Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Transferred from the "Ken Clarke" thread to avoid confusion.


I am not, and never have been, a Little Englander. I entirely see and "get" the greater globalisation tide and the need for ever greater co-operation between nations and nationalities. What I do not enjoy or support is the EU soft left, overly bureaucratic and dogmatic approach that leaves little room for enterprise, initiative or personal freedoms, and appears to believe that only an elite political clique can make the right decisions. As a well known libertarian poster on this forum I deplore large and expensive government; the EU is a nightmare example of what I least like in political rule.


I don't think the concept of an integrated and consolidated Europe should be confused with frustration at bureaucracy.


In theory no - but the reality is that the integrated and consolidated Europe on offer is the petty, bureaucratic, detail obsessed big state the consequences of which we all are having to learn to live with. Something I do not want.


Ken Clarke's sensible and generally balanced political views have ignored the reality of life in Europe in favour of the theoretical utopia that political fantasists and dreamers insist will, one day, come about.



Not many people would argue with the large or expensive bit. But I'm curious as to the model you would like to adopt. History is long, so some real world examples would be better than a libertarian "in my view"


Because your nightmare is actually a lot of people's "pretty good". Living with imperfection is easy when you look at what Europe has been up to in the past, and what it needs to do in the future

Luckily for MM and me the tide is with us at the moment....accross Europe.


Personally, I think we're just about ok with what we've now (with its imperfections as you say Strafer) but when, and by and large it was bureacrats, were trying to drive it to something more of a political union largely against the will of the majority of the people, in even the traditionally pro Countries, i was very uncomfortable.


Economically the Euro will fail - or lose members or become two tiered. The Eurotrading zone makes sense.


Politically, the difference in political cultures between let's say Italy, the UK and France are, just between those three IMMENSE. Just 3 easy examples being attitudes to bureacracy, elites and political, ahem, 'patronage' within those three state..... let alone shadier areas such as corruption.


Sell me anything further than where we are now in terms other than vague idealistic ..."You know, nations are defunct, we want a global federation"

I'm not dismissive of those concerns at all - not all of them anyway


But as for political cultures being too different - wasn't the same said about the USA? And bitterly fought? And echoes through to the current day? But I'm not sure anyone with wits would reverse it now? Sarah Palin might so that gives you some idea..


I'm guilty of taking the "it'll be a bumpy ride, and the landing will be rough but ultimately the plane will land ok" thinking but whilst I agree with the challenges faced, the goal seems "right" to me


You are correct that the tide is with you across Europe at the moment - not sure I would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with many of the more vocal exponents tho'

The US example is a bit hackneyed, not comparable and over used by those in favour as a trot out example - 19th century then largely agricultural based series of miniscule population states surrounded by the British Empire on one side and an agressive Mexico down south, with no real history or long evolved political culture...and even then it still ended up with a horrific and bloody Civil War. Id drop it pro-Euros.

Actually what I notice is how aggresseive, sneering and, and down right untrue has been the langauage from pro-europeans against anyone who dared question it.


"little englander"

"Europphile"

etc etc


As I said before, one of the things that intiially started me questioning my own 'liberalism' was the lack of debate and labelling and smearing of those that questioned the left's moral certainty.

The colonists of most of Mexican Texas were from the US states. They colonised and developed huge areas of land and fought agaibnst the native americans and then an increasing dicatatorial Mexico tried to cghange their propert rights leading to war and the Alamo. The new state of Texas later joined the union largely for protection.....that was my point.

I think you are exaggerating to make a point there. [pre mexico post] I don't accept the notion that everyone against the EU is smeared. Plus, to be fair, you aren't shy of smearing either with the constant "smug" "liberal" yaadda yadda


I would also argue that the wider proponets of the EU are often far from left-leaning.


I would also argue there is a lack of "aggression" or "sneering" on this thread so far so I'm wondering why you are so quick to fire that gun

Way to rewrite history, did they make the desert bloom did they, unlike those unworthy lazy mexicans.

sheesh, poor little Texans.


In fact the Union wanted nothing to do with Texas, troublesome arrogant upstarts causing friction with the neighbours, until the press got involved, whipped up public fervour and when hostilities broke out the union had its hand somewhat forced, can't let nasty swarthy people kill white gringos even if you don't like them.


Dictatorial my arse, just trying to assert legitimate control on territory they were having stolen from them, which if you recall ended up being some 60% of the country.


