FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Our gas prices does fluctuate with the price of oil. If we had to pay 30 percent more for oil because it traded in Euros, our price would go up by a minimum of 30 percent - irregardless of how much taxes we pay on fuel.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

So Blair would not have stopped the war if he had sided with the French and the Germans. Moreover by going with US, Blair cemented the UK/USA alliance, and put Britain in a strategically strong position by being on the winning side in a conflict to control a vital strategic resourse. (no need to say what) And in my view relations with our European neighbours (we are Europeans) are repaired more easily than a rift between US and UK. So what Blair did might be immoral, illegal, unnecessary in fact totally disgraceful etc etc, but you can't deny the logic of it.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

It does seem there is something about the Gallic style that really gets up the noses of the Anglo Saxons. Of course the Americans really do not like the French independent Force de Frappe, which might be at the root of it.

On the contrary, during the Cold War we were quite glad of the existence of an independent French nuclear deterrent. The nightmare scenario during those years was a surprise Soviet conventional attack across the inter-German border, using their numerous and quickly mobilized tank divisions stationed very close to that border. The fear was the Soviets might calculate they could negotiate a cease-fire before NATO would agree to go nuclear, but after they had taken Hamburg and Frankfurt, and fundamentally altered the balance of power in Europe. After a good deal of study we concluded that with two fingers on our nuclear trigger, and one of them French, the Soviets could never be sufficiently confident of such an outcome, and would therefore not try it. The French Naval staffs were very nervous and concerned about the possibility of our shadowing their ballistic missile submarines (as we did with the Russians) - we shared submarine track data with the British, but not the French. Their fears were somewhat exaggerated - while we thought they were odd, we didn't think they were that crazy.

I don't think there is anything in the "Gallic style" that annoys Americans. Rather it is the persistent wrong-headedness of that peculiar nation that becomes tiresome. Remember, the French spent far more lives and treasure in a foolish attempt at reconquest of her empire in Syria, Algeria, and Indochina after WWII, than she did in fighting the Germans who occupied them during that war.

0 Replies

[George: since 1941, British AND French troops have been in the French MANDATE Syria - they left in 1946.]

0 Replies

Walter,

They didn't leave Syria and Lebanon willingly. The MANDATE (as you style it) was from the League of Nations, and accompanyed the breakup of the Ottoman empire in WWI, and the negotiations at Versailles that both ended it and set the stage for the next act that was to follow 20 years later. There was little legitamacy in all that and even less that was admirable.

0 Replies

Right, but you may think of the League of Nations, what you want: the League of Nations wasn't the 'French Empire' ... and Britain wasn't part of that empire either :wink:

georgeob1 wrote:

Remember, the French spent far more lives and treasure in a foolish attempt at reconquest of her empire in Syria, Algeria, and Indochina after WWII, than she did in fighting the Germans who occupied them during that war.

0 Replies

Walter,

Youi are correct. I was referring to the unseemly and greedy division of the spoils of the Ottoman empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of WWI.

There is an interesting contrast to be made between the relatively orderly and willing withdrawl of the British from their empire after WWII, and the decidedly unwilling and disorderly wirtthdrawl of the French from theirs during the same period.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

There is an interesting contrast to be made between the relatively orderly and willing withdrawl of the British from their empire after WWII, and the decidedly unwilling and disorderly wirtthdrawl of the French from theirs during the same period.

Really?
The participation of India wasn't unbloody at all. Here started (1947) the British de-colonisation, quite similar to France, where Indochina and Algeria were the reasons.

And similar to the French "DOM-TOMs", Britain still has some 'oversea' properties.

0 Replies

George wrote

Quote:

Blair’s strategy was indeed logical as you suggest, but I don’t see that it was either illegal or immoral. Was the NATO intervention against the Bosnian Serbs, and later Serbia (also done without UN sanction) illegal?

Regarding Bosnia, I agree it was disgraceful that Britain and France appeared to stand by whilst genocide took place in Europe's back yard. But the operation which forced the Serbs to behave was a NATO operation as you say, not a "coalition of the willing". Moreover there was actual fighting going on which NATO intervention stopped. It wasn't the same in Iraq. We did not intervene against Saddam to stop on going military operations against the shiites or the Kurds.

