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 The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
I am reading your blog as food for thought. You are comparing Corbyn with Churchill in 1940? Don't you think that's a farfetched comparison? First of all, Churchill at that point had enormous experience in politics and in office. He'd been in the government during WW1 for instance. Churchill was not supported by his own Conservative Party in the 1930's. They are called "the Wilderness Years" by his biographers when he was shut out of the government. (This situation provided the genesis for the Edward Ware Thrillers and Captive at the Berghof in particular). But he was using those years to build up his own spies and contacts even in foreign governments. In effect, he had his own foreign policy. I doubt if Corbyn is doing anything like it. Churchill supported the monarchy and was particularly sympathetic towards the King. He was also himself an aristocrat as well as half-American. On his father's side he was the grandson of the Duke of Marlborough. I doubt if Corbyn can match that. I hear he didn't even sing "God Save The Queen" at a commemoration for the Battle of Britain. That sounds unforgivable in my book, especially since it was a patriotic celebration. Churchill wouldn't have been that stupid.
I said that the Founding Fathers set up American government so that the different branches war with each other and get almost nothing accomplished except when they manage to achieve extreme consensus. I can offer you a specific example of this in real life in local/state government in Arizona. A couple days ago we got the property tax bill for one of our houses. The county tax authority was complaining that the state had stopped paying for a particular program (they weren't specific about what it was) and had foisted the bill upon local government, causing it to raise property taxes. They claimed they were taking the state government to court to see if their move was legal. If it was found to be illegal, they would in the future reduce taxes. The local government doesn't want to get voted out of power by voters angry about tax their increases. Without extreme consensus taxes don't get raised.
Linda wrote: "I am reading your blog as food for thought. You are comparing Corbyn with Churchill in 1940? Don't you think that's a farfetched comparison? First of all, Churchill at that point had enormous exper..."No, you have misunderstood the point I was making. It is nothing to do with comparing Corbyn with Churchill as a person. It was just an illustration that even Churchill suffered from a hostile party at the start.It does happen.It has absolutely nothing whatever in any way to do with comparing their politics or their achievements.
As for singing the national anthem I have never sung it in my life. People used not to. The custom was to stand to attention. I think the way people are behaving towards Corbyn is ridiculous. The reason he was elected by a landslide is because he is informal and different. Many people including me, are fed up with the sycophantic toadies who now make up the political establishment who call wrong judgements about almost everything and are bringing the country down to their own neurotic level.
There is now a chasm between Westminster and the real world which is bigger than at any time in the last hundred years or more. Something will have to give before long.
As for patriotism. It has nothing to do with being a monarchist or our current national anthem, which is actually a prayer for the monarch set to music. It does not even mention our country. George V hated it and tried to get it changed for Land of Hope and Glory. There was a move a few years back to modernize L o HG words which are rather jingoistic, but nothing came of it. When the four nations of the UK compete separately and not as GB, Land of Hope is used as the English national anthem.
Anything is better than the awful thing we have now. As for the monarchy I go along with it if that's what people want but if we had a referendum I would vote for a republic.
The venom which is now going to heaped on Corbyn from all sides will be appalling. The reason is that if he catches on, and he has the biggest media draw in the land at the moment, the toadies know their time is up. The Scot Nats are with him as are about a dozen Labour MPs.Most of his shadow cabinet want to get rid of him. Everybody else is appalled at his victory because deep down they know that the 250,000 votes Corbyn got were not just for him, they were cast against them and all they stand for, whatever their party.
As far as the Hungarian reaction goes the Russian expert we know says that Eastern European countries --- especially Russia --- are very traditional. They don't like peoples of different racial and ethnic groups. They don't like different religions either. You notice how Russia doesn't take in any refugees though they certainly have lots of room. P.S. Remember that Eastern Europe is primarily where the Holocaust took place. These people still practice ethnic cleansing. It's not a good place for refugees. If you force Hungary to take in such peoples, they won't like it. P.S.S. They'd like it a lot better in the American Southwest. Syria looks like places here. Both have a profusion of red rocks like Petra in Jordan. The climate is often similar, too.
You claimed you went to see some people in the Labor Party to talk about quantitative easing DQE. Suddenly Jeremy Corbin comes up with People’s Quantitative Easing. Where did he get the idea? Gary just asked me this.
