This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Emerging German-Russian Axis
Submitted by Charles Gave via Gavekal Dragonomics,
This weekend has seen the European Union do a stitch-up deal so that arch-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker became Commission president. To be honest, who gets to play eurocrat in chief is of no great interest to me, but the manner of the appointment tells us lots about the changing nature of power in Europe. Governments from Stockholm to Rome reportedly opposed Juncker, but ultimately none would defy Berlin. Also this weekend, it is worth noting some ostensibly bland comments by Vladimir Putin at a German-Russian official function: “We value the accumulated potential of Russian-German relations and the high level of trade and economic cooperation. Germany, one of the European Union leaders, is our most important partner in enhancing peace, global and regional security.”
I would contend that we are seeing a decisive shift in the political character of Eurasia. History tells us that long wars have tended to be fought between maritime empires and continental empires. Think of Athens vs. Sparta, Carthage vs. Rome or Britain vs. Napoleonic France. The last big fight was between the US and the Soviet Union ended in favor of the maritime empire. As a result, since 1989 we have lived in an order ultimately run by the US military. But after some unpleasantness playing the role of global policeman, that maritime empire is in retreat.
The consequence of this move toward isolation is that a bunch of ‘continental empires’ are starting to challenge the monopoly of “legal” international violence that the US has exercised for the last 25 years. The most obvious challengers can be seen in the shape of Sunni Muslims across the Middle East, or in East Asia where a more confident and assertive China is stating its case for preeminence. Such struggles have the potential to become major regional problems, but what worries me more is the emerging continental alliance between Russia and Germany. Preventing such a partnership has for centuries been an idée fixe for French diplomacy, and for good reason. A combination of German industrial might and Russian raw materials and military strength would instantly create a colossus. The Poles, who have been perennial victims of engagements between Germany and Russia, are already visibly panicking, as they should be.
Historically, Paris has tended to ally with the Russians, not because it liked them but to prevent Germany from doing the same. The problem is that France has nothing to offer Russia (save some nice holiday homes and mooring berths for tycoons on its Mediterranean coast) and is, in any case, more focused on perfecting its own political and economic suicide.
This leaves the UK as the only shield against an alliance in the east. But this weekend we saw a clear statement of where Berlin sees its interests. Soothing words of “don’t go” may have been offered to London after the Juncker vote, but the incident has confirmed that the landscape has shifted from a European Germany to a German Europe.
The UK now seems set on a path to leave the EU within four years. The chances of London achieving the kind of root-and-branch treaty change that would keep it in the EU must rank as being close to nil. And as Winston Churchill said: “England does not belong to Europe, it belongs to the seas.” As was the case in the mid-20th century, the UK is unlikely to join a continental empire as a junior member and, when decision time arrives, it will stay allied with the US-led maritime empire.
In the old system, Europe was a kind of protectorate of the US maritime empire, a set-up that worked reasonably well. The challenge to the status quo comes from the east where Vladimir Putin has the clear goal of creating a new Russian/German alliance whose fief will run through Eastern Europe. If he succeeds, this will be a major loss for the maritime empire, especially if the UK has removed itself as an EU player.
There will be major political repercussions in the US from such a political carve up. The question will not only be how did “we” come to lose Asia and the Middle East, but also “our” most reliable and pliable ally—Europe.
»
- 44191 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Probably end like this
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/03-02-2006/75360-vanga-0/
But she also said Not only will Russia recover, but dominate the world
With Argentina defaulting/collapsing soon...then probably Venezuela from corruption (OPEC member)...there might be soon millions a year coming to the US southern border and crossing-over to America.
Then we can tell Ukraine how to deal with Russia and their border issues.
Interesting times along red lines.
There is a very solid natgas connection between Nord Stream (Russia), through Germany and Netherlands, under the channel to UK.
So I wold add to the axis: UK, Germany, Russia.
UK is just as tied to Russia as Germany, almost.
Thank you Tylers this is a very good article.
we've always been at war with Eurasia
war is peace
Consider that all these assholes were stunned when the US withdrew from the European and Asian theaters at the end of WW2 instead of slaughtering everyone, instead offering "bank aid".
Do you think these banksters would do the same for us? 5uX0rz
Russia wants to back their money by gold. ...... China also ...... it is so simple
Europe is totally and utterly fucked.
It is nothing short of a statist bureaucratic corruptocracy so far up its own delusional moronic commie corrupt degenerate fuckwits assholes in charge, its a miracle its not chewing its own head off.
