European expansion- problems?

[welsh]

Very long post and mostly asking about what are the problems of the EU and the EU constitution.

Ok, we've had this discussion a few time- whether expansion of the EU is a good thing, or whether it's outgrown it's bounds.

The Economist printed up this recent special report. I'd like to hear what the Europeans here think on this.

(This is where Kharn goes at the EU like a Pitbull on a porkchop).

Now that we are all bundled inside, let's shut the door

Apr 28th 2005 | BRATISLAVA, BUDAPEST, PRAGUE AND RIGA
From The Economist print edition

A year after the new boys entered the European Union, the mood is a mite surly, and definitely unwelcoming

GALEN, that great second-century physician, observed “Triste est omne animal post coitum”. He might have been reflecting on the mood of the European Union a year after it embraced ten new members, eight of them from central Europe. Most of the newcomers affect a ho-hum indifference to membership now that they have it—even though they worked furiously to get it. The older members ponder, with varying degrees of anxiety, the low tax rates and the even lower wages which most of the new countries have brought with them into the single market.

Is the problem here one in which members of the EU countries are afraid that new countries neither have the taxable revenue as the richer countries of the West, or that labor will shift est to take advantage of lower rates?

Is there a bias against Eastern Europeans amongst the Western Europeans?

The new members' singular lack of jubilation might suggest that this latest enlargement, the biggest by far in the Union's history, has been something of a let-down. “We have accepted the dictatorship of Tesco,” grumbles Vladimir Zelezny, a Eurosceptic Czech member of the European Parliament.

Are Europeans willing to give up their notion of national or cultural uniqueness for membership within a unified european community?

Only the Slovaks still seem truly excited, perhaps because they came nearest to failing the course. After overthrowing communism, they had to beat back the neo-authoritarian government of Vladimir Meciar, which ran the country in the mid-1990s. “We would not have got rid of Meciar, were it not for the vision of the EU,” says Pavol Demes, director of the Bratislava office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

In fact, last year's enlargement has gone remarkably well, both for the newcomers and for the Union, and all the more so when measured against the fears that preceded it. The institutions in Brussels have gone on working normally, despite predictions of gridlock. The economies of the new members have gone on growing at a healthy clip, roughly two to four times as fast as the euro-zone average, despite worries that their industry would be choked by regulations and their agriculture ruined by the opening of markets. More often, the opposite has happened, notably in Poland. Manufacturers have done unexpectedly well out of open borders and easier exporting. Farmers have gained from subsidies and new demand.

Any confirmation of this among our resident Poles?

One problem is that the central Europeans feel themselves, in some respects, to be second-class members of the Union. This spoils their pleasure. They are stuck outside the Schengen zone of passport-free travel for at least another two years. They are denied the freedom to work in most EU countries for perhaps another six years: only Britain, Ireland and Sweden have opened their labour markets right away. The newcomers must meet further tests before they can join the single currency. Their farmers get smaller direct subsidies from EU funds, starting at one-quarter of the payments made to farmers in the 15 “old” members, a money-saving measure meant to speed farm restructuring.

So, there is a two class system in Europe between the former Western Europeans and the new former communist states? Is this fair?

One would think they should get more benefits as they are the ones that need more reform.

Most painfully, after the ravages of communism and the post-communist transition, it will take the central Europeans decades before they can raise their average wages to western European levels. For most ordinary people, accession last year brought “euphoria on the eve of May 1st, a great historical moment—and then, the next day, nothing had changed,” says Robert Braun, former chief strategy adviser to the Hungarian prime minister.

SO is much of this about unrealized expectations and disappointment? EU has failed to realize significant differences for most people. Or has it made people's lives worse?

Still, given a few quiet years to bed down, this Union of 25 countries, due to be 27 with the entry of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, could probably emerge little changed in its habits and workings from the Union of 15. Meetings in Brussels would be longer and wordier, relations with Russia would acquire a new salience, Britain would have a few more allies in its fight against tax harmonisation, and that would be pretty well all. Unfortunately, the quiet years needed for that bedding-down are not in prospect.

So bigger but not better, or perhaps even worse. The bigger the Union gets the more bogged down it gets with factional fighting over economic distribution and politics?

Instead, because European governments overestimated both the difficulties of enlargement and the strength of popular support for the EU, they committed themselves last year to the politically exhausting business of ratifying a new constitution. This document need not change much in the way the EU operates, save in some formal respects, but it does require each country to re-examine and re-confirm some fairly open-ended membership commitments in minute detail. No country is enjoying this process, least of all France, which holds its ratification referendum on May 29th, and has emerged as the unforeseen doubter. Opinion polls say the constitution is likely to be rejected there.

What are the consequences of the constitution is rejected? Is this really a case of reshuffling the political and economic rules.

How are you guys feeling about this? SHould the constitution be rejected or accepted.

What happens if it's no?
The new members are looking on anxiously. If France votes no, its instinct might be to try forming a new small group of the EU's six original members, weakening and perhaps undermining the wider Union. If, on the other hand, France votes yes and then Britain votes no (as Britain probably will), that would be just as worrying, if it pushes Britain to the margins of the EU or out of it entirely.

Would the Brits actually leave the Union?

The Union would become a much less friendly place for the new members, which tend to share Britain's taste for market liberalisation, tax competition, subsidiarity and Atlanticism, and look to it as a guarantor of those things. There is a faint possibility, too, that one of the new members, perhaps the Czech Republic or Poland, might fail to ratify the referendum, putting its own future in doubt. The Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, is the only EU head of state to oppose the constitution, while the Poles fume that the constitution will reduce their country's voting power within the Union.

If this constitution is so unpopular among the stronger states and many of the new states, than why go for it at all? Who is winning in all of this?

French angst about Europe owes much to enlargement, and much also to worries about immigration and globalisation. Whereas France felt confident of its leading role in an EU of 15 countries, in an EU of 25 or more it is starting to feel unhappily overwhelmed. The idea that Turkey might one day join the Union weighs heavily on public opinion in France, as it does in Germany and Austria.

Ok, why not Turkey. After all it's a member of NATO. The most European of Middle East countries (and John- none of this "Turkey
is not in the Middle East" crap.)

France fears not merely that it is losing its historic leadership of the Union, but also that enlargement is bringing in more low-wage, low-tax countries which will further undermine, through competition, the French model of big government and high taxes. It may well be right. Lithuania's tax burden in 2003 was 28.7% of GDP, 17 percentage points less than the French equivalent. Slovakia's 19% flat rate for all main taxes—personal, corporate and VAT—has become the envy of the region. But in the French view all this amounts to “fiscal dumping” by the new members—using low tax rates to lure jobs and investment away from western Europe, then balancing the state budget with EU cash from French and German pockets. The charge is wrong, but try telling France that.