As for it being immoral...well I'll leave that to the moral specialists, in particular the Churches, all of whom in Britain condemned the action. (Including the newly installed Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, much to Blairs dismay...as he appointed him, and is a regular church goer).

And regarding the legality of the action, I'll leave that to the legal specialists. I haven't found any international lawyers who are prepared to make a definitive statement of the war's legality under international law. In Britain, the war was deemed to be legal by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith (another Blair appointee, but this time somewhat more ameniable as he sits in Blair's Cabinet) but only for the purposes of removing the threat of Saddams WMD to this country. That was the entire basis of his ruling (the details of which remain secret). So British troops were acting legally under British law whilst they were finding and destroying the wmd threat. They legally remain in Iraq whilst the search for the wmd continues. It has been pointed out to Lord Goldsmith that he might wish to re consider his opinion now we can't find any wmd, and it appears there were none in the first place. However he has refused to comment. (Surprise surprise).

Finally regarding oil. I don't agree its just necessary to pay for it. Suppose Iraq or OPEC or Venezuala etc etc decided they didn't want to sell it to the US until after they had extracted some political concessions.

America now imports nearly 60% of its daily oil requirement. Demand for oil is set to increase dramatically as places like China start to develop a modern economy. Moreover oil production is set to peak and then decline as oil bearing rock is denuded globally. So the US, while it is quite willing to pay for it (after all they can always print more dollars), sees it as vital to its national interests to safeguard and control that supply. This is what's happening on a world wide basis. The oil is running out, but America is making damn sure it will run out everywhere else first.

0 Replies

Steve,

I believe Lord Goldsmith's task was to determine whether Britain's participation in Iraq was legal by British law, as opposed to international law.

I don't think that any coalition members would style the Iraqi intervention as 'aggressive war' in the sense used in the UN charter. It is far from clear that the intervention was illegal. You imply that the NATO cover somehow made the Bosnian intervention "legal". How is that so? I believe the intervention was legal because it did not constitute aggressive war for the benefit of those conducting it, and because it was done to remove a deadly threat from the backs of the Bosnian people. That it was conducted by a group of nations does not change the core issue.

On the oil matter I believe the fact is that under the current market conditions neither OPEC nor Venezuela has the market power to deny the world the supplies it needs. Their need to sell the oil is equal to ours to buy it. I do concede that could change under different market conditions. For the past several decades North sea oil has helped in this area , and new sources now being brought on line in west Africa should do the job for the next several decades.

0 Replies

Steve,

I have yet to see George make a single comment on international law that is factual, despite the confidence with which he is prone to stating it. And the trend continues here. His comments about the war in Iraq sharing UN illegitimacy with the Bosnian intervention is yet another demonstratably false claim.

It's his prerogative to get everything ass-backwards, but it deeply affects his credibility. And I can think of no nice way to say it but when he gets everything wrong said credibility is in short supply.

Don't buy it! And if George says something about international law, look it up. I do, and have not found a single case in which he was right, or even close. I'm not talking about a difference of opinion, I am talking about forcefully citing facts that are simply false.

The US recently vetoed the extention of the UN mandate over issues related to the ICC. A mandate that George repeatedly denies.

In addition there are several other UN resolutions and the UN charter itself that gave the mandate.

So the next time George says that Bosnia was not sanctioned, challenge it! He only gets away with repeatedly making false claims because people do not do so more often.

George,

I have no ill-will towards you but if you don't want false statements challenged simply do not make them.

You've made a habit of making false statements on international law. They are usually on topics that can be easily debunked with an hour of reading.

Incidentally by the same measure I'd not go so far as to say that the Iraq Invasion was illegal, so the point you try to make is still the same. But for goodness sake please verify the "facts" you keep citing.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe Lord Goldsmith's task was to determine whether Britain's participation in Iraq was legal by British law, as opposed to international law.

By tradition, the attorney general's advice to the government - and even whether he has given advice - is kept secret. Lord Goldsmith revealed a summary of his advice in a parliamentary written answer last March.

This parliamentar answer is to be found on variuous places on the web, e.g. here: The Written Answer of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, to a Parliamentary Question on the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq

0 Replies

Quote:

Lack of innovation, inadequate transport links and a poor quality of life are stifling British cities and keeping them out of the premier league of European centres, according to a report.

British cities fall behind rivals on the Continent

0 Replies

Ouch that hurt Walter.