It is like the fantasists of California with a thick over lay of the corruption of DC and the cronyism of Wall St and the whole fucking mess is run by tin pot third rate posing little faggots and lesbians with egos the size of planets and brains smaller than pin heads.
It has no real currency, it is a fucking utterly useless ponzi backed coupon or voucher for the wankers to use to buy condoms in Italy and fanny rags in France when they visit.
But the fucking euro coupon is NOT a currency and never will be for the simple reason it is not backed by any single govt anywhere or even a guaranteed consortium of governments, and if any cretin says it is backed by the ECB, then that cretin needs a fucking light shining through his ears to try to detect any grey matter festering inside his skull.
Its the money that buys these cheap as shit rag bag of immoral unscrupulous bunch of cunts who claim to be in charge and they dump the fucking whole EU fantasy in a second if it means Germany loses its gas from Russia and the UK loses its laundering abilities.
The EU fantasy is over, The UK will leave, then Germany will leave and it will pass to France which is highly likely to follow Germany out rather than try to cobble something together from the ashes of this dying suppurating festering nest of left wing moron infested corruption raddled corner of the globe,
That fucking perverted lush junker can only speed up its demise.
just look at yourself in the mirror, bro.
you're a complete wreck!
get some help and sort your own life out.
are you another fucking euro troll on leave from the DT
i know you are but what am i?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8
Praise the isolationists.
They fought the good fight, and did what they could to keep Europe and it's awful influence at bay.
Absolutely incredible description!
Germany, then France (with Yuan-Ruble exchanges) will join Eurasion Union, as their energy needs dictates. US of A will be left holding trillions of FRN's/Tres. Bonds that were used to purchase gold, oil & assets by the BRICS, Saudis, Chinese and any other country sick of American hegemony, inflation & military destruction.
Germany is already flooded with MENA refugees [althouhg not as bad as Italy, France and belgium]. She does not want a few hundred thousand more of these thugs walking the streets at night nor does she want Ukrainian refugees who will surely seek safety & spill over into the other EU countries as Kiev bombs the heck out of the region.
do you like to paint with broad brush strokes?
Lord kalki come for us, the earhtling is insane. In fact ........... well never mind
Exceptionalism has a price it ultimately leads to exclusion.
a new russian site that came out
it is awesome !!!
https://flipboard.com/section/russianuniverse-bCkyCW?utm_content=buffere...
Well, don't steal Germany's gold then and don't spy on zee Germans including listening in on Merkel's phonecalls. I don't think that Obama next time he comes to Germany can expect a welcome as he had (the horror) when he came to Germany as a presidential candidate.
The UK was humiliated at the site of Ypres last weekend where it got sidetracked. The rest of the EU countries are sucking up to Germany and abandoned the UK. As a European, I don't like it much that Germany is boss in Europe but they played it smart. They benefited hughly from the Euro and loaned out German Euros to everybody that wanted to borrow and when crisis came made sure austerity was imposed to everybody who borrowed thereby killing off the competition. But I don't trust and Anglo-American domination of Europe either.
Is it me or is everyone starting to take sides?
well, remember Bush? the "either you are with us or against us"?
some like to force everybody into taking sides
The international political landscape is changing very quickly. If so much as a firecracker popped off I believe it would start a regional war that soon would develop into a global war. I feel that the Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and Israel being involved in limited combat could go full retard and set this place on fire. We are stuck with our Community organizer as POS, I mean POTUS. A hardened man in Russia that knows how to play chess while our assclown can't play checkers. We've fucked over everybody half ass friendly to us. I seriously think that secret negotiations are being held to drop our worthless dollar by every country on the planet. We are so fucked. I'm going to sit back and watch it burn. Then I will probably be interned at the nearby re-education camp for being a combat vet and deemed a possible domestic terrorist. A good glass of whiskey and a pack of menthol cigarettes and watch it all burn.
Charles Gave from Gavekal Dragonomics, what a huge pile of moronic bullshit you are presenting us
- re the "arch-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker": there is this little matter of all delegates from the european continental conservative parties that met in Ireland and decided JCJ would be their lead candidate. to this, even Merkel had to bow
- the theory of maritime vs continental? wasn't it part and parcel of the theories around the British empire? and an excuse of using maritime power, particularly in things like embargos?
duh. the old theory that all empires and alliances are hegemonies, and need a leader. a hierarchical thinking that still poisons all relations between the UK and the european continent
fear mongering paired with the sweet, sickly smell of moar war against something people at home could recognize as a sequel to previous great wars. a nod to MIC and one to Anglophone prejudice, paired with the theory that if enough windows get broken, then all will get well
Chill out Ghordius.
