Hey Heroclitus! An interesting piece was printed in the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times and I had to think about this thread. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about it! The British Euro Farce By ROGER COHEN
I think your clear Gaullism is intellectually and morally sloppy. This is just amplified by your reference to an American commentator whose vacuous piece merely reflects the lack of fingerspitzengefuh which is characteristic of American commentators on European issues. There are many angles and a wise and sensible commentator should take all of them. The most important is the fact that the whole agreement is now crumbling and a certain inevitability is developing about the unstoppable demise of the Euro. A simplistic tale that this is all the fault of the British and l'albion perfide is just infantile nonsense for French nationalists. But let's deal with the British angle first. Unfortunately your characterizing of the whole anglo-saxon press (funnily you seem to exempt the IHT and the NYT from this moniker) as hostile to European integration doesn't seem to add up. In Britain Cameron is being slated by the serious press, as the gutter press want to crown him King. Cameron, on the one hand, was not deterred from standing alone for what he believed. Nasty Sarkozy - someone with a small man complex if ever I saw one - is taunting him as the unpopular schoolboy that no-one likes. His whole mannersism and strutting arrogance tells of a politician with a serious inferiority complex who is petrified at being outplayed (as he is being by Merkel). That sort of bullying just (rightly) strengthens Cameron's position at home. Everyone sympathizes with Cameron when they see Sarkozy's crass and cowardly performance. This finesses all the old prejudices towards the surrender monkeys (we eat the cheese, we just don't surrender) who pretend that they were anything other than cowardly collaborators with the Nazi menace. Ultimately it is this natural empathy, as oppposed to any political analysis - that is at the heart of the immediate popular support for Cameron. But there is a lot of opposition to Cameron, not least from the Liberals in his Cabinet. Will Hutton (another anglo-saxon that you have dismissed in the past) slated Cameron for achieving nothing for Britain and having damaged British industry whilst doing nothing for the City of London. What is more there are plenty of British voices calling for greater regulation of financial services (a high profile report just recommended that Bank mergers be made illegal) - to leave it to the French to call the shots here will be an utter disaster for Britain and Europe. When the question is asked: where were our natural allies - the Dutch, the Swedes, the Poles, the Hungarians...even the Irish, the silence is becoming a bit awkward for the Tories. This French lie that the Right collude in that Europe is just France, Germany and Benelux, united in anglophobic hostility, doesn't seem so credible when people are reminded of the stoic and sensible Dutch, the Atlanticists Poles, the anglophile Czechs and the Irish who know the importance of their neighbour and cousin to their economy. The Right is now forced into jingoism, and anyone who really believes that this is at the core of modern British values is deluding themselves. Cameron's performance is widely seen as a disaster, and as having been totally outmanoeuvred by the mendacious but effective Sarkozy. The real villain of the piece though is Sarkozy. His continuing taunts of Cameron and Britain may go down well with the racist nationalist bigots that are his constituency, but they merely shield his own surrender of French sovereignty to German control. This is his disreputable xenophobic response to French leftists taunting him for having surrendered French sovereignty to Germany. French politics is now a contest to see who can bait the foreigner the most - the Left vis a vis Germany, the Right Great Britain. This is why France is a nation which lacks moral sunstance, because its politics has always been at this superficial level - not just at the popular level but amongst the opinion formers and intellectuals who sit round the table of political television debates. Childishly refusing to shake people's hand may make a good headline in France (and the Sun)but it just underlines how lightweight Sarkozy really is and how precarious is France's position. The reality is that France is surrendering to the German economic model of low debt and low borrowing, and signing up to the real control of the taxation and public expenditure policies of EU countries by Berlin. Actually, that is economically necessary, as the Euro can only work with political union. But this is deeply unpopular in Europe, not least because European citizens understand deeply that European institutions are based on eltist meritocracy, cronyism and patronage. If asked the "all or nothing" question (Euro and political union or no Euro and just a free trade zone), many millions of Europeans will right now side with the British Tories who cheer Cameron. And then there is the self delusion of the Eurocrats. The whole concept of a grand agreement which purports to solve everyone's problems was a typical piece of Gallic arrogance. Everyone is supposed to fall in line. But they won't. Because any solution which isn't based on democratic institutions will be seriosuly undermined by dissent. That is why many European papers, in Italy for example, contained praise for Cameron at being the only leader who hadn't (seemingly) surrendered his sovereignty. Merkel knew how shaky the whole thing was as Sarkozy did his peacock strutting showpieces condemning Cameron. Hence her more measured tone. She knows that what is needed is a solution where Germany bankrolls everything. She is just trying to extract the highest price from EU nations - in terms of imposing German fiscal discipline permanently on Eurozone members - that she can. And she is certainly not over the line yet. Someone said that everyone knew what to do but nobody knew how to get elected afterwards. This is what happens when posturing politicians like Sarkozy and Cameron are entrusted with power. They deceive their electorates with their chauvinist tub-thumping (to squeals of delight from you janpor) and then are impeded from doing the necssary things. What Britain needs to do now - and Cameron will do under pressure or lose his government - is to get back into Europe and re-establish its influence as this "deal" comes under pressure, which it now is. Common cause with Sweden, Hungary and Ireland is already being made. City regulation is in Britain's interest and international rules can be framed by London and Berlin who are likeminded on these issues. Britain will do this, as Sarkozy plays a latter day Louis Napoleon popinjay and surrenders French soverignty to Germany. Despite the nonsense written in Britain's yellow press, its elite know that Britain has no choice but to be at the centre of Europe and that Cameron, egged on by a bullying, adolescent French President, has screwed up here. But it's one meeting, not a watershed moment, that will soon be forgotten. On a flight to London from San Fransico an American once asked me if women were allowed in pubs. He was prepared to leave his wife outside if this was the case. I suggest this may have been a relation of the IHT journalist you quoted.