SO this comes down to political interests of domestic constituents complaining about what's fair and whether they are willing to sacrifice their quality of life for the benefit of neighbors they either care little or nothing about?

The new members also tend to be much more Atlanticist in their foreign relations. In the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 they mostly supported America, leading France's president, Jacques Chirac, to say that they had missed a good opportunity to shut up. The phrase still rankles.

Boy that Jacque has a way with words. Kind of like our Vice Cheney telling someone to "fuck off."

Is this because of NATO and the fear of Russian influence? Or is it because the new members are seen as countries that really should shut up and appreciate the largess of the Western Europeans?

“Now they know we are not going to keep quiet,” says Eduard Kukan, Slovakia's foreign minister, pointing to the part the new members have started to play in EU policymaking. Poland and Lithuania saved Europe's face by giving strong early support to Ukraine's orange revolution last year. Slovakia and Hungary have joined Austria to lobby, so far unsuccessfully, for accession talks with Croatia. The Czech Republic has been steering EU policy in relations with Cuba.

OK, but maybe all politics really is local. France is doing what France does because of the demands of its constituents. Ditto England. Powerful domestic lobbies shape policy and interest and because domestic interests differ from country to country- it becomes that more difficult to share policy except on more limited ends.

OK, so maybe these countries also reflect those that have the most to gain and have the most skill and ability to acheive rapid GDP growth. Sucks for the other European countries though. Perhaps this is also shapping differences in policies.

But the EU has been a slowly evolving body. If these countries have been moving towards a convergence of values and interests, than we might expect division when domestic politics differ. So?

Romania looks set to outdo everyone in its pro-Americanism, if and when it joins the Union in two or three years' time. Its new president, Traian Basescu, elected in December, has said that his priority is to work closely with Washington and London, a formula which pointedly omits Paris and Brussels. Last week he said that Romania favoured “a state with minimal involvement in the economy”, a rebuke to France's dirigiste model. He added for good measure that he resented what Mr Chirac had said in 2003. “Romania is a country which has respect for itself,” he said, “we do not like these kinds of declarations.”

Gosh, two shots for Chirac! This guy says things almost as amusing as the current US dipshit in the White House. At least we know where Chirac comes from.

But at least France is considered the number 1 role model in the world.

Mr Basescu may be living dangerously. His country has yet to join the EU, and France could still block its entry. Romania, and its neighbour, Bulgaria, began their negotiations alongside the central Europeans but were deemed unready to join last year. This week they signed accession treaties which will bring them in at the start of 2007, unless the EU sees signs of late disarray, in which case it can set back entry for another year.

If so, then the EU is throwing its weight as a means of leverage. A "we don't want you to go against French philosophy, so until you toe the line, you're out." Is that how it works?

But these accession treaties have to be ratified by all member states, including France. If relations deteriorate much further, the French parliament might decide that Romania is still unfit to join, and refuse the treaty. Germany's Christian Democrats are also talking about blocking Romania, and their support is needed for a constitutional majority in the Bundestag.

The powers that be control the rest of the EU. And they control because they have economic might?

Keeping Turkey out
The question mark over Romania's accession is a small one. A much bigger one hangs over any further EU enlargements. Turkey has been accepted as a candidate, but few EU countries can easily conceive of it as a member, even ten years from now. The fear in some quarters of bringing an Islamic country into Europe is at least as great as the desire, in other quarters, to show it can be done. Turkey's size and relative poverty exacerbate the problem. The result is that the EU risks opening negotiations with Turkey later this year with no serious intention of completing them.

Because we don't want muslims in the EU? Isn't that kind of medieval? Or is that Turkey might entangle Europe into the middle east problems and that's a mess?

The countries of the western Balkans—Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro—have all been promised in principle that they can join the Union once they are ready. But that promise, given in 2003, has no timetable attached to it, and most of the countries are still a mess. Indeed, until the final status of Kosovo is decided in talks due to start this year, and until the relationship between Serbia and Montenegro is decided by a referendum next year, it is not even clear how many countries the region will comprise.

It would seem that if EU membership gave a lot of tangible rewards, than the possibility of joining the EU would have more weight in helping those countries resolve their differences. So what's the problem?

Only Croatia is anywhere near ready to start entry negotiations, but its hopes of doing so last month faltered when the EU decided that it was not co-operating with the Hague war-crimes tribunal, a precondition for talks. The Europeans mainly want Croatia to surrender, or to inform on, Ante Gotovina, a fugitive Croat army chief who has been charged with ethnic cleansing during Croatia's war with the Serbs.

SO why aren't the Croats giving up this guy?

Ukraine is not recognised as a candidate for Union membership, but if its new pro-western government forges on with bold political and economic reforms, breaking with Russian and post-Soviet models, accession talks will be hard to resist. But there is a chicken-and-egg problem. Ukraine may be able to hold the course of reform only if it has a clear prospect of EU entry already in front of it, as was the case in Slovakia. Poland and most other central European countries think it is crystal clear that Ukraine should be offered a prospect of membership in order to stiffen its resolve. They want Moldova to follow, and some day even Belarus, if it can ditch its dictator of the past ten years, Alexander Lukashenka.

BY having the EU move so far East, isn't it beginning to compete with Russia in terms of a sphere of influence. Were not Russian troops not so recently in Moldova?

Losing the will to enlarge
But other EU countries disagree. They do not want to anger Russia, which sees these former Soviet lands as its sphere of influence. France nurtures Russia as a diplomatic ally. Germany relies on it for gas. Both want the Union to be nicer to Russia—unlike the new members, especially the Baltic states, who tend to view Russia as a nuisance if not an outright danger.

So again, the problem of domestic interest outwieghs the interest of the EU, even among the most strongest EU members. Those countries in between are stuck between a rock and a hard place?

It is something of an irony, in sum, that while enlargement has become the most popular and successful instrument of regime change in Europe's history, the European Union is losing the will to enlarge any more. It does not really want any more members, save perhaps for Croatia, and only then because Croatia has such a beautiful coastline.

Perhaps because the EU has reached the limits of what is realistic?

Of course, if truth were told, there was precious little popular support for last year's enlargement either. Like many other Union policies it was negotiated between governments and then implemented against a background of public indifference. A Eurobarometer opinion poll taken in 2002, just as EU governments were concluding terms for the 2004 enlargement, found that 41% of EU citizens did not want to know any more about the candidate countries, 76% did not wish to live or work in them, and 91% felt “no tie of any kind” with them.

