU more democratic and less bureaucratic. Now they - and we - have to deal with it.

Not to worry. The sun will also rise tomorrow and the day after, and also the day on which the trogdolytes in Brussels come up with a workable Constitution. That day, however, is not on the present horizon.

A sea change in the EU's vision is necessary and political sea changes take a great deal of time. I predict another five years of the 'EU in the shit' before it happens. The present mess took decades to make and it will not be unmade for some time. A good start would be the CAP; but, just you watch, the political mastodons will fudge that as well, and we'll be saddled with massive agricultural welfare payments for another five years.

So, we make do with what we've got until something better comes around. Continue to believe that the Constitution voted down was the 'best possible compromise' and take your admission ticket with the POLDT (Party of Latter Day Trogdolytes).

Boye: I see no reason to blame anyone, but I find placing the responsibility of the people's choice into third party hands is a poorly hidden expression of contempt for the common man.

Blame? History is full of blame. If you do not wish to recognize it, then you are forced to repeat it. You like repeating historical mistakes? I don't.

If Europe is to seek a new vision, it must nod to the reality of the past and avoid the mistakes therein.

Do you really think America is to blame for the French voters' election of Jacques Chirac as President de la Republique?

No, Jean-Marie Le Pen is responsible for the elevation of "His Accidency, the President of France".

Well done, Boye, you took an historical prospective on the European political class and made a current issue of it. Sorry, but the "fast forward" wound up your tape. It doesn't work that way.

Chirac and Bush detest one another. When male rivalry takes the place of good sense, at that level, then the game rules have been warped. Old latin dictum: "When passion enters the room, reason jumps out the window".

Did you see Junckers "Swan Song" to the European Parliament? Pathetic. The Constitutional Vote upset his tea-party, and M. Junckers is in a blue funk. Silly boy.

Synthese:

You like repeating historical mistakes?

I don't see democracy as an "historical mistake". I rather like the fact that people have the right to vote, even if I don't always like the people's verdict.

Continue to believe that the Constitution voted down was the 'best possible compromise'

There may be a better compromise in the distant future. But I prefer incremental change over no change. And what we have right now is no change. Whether that's because people like things to stay the way they are, or they naively think that obstructionsm will give them a better deal, the result is the same: things stay the way they are. You wanted that, the French people wanted that.

And again, the minute someone proposes a constitution that takes account of all the reasons given for the French 'non' vote, I for one will be campaigning against that constitution. The status quo is much preferrable to the anti-capitalist, anti-freedom-of-movement, anti-enlargement vision of Europe that was advocated by the French no campaign.

No, Jean-Marie Le Pen is responsible for the elevation of "His Accidency, the President of France".

The people vote. Vox populi. Remember?

You can blame Le Pen, you can blame America. But the ones who made the decision was ordinary people at the polls.

or they naively think that obstructionsm will give them a better deal, the result is the same: things stay the way they are. You wanted that, the French people wanted that.

Obstructing bureaucratic snobbery out of Brussels is naive? Surely you jest.

The choice was obstruction of a path leading nowhere and making do with an organization, for all its foibles, that is workable for the present.

The hard part is yet to come. Making it into a real, functional government, which means divesting power from the nations to Parliament and electing from that Parliament a PM. Then, making sense out of EU investments in sectors/technologies that create jobs.

Screw the Presidency as concocted in the 'Constitution'. Most European countries elect a PM from its Parliament. The President is a do-little titular head.

You can blame Le Pen, you can blame America. But the ones who made the decision was ordinary people at the polls.

Such is life.

Time to move on.

Obstructing bureaucratic snobbery out of Brussels is naive?

No, obstructing reforms that would make the EU more democratic, in the belief that obstructing those reforms will make the EU more democratic, is naive.

The hard part is yet to come. Making it into a real, functional government, which means divesting power from the nations to Parliament and electing from that Parliament a PM.

Within the text that you, French and Dutch voters were against, was the suggestion that the Commission President be elected by the Parliament based on the composition of that Parliament.

Screw the Presidency as concocted in the 'Constitution'. Most European countries elect a PM from its Parliament. The President is a do-little titular head.

The role of the President is defined by the constitution of each member state. The President has a strong role in the French republic, but a rather weak one in the Italian or German republics.