Sure, Gave didn't get all his analysis quite right, but he's broadly on the nail. The EU-crats are determined to replace Anglo-Saxon global dominance by itself, with trade/political connections to Russia. I wonder which language will become mandatory in EU schools when this happens ...German? Russian? Tough luck for the Frenchies again.
Few people disagree that Juncket is an EU federalist based upon his well known stated positions on many issues. He's no better than Barroso.
The real reason that Merkel switched from being against him and ended up voting for him was German politics (her own party), not the views of other EU member states, some of whom were going to vote against him until Merkel switched sides and they suffered a spinal collapse.
smacker, what the hell are you talking about? the "EU-crats"? they are not a separate regime that has nothing to do with us. they are us. you point yourself on how Juncker was selected. by the delegates of the continental conservatives. even Merkel had little to counter, even for her quest of "keeping the UK in the EU", now rewritten as lacking spine. what would you prefer, Merkel as dictator of the european conservatives? we have parties founded on democratic principles, in a multi-party, alliances-based consensus political mode. Merkel is the first servant of the CDU, which is allied with the CSU, and both are allied with the others in the EPP in european matters, with 222 MEPs in the EU parliament
"I wonder which language will become mandatory in EU schools..." you know we don't have "EU schools", we have more than 28 national school systems. which all teach a second language (usually English) and often a third (think about all the countries with two or more national languages). The only exception is on your isles. Young Poles learn English, Russian and German. Young Germans learn English, French, and sometimes a third one, often Russian and increasingly Chinese. it's called multiculturalism, and leads to the Spanish King to speak also Catalan and Basque. besides his native Spanish and the diplo-languages English and French
"Few people disagree that Juncker is a federalist..." in the British Press. Besides the fact that the commission's president's role is a very, very limited, and which would not warrant all this "casus belli journalism", JCJ is still a long-time ex-Premier of a small country, with very moderate views on most matters. A "centrist", one of those like me that are willing to have pragmatic solutions with all ideological sides, as long as not extreme. which again leads the British press to have no clue how to describe him, ideologically. he is a Catholic member of a "Christian Democrat" conservartive party, which are the norm and "center" in our political landscape, and shape nearly all our political coalitions. one British newspaper came with a "liberal-socialist" tag, completely forgetting that this describes better the opposition in Luxembourg. which actually is now in power, there, and threw JCJ's party in opposition
the truth behind this article is that the US (or parts of it's establishment) wants to isolate Russia. and use all kind of tools for it, including us, meaning all of Europe. tell me that it's actually our duty to be tools, if you dare
from a Tory point of view, JCJ is worse than Barroso, then Barroso was the super-Anglophile candidate that was picked in order to appease the UK, last time
WE ARE NOT "DETERMINED ON REPLACING ANGLO-SAXON DOMINANCE". That's Russia, and China
what we are doing is... rolling with the punches from both sides. and putting emphasis on cooperation. and not wanting to follow this call to the hilt
what would you want to us to do? roll over and declare Cameron our Supreme Leader? from our point of view, he represents one out of 28 countries in the Council. the one country that got all the opt-outs it wanted. the one country that should think hard about the role it wants to have. and no, "leading the EU" is not an option. though "participating as a peer" is one, for which the door will always be open
" "EU-crats"? they are not a separate regime that has nothing to do with us. they are us"
You know that's not true. How can you possibly claim that Barroso is one of "us"? Or Rompuy for that matter. Not a single person across Europe ever voted for them. Ditto Juncket. The EU Commission is the only sect within the EU slime-house that has power to initiate legislation and it exercises that power with growing regularity.
