1. He does not even live in London , he hasn’t done for about 8 years. He currently lives in Brussels with his wife and cat.

2. He left his job in Birmingham under a cloud…believe me I worked for him…not a good experience.

3. He has three children but as far as I know he hardly sees them .

We either let them carry on with it, or we demand democratization. I say we engage further and demand democratisation on all levels.

I see what you’re trying to say but unfortunately, the option is NOT there – i.e. to not engage beyond nation-state borders. Globalisation is here, and it is imperfect. We can get involved to make institutions accountable, because sure as hell, Europe affects us, and the world affects us.

nations can’t exist in silo states.

anyway, the election is tomorrow and one of the key issues facing us is digital rights management.

My point is very simple, racism needs the right conditions to flourish. Successive governments have created a fertile terrain for the BNP to flourish. They have tilled the ground nicely by:
• Decimating jobs and creating an underlying level of financial insecurity.
• Legitimating through actions and policy a sense that there is a “fifth column” within our communities.Such a climate legitimates racism as it becomes to be seen as part of the mainstream message and therefore acceptable.

Creating a new class of “in work ” poor.

• Operating divisive interventions which seem to be favouring certain communities and thus stoking a sense that indigenous groups are missing out.

I for one am totally committed to fighting racism, but lets have some openess in this discussion and not just pigeon hole racism as something only to do with the BNP.

With economic slump and rising ethnic tensions across Europe(Luton and Athens being but the latest examples) the rights of Europe’s indigenous populations must be recognised.

I’m sure you will discover this when you get to Europe.

A very brief summary is here, although I will write a fuller response when I am back home:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/11/lest-we-forget.html

I don’t agree. Pre-WW2 Europe lacked the Soviet threat as well as the presence of American troops on European soil.

Essentially, post-WW2, there wasn’t the need for war, as people’s, and the state’s, disposable income grew significantly. Most of Western Europe was war-weary, or insular (e.g. Spain), so there was no real appetite for war.

“We have had peace in Europe since 1945.”

Well, not really. Significant portions of Europe were often military occupation until 1989.
I do think we share similar philosophies, but how methods are somewhat different.
Oh, and I think you mean George III.

Okay. What was this pan European project from the 1920′s and why haven’t I heard of it? Like most projects there are failed experiments that get nowhere fast, they almost all have precursors – communism was preceded by others like Robert Owen for example. Which are now historical footnotes.

You are completely wrong about the spread of democracy. Western Europe – at least – had been democratic since before WW2. Indeed WW2 could argueably be put down to a failure of German democracy as much as it is to German nationalism.

So, no, I am not going to accept that arguement without a lot more persuasion. You could point to the Franco takeover in Spain I suppose, which might support your case, however that was another subversion of a democratic state by fascists. Can you reasonably argue that the precursors to the EU, The European Iron and Steel community, weren’t democracies? I’d argue Schuman got it right.

The answer to the Russian issue was NATO, not the EU. If all we were interested in was mutual security then there would have been no need for an institution like it. History is littered with Treaties between nations that felt threatened and none ever led to a supra national organisation like the EU – the US in it’s revolt against the completely legitimate idea of George V that there should be taxation without representation is the nearest historical example I can think of. (Uppity bastards, the lot of them!)

One of the features of the EU is that you cannot be a member state if you are not a democracy. It is called soft power, and it applies just as much today as it did in the era when Spain and Portugal gave up their dictatorships. Think about the accession of the nations that used to make up Yugoslvia, and Turkey come to that.

The point I’d like you to address, which you always dodge around, is this. We have had peace in Europe since 1945. I’m no historian, but I’d guess that that is the longest period of time that this continent of ours hasn’t been knocking each others brains out and exporting our special skills in killing folk to all corners of the globe. The UK excepted. Is that the sort of exceptionalism you want? Thought not.

Of course we need to do something about resolving the direction the project has taken. I think I am right in saying that the EU can’t get its’ accounts signed off by their auditors, however that is frankly a detail compared to two World Wars.

You may have noticed that I went off on one earlier on in this thread. The problem that I have is that no politician actually wants to be accountable. Doesn’t matter if its’ your local community council or the United Nations. Accountability is anathema.

Directing your ire at one level of government seems to me to be missing the point. And despite my very strong feelings that all politicians are a parcel of rogues, and that the institutions need to be more open, I do not see your popularism – for that is what it is – being in our better interests.