In the EU, the President of the European Council, which is what the Presidency refers to, has the powers of agenda-setting and representation. They are important powers, and they are rotating among the heads of state or government in the member states. By chance, Juncker held the presidency the first half of this year, and Blair will hold the presidency the second half of this year. The Constitution suggested the Presidency be an elected office. Alas, French and Dutch voters rejected that idea, preferring rotation over election.

Today, Luxembourg voters approved the Constitution by a 56% majority. Luxembourg is the 14th country to ratify the Constitution. Two countries have rejected the Constitution, meaning the score is now 14-2 in the 'yes' camp's favour. But by some twisted logic, 14 yes and 2 no means 'no' has won.

No, obstructing reforms that would make the EU more democratic, in the belief that obstructing those reforms will make the EU more democratic, is naive.

You keep harping about some great injustice carried out against "democratic reforms".

Bullshit. There was nothing that remarkably enhancing about the Constitution as regards democracy.

Had they recognized (which they did belatedly) the power of the public voice they would have instituted referendums on any matter of consequences (the budget, for instance) and taken the running of the EU back from the political prats who have made a mess of it. That would have been REALLY democratic.

"Within the text that you, French and Dutch voters were against, was the suggestion that the Commission President be elected by the Parliament based on the composition of that Parliament. "

Yes, so what? One needs a constitution to implement a practice that is common in every parliament on earth? Well, yes, maybe it was worthwhile implementing the Presidency by such means. But, this is a very minor matter.

The constitution missed the point on so many fundamentals:
- Foreign Policy and the use of co:ordinated military action,
- the right of citizens to referenda,
- the definition of "Europe" geographically,
- the definition of "citizen" (lineage or birthplace?),
- the institution of "habeus corpus" to protect citizens from seizure without due process,
- the definition of "life" in the context of abortion,
- the protection of citizens from corrupt lower courts and recourse finally to higher courts of the EU for redress (and WITHOUT cost, since in most cases it is a matter of the citizen against the state where the state has its own lawyers paid out of the public purse),
- preventf unelected officials to be named to ministerial posts
- prevent elected officials from returning to any private activity connected to thier past responsibilities
- a public auditor of EU accounts (since not one audit of past budget expenditures has been approved ...)
- the inability of national governments to renew representatives to assure new ideas from new people (by means of limited tenure.)
- etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam

Democracy is about the nitty-gritty, and not grand gesticulations like an "elected Presidency" that simply institutionalizes a representative political process that has real inadequacies/problems - having become the preserve of life-serving elected officials.

The Constitution suggested the Presidency be an elected office. Alas, French and Dutch voters rejected that idea, preferring rotation over election.

Do you really think this was the ONLY reason the text was rejected? Do you think that this ONE reason justified ratifying the rest of the drivel?

You are naive.

You cannot admit, Boye, that the constitution was effete verbiage that was inexplicable and therefore unexplained, out of touch with common concerns, showed no real "added value" and therefore was not a sufficiently significant contribution to the building of the EU.

The Constitution, for the moment, is dead. Wake up, smell the coffee.

And, move on. Other far more important things are happening ... at the very heart of an EU vision for the future.

Watch Tony run. Run, Tony, run.

Synthese wrote:You cannot admit, Boye, that the constitution was effete verbiage that was inexplicable and herefore unexplained, out of touch with common concerns, showed no real "added value" and therefore was not a sufficiently significant contribution to the building of the EU.

The Constitution, for the moment, is dead. Wake up, smell the coffee.

And, move on. Other far more important things are happening ... at the very heart of an EU vision for the future.

The coffee's so strong I smell it all the way over here.

Boye, Synthese,

I assume you're both in Europe. Has the case of the dozen or so CIA operatives indicated by an Italian magistrate for kidnapping gotten much play in Europe (pre-7/7)?

Well, it certainly did not make the main headlines, though it did of course not go unnoticed. BTW, German authorities, too, are investigating against CIA operatives on allegations of kidnapping in a similar case.

Has the case of the dozen or so CIA operatives indicated by an Italian magistrate for kidnapping gotten much play in Europe (pre-7/7)?

The word from Italy is that Berlusconi had to swallow his pride on this one due to an electoral stance by which he cannot afford a conflict with the US. It is not out of any love for Bush, but it would reflect upon his own unswerving support of Bush on Iraq, for which he has become deeply unpopular. (Aside from the economic mess in that country as well.)