They had my little book, so they got it from me because absolutely nobody had thought of it before, although my version is a bit more sophisticated. In fact I went to the Chief Economist of the T U C ( trade union congress )and the unions backed Corbyn. I shall talk to them again when I have finished my current effort which is more specific and that should sharpen up their presentation. I asked not to be mentioned.
Linda wrote: "As far as the Hungarian reaction goes the Russian expert we know says that Eastern European countries --- especially Russia --- are very traditional. They don't like peoples of different racial and..."Yes you are right. Hungary see itself as the gateway to Christian Europe. Tonight they are busy with water cannon and tear gas even at the women and children. Serbia is much kinder and Croatia has opened its border. Europe's policy is in a shambles and nothing can be agreed because east and west are deadlocked. I always thought it was a mistake for th E U to expand East because the culture and values are different.
It still doesn't sound right that people in Great Britain or England or whatever you call it differ about what should be their national anthem. I'm sure the national anthem is God Save The Queen or God Save The King because the monarch used to be the symbol of the British Empire. Queen Elizabeth 2 may have now reigned longer than Victoria, but Queen Victoria was the symbol of the height of British power in history. That's what they were celebrating. Hope and Glory is nice, too. Even that was written in 1902. I've heard it lots of times on the ship along with Rule Britannia which is much, much older. All these songs evoke imperial Britain, which American tourists have no trouble with. They'd be devastated if you ever became a republic, especially the passengers who sail on Cunard. Most of them expect to see all sorts of formalities, including the German passengers. We saw the Irish Guard from Buckingham Palace marching on the quayside and then on deck 13 of the ship playing patriotic music for Cunard's 175th anniversary. Even in Nova Scotia we got guys in kilts serenading us from the dock. There were fireworks in Liverpool and Red Arrows that were supposed to fly overhead. The captain of the ship always had a nice British accent. You could see him at dinner time headed toward the Princess Grill with a lady in a long dress on his arm. He was always in uniform. And when you pull away from Southampton to head anywhere you get a Sailaway with such songs being played all the time. Believe me, it does evoke an image of Imperial Britain whether it exists anymore or not.Maybe you should have a contest to see who can come up with the best song and then you could vote on it.
I thought you liked the monarchy and now you say you would vote for a republic.
The EU expands East because Germany wants to go East and always has. I have a lot more to say about this later of course. I have to make breakfast right now. Your blogs today will have me blogging for hours.
Linda wrote: "It still doesn't sound right that people in Great Britain or England or whatever you call it differ about what should be their national anthem. I'm sure the national anthem is God Save The Queen or..."Nothing will change during the Queen's lifetime but the general belief is that Charles will introduce a modernisation programme, slimming it down. He will update it and make it ready for William and Kate. I think most people are used to GSQ as an anthem but it is rather gloomy and hardly uplifting. As I said I hate it, but most people are not that fussed.
Linda wrote: "I thought you liked the monarchy and now you say you would vote for a republic."I go along with the monarchy because it has popular support.(at the moment). But if offered the choice I would go for a republic. But I don't go around proclaiming myself as a republican.
Linda wrote: "It still doesn't sound right that people in Great Britain or England or whatever you call it differ about what should be their national anthem. I'm sure the national anthem is God Save The Queen or..."What you describe is the problem with modern Britain. It draws its strength from being a metaphor for a stately home open to the public. All this ceremonial stuff Americans love because it is a kind of Disney for real.
It is sad that Britian cannot have the confidence to stand up as a modern forward looking nation at the cutting edge of human progress. It has the capacity to.
Actually the truth is that Britain has handed the modern cutting edge bit to America. That's part of the special relationship. We offer the experience of the past in the present.
I should send you a video that Gary took on deck 13 on July 2. He couldn't squeeze himself into the elevator to get up there. He encountered too many drummers! So he had to walk up. The Irish Guard were marching on the ship itself. Americans like to think that this is what goes on in Britain all the time. Certainly that's the image that Cunard evokes. And by the way, the ship sails with more Brits than any other nationality on most voyages. When you listen to some of them they sound like people from 100 years ago! They talk about their trips, voyages, etc and all the "natives" they encounter and how you get the "boys" to carry your luggage, etc. And lots are talking about the "Empire" and what their aunt did in Egypt way back when or what their father did in Kenya, etc. They certainly don't sound like republicans, and this is what Americans pick up on. And by the way, how much is all this tourism worth? All this regalia might be worth it in dollars and cents or pounds and cents. Did you ever think of it that way???