"No tie of any kind" does not make a community. Indifference except what happens outside your immediate sphere, and otherwise let the big power play the game? So has this EU thing been little more than an opportunity for France and Germany to expand their power base?

History will surely judge the EU governments to have acted wisely, nonetheless, in pursuing the 2004 enlargement, and with it the rehabilitation of central Europe after half a century of communism. But some of those governments now find that they have frightened themselves, and many of their citizens, with the prospect of a wider and woollier Europe. Public opinion has been aroused. It worries about the shifting of factories and jobs to the low-wage economies of central Europe—délocalisation, as the French say.

In fact, the central European countries compete more often for projects against distant low-wage rivals such as China and Brazil, and all Europe benefits from central Europe's success. But still, some industrial capacity is shifting directly from the old to the new members. And some workers from central Europe are indeed entering western labour markets, often illicitly, since most EU governments have bowed to public opinion by closing their job markets to the newcomers. Such migration usually helps local economies, but it still upsets local interests.

Public opinion in western Europe also senses, accurately, that enlargement points the Union down a road which, if followed to its apparent conclusion, would mean open borders with the Balkans, wages in parts of Europe at Chinese levels, and Turkey as primus inter pares at EU summits. There may be much good to be said for each of these things, but public and even official opinion in many other EU countries is not yet ready to hear it. Anxieties about cultural integrity and national security are too strong.

Or is it simply that there is too much enlargement and too soon. That this process should have slowed down in order to keep the community focused and interested- to build a community.

But if that's true, than there is another problem, the maxim "time waits for no man." If the EU didn't enlarge or sought to incorporate new members than what might have happened to them? Would they have the chance to share in the standards of living that EU enjoys?

Having been conceived as a way of exporting Europe's stability to neighbouring countries, enlargement is coming to be seen more as a way of importing instability. The emphasis throughout the West on national security since September 11th 2001 means that it is no longer clear even when the countries which joined the EU last year will be admitted to the Schengen zone of passport-free travel, if ever. They can join Schengen only with the unanimous approval of existing members, and that will not come if some interior ministers get their way, says one top EU official.

Whatever the outcome of the French referendum on the EU constitution, therefore, future enlargement is going to be much more difficult. Romania and Bulgaria should count themselves lucky if they get in under the wire, Croatia too. If the Union hangs together in its present form—by no means a certainty if France votes no next month—it may have to look for other ways to spread stability and prosperity to the mostly rackety countries round about. Already it offers nearby countries cash and technical aid, plus market access, in exchange for economic and political reforms based on European norms. But these exchanges are unlikely to produce the deep transformations which countries must attempt when they want to join the Union. They are regarded rather snootily by the recipient countries, which see themselves as being at once excluded and appeased.

But is that what the EU is really about- stability? Or was it about prosperity and opportunity, with the security business being that of NATO?

And if so than maybe the expansion of Europe should have been left to a process in which first NATO expands and then the EU follows once security has been obtained.

One answer might be a two-tier Europe in which new countries would be invited to join the Union, but only on the basis that they would be denied Schengen membership, free movement of labour, farm subsidies, and the right to vote on constitutional issues for a long transitional period or even permanently. This would answer the main public worries in western Europe. It would anger the countries waiting to join, just as the piecemeal postponement of some rights and privileges has angered the countries which joined last year. Even so, would-be members may have to swallow some such deal, if the alternative is no more enlargement.

A two-tiered system would suggest that there is a group of powerful and the group that is less powerful. A club within a club. The issues- farm subsidies, labor movement, voting rights- these are the key political issues that determine what economic integration is. Otherwise, what is Central and Eastern Europe- a buffer zone to Russia? a sphere of influence? A source of low-cost labor for European industries?

I admit to being no European expert. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

SO why aren't the Croats giving up this guy?

Because:

a) Many in this country (a quite loud minority) consider him to be a national hero, which objectively, he may very well be. Those people are hiding him and they would rather see Croatia alone outside of EU than give him up.
or
b) which is more probable, we honestly don't know where he is.

Also, EU, is losing popularity in Croatia. Most feel that too much would have to be given up in exchange for acceptance to the EU.
I, personally, am yet to form a solid opinion, but it seems to me that when Croatia does get into the EU (pretty good chances in 2007 or 2009) it would only mean that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

 

[Murdoch]

Good God Welsh, you realize that when you post such long and multi-faceted points it stifles debate because people don't know where to start debating? oi

Europe lacks the unity to add new members as it is, what makes them think they can form a common constitution? Seems to me that the best way to do this 'unification' thing is from two peices: old 'west' forms its own union, and new 'east' Europe forms its own, including Ukraine, the Balkans and Turkey. Each half can work on and conquer its own problems, utilizing a common set of goals and measures. This will also keep Russian fears allayed for awhile. Then, once they've solved there own problems in 15-20 years time then talk about full unification. The problems of the EU right now seem too diverse and 'local' to allow one body (encompassing vastly different cultural and developmental states) to effectively tackle- better to leave it in smaller pieces for a generation until the local problems are worked out.

 

[Hellion]

How are you guys feeling about this? Should the constitution be rejected or accepted.

About a week ago the parliament here held a voting on the Euro-Constitution, and it was accepted by a very large majority (only the left-wing parties voted "no").

What's funny is that, even though the Constitution has been accepted by Greece, I'd be surprised if even as much as 20% of the population had ANY knowledge whatsoever on even the BASIC articles of the Euro-Constitution and the effects it will have on the country.

I'm all for "stability" and "prosperity" and other cliche definitions like these, but if a referendum would take place here I would certainly have voted "NO" judging on the info I have managed to collect on the Euro-Constitution (references to the British bases on Cyprus, the virtual "abolishment" of all national borders etc etc), and on what I feel is in the best interest for my country.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

SO why aren't the Croats giving up this guy?

Because the said guy fled the country in 2001 using a fake passport issued to him by the police. EU's problem with Croatia isn't really about Gotovina, however. To think that EU estimates Croatia's readiness for membership by her ability to locate and apprehend a single man - even if he is an army general and possible war criminal - is naive. This isn't even so much about Croatian cooperation with the Hague tribunal (which is actually quite exemplary when compared to certain other countries in the region, *coughserbiacough*).