The CIA kidnapping was "extra-territorial" meaning that the CIA figured it could get away with it as it had done in the past. Which was not the case. Italy is not Iraq. They should have cleared the kidnapping with Italian authorities and, fearing a rejection, decided upon unilateral intervention.

This spoiled the Italian police's own surveillance of the person in question. Why the CIA simply did not ask politely is anyone's guess. I ascribe it to over-zealousness of the CIA's Italian station chief.

Consequence: After the fiasco of the Italian secret service agent's death in the repatriation of an Italian reporter from Baghdad, the view of America cannot get any lower in Italy. It is entirely possible that his death was not the responsibility of the US Army, as the Pentagon asserts, but that makes no difference to most Italians.

If your thinking of long Italian lunches for a vacation, I suggest a trattoria in Little Italy by the Hudson .... Buonissimo!

Thanks for the feedback

It seems the CIA's head in Milan is no where to be found.

Very true also about strained Italian-American relations especially after the Calipari death, and it hasn't been that long since the deaths in the Alps from the negligent military pilot. Italy needs the US much more than vice versa, however.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/11/news/germany.php

Conservatives make pitch to Germany's center:Angela Merkel, the conservative opposition leader who is trying to become Germany's first woman chancellor, made a big push Monday to win back liberal middle class voter

Some good sense from the German center-right and a willingness to explain in detail what it will do and how it will do it.

It is amazing that the CDU/CSU are willing to announce a tax increase BEFORE elections, which is never a practice in European politics. But, by straight-talking they show that what they propose is backed by budget revenues and will not aggravate Germany's deficit.

It is a refreshingly new approach - explaining to the constituency what and how they plan to act.

Brussels should take note ....

Italy needs the US much more than vice versa, however.

I can't imagine why. Most FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in Italy comes from Europe and not the US. Italy's destiny is in Europe, which is clear.

Berlusconi's affection for Bush may be purely personal and nonpolitical. Maybe Berlu was impressed by the fact that Bush the Son wanted revenge for the fact that Hussien had tried to assasinate Bush the Father in Kuwait?

That notion sounds Sicilian ...

Italy's destiny is in Europe, which is clear.

Without a doubt. Italy does rely on strong exports to the US however. In a land where Made in China is assumed unless proven otherwise, Italian products, even some base consumer goods like shoes, do quite well.

Berlusconi's affection for Bush may be purely personal and nonpolitical.

Who knows maybe they are both Masons or in the Mafia :

Who knows maybe they are both Masons or in the Mafia

I hadn't though of that and, yes, it is quite possibly true. Berlu made his fortune assisted by the P2 and many people think that no American president can be elected without being a Freemason.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Masons

That's really an area I'm not to familiar with, but I recently read a history on the Sicilian mafia that does touch on Berlusconi and ties to the mafia, but mostly involvement with, as you mentioned, P2.

About the book: http://www.madaboutbooks.com/CosaNostra/aboutTheBook.htm

Than Man Who Would Be King was a great movie though.

The Italian Mafia is a sect of its own. The word "Mafia" has come to mean commonly any brotherhood of illicit purpose.

In Europe, the Italian Mafia is active around Europe to peddle drugs and has partnered with Eastern Block Mafiasa for this purpose. The US Mafia is not known for operations outside the US in Europe, though in Latin and South America such is probably not the case.

The Italian Mafia is behind misuse of European funds, principally in the poorer regions of Italy as regards the CAP. One does business where one finds it, as the saying goes.

There is no information, aside from anecdotal, regarding Mafia activities on a large scale in Europe, except in special instances where Italian immigrants were concerned - in Germany, in Britain and in the south of France.

It is also interesting to note that when the Mafioso retires, he usually heads for Monaco, where he will be left to deposit his money and live in peace - presumably as long as he spends it and conducts no further Mafia activity either in Monaco or next door in either Italy or France. Interesting, is it not?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/ ... euecon.php

Chorus grows to get Europe competitive: Calls for an overhaul of the European social welfare model gathered force Tuesday as Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown of Britain put a push for freer markets at the center of his economic agenda for the European Union, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned of waning growth if countries shied away from enhancing competition.

Europe risks decades of anemic growth unless governments in countries like France and Italy open their economies to greater competition and shake up their labor markets, the OECD said Tuesday.

Run, Gordon, run.

Synthese:

There was nothing that remarkably enhancing about the Constitution as regards democracy.

