EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
message 901:
by
Linda
(new)
Feb 02, 2016 08:01AM
And why do you think Merkel said that the Syrian refugees should go home again?
reply
|
flag
Linda wrote: "When you talk about Polish migrants into the UK, we're not talking about the same thing. Poland is a member of the EU. Supposedly Poles can go wherever they want in the EU to get jobs, right? So ca..."No we do not allow Syrian refugees in. As you know Germany has taken a million in a year. We have agreed 20,000 over five years.It is a pinprick.
Here the upset is over migrant workers from Eastern Europe whom the UK has no power to stop. That is why so many are going to vote to leave. We have more people from the EU coming to work in Britain than all the other countries in the EU put together including Germany.
That's the whole idea of the EU, isn't it? Workers from other countries coming to work in your country? Why would you vote to leave just because legal workers appear? Here the fuss is over ILLEGAL immigrant workers who are employed particularly in the Southwest at lower wages. I have seen this illegal workers in Arizona. Many contractors, for instance, use them. If they are caught they have to pay a fine. But the use of these illegal Mexicans is rampant. We had a roof put on the shed back at the old house one summer several years back. We watched the Mexicans put up the roof and then take siestas lying in the driveway in the shade. Another contractor put up a fence in the backyard the same summer and used more Mexican illegals. I even have photos.
Why do people in Britain not like Poles? When I was a kid there were lots of Polish Americans everywhere I looked along with the Irish Americans, too. A Polish American family lived up the street. I can still see them in my mind's eye. I played with two of the Picorski girls (I hope I'm spelling it right). When I was at the University of Virginia one of the English Education Professors was a Polish American, too. There were tons of them. Especially in a place like Pittsburgh they seemed like core, old time immigrants along with lots of other Eastern Europeans who proliferated there along with the German Americans.
If I get a chance I’m going to look this up about Poles in Britain. Do you have an article you recommend?
By the way my friend in Austria, Gertrude, has taken trips into the Balkans. In Graz she's nearby. She's fascinated with their cultures and has friends there who write her emails. Some even visit. She took a trip several years ago to Western Canada to visit the family of the lady from the Balkans that she used to employ to take care of her kids. They are great friends. Also she and her husband love to visit the Czech Republic. It's one of their favorite vacation places. We wanted to visit Poland when we went to Europe in 2012. But the German auto rental company wouldn't let us drive our rental car there. What is going on?
Linda wrote: "Why do people in Britain not like Poles? When I was a kid there were lots of Polish Americans everywhere I looked along with the Irish Americans, too. A Polish American family lived up the street. ..."I do not think people in Britain do not like Poles. I think they are
popular in areas where they settle, especially with employers. It is more to do with numbers.
You have to remember Britain is hardly bigger than the average American state and had to absorb very big influxes from the Empire and now the population is growing with new births faster than anywhere in Europe, putting a strain on education and health systems and housing, because very bad government from both parties over the last thirty years has left us without enough of anything.
People are fed up with politicians, immigration, austerity and wars. There is now a very big risk they may be fed up with Europe too.
I have a lot on this evening so no more now. There will be another EU blog tomorrow.I know what to put in it but I do not have time.
Linda wrote: "That's the whole idea of the EU, isn't it? Workers from other countries coming to work in your country? Why would you vote to leave just because legal workers appear? Here the fuss is over ILLEGAL ..."This blog says it all on Europe.
http://www.malcolmblair-robinson.co.u...
How many Poles are there in Great Britain? I can't get a reliable figure for Polish immigrants to the US. I read that from the 19th century to the beginning of WW2 5 million Polish immigrants came to the US. Nobody says anything about what happened since WW2.
"Very bad government from both parties over the past thirty years has left us without enough of anything". Why not give the government less power then? Give business and industry more power. Let them take care of jobs, etc. Don't depend on the very bad government. Is there a group of British people who thinks like this?
You say that the population of Britain is fed up with wars. What wars? Surely you are not still talking about WW1 and WW2, are you? Of course that is what historians would say. Europe is fed up with wars because of both of the world wars.