No, the reason why EU is so reluctant to begin entry talks with my country is because Croatia has yet to demonstrate its ability to function as a modern state in judicial terms. So far Croatia has done little or nothing to do that. Our police issued a falsified passport to a fugitive war criminal. Within our police and intelligence agencies exists a network of reactionaries who do everything they can to hinder Croatia on its way to EU, including supporting and harboring Gotovina. Even some ministers in the government are rumored to have been aiding Gotovina. Hague investigators who arrived in Croatia last year were immediately placed under surveillance and instead of cooperating with them, our rogue counter-intellligence agencies directed all their resources at thwarting the investigators' efforts to locate Gotovina and expose the secret network that protects him. Our courts have on multiple occasions failed to punish war criminals in a satisfactory manner. State organs which are officially supposed to be ensuring safe return of Serbian refugees (who massively fled Croatia after a series of military operations carried out by the Croatian army in mid-nineties) are in fact doing everything they can to obstruct their return.

I could go on and on with examples of Croatian failures in recent years to meet even minimum standards that a democratic state is expected to meet. It is sufficient to say that EU will not embrace us until our incompetent government demonstrates that Croatia is a country governed by laws rather than interests and whims of corrupt and undemocratic politicans whose asses should have landed in prisons long ago, yet who manage to remain powerful and influential even now, long after Croatia officially crawled out of mud of the nineties and Tudjman's era.

 

[Silencer]

"More often, the opposite has happened, notably in Poland. Manufacturers have done unexpectedly well out of open borders and easier exporting. Farmers have gained from subsidies and new demand. "

Any confirmation of this among our resident Poles?

*looks out the window to estimate the amount of shelling and gunfire*

Yup, no civil war here yet, so I guess we must be doing pretty good with the agriculture and industry.

But don't worry, I trust Giertych will get us out of EU like a young xenomorph from a rib cage.

 

[DJ Slamák]

I voted for EU entry, but I'm probably going to vote against the constitution, if I get the chance.

The first thing that's disconcerting is the way the constitutional treaty is being peddled to the public. To my awareness, there is not a country in the EU where the government is organizing a true informative campaign, the governments always go like "VOTE YES, PEONS, OR WE EAT YOUR KIDS". The Czech government is the same, no matter what impression Klaus gives you. And if the people scrap it, the government plans to have the constitution approved by the parliament. Basically telling everyone to fuck off and die. Oh wait, we take the latter back. Gotta have someone to pay taxes.

Secondly, a document fundamental enough to be called a "constitution" should be readily accessible for everyone, but this thing's got like two hundred pages, going on five hundred if you include all the appendices. Perhaps several thousand people in the whole EU could be arsed to read the whole thing -- supposedly not even most of the European Parliament members who approved it (though this is mostly gossip, but I could well imagine it). As former president Václav Havel said recently, it's a complicated, technicist text that most people can't really understand. What struck me as odd is that he said this as an argument for approving the constitution without a referendum, but then again, Havel's said a lot of weird stuff and it rarely matched what he actually did afterwards, plus he's a pensioner now, so meh.

And then, of course, there's the constitutional treaty itself. The above applies to me as well, I haven't read the whole treaty (yet) - but I've seen some parts and I'm not sure if I liked it. It looks like it could allow Brussels to completely remove or significantly affect important aspects of states' self-governance. I loathe Václav Klaus very much, but I'm rather inclined to agree with him on this - the constitutional treaty could be a major step towards the United States of Europe. I'll definitely seek more information before the referendum (if indeed it takes place, see above).


By the way, you know what's ironic? ODS, supposedly the most liberal of the major Czech parties (and also Klaus' home party), has always opposed referenda. Always and at all costs. The EU referendum was handled by a special law just for that occassion, because it was required "from above". This illustrates why some people hoped that EU entry would do away with the local politicians' power games, which the constitution might very well do, but the problem is what hands it would put the power into. I still prefer being ruled by a corrupt bureaucracy here in Prague over a corrupt bureaucracy seven hundred kilometres away.

 

[Brother None]

The Economist printed up this recent special report. I'd like to hear what the Europeans here think on this.

Funny as just today the Volkskrant had a full-page bit on the State of the Union, so to speak. Must be all the facts coming out.

(This is where Kharn goes at the EU like a Pitbull on a porkchop).

My feelings towards the Union and its expansion are well known. I now gloat because it seems my feelings about the expansion have been vindicated.

Is the problem here one in which members of the EU countries are afraid that new countries neither have the taxable revenue as the richer countries of the West, or that labor will shift est to take advantage of lower rates?

Is there a bias against Eastern Europeans amongst the Western Europeans?

No, bias is not the right word. There's no more a bias against Poles from the Dutch than there is against the French. If the French were bound to invade our country en-masse and take low-paying jobs, we'd be wary of the French too. It's not a bias as much as it is a realistic problem that people realised too late. The fact is that none of the countries feels like giving up a chunk of its own wealth to help those with less wealth. Yeah, I know, we're assholes, but what do you do?


Labour shifts and massive invasions were fears, but they're not realistic fears anymore and people of importance know this, more on that later.

Are Europeans willing to give up their notion of national or cultural uniqueness for membership within a unified european community?

Of course not. The difference between the forging of the EU and the USA 200 years ago is that the USA burned everything to the ground and made a common culture from the dirt upwards. The last attempt to do such a thing in the EU was under nazi Germany, this attempt is not even vaguely similar.

The idea behind unification of the Union is that first we acknowledge that despite our differences, we have enough in common to live together in peace and brotherhood in a large Union. This is quite a step removed from acknowledging that we are unified enough to form a common nation, though.

And this is where the cultural (as opposed to the social or economical) problem of the joining of the European Central Nations stems from. Even those we have common roots with, like Poland, have had these roots torn up by communism. They are of common culture, but common enough to join the Union based on the principle of Unity Despite Differences? This is an essential question that, moronically, people are only beginning to ask themselves now.

The same applies to Turkey, but even more so. There is no sense of common cultural or even social unity with Turkey. They're too different. Get back to that later.

In fact, last year's enlargement has gone remarkably well, both for the newcomers and for the Union, and all the more so when measured against the fears that preceded it. The institutions in Brussels have gone on working normally, despite predictions of gridlock. The economies of the new members have gone on growing at a healthy clip, roughly two to four times as fast as the euro-zone average, despite worries that their industry would be choked by regulations and their agriculture ruined by the opening of markets. More often, the opposite has happened, notably in Poland. Manufacturers have done unexpectedly well out of open borders and easier exporting. Farmers have gained from subsidies and new demand.

Ok, this is a good place of a list of fears that turned out to be ungrounded.