Also you should see the Queen’s Room on the ship and all the paintings of Her Majesty that abound on Queen Mary 2. She and Prince Phillip are everywhere. It looks very fancy. This is where they have high tea or what you call afternoon tea every day. Servers wear gloves, etc. This is the image they present for tourists. No other nationality does this.
And by the way from time to time on the ship they do have lecturers in Illuminations (their auditorium and also the venue for sky shows) speaking about "the special relationship" between the US and Britain. They are playing to their audience chiefly consisting mostly of Brits and then Americans. Then they translate a lot of this stuff into German for the German guests. They don't translate into any other language except German.
Oh yes you are so right. The tourist industry is worth over £200 billion a year. That's why we dress up.
Our Russian expert says Corbin makes himself up to look like Lenin. Lenin also wore an identical hat. Both had beards and dressed plainly trying to look like a proletarian. He says it looks ridiculous for a western politician. An American politician would never do this. He would be toast. And by the way if an American politician refused to sing the national anthem and if a newspaper asked him why and he said he wanted a different kind of government, his constituency would probably hold a recall election.
Linda wrote: "Our Russian expert says Corbin makes himself up to look like Lenin. Lenin also wore an identical hat. Both had beards and dressed plainly trying to look like a proletarian. He says it looks ridicul..."Tell your Russian expert he is being absurd. It is preposterous and insulting to suggest that anyone with a goatee beard looks like Lenin. I have the same beard. As for the hat. Loads of people wear them. This is not America and we are not riven with all America's intolerances and prejudices.
And as for Trump!!! Well he would have no chance here. Tell your Russian that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. And the supporter who asked Trump a question about the problem of the US President who was a black muslim would be arrested here and jailed for racist abuse.
Finally people gave Corbyn a landslide victory because of what he stands for not in spite of it. And the surge in Labour's membership gives it more than all the other political parties in the UK put together.
My Russian expert is not the only one who points out that Corbin makes himself up to look like Lenin. There are also articles online about it. If you look at an old photo of Lenin and then look at a photo of Corbin, it's quite obvious. It's the British press that's saying these things, not the American press.
I don't know what you are referring to about Trump. I don't know the story at all about Black Muslims. I'll have to ask Gary about it right now. Remember, I don't follow all these news bulletins.
I got the story from Gary. Someone in the audience at a New England town hall meeting said something like, "We've got a problem with Muslims in this country like the US President who's a black Muslim and not even an American." Apparently Trump didn't even hear the remark and tried to brush it off by saying, "We've got lots of concerns to discuss today," or something like that. But the man in the audience is what is known as a "birther". They questioned whether the current occupant of the White House should be there because he wasn't born in the US. The occupant's birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii but lots of people don't believe it. And you say the man in the audience would be jailed in Britain? Amazing! Here that's protected by free speech. The only thing you can't do is cry fire in a crowded theater (that's the traditional example) and you can't incite violence overtly. You can't say, "Let's march on the White House and burn it down." But you can say, "Those British should not only have sacked and burned the White House in 1812. They should have leveled Washington and salted the earth so it could never come back." That statement would be applauded in all quarters.
We will send you the Lenin photo and the Corbin photo if we can find the Corbin photo. The Russian expert says somebody has removed it. Also you don’t look a bit like Lenin yourself goatee beard or not.
Linda wrote: "We will send you the Lenin photo and the Corbin photo if we can find the Corbin photo. The Russian expert says somebody has removed it. Also you don’t look a bit like Lenin yourself goatee beard or..."Okay! Don't worry about Lenin. This will interest you much more http://malcolmblair-robinson.com/word...
Linda wrote: "I got the story from Gary. Someone in the audience at a New England town hall meeting said something like, "We've got a problem with Muslims in this country like the US President who's a black Musl..."The difference here is that free speech is conditional on not making derogatory or inciteful comments in public based on colour, religion,gender, sexual orientation or age, all of which is a crime. There are very few prosecutions because people just don't think that way mostly. If a politician slips up it is usually a career end. Free speech is seen as a privilege not a licence. America has always been more tolerant, but I think although we have tensions, we have a less divided society.
I know about the Obama birth controversy. It would not matter here as long as you are a British national when you stand for public office. The first woman ever elected to the House of Commons, Lady Astor, was actually an American by birth.
Obama is mega popular over here. By the same token Bush2 is so unpopular it would be difficult for him to visit.