In your most recent blog about Cameron’s EU Package you conclude by saying “centuries of bad which have gone before”. Can you really believe that the Victorian Era in Britain was “bad”? Do you think the Empire was “bad”? Do you think the Empire served no purpose? On the contrary I wish that Britain could somehow still be in places like Egypt, for instance. It now seems to be a very inhospitable place since 1956. It used to be a safe place to visit. Cruises down the Nile were safe unless you were aboard the ship in Death on the Nile by Agatha Christie! Now anyone from Britain or the US could be killed off at a moment’s notice. Geizira Island seemed like such a nice place in the days of Edward and Dora. Now I have trouble even getting information about it. The name “Radwan” for the chief servant came from the only account I could find about the British in Egypt.
In your blog you seem to really think that England missed the boat by not joining the EU as a full member at the beginning. You even think Britain should be using the euro! Do you really think such a thing is possible? You say that the euro would be controlled from London instead of Frankfurt. Do you think the Germans would consent to this? The Germans wouldn't want the British pushing them around anymore than the British would want the Germans pushing them around. This is a fundamental conflict in Europe that helped to bring you two world wars. In the US it would be impossible for the WASP class of people (English and Germans) to be at odds with each other. In fact to suggest it would sound worse than satiric. I don't think here anybody would even understand what you meant. But these divisions and conflicts are still very real in Europe.
When I was on the Queen Mary 2 last summer I noticed that though the ship translates almost everything into German for the German guests (this is the ONLY language they do this for by the way), some British ladies were gazing at some German ladies in a not very friendly fashion. Nor did I notice much cross-fraternization between the two groups, even though the Germans had to speak at least some English to be on the cruise. And when QM2 had activities going on such as waving British flags when they were leaving port and playing music, they were willing to supply American flags, too, but no German flags were ever seen. (I even saw some Australian flags).
By the way, if Britain was a full member of the EU, would the headquarters still be in Brussels?
You say there is “no less democractic democracy in all of Europe”, meaning Great Britain. Democracy in Germany is a new thing. It started with the failed Weimar government that Hitler liked to make fun of. After that it’s only a few decades old! France is a politically unstable country. Britain is the country that invented democracy (after the Greeks and Romans, of course). Democracy in Britain can be traced back at least to the Magna Carta, which just celebrated an 800 year anniversary last summer. That’s older than the US. And there would be no democracy in the US without Great Britain. Jefferson and the Founding Fathers wanted “the rights of Englishmen”.
Linda wrote: "In your blog you seem to really think that England missed the boat by not joining the EU as a full member at the beginning. You even think Britain should be using the euro! Do you really think such..."Actually the EU is not an empire and it cannot be run like one. Brussels was chosen because it is small and essentially neutral. London has always been a key financial centre and the pound was Europe's oldest currency, the others having been reissued and messed with quite a bit. The Euro would never have got into the muddle it's in if Britain had been part of it because the idea is a market and a currency. If one major currency is left out it weakens the whole thing. Britain and Germany would have been in agreement on most things. Even now Merkel is Cameron's strongest backer and she is doing her best to get him a deal.
The Magna Carta is irrelevant to the voting system and in any event was mainly about the barons having power over the King. Britain is not and never has been a full democracy in the American or post war European sense. We have no formal constitution and the State structure is one of an absolute monarchy with its powers delegated to a sovereign parliament. There is no mention anywhere of the sovereignty of the people. One House of Parliament and the entire structure of the state, except for 625 members of the house of Commons, is appointed. Huge swathes of public policy, including foreign policy is under the Royal Prerogative and not even subject to parliamentary approval Each member of the cabinet is invested with the Royal Prerogative. Parliament's power comes from the fact that it controls the cash.
The whole world, especially the US is dazzled by all the ritual and spectacle which hides the truth of what is really going on. Only the Russians are savvy enough to have worked it out, which is why the governing classes are so against them. And of course the Chinese, but because they are rich the government is falling over itself to get into their good books and build up trade. That is why they are financing and building our new nuclear power stations.
Think of it. We used to have the most advanced nuclear power stations in the world owned by the British State. Thatcher thought the power industry should be privatized along with everything else. Profit became the driver and there was no research or renewal.The private companies now do not have the money to build new power plants, so in order to keep the lights on we have to go back to government ownership, but our government has no money so our power will arrive courtesy the Chinese government. It is one of the biggest failures of public policy on record.
I have done with this whole euro thread now, It is taking too much time. Anything new will be in the blog. Thanks for all your interesting observations and contributions.
The Magna Carta is widely perceived to be the beginnings of the British system of democratic government. If you asserted the powers of the barons over the King, you are starting to assert a representative democracy. You are starting to assert the rights of the people being ruled, the British people being ruled by a Norman overlord. You are also beginning to limit the powers of the monarchy.