The "wave of immigrant": Great Britain opened up its borders fully and has had a total of 130,000 immigrants so far. Yes, it's a lot, but in no way too much, as they have been taken into GB without any problems (if this will stay the same remains to be seen)

The joining nation had a fear that they would be pushed into the same position as DDR-Germany, little economic progress and dragging the rest of the nation/union down. These fears have so far remained ungrounded as the average GDP real growth rate has expanded over the past year to 5%, as opposed to the 3.7% the year before.

For Eastern European farmers the Big Bang (the nickname of the expansion) did really turn out to be a huge advantage. Their incomes have grown 50% on average, partially thanks to the new market they joined, but also because of the infamous Brussels subsidation of farmers. In total the EU-10 have received a net amount of 2.8 billion from Brussels to invest in agriculture, infrastructure and renewal projects.

The fear for political lack of power also turned out to be ungrounded as EU policy towards guiding the crisis in the Ukraine was mostly set by Poland and Lithuania. The official "big 5" of the EU are accepted to be Great Britain, Spain, France, Germany and Poland.

The fear of companies jumping East or skilled labour jumping West has so far been ungrounded, but that's more of a long-term problem.

In all these terms, so far the expansion has been a succes. I'm hoping that thanks to these short-term successes it'll survive on the long-term too.

So, there is a two class system in Europe between the former Western Europeans and the new former communist states? Is this fair?

Yes it is fair up to a level and it also makes sense historically. So far Russia and the US have been the only major nations in history to expand with the concept that newly integrated parts enjoy the same rights as the old parts. This concept is foreign to most of the rest of the world.

Expansion means subjugation, one would say in the olden days. Of course that's not the case, but fact remains that the EU-10 are the new kids in class. Being new and inexperienced plus not bringing enough economic force into a Union that was founded on economic principles means that they do not have the same punching power as the old nations.

This has always been true of the EU. Even now, of the original EU-6 the Netherlands and Belgium both weild disproportionate power thanks to their political machinations. It'll all even up in the end and it'll even up far enough to be fair within a decade, but for now that's the way it is

One would think they should get more benefits as they are the ones that need more reform.

Monetary benifits are a long shot away from political power. They get one, not the other.

SO is much of this about unrealized expectations and disappointment? EU has failed to realize significant differences for most people. Or has it made people's lives worse?

Anyone who thought Eastern European wages would be drawn up to the level of Western Europe must be a fool. Hell, wages of Luxembourg citizens are significantly bigger than those of member-states like Greece or Portugal, you don't see them whine.

The feeling of euphoria didn't come from an expectation of insta-Westernization, though a lot of things were promised and I suppose a lot of those things weren't realized. That teaches those Eastern Europeans to trust their politicians. Suckers!

So bigger but not better, or perhaps even worse. The bigger the Union gets the more bogged down it gets with factional fighting over economic distribution and politics?

That was and will be part of the problem, yes. The Union does not have the political structure to contain 25 nations. Hell, it barely has enough for 15. If we keep at it at this rate, we're bound to explode.

Do you know how many members the European Parliament has? It's ridiculous.

What are the consequences of the constitution is rejected? Is this really a case of reshuffling the political and economic rules.

There are no real consequences to rejecting the Constitution. It's barely a Constitution as it is. What it does is recognise that the rights and duties common to every Constitution of individual EU states are now official EU bussiness (an important symbolic step, as currently the EU as a Union does not recognise the Universal Rights of Man, despite the fact that all its memberstates do, but only a symbolic step). The largest part of the Constitution is a lot of putting to official papers the deals already existing between memberstates.

That doesn't change anything, but it does make our current state of being permanent. That could be disastruous for a number of reasons. People won't see it coming up front, but it will in fact guide the EU further down the road of the kind of bureaucratic fatherstate the likes of which we haven't seen since the SU. A lot of the last shreds of democracy will be dropped as the EU becomes fully guided by rules and back-door politics, as well as bullying from the largest States.

A good example is that the Constitution recognises the right of any individual State to file a complaint if a EU ruling overrules a national law. The complaint is only valid if supported by 6 memberstates. Goodbye gay marriage, goodbye legal weed, goodbye legal bestiality. Ok, so the last one isn't that bad (and it's Sweden I'm talking about, if you wonder), but the point stands.

Rejecting it changes nothing, but a lot of governments are supporting it fervently for political reasons. Because of political power they could gain, because of improvements in the constitution they'd like to see or, quite often, as a part of an elaborate political game.

Chirac is a very impopular head of state. He only won the last elections because the French people accidentally faced him up against a fascist and the rather bad French electoral system doesn't allow for ways back. Chirac needs to do anything he can to win back popular support, which is why he takes such radical positions on things like the Iraqi War. He obviously gambled wrong here and will be torn to shreds by his people.

GB is even more disgustingly clever. Labour will win the next elections, but Tony Blair is a roundly despised head of state. He will still leader the party through these elections, because his withdrawal would look like a sign of defeat and probably would not please the electorate, but after he's elected he will probably support the Constitution on a personal level, basically making such an investment that if the Constitution is rejected he will have to step down as Prime Minister. Great Britain is unlikely to accept the Constitution no matter who supports it, but they'll gladly grab the chance to get rid of Blair, voting the Constitution away. Blair will then step down and Brown will become the new Prime Minister. It's one of the more clever if surprisingly obvious bits of Poker Play I have ever seen in national politics.

How are you guys feeling about this? SHould the constitution be rejected or accepted.

Depends on where your priorities are. The constitution does in fact offer some mild advantages and will be a step forward to a form of unity. Rejecting it will refuse this step towards unity.

I will personally reject it, for obvious reasons. Some issues I definitely can't stand are the common EU army that every nation has to supply to or the common EU minister of foreign affairs who decides the opinion of all states for them (to prevent another fiasco like Iraq. How dare those tiny states not agree with France/Germany! The audacity!).

Would the Brits actually leave the Union?

That's always an option. The Brits care little for the Union in their hearts and there will come a time when Britain has to choose between holding power within the Union or holding power as an ally of the US. Right now it keeps trying to balance the two, which is politically impossible.

If this constitution is so unpopular among the stronger states and many of the new states, than why go for it at all? Who is winning in all of this?

Brussels is winning. Briosafreak probably has a lot to say on it, but I'll go ahead instead...

You have to understand European politics. Officially it is led by the European Parliament, but this is little more than a straw dog, a facade conjured up to keep the people pleased. With little popular support (around or under 40% of the people actually vote, which in my opinion makes any election invalid, but that's just me) it can't conjure up the muscle to stop the actual leaders either. Like the Russian duma, it's a nice political facade and every so ever rarely manages to actually get something done, but usually it's just a good place to shove people who should be retired so they can spend their days squabbling and making money.