I have told my American daughter she cannot run for President but she can become Secretary of State.
PS. A couple who ran a guest house who refused to allow two gay men to share a bed under their roof because of their religious faith, were prosecuted and fined a couple of years ago.
The famous case here decided by the courts was the Neo-Nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood in I think Chicago, and as they marched they shouted slogans. They were granted permission to march. And get this ---- the Neo-Nazi's lawyer was a Jew!!!! This reminds me of an incident during the 1930's when Hitler was in power. Supposedly a group of German Jews in the US got together and sent Hitler a letter congratulating him on taking power in Germany and doing so much for Germans. They'd even erected a cabin or cottage somewhere in I think the Midwest in honor of Hitler's birthplace. Hitler and a befuddled Goebbels discussed the letter briefly, unable to understand why a group of Jews would be supporting him since he'd been speaking out against them in Germany. Goebbels asked, "What should we say in reply?" Hitler decided that they wouldn't say anything. Europeans can't figure out what goes on in the US. P.S. There have also been reported stories in New England where Jews and Moslems share a temple. What the moral is, I think, is that frequently in America thinking like an American predominates over everything else. Even Gary has worked on a case helping a New York Jewish lawyer take apart the New York kosher law because the Jewish lawyer thought it violated freedom of speech.
As far as the US, England, and Russia acting together in the Middle East, I'll have to ask Gary what on earth is going on. I asked him yesterday what about the USA hostage crisis and America held hostage by the Iranians. We didn't have time to discuss it yet.
Gary said that the deal with Iran is a treaty which was never submitted to the Senate. If sent to the Senate, it wouldn't have been approved. It's now an executive agreement and won't outlast his administration. The seeming accord or agreement with Russia, is really Russia unilaterally sending troops to prop up Assad and we are doing absolutely nothing about it. Gary calls it a power vacuum in the Middle East that Putin is taking advantage of. The Defense department is interested only in making sure that their jets don't run into Russian ones.
Gary says that certain states can decide not to deal with Iran. It's not a binding treaty. It's just an executive agreement.
Why could your American daughter become Secretary of State but not President?
Linda wrote: "Why could your American daughter become Secretary of State but not President?"Because she was born in the UK
Before the civil war broke out Syria was a perfectly happy country. Now millions are fleeing the conflict and pouring into Europe. They all say they had a wonderfuL life before and would like to go back to Syria. The priority is to stop the fighting and we have to work with Russia to do that. If Assad left tomorrow IS would take control of all of Syria. Russia is not sending troops to Assad but it is sending weapons and supplies. The enemy is IS and Iran, Russia, the US and UK are on the same side.
Russia was never on the same side as the US or Britain. Uncle Joe during WW2 was a myth. We had a so-called alliance with them on paper during the war. But it was for convenience only. We were using them to flip the Germans to our side. Once that was accomplished in 1945 we didn't want anything to do with them ever again. The Cold War began. Even during the war Uncle Joe was spying on the US and Britain at Los Alamos. The Germans weren't. Hitler was right that the US, Britain, and Germany should team up to confront the East. But Hitler was also right that the US and Britain wouldn't do that as long as he was in charge of Nazi Germany.
The situation about your daughter is complicated. If you’re a US citizen born abroad you can still run for President. Witness John McCain’s Presidential bid. He was a US citizen born in the Canal Zone. Military family. But I don’t know how it works if you’re also a British citizen at the same time. Churchill’s mother was an American citizen by birth. But Churchill didn’t become an American citizen until about 1963 or something like that when it was awarded to him.
Syria hasn't been a perfectly secure or happy country for generations. First thing, it isn't a real country. Borders of places like Jordan, Iraq, Palestine, and Syria were set up after WW1 by Churchill of all people --- Churchill and Lawrence at a Conference in Cairo in 1921 that Edward attends in my novel Map Plot. Before that it was under the control of the Turks that Lawrence fought and defeated in the Great War. The only reason that Churchill's and Lawrence's plan didn't work was that the British Empire ceased to exist. Lawrence always thought the Arabs should be under the thumb of England to keep peace. Churchill agreed.
Technically Syria was under French influence after WW1 while Iraq and Jordan were under British influence. But really the movers and shakers were Lawrence and Churchill. The French couldn’t do anything. So the stability of everything was still dependent upon the British Empire just as now it’s dependent upon the US.