how many people vote directly for Cameron? his constituency has something like 70'000 residents
come on, you can do better than that. Barroso is a commissioner. he was commissioned by the Council. which is the meeting of the PMs. and where Barroso was selected in order to appease the British point of view. and the EU Parliament - which is elected - confirmed him and the rest of the commission (though they asked and got two replacements, if memory does not fail me)
the other was the former PM of Belgium, remember? in the same way as Barroso was the former PM of Portugal. and both were appointed by Council and EU Parliament
meanwhile, yes, the Commission is the only one that can initiate legislation. by request of the Council, that still rejects any unwarranted legislation. this should highlight the fact that the Heads of Governments are still the "masters of the treaties" and the ones calling the shots, in the EU. which highlights the confederative approach
so the Commission is still the "secretary" of the thing, and the consensus of the countries the leading principle. on your Isles all this is just ignored for domestic political purposes. as usual, I have to say
Juncker not elected? no, he was supported by all parties of the EPP, the one coalition of conservative parties that had most votes, in the EU Parliamentary elections
the one conservative party group which Cameron did not like, and so took the Torys out of it
and they campaigned for votes with a clear message of choosing Juncker as lead candidate
blame Cameron, the Torys and your press for you Britons not even noticing what millions of continentals are doing or not
the current leader of the EU... is a party. or, better, a coalition of national parties, the European_People's_Party
which has won most Member of European Parliament's (MEPs) seats, and is there the European_People's_Party_(European_Parliament_group)
at national level, they are the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), French Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), Spanish People's Party (PP), Polish Civic Platform (PO), just to mention the major countries
Does it suit the Torys? no. so they left the group. is this group powerful? yes. is this undemocratic? no.
the silliest thing about the whole thing is that conservative Britons aren't even interested. why? well, it's difficult to be interested in the continent, while being British. being British means being interested in local and global matters. all those EU things are something "in between". boring
at least, this is the way Cameron wants to put the whole
what Charles Gave completely misses is the european committment to peace, particularly among european countries
in contrast, the committment of several powerful conglomerates of interests in both the US and UK to keep up a military dominance
Germany is not the "leader of the EU". it's just very big and very central, and most committed to peer-to-peer consensus, federalism, integration and... peace
and so Germany is committed to common european responses and politicies, making this "Russian-German Axis" talk a huge pile of BS
lol.
If Germany doesn't dominate the EU, why have senior EU apparatchiks proclaimed for years that the prime purpose of the EU is "to keep Germany under control". Predictably, that has failed, although I personally have no problem with Germany at this point and admire German people.
And before you claim that the EU has never been about creating the United States of Europe, read this document from 1959. Yes 1959.
http://files.aracari.warpmail.net/Misc/European-Community-1959-plan-for-...
From page 7: "In the words of my old friend, Jean Monnet, the United States of Europe has already begun."
And yet, successive British governments have lied thru their teeth for decades about this. They have NO mandate to give away our sovereignty.
again you are bringing the British point of view of EU-crats being "somebody else". we europeans fought hard to bring Germany... not "under control", but in the fold of cooperating countries, aka integration
this whole hogwash of an United States of Europe has always been an Anglo-American view of our politics (the very words were first uttered by Churchill), with an Anglo-American model. We continentals are still using the Concert of Europe mode, with a few exceptions here and there. what we have done, up to now, isn't even a confederation
and nobody is giving away your sovereignty. you are discussing yourself about leaving the EU, remember? And don't forget the opt-outs, or the fact that Westminster decided something that was always in it's power, aka the British law that mandates that any further integration has to go through a referendum
"...this whole hogwash of an United States of Europe has always been an Anglo-American view of our politics"
Nope. Try reading that document from 1959 in which the term "United States of Europe" is clearly mentioned more than once. Creating a USE was always always the intention, but to hide it from European populations who would not like to surrender their sovereignty, lies upon lies had to be manufactured for the precise purpose of deceiving people.
The EU is full-on, in-your-face socialism.