Most of the European politics is led by bureaucrats and back-door politicians. It's another clever game. The ministers (secretaries of states for you Americans) meet every now and again to discuss certain issues. Shockingly for a supposedly democratic institution, these meetings are SECRET, no transcripts are made nor is anyone outside of the ministers allowed to partake or witness the meeting. Nobody knows what they discuss or how they discuss it, but at the end they (the "European Council") announce a new ruling without much publicity, which then gets passed smoothly through the bowels of the Parliament, surprise surprise.

Next step; the ruling hits the nations individually some time later. The people sometimes are personally hit by these rulings and complain to the Government. Reaction? "We can't help it, they're all rulings from above". The audacity of these people! Right now more than 40% of the Dutch "legislation" is forced upon us this way while people stay ignorant about it. The daring required to actually proclaim the Union to be a democratic insitution is beyond me.

It's funny how it's diametrically opposed to the US electoral college as I see it. From my perspection, the Us electoral system doesn't allow for proper representation but firmly allows the people to reject a party or president if they agreed with his policy. The EU system allows for proper representation, depending on the national systems, but doesn't allow people in any way to know what their governments did or didn't do and as such the people can't reject their government based on EU decisions

Ok, why not Turkey. After all it's a member of NATO. The most European of Middle East countries (and John- none of this "Turkey is not in the Middle East" crap.)

About it being a NATO member: honestly, welsh, forgive me, but fuck you. The EU is not an extension of NATO. NATO is a purely military union often based on oppertunities rather than interest. The EU is a political, social, economic union, not to mention that it will be military if the Constitution passes.

Of all the remarks of Bush, one pissed me off the most. He told Turkey that they "deserve to join the Union as a valued NATO-member." Hey, Mr Bush? Fuck you. We'll decide when someone deserves to join our Union, not you.

Honestly, welsh, I couldn't care less about who is a member of the NATO and who isn't. Turkey can not and should not be allowed within the Union for at least a few decades.

Culturally it has nothing to do with the Union. As cultural often serves as the base of society and even politics, this will bring about a lot of strife and disagreement, as lot as a lack of understanding between Nations. This same problem applies to the joining of both former Soviet countries and to the joining of former Ottoman countries, like Greece, who all lack a common background with the strength of that of the rest of the Union. This has nothing to do with them being muslim, especially not since they're a secular state.

Legally and socially and politically Turkey does not meet many, many standards of the EU. Allowing them in while they still have the death penalty and still recognise Turkish Cyprus would be setting a very bad precedent. To use a hyperbole, we might as well allow the semi-communist Belorus while we're at it.

SO this comes down to political interests of domestic constituents complaining about what's fair and whether they are willing to sacrifice their quality of life for the benefit of neighbors they either care little or nothing about?

That's not what it comes down to, but it is one of the issues, yes. Did you really expect something else? It's not comparable with the initial growth of the USA, as all growth brought benifits, but compare it to the US Civil War.

I don't know if they teach you in High School that it was about slavery, but in our High School they skim over the slavery and go on to mention that a lot of the problems were about an essential difference between the South and the North, a large economic and cultural gap that could not be filled up. A lot of the reasons for the Civil War were people thinking of their own purse. Is it really that shocking that the same would happen to the EU? At least we're not killing each other, yet.

Boy that Jacque has a way with words. Kind of like our Vice Cheney telling someone to "fuck off."

Like I said, Jacques is a political leader that lacks popular support. He's a clever little dog, though, and like that other politician with no support, Blair, he can still pull a lot of strings before he goes down.

Is this because of NATO and the fear of Russian influence? Or is it because the new members are seen as countries that really should shut up and appreciate the largess of the Western Europeans?

The original idea of NATO was to fight SU influence. The EU shared this outlook from day one. It is rediculous to fight to keep this outlook when the SU is effectively gone, though.

The Eastern European countries are right to fight against Russian influence. They have suffered under it enough. They don't have a right to demand the same of the EU-15, though. We can not continue to treat Russia as if they were still a repressive Soviet State, even if it's heading back that way.

Do not underappreciate EU-10 influences, though. They're politically significant and that's the way it should be.

OK, but maybe all politics really is local. France is doing what France does because of the demands of its constituents. Ditto England. Powerful domestic lobbies shape policy and interest and because domestic interests differ from country to country- it becomes that more difficult to share policy except on more limited ends.

Don't confuse the EU with the US. We don't have lobbies in the way that the US does, nor are our domestic politics shaped purely by national interests of major lobbies. Heck, in fact, thanks to the EU tricks mentioned above, a lot of what one could call "lobbies" are left powerless in the fact of the mighty EU Machine.

But often enough foreign or even national policies within the EU is shaped by other memberstates. This is a consequence of being so closely tied together, a consequence many people have a hard time living with. The Netherlands is currently reshaping its weed policies partially thanks to pressure from border countries Germany and Great Britain (not Belgium, they don't mind the weed smuggling, bless their little hearts).

The article is not kidding when it says the Czech determine our Cuba-policy, though. The Czech are against the communist regime, for obvious reasons, just like the Poles (I think) are supporting the Chechens because they understand their feelings and because it weakens Russia. The European Union has little trouble being steered by the Czechs in Cuba-policy if they feel so passionate about it, as long as they don't push it (we're not declaring war on Cuba any time soon).

OK, so maybe these countries also reflect those that have the most to gain and have the most skill and ability to acheive rapid GDP growth. Sucks for the other European countries though. Perhaps this is also shapping differences in policies.

But the EU has been a slowly evolving body. If these countries have been moving towards a convergence of values and interests, than we might expect division when domestic politics differ. So?

The concept the EU as an economic union, which was its original idea, is that all memberstates gain a stimulus in growth thanks to each other. It was never intended for this growth to be equal everywhere. The fact that the Dutch were the highest-paying citizens of the EU while the Irish received the most never upset us, as we knew we were both profiting. Same difference here, but it's the fact that it's of such a large scale that upsets so many people.

Divergence of domestic politics is exactly what the Constitution wants to opress.

If so, then the EU is throwing its weight as a means of leverage. A "we don't want you to go against French philosophy, so until you toe the line, you're out." Is that how it works?

Yes, and again that is one of the purposes of the Constitutions. The stronger the rulings from above are the less smaller nations can go in against France and Germany. That's the whole idea.

Take the single European Minister of Foreign Affairs. The position would probably be tossed about between France, Germany and GB. Maybe Spain and Poland if they're lucky, but definitely nobody else, unless the individual smaller states enstate is a nice easy puppet for the main powers to play with. Net result: the smaller states have nothing to say about their own foreign policy.