Linda wrote: "Syria hasn't been a perfectly secure or happy country for generations. First thing, it isn't a real country. Borders of places like Jordan, Iraq, Palestine, and Syria were set up after WW1 by Churc..."You are right and I agree. I was trying to report what the refugees are saying. Basically none of these countries was perfect but the dictators kept them together and if you kept out of politics you were fine. At least by comparison. there weren't millions on the march.
Linda wrote: "The situation about your daughter is complicated. If you’re a US citizen born abroad you can still run for President. Witness John McCain’s Presidential bid. He was a US citizen born in the Canal Z..."Oh, that's interesting. She has a certificate which 'notifies the president of the United States of a US citizen born abroad.' She is a citizen by birth not by naturalization. But I don't think she has any plans to run! Actually I think if born abroad because Dad is in the military or diplomatic corps it may count as being born in the US?
Linda wrote: "Russia was never on the same side as the US or Britain. Uncle Joe during WW2 was a myth. We had a so-called alliance with them on paper during the war. But it was for convenience only. We were usin..."Agree with that. But my enemy's enemy is my friend as the saying goes.
By the way, we are the lead story on weather.com today. Flash flood warnings abound. The headline says, "Depression 160 miles from US Border Dangerous Flooding Possible." Last year on September 8 there was something similar. That was not good.
It's sort of ironic. We spent over three weeks at sea in the Atlantic this past summer. We didn't encounter one hurricane or tropical system. All we encountered on the going voyage on June 3 was a persistent high over the Azores that made it a bit windy on the open decks. And here we are in the desert. The rest of the country doesn't get hit by a hurricane, but the remnants of one finds its way to Tucson. The power this morning has dipped twice so far.
Linda wrote: "Technically Syria was under French influence after WW1 while Iraq and Jordan were under British influence. But really the movers and shakers were Lawrence and Churchill. The French couldn’t do anyt..."I agree in part but you do have to accept that America's influence in the world is a lot less than it was. People just do not listen to the US and respect her as they did in say Nixon's day. It not so much that America is weaker. It is that power in the modern world is more widely spread about. Loads of countries think they have the answer. Before there were blocks and empires. Now there aren't any worth the name.But the UK, Russia and America working together are a force.
By the way the UK is getting v. keen on China. Their President is due here soon on a state visit and it seems they are likely to build our new generation of nuclear power stations. Also they may put money into our new high speed railway.
Linda wrote: "It's sort of ironic. We spent over three weeks at sea in the Atlantic this past summer. We didn't encounter one hurricane or tropical system. All we encountered on the going voyage on June 3 was a ..."Oh dear, I do feel for you! We had a power cut the other day. A wild goose collided with a pylon and tripped everything out in a ball of fire. But they got the power back on within the hour after they switched the automatic trips back in.
It was this past weekend one year ago about September 19 that I made my first comment to you on English Nationalism Rising about the Scottish Referendum. I just looked it up. So it's been one year now.
Oh brilliant! I shall have a very rare glass of wine with my supper to celebrate.I sometimes wonder whether we should not publish our exchanges in book form. The exchange of views over thousands of miles by people who have never met could only happen with modern technology. Like a diary but actually a conversation as if we were neighbours?
It would have to be promoted in America first because they are more open to these ideas. They invented the technology and the platforms after all.
What do you think?
Countries like Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc were always ruled by dictators, monarchs, or empires or both. They were never democratic countries. However, if the empire they belonged to was democratic like the British Empire it might work after several generations especially if foreigners move in and stay there.
What if an American tourist went abroad, even to Canada, and had a baby when abroad? I don't think you'd have to be in the military then. I think the thing about having to be born in the US only applies if your parents aren't citizens. You automatically become a citizen if you're born in the US even if you're the daughter of Vladimir Putin. There it's 100% no exceptions.
You are so right. Although the numbers look frightening when you see these huge columns on the move, they could easily be absorbed in empty spaces in Europe and North America. And many are professionally qualified. People who trek thousands of miles and risk their lives for sanctuary have enormous character and endurance and would be an economic asset to any country.
Britain's population is the fastest growing in Europe and by 2030 we are set to overtake Germany as the EU's most populous state, so we do have a problem. But Germany has huge areas in the east (the former GDR) which are almost empty and depopulated so they are keen to help.
There is a split opening up between East and West in the EU. Hungary has shocked everybody with its razor wire fence. Apparently it has an ultra right neo fascist government.