if this "was the intention", tell me: did we succeed? btw, socialism is not the opposite of sovereignty. if this would be so, than being British would be the same as being socialist, and being a Scottish Nationalist the opposite of being socialist
you show the signs of having been subjected to relentless, simplistic propaganda, imho. what sovereignty is Britain lacking, at the moment? the one implied in being member of a club of sovereigns with shared regulations? lack of sovereignty would mean that you could not leave. nobody in the UK will put it in the way that you can't... if you finally decide on the matter
you don't have a lack of sovereignty. what you have is a lack of a honest discussion on those things
btw, aren't you taking this "page 7" out of context? the whole speech you are citing is from Etienne Hirsch, President of the Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community at a press luncheon in Washington, 1959
as a reminder, there wasn't even an EU, then. only embrionic cooperation schemes, like this EURATOM. which was founded because of several reasons, including the fact that the five nuclear powers of the world wanted to keep a tight grip on all things related to nuclear. and so, in our european continental setup, it needed a "patron", and this was France
the lady was speaking of all the things that were leading to the European Community, founded by France, Italy, West Germany and the BeNeLux countries
the UK was busy setting up a different club of trading sovereigns, the EFTA. later, it was the UK that left the other EFTA members in the rain and joined - against French opposition - the EC club. and then started to make all kind of noises and distractions, often prompted by Washington interests
when the Iron Curtain fell, who wanted to expand the EU? the UK. why? because Washington wanted to expand NATO, and both London and Washington started to sell EU memberships to all willing to join... against a concert of low-key grumbling, including from yours truly
now we have expanded, and the UK still isn't happy. and you know why? because for the quintessential British mindset, it's all about markets. open markets. just fucking open, no-question-asked, no-regulation-needed markets. because London's view on the world is still all about globalization, and financial dominance of it
USE? come on. do we have a common army? a common navy? a common treasury? no. though the latter, particularly through euro-bonds, is still a southern request... aided by the City of London
seriously, Britain needs to leave the EU. just to take a step back and have the British People to realize what it is and what it isn't. your governments, one after the other, have spread so much bullshit about the continent - in the great tradition of jingoistic journalism - that it's starting to be silly
ghordius, you have a lot of patience. kudos to you.
"...aren't you taking this "page 7" out of context? the whole speech you are citing is from Etienne Hirsch, President of the Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community at a press luncheon in Washington, 1959"
Out of context?? Certainly not.
Etienne Hirsch was an old friend of Jean Monnet as he says. One can assume he shared common visions for Europe. Also, the words he & I quoted were spoken by Jean Monnet, credited as being a key founder of the original EU. Did you miss that??
Apart from that, I generally agree with what you say about Britain's historical relationship with Europe, except that you failed to mention we saved it from Fascism. So perhaps Brits feel entitled to a senior position at the EU table. Too bad France has never agreed with that.
smacker, if you think that it's ok for some Britons to feel entitled to a senior position at the EU table, a position senior to France, senior to Germany, senior to Italy, and of course senior of the BeNeLux countries...
...then you should also think that it's ok for some Continentals to promote a federalist "United States of Europe"
I disagree with both groups. Meanwhile, you feel very friendly and warm to your imperialists. Which leads me to ask the same question that was posed not long ago in the FT by a Scot: how much of the British national identity is actually a British imperial identity? to which I'd add: can it be that the common/standard Anglo mindset makes a difference between the Nation (English, Scottish, etc.) and the empire (British, USA, EU)? can it be that this is the real trouble a certain set of British have with the EU? that for them all things besides the Nation are always either below or above the Nation, and so empires? and so judge that "it's either British Empire or European Empire"?
to come back to the proponents of the USE: yes, we do have them. Churchill coined the phrase and Jean Monnet and followers used the phrase. yes, it helped them to explain to our American cousins what the heck it was about... even though it wasn't. yet don't claim that what we have now is a USE. someone that has never been in Europe can be excused, but you are here
our applied concept of the EU is still about an EU that is side by side to the countries, where the countries are peers and own the EU
and, as your words show, it isn't natural, for some Britons. "saving Europe from fascism" equates with "right to lead", up to "right to dominate", coupled with the dark thought that "if Britain does not lead, then it will be led"
Pax Germania. Germany dominates Europe. This time they did it through economic means which is smarter than trying to dominate a place militarily. Have no doubt, the big countries Germany, the UK and France all tried to impose their will/system on the rest of Europe. Germany played it smart profiting from the Euro while keeping their social demands low and in the meanwhile loan out all these German Euros to whomever wanted to borrow. And when crisis came they managed to retrieve all these loaned German Euros and impose austerity on the borrowing countries effectively killing off the competition or acquiring them. Mind you though, these borrowing countries thought they were getting a free lunch and had no fiscal and monetary discipline. But having the Euro prevented them from going back to their previous currencies and devalue them in order to become competitve, and combat inflation through interest rate adjustments.