But its true. When we travel to other European cities we often think...well its got good bits and bad bits but it seems to work. Too often British cities give an air of "controlled chaos".

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Too often British cities give an air of "controlled chaos".

Controlled? :wink:

0 Replies

The sense of Brit chaos being 'controlled' is, I think, but a residual consequence of a too proximate relationship with Maggie Thatcher's sphincter.

0 Replies

Not me Blatham. I had an aversion to all Thatcherite orifices.

0 Replies

Quote:

Italy lambasts 'core Europe' idea
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has said he is against the idea of a few core countries making decisions for the EU as a whole.

Mr Frattini's criticism comes ahead of an 18 February meeting between French, German and British leaders in Berlin.

The three-party talks are meant to prepare for an EU summit in March.

French President Jacques Chirac spoke recently of a "real willingness" between the three to be "the driving force behind tomorrow's Europe".

Mr Frattini, who was reporting to the Italian parliament on the results of the recent Italian EU presidency, said he was against the idea of a "directoire" running the EU.

"There cannot be a directoire, there cannot be a divisive nucleus which would run the risk of posing a threat to European integration," he said.

President Chirac, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Prime Minister Tony Blair met in September and again in December to patch up their differences over the war in Iraq and adopt a common approach before the EU summit on constitution.

An EU summit in Brussels in December ended in failure when negotiations broke down over how voting will work when the EU expands from 15 to 25 members in May.

Poland and Spain insisted on keeping voting rights already secured, while France and Germany wanted a system to reflect their bigger populations.

'Pioneers'

Mr Chirac told reporters after the summit that he wanted to see a "pioneer group" of countries which wanted to push ahead with integration.

"It would be a motor which would set an example," he said. "It will allow Europe to go faster, better."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder also said a definitive failure to agree a constitution could lead to a "two-speed Europe".

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signalled last week that the UK was keen to be a member of the core team.

"It would be logical to couple Britain with the Franco-German engine since Europe is going to expand from 15 to 25 member states," he told French newspaper Le Figaro.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3421121.stm

Emphasising the remarks from the UK (especially for George :wink: ).

0 Replies

Thanks Walter ! So Britain wants to join the "core team leading the EU, along with France and Germany. Once Europe was England, France, and the Empire, with Russia, Prussia and Spain as the peripheral powers: now we are heading for a two-tiered EU. Plus sa change

The key question is will Italy, Spain and Poland accept this new/old arrangement. I think they will not.

I can certainly sympathize with the interest of the largest countries in getting something like proportional representation in the governance of the European Commission. However, I can also understand the concerns of the smaller countries over the prospect of domination by the few large states. The usual solution for such a situation is a bicameral legislature in which one body represents states in equal measure, while the other the populations in proportional measure. The problem is the structure of the EU's governance does not permit such a compromise. I believe the correct remedy is to look for an altered structure that will permit a compromise. I can think of no better way for the "core" states to get the lasting mistrust of the others than what they are doing now.

It will be very interesting to see what unfolds. Europe has had a more or less free ride in international affairs for the last few decades. The only serious challenges they faced were German unification, which was done well, and the crisis in the Balkans, which was done very badly. This one could go either way. Has Europe truly entered a new cooperative epoch, or will her history replay the errors of the past?

0 Replies

I get the impression from George that he would secretly like nothing better than the European project to fall flat on its face, and hence give the Americans the opportunity for further meddling.

The European project is the hope of the world. Never before has a group of sovereign states had the vision or maturity to leave behind old rivalries, share some of their sovereignty and come together in a spirit mutual co-operation and economic development. Its immensely difficult. The shape of the final outcome appears to be in a constant state of flux. But I believe the citizens of Europe are willing clever and mature enough to make it happen. They are prepared to give something of themselves for the greater good of all.

There is no doubt in my mind that the rest of the world will look favourably on a Greater Europe (maybe including Western Russia) to give a lead. Not only would Europe be seen by some as an attractive alternative to the United States, but with its accumulated history and culture and moreover the moral authority it would accrue by its own example in coming together, the world would naturally look first to Europe for support and guidance.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Has Europe truly entered a new cooperative epoch, or will her history replay the errors of the past?

Well, George, you can pose such a rhetoric question on any subject, about any continent, country, state, person ... even about the USA!

0 Replies

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know