There was a strengthening of directly elected bodies in EU decision-making, both at European and national level; there was the introduction of fairer voting weights in the Council; there was the introduction of an elected presidency to replace the rotational presidency; and there was the introduction of a citizens' initiative clause.

Along with a clearer division of power and a more precise definition of subsidiarity, these changes represented a major democratic reform of the EU.

Yes, so what? One needs a constitution to implement a practice that is common in every parliament on earth?

First, the idea of a constitution is to write the rules down. Second, you're forgetting that the EU is a unique creation: it is a supranational arena and the powers on that arena are limited by the amount of sovereignty that the member states unanimously agree to cede to the central level.

Still, the most important legislative chamber at the EU level is the Council of Ministers. The Constitution suggested to put the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on an equal footing, but that idea was rejected at the polls.

The constitution missed the point on so many fundamentals:
- Foreign Policy and the use of co:ordinated military action,

Given that it was impossible to get all member states to agree that foreign policy should be a Union competence, the Constitution goes a long way in laying out the framework for foreign policy co-ordination led by an EU Foreign Minister.

- the right of citizens to referenda,

Many countries would not allow such a right. Germany, for instance, bars referenda and has other protections for the representative democracy because of the experience of the Weimar Republic where democracy was abolished by democratic means.

- the definition of "Europe" geographically,

What's that got to do with it?

- the definition of "citizen" (lineage or birthplace?),

Citizenship is a competence of the member states. All citizens of member states are citizens of the EU.

- the institution of "habeus corpus" to protect citizens from seizure without due process,

That's a competence of the member states.

- the definition of "life" in the context of abortion,

And this one as well.

- the protection of citizens from corrupt lower courts and recourse finally to higher courts of the EU for redress (and WITHOUT cost, since in most cases it is a matter of the citizen against the state where the state has its own lawyers paid out of the public purse),

Lower courts is the competence of member states. Unless the dispute concerns an EU law or regulation, the matter cannot be brought before EU-level courts. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, however, contains a wide range of rights which could be tested at the EU level. That is, if voters hadn't voted against making the Charter legally binding. After the French and Dutch referenda, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is just a piece of paper.

- preventf unelected officials to be named to ministerial posts

That would override democratic traditions of several member states, rooted in the classical separation of power in the three branches of government.

In most countries, the Prime Minister or President names his Cabinet, sometimes subject to parliamentary approval, sometimes not. No one elected Condoleeza Rice to become US Secretary of State, and likewise, no one elected Kristian Jensen to become Danish Tax Minister.

- prevent elected officials from returning to any private activity connected to thier past responsibilities

That makes as much sense as a law barring lawyers from practicing law.

- a public auditor of EU accounts (since not one audit of past budget expenditures has been approved ...)

There is an EU auditor already.

- the inability of national governments to renew representatives to assure new ideas from new people (by means of limited tenure.)

First, the composition of national governments is a competence of the member states. Second, limited tenure is generally a bad idea IMO.

- etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam

Yeah, you keep attacking the constitution for all the wrong reasons. In the extremely unlikely event that your version of a Constitution would ever be drafted and presented to voters, I'd be campaigning on the 'no' side.

Do you really think this was the ONLY reason the text was rejected? Do you think that this ONE reason justified ratifying the rest of the drivel?

And you have the stomach to accuse the Constitution for containing drivel after that list of issues that you would like to see included in a future constitution?

But no, I never said that. If you read my comments more carefully, I have also mentioned among the causes of the 'no' vote disinformation regarding what the referendum was about, scepticism toward Turks and Muslims as well as a growing contempt for freedom of movement (re: services directive, Polish immigrants) and 'ultra-liberalism'.

But I insist that what the referendum was about, was the reforms of the framework within which EU politics is to be formed in the future. And, regardless of the motivation each person had for voting no, the consequence of the 'no' vote is that these reforms were defeated.

Bineaz:

I assume you're both in Europe. Has the case of the dozen or so CIA operatives indicated by an Italian magistrate for kidnapping gotten much play in Europe (pre-7/7)?

It didn't reach the headlines in Norway, but it did cause a series of editorial comments on 'yet another stain on US-Italian relations' and the implications of that for NATO, Europe, EU and Norway.

As for the actual CIA kidnapping, no one was really surprised. The USA has shown a long time ago that it is out of touch with Europe when it comes to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the idea of due process for foreign national terror suspects.