Britain is widely perceived to be the oldest democracy. I mentioned that the stirrings of the first democracy were in classical Athens at the time of Pericles. This was not a representative democracy but a direct democracy but it only included nobles. Others might call it an oligarchy, but they did vote so it was like a democracy, too. Then with Rome you had a Senate. Each senator during the Republic represented a familia or an ancient kind of constituency. The two consuls, or the head of the government, were chosen from among the senators. In England you had the Magna Carta and the evolution of Parliament. Parliament gained power. The monarchy lost power until you have the democracy you have now. (As far as lots of government officials being appointed, lots of government officials are appointed in the US, too. So what?)
When you say foreign policy is "under the royal prerogative", you mean the executive branch. In Britain the PM and his "government" is the executive branch --- not the Queen herself. That's just terminology. In the US the President controls foreign policy. You could call that the royal prerogative if you wanted to and wanted to be satiric.
You say if one major currency is left out of the euro it's not as good as it could be. But that means you think that Britain is part of Europe. Is it? Or is it something separate. That's the real question to be decided.
I have no idea what you mean by your power will arrive courtesy of the Chinese government. I'll have to ask Gary about it.
<Linda wrote: "You say if one major currency is left out of the euro it's not as good as it could be. But that means you think that Britain is part of Europe. Is it? Or is it something separate. That's the real q..."
Exactly and it has difficulty making up its mind.
Linda wrote: "I have no idea what you mean by your power will arrive courtesy of the Chinese government. I'll have to ask Gary about it."The Chinese government via its state owned power generation company is contracted to build a new nuclear power station in England, because we no longer have the skills or the money to do it ourselves. They will own it and sell us the electricity. The whole thing is ridiculous.
Linda wrote: "When you say foreign policy is "under the royal prerogative", you mean the executive branch. In Britain the PM and his "government" is the executive branch --- not the Queen herself. That's just te..."Constitutionally it is the Queen who has the power. This has never changed. But she delegates the power to her government. But it's her power, not theirs. That is why no law passed by Parliament is valid until she signs it. It is called the Royal Assent. Only a tiny handful of people understand how the British unwritten constitution works. The Establishment prefer it that way.
Here is a link from when I was in the news about it in 2009.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
England is historically part of Europe, but it's also an island, and the island status meant a lot over hundreds of years of history before they built the Chunnel. So geography dictates that England preserve some sort of separate status I guess.
Again what you say about China building a nuclear power station in England is something I’ll have to ask Gary to research. I can’t comment on what you’re telling me without knowing more details. What you say doesn’t seem to make any sense on the surface. Would such a thing occur in the US? It’s hard for me to imagine. But lately all sorts of screwy things seem to be happening. You know what I think of the Chinese government. If it were up to me Chinese goods in the US would be largely banned. If anybody put up a factory there they would be fined. I don’t think it’s safe to deal with them. Everything about them is second class and very dangerous.
I'm sure that the technicalities about the British government are written down somewhere just like you say. But the "royal prerogative" doesn't really mean much. The Queen signs things as a ceremonial performance. The PM and his Cabinet or his ministers are the government. Think of Churchill for heavens sake! The Queen has very little to do with the exercise of any real power anymore. If she tried, she would be thrown out. She's just a figurehead.
Very good. I see your mention in the Guardian. You sound like a professor talking about some technicality that might have meant something in the past but doesn’t mean anything anymore. What you’re really talking about is the lack of a Constitution that flatly explains things the way they are right now. If Britain wrote a Constitution it would become clear that the Queen is nothing but a constitutional monarch.
I don't have time to finish expounding on this issue right now. But my impression when I was studying Churchill and the governments of Britain in the 1930's (I don't know about anything else) was that they had too much power. The executive embodied in the PM and his government was amazing. They were able to rule Britain from 10 Downing Street. Elections could be suspended during WW2 just as they were during the Roman Republic when Rome had "dictators". During the 30's you had Nazi leaning PM's who were tipping Britain toward the Axis powers and letting democracy be extinguished. And the common people had no power to protest. And you say the King or Queen had power? Ridiculous!
Linda wrote: "I'm sure that the technicalities about the British government are written down somewhere just like you say. But the "royal prerogative" doesn't really mean much. The Queen signs things as a ceremon..."Oh yes of course that is right. I was just illustrating the weird way we organise things.