It is a fair accompli: Europe has Pax Germania.
the only thing that is dominated, here, is the Anglo-American mindset. of dominance. show me even one instance where Germany pushed it's will against a concerted counterproposal by others. show me even one instance where Poland, France, Italy or even the BeNeLux countries were dominated by a single German-only issue
we vote, here. In the Council, where Germany has only one seat and one set of votes commesurate to it's population, and in the EU Parliament, where it's the same
Germany is part of a consensus. of which it can only shape part of it. the opposite of a dominance/dominated setup. one of peers
And of course, there are no backroom deals at all in the EU. Just like with the reelection of Schultz. "This time it would be different", he promised. "No more backroom deals", he said. And how was he reelected? By a closed voting session. He didn't get the presidency of the EC so they gave him the presidency of the EP. If you think that politics in the EU is transparent, think again. If you think there was no backroom pressuring on imposing austerity (with a little help from GS banker presidents that were undemocratically installed in Italy and Greece) then you are really naive. Nobody really wanted Junckers, a chain smoking, alcoholic meglomaniac with disrespect for democractic process and the electorate ("when it is serious you need to lie" and "we will implement something and when there is no mass protest we will continue until there is no way back"). This is why Germany wants him: he is a federalist and will not stop until he get what he wants even if the means that countries will leave the EU or that everybody will be as poor as everyone else.
The UK ironically got humiliated at the site where so many British soldiers lost their lives during WWI -Ypres-. Germany did not have to pressure the other countries there because these slimy bastards said one thing to Cameron and voted exactly the opposite because the horse trading for high positions has started and in that case you don't go against Germany's wishes.
Jesus, and then I am not even talking about industry lobbying.
this is silly. Schultz has to be appointed by the EU Parliament in order to be prez of the thing. this means he has to be voted by the elected MEPs. I don't even know how to answer to this "closed voting session" thing. expand on that, perhaps with links. there is nothing undemocratic about making political deals in the open before election
Italy and Greece have both elected parliaments. which threw out their PMs and appointed new ones. nothing undemocratic about MPs choosing a different PM and a different government. and no, we are talking about Prime Ministers, not Presidents. which in both cases supported the changes, particularly in the Italian one, where it was President Napolitano using his powers to appoint a few Senators for Life to elevate Monti to the Italian Senate, so that it was possible for the Italian Parliament, both chambers, btw, to make him head of the gov
Really? So why were there only four candidates? Why were people who wanted to become a candidate rejected? Some democracy if you can only vote for a couple of SELECTED candidates. Not even taking into account that people could not even vote who becomes president of the EC. The EU is not transparent at all and there is a lot of backroom deals and horse trading. Remember the French and Dutch referendums? The EU didn't like the outcome, made a few cosmetics changes, called the constitution a treaty and voila another referendum was not necessary. Wow, some form of democracy that is.
Just this morning the EU court sided with Dutch MEP Sophie van 't Veld about transparency regarding giving data of EU citizens to the US. It took her 5 years and still she does not have the documents. That needs to be decided upon still. Again, there is little transparency in the EU. Of course, everything for our own good.
PM's yes, not presidents. My bad. But G-Pap was 'voted out' after he had the audacity to put the conditions of the bailout to a vote (a bailout that mostly to bailout German and French banks and had as conditions that German militray hardware had to bought). The Greek parliament got under a lot of pressure to get rid of him or else no bailout and chances of new elections where many of these Greek MP could pack their bags. Same thing in Italy although Berlusconi is an idiot. These MP's did not vote in order to do the 'right' thing but to prevent general elections where they would be wiped out. After that in both counties ex GS man were appointed as PM (not president).
Juncker is not a German but he speaks German, has a German name and is a federalist. Schultz is a German. Sounds like Germany got 2 very powerful EU positions in their pocket.
No my friend, you keep on believing that there is democracy, transparency and participation in the EU.
Joe A, may I ask if you are British or American? Or if you have a comparison or model you are using to judge? It would simplify my response, somewhat
there is an immense difference between the European Constitution - which I also rejected - and our current setup
you are mentioning "backroom dealings" which had no backrooms, and a lot of party mechanics. and "horse trading" is often misused to describe politics in general, particularly among political alliances, particularly in a consensus-oriented political landscape as in Europe, full of multi-party voting systems that lead to coalitions
yes, the Greek Parliament was under pressure. sovereignty does not preclude pressure. btw, did you notice that Greeks had elections, later? and did not vote for parties that wanted to renege what the previous parliament decided?
so your problem with Juncker is that he speaks German and has a German name? besides that he is a smoker and a drinker? which criteria would be satisfactory, for you? he speaks English. should he change his name? or forget that his father - a Luxembourger - was drafted by the German Nazis and forced to fight on the Eastern Front in WWII?
sorry, but would any candidate - except an Englishman or an American - be really ever satisfactory for you? I don't believe even one moment that you were happy with the Portuguese Barroso or the Belgian Rumpoy
are Juncker and Schultz now the consuls of New Rome? no. the one works for the Council and the other for the Parliament. in both, the UK has a voice. a jarring, discordant voice which is listened to, nevertheless
I am Dutch and I prefer to take the Swiss model as an example. Participatory democracy and not some 'representative democracy' that we now have in the EU and the nation states. The Swiss people have shown they can make wise and informed decisions (even voting against a proposal which would give them more holidays!).