There was a strengthening of directly elected bodies in EU decision-making, both at European and national level; there was the introduction of fairer voting weights in the Council; there was the introduction of an elected presidency to replace the rotational presidency; and there was the introduction of a citizens' initiative clause.

All this does is simply reinforce the status quo. That is not what is needed. Innovation of the referenda kind are necessary to create a check and balance. Look at the American system of triumvirate power in the three branches of its government. Learn something.

Besides, for a Norwegian who should have no interest whatsoever in the matter, your persistence in defending it is not only remarkable but suspicious. Regardless of what becomes of the EU, Norway does not today and will not likely tomorrow be a member.

What makes Boye run? (Just wondering ...)

That would override democratic traditions of several member states, rooted in the classical separation of power in the three branches of government.

Blah, blah, blah. More nonsense about historical custom. Did you major in history?

Any ministerial office should be run by an elected official answerable to the electorate in a parliamentary democracy. Not some crony who kisses ass for an elected Prime Minister/President who has nominated them.

That's a primary lesson in democracy. Or, maybe you favour the American system ... the machinery elects a PotUS and he nominates his cronies for kitchen cabinet posts.

That makes as much sense as a law barring lawyers from practicing law.

If you think that, then you misunderstand (again).

So you approve of ex-Ministers of State becoming lobbyists in Brussels? I shouldn't doubt that.

The USA has shown a long time ago that it is out of touch with Europe when it comes to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the idea of due process for foreign national terror suspects.

When Uncle Sam wraps himself in "Ole Betsy" and thinks he's blessed by God in all he undertakes, then wonders will never cease.

Boye: But I insist that what the referendum was about, was the reforms of the framework within which EU politics is to be formed in the future.

Pleased to see the above ... for the hundredth time. You have a curious notion of the word "reform", when what proposed was simply nuts-and-bolts tightening of the existing political system that has proven defective and ineffective.

Who wants to preserve/promote a system that is dysfunctional? An idiot, that's who.

The constitution proposed made no reference to the word "referendum", that is, consensus from the governed, which should be at the core of any modern democracy. (It's as if the people's consent was not to be considered in matters of politics ... probably because the representative elite thought them too stupid to be concerned.)

It is fitting justice, in a way, that a referendum should have sunk it.


The only way to make the EU a viable democracy is to integrate its citizens into the decision making process. Representative government has its limits and those limits have been passed long ago. The Constitution was simply a palliative patch on a boat seriously leaking water.

Thanks Boye.

Synthese,

Yes, the mafia is a "sect" in its own right and what you state is the general picture of the mafia in Europe. I never heard about retiring in Monaco, though. Sounds too romantic to me given that these people engaged in killings during their "career."

But tell me more about P2 and the Masons.
8)

But tell me more about P2 and the Masons.

If only I knew ... I'd be a Freemason.

The P2 is a masonry lodge that handled relationships with the Vatican. The person in question was Roberto Calvi, found hanged under Blackfriar's Bridge in London in 1982, his pockets stuffed with bricks - which many think is a Mafia way of hanging people.

Calvi was Chairman of the Banco Ambrosiano and it was assumed that he was laundering money for the Mafia. Its collapse rocked the banking establishment in Italy and the waves went all the way to the Vatican. The Vatican's finances, at the time, were handled by an American prelate running the Institute for Religious Affairs - the Vatican Bank.

All this is amply recorded on the Internet. For instance: http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/stpeters_squared.html

What is not said is why he was murdered. One might presume that he did not warn the Mafia of the bank's collapse and they lost money. This would surely have been sufficient motivation to snuff Calvi.

As for Berlusconi, the relationship to P2 passes through former socialist PM Bruno Craxi who helped Berlu make his first fortune by investing in Milan real estate. When Craxi went into exile in Tunisia to escape prosecutors, Berlu helped Craxi financially.

Berlu's rise to power was likely paved by the Freemasons, but his election as PM cannot be attributed to the latter. The Italians were looking for a successful businessman to pull Italy out of the merda, and what they got is a smooth talking "former bar singer on cruise ships".

Italy deserves better, but politicians and power mix badly in any country.

Which is why I keep preaching about referendums ....

Thanks. I've heard of Calvi and the American Cardinal (from Chicago of Lithuanian descent I believe). Also, Berlusconi's closeness to Craxi, the man aptly depicted as a big octopus with tentacles in every thing. Yeah Italy got want it wanted, but hey, who am I to judge, I live in the US.