You want to sob for someone it's not going to be poor ickle monroe doctrine spoting, social darwinism wielding US of A.


Bloody hell. Mexicans quite like the Brits on the whole, don't let them read this or they may change their minds.


I guess this is probably wayyyyy off topic mind.

I was referring to traditional arguments NOT this thread. Though I've seen previous go down that route.


Actually I nearly pointed in my post out that even in the usual suspects (media - no names, usual suspects) have recently subdued a bit because enough people in general and in other bits of the media said and have pointed out that to question the european project and it's potential downfalls and 'dangers' didn't make you


A) member of the Tea party

B) a Daily Mail reading colonel from Tunbridge Wells

c) a member of UKIP/BNP

D) someone who 'never ate that foreigh muck'


Shite, even poeople who have lived in europe and speak foreighn languages, maybe had european partners/friends and families question it.



Come on Strafer . From Same old Tory Cuts to this stuff there are a large number of 'progressives' who don't really want to debate ...seriously, made me question my views a while back and contributed to them shifting...a bit, not as far as you think.


Not, on the whole on here from the sensible I'd add.


Yes I ham it up a bit but I like to give you lot some of your own medecine ;-)

Mockney your post is a small example of my previous point - history's not perfect to act like I'm some sort of Jeremy Clarkson anti-Mexican racists for having a different view to you kind of shows my point a bit. Social darwinism is a bit strong to level against someoone who diasgreed with you...a smeer even. My point , to be clear, on my original post was that the main reason that Texas joined the US - and it was an independent republic for some time - was for its security. Maybe I should have said against previous mexican aggression, or potential mexican aggression but shhhheseeesh.


Actually the Mexican govt invited and incentivised settlers from the US to come in and help quell the Comanches, then a move away from federailism towards centralism sparked a revolt and the Alamo etc. The US was not involved.

????. Which is roughly where I am too. But to get even this far took an awful lot of work an stick from doom mongers and nay sayers, right?


If the whole thing implodes it will be more to do with the financial repercussions of the global banking system (I'm aware you may disagree with that but I promise not to smear you because of it)

You can dislike 'Little Englander' if you want, it's definitely used to diminish views perceived as over protective or lily livered. I find anyone who rejects European integration simply on the basis that it's just too difficult do come across as a little bit wimpish.


The fact that so many anti-European arguments are based on querulous untruths about johnny foreigner exerting control over the dignified but enslaved British nation reinforces the point. To be scared of something that doesn't exist is no less chicken hearted than a small child worried about the ogre in the cupboard.


However, how you can see 'Europhile' as a smear is beyond me. The suffix '-phile' means platonic love, so I'm very proud to be a Europhile.

Yeah, it'll be a challenge. One that we're quite capable of addressing.


As said by someone else:


"The 21st century will be different. China and India already lay claim to superpower status. Russia imperiously waves its nuclear arsenal and natural gas reserves as a VIP pass to international summits. Brazil has economic and diplomatic aspirations equal to its geographical expanse.


"That doesn't mean Europe is in decline, or that individual states must subordinate their interests. It simply means that the rivalries of last century need to be held in perspective against the advantages of collaboration on a range of global issues: trade, security of energy supply, cross-border crime, climate change, migration, financial stability."


And that's all it is - a cost/benefit calculation.

However, how you can see 'Europhile' as a smear is beyond me. The suffix '-phile' means platonic love, so I'm very proud to be a Europhile.


Because, Hugenot, as you know very well all words carry meanings and baggage over and above the strict interpretation of their origins / roots. Europhile has become a word associated with unthinking Euro enthusiasts - hence the smear that it carries. I doubt you would line yourself up with the unthinking.


Like ??? and Strafer Jack - I can live with where we are - I'd prefer it to be more federal, trading partnership than a grandious programme for inevitable political, financial and cultural union that some Euro enthusiasts appear to want. However, if it stops in the here and now I wouldn't eek to reverse, very, much of what's currently in place.


I will argue against further and deeper integration - not because Britain does it better - or Italy does it worse but because I prefer smaller, decentralised, less bureaucratic, more personalised, more free minded, more flexible and less statist arrangements. I mix and meet with many people from all levels of society and from many different countries - most prefer to be left to get on with things at their own pace in their own way. Sure, they like to know that society will look after them if things get tough, but few are asking or seeking to live under a huge rigid umbrella of European state with pettifogging rules on nahviour and actions.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...