You know the scandals where MEPs sign up for the day and go home (for some unknown reason they don't need to punch out like any worker who has a punchcard). You know the scandals where some MEPs vote always in favor but when asked they don't know what they voted for. You know the incident where order of voting was rearranged and the MEPs had no idea what they were voting on. MEPs can paid a lot for that as well. And of course while everybody in Europe has to tighten their belt they give themselves salary increases and undo a measure and froze their salaries even retroactively give themselves a raise. You know about the intense lobbying that goes on in Brussels and that affects decision making. Backroom deals and horse trading are part of the 'representative democratic process'. You know that as well as I do.
That the Greek later not vote against does not mean that at the time of G-Pap disposal political games were played. The risk for the sitting MPs that they would not be reelected was great at that time.
I see that WWII also has made an appearance in your reply. That is a bit weak. Just like some EU people saying that anti EU parties and people who voted for them are fascists. Did they ever wonder why these people voted against them?
Juncker is a federalist who in the past has shown with statements that he has no respect for democratic process. That is why I don't like him.
I was not happy with Barroso and certainly not with Rompuy. You see, these people are part of some unelected elite. People never got to vote for them. That is what I want in the EU: openess, transparency and participation.
Now a question for you (which I wondered about for quite some time): do you work for or are otherwise affiliated with the EU or any EU associated institution (in whatever form)?
Joe A, thanks for answering a question which I should not even pose. I fully agree that the Swiss have the very best model of all. Including their referenda
Typically, whenever I bring this up, the answer is "Ghordius, be serious, the Swiss model works only because it's a very small country" debatable
meanwhile, I maintain that parliamentary, multi-party models are the next best thing
scandals? yes, but all systems have scandals. the question there is not that humans are feeble, but how you cope with it
lobbying is a scourge. yet I have no clue how lobbying can be dampened. do you have a solution?
is a Greek MP not free to vote how he thinks best? yes, they care be re-elected. again a Gordian Knot to which I have no sword. does this not suggest that they knew what their voters wanted? vs a different stance, which would have included dropping out of the eurozone, something Greeks still don't want?
yes, WWII is still important, for oldsters like me. but I see your point, and I'd delete that part of comment if it was possible, fully unnecessary
Juncker is a guy that makes biting remarks. I'm not sure if they include a lack of respect for the democratic process. of course, I presume your comment goes on the question of referenda. yet there you know that they are a national matter. there, you should aim for a change in The Netherlands, don't you
the most federalist thing we could do is to have european referenda. think about that. also because this could be the next rift between anti-federalists that are at the same time proponents of direct democracy through the use of referenda. if you had to choose on a package that includes EU referenda while making the EU more federalist, what would you choose? remember that the cost would be the loss of national sovereignty
the EU Parliament heard you regarding openness, transparency and participation. and responded with the "lead candidacy" model for the last elections. question is, did they satisfy you with that? Note that this was the maximum they could do, and it's a "power grab" from their side
I can assure you that I am not affiliated to anything... except on a personal, amicable level with several politicians in europe, which I know from and because of other reasons than they being politicians. sometimes I represent on a very informal basis small and medium entrepreneurs at initiatives around work and youth. so no, I'm not a lobbyist, but I do, from time to time, something that could be called helping lobbyism at the most grass-root level, particularly when it comes in asking for initiatives around the adoption of the "Germanic" model of apprenticeship. but all very limited
otherwise, I'm just an entrepreneur, and a fairly small one to boot. a fan of ZH discussions and convinced that the EUR is necessary, in this world in transition
Thanks for answering me the question. And I always appreciate your contributions to ZH although I don't always agree with you. I agree with you on the Swiss model and the referenda. And I agree that lobbying should be controlled. There has to be more openess and transparency to that. Something that Corporate Europe is fighting for.