Linda wrote: "Very good. I see your mention in the Guardian. You sound like a professor talking about some technicality that might have meant something in the past but doesn’t mean anything anymore. What you’re ..."Yes but there is a problem. Every other democracy has a political Head of State, usually a president but not necessarily elected by the people, but by the parliament as in Germany, who is in charge of setting up the government and keeping it on track. In Spain, Norway etc, where they have a Constitutional monarch, the sovereign is authorised under the constitution to play that role. Or like France and the US, it has an elected executive president who is also head of state.
Here the prime minister is not elected even by parliament. He is sent for by the Queen because he heads the largest party. But he is not only head of government, he is also the political head of state. You can call it whatever you like, but it is barely democracy, which is why so many are now turned off the whole thing.
If we had a written constitution at least we would be able to define the role of the monarch to the extent that he or she could fulfil the political head of state role.
Linda wrote: "I don't have time to finish expounding on this issue right now. But my impression when I was studying Churchill and the governments of Britain in the 1930's (I don't know about anything else) was t..."No you misunderstand me. It is the old business that America and English sound the same but they are not!
A British Prime Minister and government has more power than any other in the world, even a dictatorship which usually relies upon the military to survive. This is because the power it holds does not come up from the people via democratic process, or via a constitution, it comes from an absolute monarchy. The prime minister IS the King. That is how Churchill ran the war, how Thatcher did all she did and how Blair went to war on a falsehood when public opinion was against the whole thing.
What do you mean that the Prime Minister is not elected even by Parliament? Where do you think he comes from? The dark side of the moon? Obviously the PM has to be a member of Parliament and a member of the party that he is going to "rule". The members of the Party decide who will head of the party or the Cabinet. In fact you even have a "Shadow Cabinet" formed from the party not in power. That Shadow Cabinet has an acknowledged head also. And when you hold an election the people vote which party will be in power. While he is in power, the PM serves as the head of the party and the head of state just like the President of the US.
The Queen is supposed to theoretically be the head of state or the executive branch, symbolically or whatever, which is why she calls upon the PM. But really the power resides in the PM. Again think of Churchill.
Even if you appointed the Queen the head of state in a Constitution she would have no more power than she had now. The PM would still be the head of state. Among the western democracies you can't have a Queen who is really in charge of anything much.
No, the PM isn't the king. He is elected even if somewhat indirectly as the already chosen head of the party he represents in Parliament. You might suspend elections during a war, harkening back to the Roman Republic, but even a Roman consul such as Julius Caesar and Bibulus (who was elected joint consul along with Julius Caesar in 59BC) weren't kings. In fact, Romans hated kings. Not even the later Emperor could call himself "King". In fact Augustus cleverly said he was the "First Citizen". Also you say that a PM can lead the country into an unpopular war. well, guess what? So can the US President who is obviously elected every four years even during a major war such as WW2. FDR led the country into WW2 against all sorts of objections. But he was very clever about how he did it. And he certainly wasn't a king.
What you're really objecting to is that in Britain the executive branch and the legislative branch is the Parliament in effect (because the Queen is theoretically the executive branch but she can't have any real power). You don't have the American tripartite system of government with checks and balances. But even still look at the growth of the powers of the US presidency especially since FDR. Hoover objected to it. So did all sorts of conservatives at the time. Here the President supposedly has to have a war declared by Congress. But since WW2 a power has evolved to have a "police action" meaning bombing of course. A President can order that at whim. Think what power that implies! In theory he could nuke some country just because he has wants to without any checks and balances.
Linda wrote: "What do you mean that the Prime Minister is not elected even by Parliament? Where do you think he comes from? The dark side of the moon? Obviously the PM has to be a member of Parliament and a memb..."The point I made is that constitutionally the monarch sends for the person who will command a majority in the Commons. There is no election involved other than it is the precedent that the person should be an MP and he or she is elected by their constituents. The last time she sent for a non-MP who was in the House of Lords as a hereditary Earl, was in 1963. There was a storm and a special bill enabled him to renounce his peerage and stand for the Commons.But nothing is ever written down.
Here the prime minister has the power to declare war or order a nuclear strike. It is only a courtesy to consult the Commons, not a requirement. WWI and WWII did not have a Commons vote on the Declaration of War.