It would seem that if EU membership gave a lot of tangible rewards, than the possibility of joining the EU would have more weight in helping those countries resolve their differences. So what's the problem?

Tangible rewards or not, joining the EU no longer is just signing up for a common economic market. It means turning in a lot of your rights as a state. People who refuse this, like Norway, are a lot wiser than those that let themselves be taken anally by the large negro that is the EU.

BY having the EU move so far East, isn't it beginning to compete with Russia in terms of a sphere of influence. Were not Russian troops not so recently in Moldova?

Russia is way ahead of you on that one, man. Anyone who thinks Poetin's recent visit to Israel/Palestine was a nice symbolic gesture is a fool.

Russia is an enormous sprawling country. It has throughout its history often been made to choose where its area of influence lay, where its might fell down hardest. Attempts to influence Europe were warded of by Sweden, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire right up to the age of communism (especially post-WW II). The fact that Russia finally gained its precious European influence as a communist overlords left a bitter taste, as the influence meant total isolation from the West as well. Despite SU propaganda to the contrary, that really stung Russia.

Poetin and the men surrounding him are clever. They know how far to push the EU, what to promise and what to take. They'll keep their Eastern influence despite or maybe thanks to Eastern countries joining the EU. But this influence will also weaken. Poetin is willing to make this sacrifice as he explores the Middle East and China for options.

So again, the problem of domestic interest outwieghs the interest of the EU, even among the most strongest EU members. Those countries in between are stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Stop repeating yourself. It's damn annoying to reply to a post that repeats arguments, as I'm not sure where to place mine in reply.

Perhaps because the EU has reached the limits of what is realistic?

Geee, now who's been saying that for some time.

*whistles furiously*

"No tie of any kind" does not make a community. Indifference except what happens outside your immediate sphere, and otherwise let the big power play the game? So has this EU thing been little more than an opportunity for France and Germany to expand their power base?

Yes and no. Despite outward appearances the power of those two is large, but if anyone is a leader it's the big 5, not the big 2, and even so a lot of power goes to the smaller member-states.

The obvious problem being that none of the power actually goes to the people of those member-states, but rather gets carried out through undemocratic ways instead.

The EU needs some serious reform if it wants to be able to last as a non-dictatorial state. Becoming a dictatorial father-knows-best State is no problem and exactly where we're heading, being a large democratic union is a real challenge. The European Council would need to be disbanded. And the current system of electing the Parliament, which gives seats to Nations according to the amounts of people living there much like the electoral college, should be replaced by direct representation, forcing people to vote and care if they value the power of their own nation.

Or is it simply that there is too much enlargement and too soon. That this process should have slowed down in order to keep the community focused and interested- to build a community.

Again, I point to any other post I've made about the EU.

But if that's true, than there is another problem, the maxim "time waits for no man." If the EU didn't enlarge or sought to incorporate new members than what might have happened to them? Would they have the chance to share in the standards of living that EU enjoys?

Screw that. There is such a thing as expanding too fast. I don't care what the consequences are to waiting a long time with expanding, the consequences of this hasty expansion may be very dire.

We, including the Americans, have gotten too used to the idea that peace inside Europe is natural. A lot of politicians right now are reminding us of the old saying that "The only thing all European nations have in common is war". They're right, but paradoxally they're using it defend the European Constitution. In my opinion, however, peace inside the EU is not ensured and is directly threatened by the looming bureaucratic dictatorship that the EU is growing the represent. If it continues this way, member-states might begin to think twice about being happy in the EU and seperations will ensue. Will this be peaceful? Hah, don't make me laugh. We may praise ourselves about our culture, but when point comes to shove we like a good war as well as anybody else does.

by no means a certainty if France votes no next month

That's the typical kind of bullshit governments all over the EU have been propogated. I'm amused that American media would adopt it.

But is that what the EU is really about- stability? Or was it about prosperity and opportunity, with the security business being that of NATO?

And if so than maybe the expansion of Europe should have been left to a process in which first NATO expands and then the EU follows once security has been obtained.

NATO is not about stability, that's a non-argument. If such a cooperation of military strength is about union, why didn't it work out that well for the SU? NATO has been constructed and will work only to keep outside threats away, it is neither equipped nor capable of handling inside threats and in no way ensures internal peace for European NATO-members.

The EU was not about stability in its original form. The likeliness of the original 6 memberstates ever waging war was the stuff jokes were made off, not to be taken seriously. This final expansion was the last step in turning this into an issue, however. Peace between EU-nations is in no way ensured when countries stand diametrically opposed to each other. People need to remember that and take it seriously, it IS an issue.

A two-tiered system would suggest that there is a group of powerful and the group that is less powerful. A club within a club. The issues- farm subsidies, labor movement, voting rights- these are the key political issues that determine what economic integration is. Otherwise, what is Central and Eastern Europe- a buffer zone to Russia? a sphere of influence? A source of low-cost labor for European industries?

You're dead on the money. This is all an issue of the EU-15 rather seeing the EU expand as a colonial power would expand than to see it expand in open arms of brotherhood.

These issues would not have surfaced with slower expansion, though. Despite your poor opinion of Europe's morality, the EU-15 are not inherently set as colonial powers and the thought alone would make many citizens shudder.

We're not afraid of new members, we're afraid of what they might well represent; political disunity, economic strife, social issues. These would all be much smaller issues with slower expansion, but as it stands they're huge.

 

[John Uskglass]

Kharn, is there a major European political leader that has popular support? Blair probably has more support then Gerhard Schroeder, probably the worst Chancellor to hit Germany since the fall of the 3rd Reich. Chirac promises modernization and privatization yet has not delivered in 20 years, and is now considerd a Socialist. Zapatero....well...I hate Zapatero with the fire of a thousand suns, and the PP, while still chaotic after the last election hates his guts. Berlusconi...well...no need to talk about him.

Frankly, I can't think of a single good politician working with public support currently working as the head of a nation in Europe.

 

[Brother None]

Kharn, is there a major European political leader that has popular support? Blair probably has more support then Gerhard Schroeder, probably the worst Chancellor to hit Germany since the fall of the 3rd Reich. Chirac promises modernization and privatization yet has not delivered in 20 years, and is now considerd a Socialist. Zapatero....well...I hate Zapatero with the fire of a thousand suns, and the PP, while still chaotic after the last election hates his guts. Berlusconi...well...no need to talk about him.

Frankly, I can't think of a single good politician working with public support currently working as the head of a nation in Europe.

Blair, Schroeder, Chirac and Berlusconi are all disaster areas. Though not for the reasons you named.