I want more participation and I want more interest of the European people in the European process! People are complacent but should get off their behinds and become active. For now they take an attitude of "we cannot change anything, let's watch football and dancing with the stars". But the election made clear that people have power. The various petitions against EU proposals for privatization of water or limiting crop variety do work. People should hold their MEPs accountable. That will keep them sharp and make them do what is good for the electorate and not for themselves or the lobbyist who lobby them.
thanks. I have to admit, I myself don't always agree with myself. the question above regarding referenda and federalism, for example, would tear me apart
I agree on being against the neo-liberal proposals of water privatization. I guess this makes us both "socialists", in the eyes of some
limiting crop variety comes in two forms: a conservative/green one and a pro-GMO one. careful, there, lots of murkying lobbying work being done
I guess from your words that you seem somewhat satisfied about the EU Parliament's "power grab". I'm still undecided, there. let's see how it shapes out
I don't agree with myself all the time :-)
I consider myself to be a social liberal but I am against many liberalization plans. They promise better service and cheaper rates but often you'd see quite the opposite. And privatising drinking water is a no-no. And limiting crop variety: GM and biotech tries to high jack that one. Biotech btw also influences the EP and the EFSA. Try to find "GMO myths and truths" about GMO. Second edition, 300 pages but good reading.
The only satisfaction about the recent 'power grab' is that it is a wake up call for the EU. I don't agree with many of these parties but the EU called this upon themselves. And they'd better learn from this.
I am not all against European cooperation but more openess and transparency please. And people are very well capable of organizing and governning themselves on a local and regional level.
omg! a social liberal. now you have proved to me that you are a continental. you realize that many of our ZH friends would not even know what the heck you are talking about. smacker-the-Brit, for example, treats all things beginning with "social" or "socialist" like leprocy
I have a conservative argument about water and food: a continent has to be able to feed itself. so there are imho limits in the liberty entrepreneurs should have when it comes to safety and quality in all things related to food. and yes, this means a very, very cautious approach to GMO. have to read that book, thanks
That's the thing: not many people nowadays are strictly socialist, liberal or conservatist, etc. People shop around. It's political evolution. Some parties don't understand that and still live in the past.
You can find GMo myths and truths here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths
You need to give your name and email and then you will receive a link.
If you don't want to leave your details: earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf
Bye, gotta go.
Even the UK is going to end up in Russia's coffers, because the Brits mind their earnings and right now, the big money lies in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Bankers have no loyalty but to money.
It seems the US Corporation has served its purpose.
re Emerging German- Russian Axis...
all thanks to the ZIO-Punks running the USSA
So, why exactly would a Russian-German alliance be bad? The Poles are the ones whoe get runover when the Russians and Germans fight each other. Russian-German peace would be good for the region, wouldn't it?
The banking mafia who rule the Anglophone countries sought "full spectrum dominance" but seem to be uniting the world against them instead.
The interesting thing is if they'd just sought domination they might have succeeded but they want to destroy all the nations of the earth - even the ones they are using to attack other people with - and spread their cultural poison everywhere as well. I think the cultural poisoning was the last straw.
For the people who are saying the US can kick all their butts, yes you're right, that's why this alliance won't fight, they'll take out the US economy instead.
If the Americans had not stolen Germany's gold would this be happening?
I think so. The banking mafia stealing Germany's gold is just a symptom of how corrupt everything is - one of hundreds of last straws.
edit: although the gold theft might have made it easier to sell to the German public so maybe
Funny article. This way you can upset the apple card. It's the same what Putin might try the other way round.
But sure is: The NSA is permanently burdening the relacion between Germany & the US-Government while Putin is playing his verbal games. And he knows our language - doesn't depend on mainstream medias...
But don't worry: The real Russian-German romanticism is still in strong remembrance to millions of Germans...
Hmmmmm...Merkel and Putin-strange bedfellows indeed!
So predictable.
Banksters did every war. Not the NAZIs, or the Jews, or Commie farmers, not the Japanese, not the muzzies, or Custer, they were all pawns.
Just say No to the Old World Odor.
Putin will be more than happy to use the Germans at this point in time. The Germans will be more than happy to make another (and very predictable) terrible and costly strategic mistake. After giving up their power generation to the green agenda, Germany may not even have a choice but to get into bed with Putin. But as long as we're on the subject of history, the world will quickly realize that the marriage of these two empires his will have a very short honeymoon and an ending only OJ Simpson could be proud of.