Linda wrote: "What you're really objecting to is that in Britain the executive branch and the legislative branch is the Parliament in effect (because the Queen is theoretically the executive branch but she can't..."Actually the executive branch is the government (Her Majesty's Government) and the Legislative branch is Parliament, one House of which is elected by the people. The origin is the people have the power to hold the King in check by withholding money.
I'm sure the PM has the power to declare war. Look at Neville Chamberlain on September 3, 1939! He had to be practically forced into it, but he had to do it. There was no vote in Commons. In the US Congress has to agree to declare war. But as I've mentioned the President has evolved police powers to order air strikes all by himself. But the Queen doesn't have the power to declare war.
Yes, yes, the executive branch is the PM and his government but they always come from Parliament. So it's playing with words. It's all the legislative branch. You can't just have an engineer who decides to run for PM or somebody like Trump. You don't get any "outside the government" types who just appear from nowhere.In the US the closest analogy I can think of is Lyndon Johnson who became President after being senator. He knew how to swing votes in Congress which is why he was able to get so much legislation passed when he was President. I've heard that it seemed as if the legislative branch had taken over the government and dissolved the executive, which at that point didn't seem to be separate.
But I tell you before I wrote the Edward Ware Thrillers at War series I had no idea how the British government worked. I thought it was amazing how PM's like Baldwin and his cabinet or Neville Chamberlain got away with so much. Baldwin in particular I have fun with. It's hard to write about them and not seem satiric. Of course some of it is made up but I think it rings true. For instance in a novel I'm calling Hitler's Spy I have a sequence of scenes where Baldwin is strong-arming Edward who really shouldn't have anything to do with it to accept Hitler's invitation to visit Germany with his family. While he's there taking a tour Baldwin wants him to push his favorite revision of the Locarno Treaty. He might have to get France's consent, but he'll do that later. Now he's trying to please Hitler. What amazed me the most was the secrecy they could cloak themselves with in their government negotiations. They could be putting out feelers to Hitler and nobody would know about it unless it suited their purposes such as Neville Chamberlain and Peace In Our Time. There was all sorts of intrigue going on even within the government itself and even within the Conservative Party itself such as Baldwin's government spying on Churchill and tapping his phone line. I thought wow I don't see this going on in Washington DC. Although FDR was conniving and sneaky it was all different. And oh yes, if some government official gets caught doing something it all gets exposed in the newspapers.
Linda wrote: "But I tell you before I wrote the Edward Ware Thrillers at War series I had no idea how the British government worked. I thought it was amazing how PM's like Baldwin and his cabinet or Neville Cham..."Yes, America is much more open and transparent and of course you have loads of elected officials. I recall when my American wife voted in the 1992 (I think) Presidential election for Clinton via the US Embassy, she was sent all election stuff and the Democratic ticket had scores of people on it for her district in Seattle, which was her US address.
And of course your new president has to bring in his or her own team of White House officials. Here we have a permanent Civil Service running every department and ministry and they do not change if the government changes.
There is a Civil Service here, too. It doesn't necessarily change when the government changes. Certain positions change. Obviously each President appoints his Cabinet. The Cabinet appoints under secretaries, etc. But most positions in the Civil Service are not political. When Gary first graduated from law school he was hired for instance by Congress by the Congressional Research Service. He didn't take the job, but I give it as an example. Each branch of government can hire loads of people, even the Supreme Court. The executive branch has the most hires. Supposedly even the White House runs itself. The cooks, maids, gardeners, etc are there permanently. The cook isn't a political position either.
I remember your BBC series Yes, Minister! about the evil Civil Service that was running the government and telling the PM what to do behind the scenes. I think that here the Civil Service isn’t as political.
Your wife voted for Clinton? I have always voted Republican in national elections. I don't recall any exceptions. I don't think I would ever have voted for Clinton. If you voted in that 1992 election you had the choice to vote for a second term for Bush 1. That would be my choice.
Yes, but you are a Republican family. My grandparents always voted Republican. I remember my Granny was livid when she read in the morning paper in England that Truman has sprung a surprise and beaten Dewey in 1948. My wife's family were more liberal in their views and in any event are not tribal, so would choose on merit, not by party.
Linda wrote: "I remember your BBC series Yes, Minister! about the evil Civil Service that was running the government and telling the PM what to do behind the scenes. I think that here the Civil Service isn’t as ..."The reason it was so popular here was that beneath the humour ran a thick seam of truth.