Funnily enough I think that you and Sonia and I probably have very similar philosophies, even when we don’t agree about the details. Deep down, we’re all anarchists at heart!

Least that’s what I think!

The EU as the reason for postwar peace is sadly an all-too common misconception. The EU (albeit with a different name, but I will stick with EU) was first conceived of in the late 1920s-early 1930s, and some tentative steps were made then. This puts the lie to both those who claim that it was some remnants of the Nazi desire for unification, and a purely post-war move.

There are two man reaons for peace in postwar Europe: the spread of democracy and the rule of law, and the NATO/Russia issue. The threat of the Soviet Union caused Western European nations to unite, while the American military presence made it almost impossible for countries to fight one another. Nor do stable democracies end up fighting one another.

The EU had an impact in a few countries, namely the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain), as money and support helped these countries, which were emerging from dictatorships, to stabilise.

The EU in the postwar period soon became a way to subsidise French farmers (90% of the first budget was spent of the CAP, of which the lion’s share went to French farmers).

Douglas and Sonia:

I certainly don’t think that Westminster represents the par exemplar of a functioning democracy. But I see no reason to therefore to hand more money and more power to an even more corrupt and remote power. I admit that I am sceptical about the impact of supranational insitutions in political terms (in therms of aid and soforth, they make sense). Politicians function better the closer they are to those who pay their wages. Not because it makes them better people, but because it is easier to hold them to account. Look at the current Westminster mess. MPs are retiring, are being deselected, or face losing the next election. This would never happen in Brussels because the nature of the supranational institution (special tax rates for EU staff, immunity from prosecution, etc.) means that they are so remote from voters that it doesn’t matter what we think.

There has to be democratisation of supranational institutions ABSOLUTELY and we should be demanding engagement on this basis.

Otherwise, it’s similar to people – within national borders- feeling political apathy, not feeling part of the electorate, because they feel the process/etc. is not democratic, etc. etc. When they should be engaging the process, to make it democratic. Demanding reforms. Because we know we don’t have a choice, it is ‘our’ government. It’s the same with Europe really, as well as global governance. We’ve just all ignored it because national democracy is such a pain to get right. And we haven’t managed. Work in progress.

If we do not demand democracy at all levels – we cannot be content with demanding this just at the national level – then the reality of the institutions whic impact us- regionally -and then globally – will continue to remain undemocratic.

As well we all know, globalisation is here, and it will leave people behind if we don’t seek to appropriate it? How do we become part of it, and make it work for us? is the question. We don’t really have any other choices now.

Seriously.

There has been peace, more or less, in Europe since 1945. I’d have thought that a historian such as yourself might have at least considered the possibility that building a more peaceful population was a worthwhile aim?

The details of the European Project are open to the cavilling that you do on a regular basis, but the half century of peace is something you never address.

Because it would deny your basic thesis. Which is to return us to an earlier era where what we ought to learn from history is forgotten, over and over. And war, baby, is the status quo.

I accept that the EU has faults, I do not accept that it has the faults that you and others’ say it has.

Peace, my friend.

….a lack of democratic control, too much regulation, etc.

And you don’t think our UK Parliament wouldn’t take up the slack?

We have a complete breakdown in democratic control going on right now in the UK Parliament. Or hadn’t you noticed?

And ID cards and protesters as criminals? An exclusion zone around Westminster for protestors?

Your local branch of the political class stinks to high heaven too.

He sat in my wee flat less that a week ago and told me that about Devon Water rates. It doesn’t seem to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This article says it is a mere double, or around about.

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Water-price-hike-hit-poor/article-263376-detail/article.html

I wonder whether it is consistent? I believe he pays on a metered basis.

The point, which is now moot , is that regions of the UK are treated far less favourably, and probably discouraged from mutual trade, unless it is through London .

I accept that I will have to re-address this issue, ’cause my case is currently a busted flush…

I am not against the EU on principle. If the EU functioned better than national governments, I would support it. But it doesn’t, and it is unlikely to, because the very nature of it makes it remote and unaccountable.

I don’t believe we were wrong to go into it, because at the time, it made sense. At the moment, Britain loses out becuase of the EU: in terms of higher food bills, a lack of democratic control, too much regulation, etc. Refusing to co-operate would allow us the opportunity to either force the EU to change, or to regain control of things such as trade and fishing rights. EU-philes attempt to scare people by suggesting that the EU would refuse to trade with Britain, but how would that happen really? EU countries benefit from British trade just as Britain benefits from trading with Britain.