Heroclitus,... I was not outing myself as a Gaullist when I said it was an interesting piece. Besides, Cohen is British.
Well, I judge you by the views you push. And Cohen's piece was nothing more than American shmulz for a readership who thinks the Queen still rules Olde England. It was drivel, and I'm surprised that you posted such tabloid crap.
Hero, I don't feel like fighting... I'm already up for two hours -- woke up and couldn't sleep again. It's only 05h30 here. I merely asked your opinion,... And there are some points of the article I find very interesting, e.g. England inhabited by folks who are surpressing their inner-fascist. A case could be made about this.
There have always been conservatives who are anti-semites and racists. These are not the "folks" of England. They are a small group of toffs who are generally despied by the average "folk". Even Cohen (clearly) articulates this. It is in France that 17% of the population vote for a Nazi candidate to be their President. Plus ca change... Why are your posts lately concerned with the superficial stuff (Cohen's background etc.) instead of the substance? Too much arguing with American rightwingers?
Hero, just finsihed reading your previous post...you are so outdated -- geez. BTW -- what is this nonsense of Sarlozy not shaking Cameron's hand?!
How out of date? Do you actually post arguments any more janpor? Come back when you've slept. Haven't you heard Sarkozy's rants about the stubborn schoolboy Cameron as Merkel emphasizes the importance of Great Britain? The contrast between the strutting French arse and the German stateswoman could not be stronger. Sarko's looking for populist outrage to hide his blushes at the reality that he has surrendered to German control. Merkel has no need of such infantilism.
From today's Guardian: The French satirical newspaper Le Canard enchaîné quoted Sarkozy as saying: "The whole world recognised that my proposal was the only possible course. The accord will perhaps not put an end to the crisis, but it is a tool for facing up to it. The dynamism of the Franco-German axis enabled us to rally 26 countries." The arrogant tosser. No wonder we use a French word in the term "self agrandissement". His "accord" is crumbling. Italian debt is still at 7%. Allowing delusional idiots like this to influence anything is a major mistake. This is a strutting egomaniac, the typical small man with an inferirity complex, who will use every bullying tactic and crowd pleasing prejudice to get his way. He is the Eurosceptic's greatest ally, an agent provacateur at the heart of the European project.
I need to agree somewhere along the line though, have you seen De Villepin announcment on TV he's running for President?! That was a big much, e.g. "France being humiliated by the financial markets, etc."
You ask me what I think. I post a long considered post. And you just harumph around saying nothing. Have you got any arguments? Let us see them.
Good God.....I find myself agreeing with you....well blow me down with a feather! Aye you can agree a lot with this submission...Churchill introduced your first concentration camps in the world! In South Africa! Starving women and children! Rhodesia had nothing to do with South Africa though! But they did fight for they're independence from England!! Until Lord Carrington sold out those Rhodesians and the share markets! Destroying the life savings of those "third generation Rhodesian/English people! Nothing possible about it.....all degenerate and still degenerates! Stated facts! No delusion on my part any ways! Regards Highlander
'Rhodesia' (i.e. the dominant part of the 'white' minority) fought for racial supremacy - and, of course, money. An aunt of mine was there, when I got my LP branch to vote for bombing Beit Bridge, and I can assure you there was nothing in the least 'English' about her. I don't understand your point at all: fascists silence others, and should be hanged, that's all.
I have no understanding regarding your lack of any labour party values! Bomb them? Come on now...you're not hiding your tory values very well can you....you cannot keep a reprobate supporter down can you! As for your aunt.....I'm unable to say......I rest my arguement on your tory values...enough said hey!!!!!!! Regards Highlander
Only to those who have been prevented from understanding political terms by their masters, I'm afraid. Never mind: I expect they will keep you on if you are loyal.
Does the Labour Party have any left wing values nowadays, highlander, bar the buying votes using tax credits? If so, I'd be interested in knowing about them. I am pushed to differentiate between the policies of any political party...including, more and more, I am sorry to say, the SNP. They may all have one flagship policy they talk about all the time which is the only one that makes them different from all other political parties......but you'd be hard pressed to get a Rizla fagpaper between the policies/the policies they will continue that they don't talk about. Until political parties stop predicating everything on getting re-elected (ie jobs for their boys) and are upfront and honest about the fact that their ONLY purpose in life is to get re-elected, the lack of interest in politics is only going to get worse. Sod me..a by-election in a recession in the UK with all that is going on......and only 29% turned out...just shows that anyone who believes in any political party nowadays works for them...on a local, or national level. The rest of us have become cynical enough to believe that whoever is elected, Big Business and Banks will profit, those on tax credits at the middle to higher end will do OK, as will those pensioners who don't expect to continue to live at the standard they did when they were earning.....but the useless disabled, the useless single person and the useless childless couple will get shafted..because they are the easy targets.
Oddquine, you and your compatriots need to vote SNP en masse to rid yourself from the dual Iron grip of The City and Westminster!
Perhaps "Mummer" would have been a more suitable screen name for you. I simply haven't the totalitarian persuasions that you do -- in my ideal world, no one need be hanged for their views, no matter what they are. But clearly you prefer Himmler's vision of the future.