The previous Spanish head was a disaster too, but Zapatero is more popular than you're giving him credit for. I don't think Belka is impopular either. What do the polls say, Poles?

Minor nations...heck if I know. Everyone hates Dutch MP Balkenende, but I think Verhofstadt of Belgium has some public support.

The whole impopular-heads-of-state thing is partially a result of EU politics and partially just a big bit of bad luck. C'mon, man, we're democracies, and a lot of our democratic systems keep the people happier about their head of state than yours/the French (in both cases the infamous "choosing between two evils"-system) does.

 

[John Uskglass]

The American and the French systems are similar yet I'd still say the French system has as much in common with the Rhineland System, or whatever the hell it's called, then ours.

Leaves people more satisfied? That has to be a joke Kharn. Bush's approval ratings go all over the map, but they're still higher then Schroder's ever has been or ever will be. My God, what that man has done to Germany.....

Guh. I pray to God not. Zapatero runs against Kim Jong Il and Mughabe as my least favorite heads of states. My God, I pray not.

Anyway, I'd say there are certain advantages to the Two Evils system; we don't have crazy coalition parties that result in people like Berlisconi or Schroder being elected because two dipshit parties decided to join together.

Frankly, I'd say the best leader in western europe is Blair. If it where not for Iraq, his polls would still be in the stratosphere.

 

[Silencer]

It's Berlusconi. And Schroeder if you want to be a spelling Nazi with no German kezboard.

 

[John Uskglass]

It's Berlusconi. And Schroeder if you want to be a spelling Nazi with no German kezboard.

Hi, I'm John/CCR. You must not know me very well. I'm infamous for my lack of spelling ability, largely due to my dyslexia.

 

[Brother None]

The American and the French systems are similar yet I'd still say the French system has as much in common with the Rhineland System, or whatever the hell it's called, then ours.

It is similar to the Rhineland model during most elections, yes, but it shares more features with the electoral college when electing the head of state

Leaves people more satisfied? That has to be a joke Kharn. Bush's approval ratings go all over the map, but they're still higher then Schroder's ever has been or ever will be. My God, what that man has done to Germany.....

Yes, and I'm sure I can pull many random examples out of my ass too, but that's hardly the issue.

And to say Bush's ratings are higher than Schroder's have been or will ever be is pure unfilitered bullshit.

Guh. I pray to God not. Zapatero runs against Kim Jong Il and Mughabe as my least favorite heads of states. My God, I pray not.

What you pray or don't pray is not the least bit relevant. The Spanish elected him of sound mind and body and the whole surrounding terrorist-incidents are setting for the elections, but not for the period after that. If they like him they like him, if they don't they don't. thankfully our political system is not formed around your opinion.

Anyway, I'd say there are certain advantages to the Two Evils system; we don't have crazy coalition parties that result in people like Berlisconi or Schroder being elected because two dipshit parties decided to join together.

Please research the system before making remarks like that. I've said this many times before; to state that the Rhineland model (which doesn't include Italy, by the way) doesn't allow you to know who the head of state is beforehand is BULLSHIT. Every political party competing always presents their would-be head of state. Just like your president is elected by majority votes, the party with the most votes brings in the head of state. There's nothing shocking about this, it doesn't go against the will of the people. He who represents the largest part of the constituency is the head of state. Shocked? I thought so.

The multi-party system isn't functional because of differences in the way the head of state is chosen, the difference lies in the different gradations in which the electorate is represented. The fact that minorities are represented enough to keep more than barely half of the people interested in voting.

Frankly, I'd say the best leader in western europe is Blair. If it where not for Iraq, his polls would still be in the stratosphere.

Hah, that's a joke and obviously showing ignorance of GB politics. His polls would be down despite Iraq, as he didn't turn out to be the social face he promised to be post-Tory. New Labour is little more than a watered down slightly-less-right version of Tory and people are pissed about that.

It's ironical your elected best leader is the most likely one to leave too. The rest all have some chance of staying and even winning back popular support. He doesn't.

Silencer; John is dyslexic plus not European, I'm pretty drunk and on a slow computer. Please excuse us, will you mister nazi person?

 

[Silencer]

Kharn, it's just that he's been making the same mistake over and over, it's a little annoying. Sieg heir!

John: No problem. I just thought I'd make a snide remark as you've been making the mistake repeatadly... And sorry I was snide again to pick on spelling Schroder

Anyway, I want Turkey in the EU and a free flow of kebabs. So what that they beat up their women - so do we and we're in. Islam has nothing to to with this.

Also, if you think that Turks will remain brutes in the EU, think of what will become of them if we turn our backs on them. I mean, come on, at least some civilisation must rub off to them

 

[Jebus]

WAIT - I remember spending two hours typing a reply to that original post.

Where the hell did that post go?

 

[Silencer]

You wasted two hours on an internet forum to type a reply that was vatted? Loser! Get a GF or something!

(seriously, though... it must be here. Go through your post history perhaps?)

 

[John Uskglass]

Anyway, I never pass up an oppertunity to gloat.

It's ironical your elected best leader is the most likely one to leave too. The rest all have some chance of staying and even winning back popular support. He doesn't.

*gloats*

 

[Brother None]

*gloats*

If you had actually read my post...

GB is even more disgustingly clever. Labour will win the next elections, but Tony Blair is a roundly despised head of state. He will still leader the party through these elections, because his withdrawal would look like a sign of defeat and probably would not please the electorate, but after he's elected he will probably support the Constitution on a personal level, basically making such an investment that if the Constitution is rejected he will have to step down as Prime Minister. Great Britain is unlikely to accept the Constitution no matter who supports it, but they'll gladly grab the chance to get rid of Blair, voting the Constitution away. Blair will then step down and Brown will become the new Prime Minister. It's one of the more clever if surprisingly obvious bits of Poker Play I have ever seen in national politics.

Uninformed remarks seem to be your rasion d'etre, huh? I did not state he was unlikely to be re-elected, I stated the likely plan, which most politicologists agree with, is that he would leave soon after being re-elected.

Though I will admit he seems to be backing out off the early withdrawal thing, much to everyone's dismay. If you actually follow the news, as in non-Blair-biased-news, you'll see there's much demand, even from Labour-people in the House of Commons, for him to do himself the honours of getting the hell out before the British people really start to hate him.

I find it hard to believe he might be arrogant enough to stay, only history will tell.

I thank you for gloating about me being right about Labour being re-elected, though. Thank you, thank you, no autographs please

 

[SkynetV4]

“Triste est omne animal post coitum

Am I the only bothered by the word coitus and animal on the same phrase?