Gossip
Mike Page
Dublin during the week. Two of our RRs met in the Ashling hotel.
Cheese changed hands, and very good it proved to be. One of the
RRs then met with your correspondent to attend an extended
meeting of senior academic accountants (no quips about oxymorons,
please). The accountants proved, as always, to be witty and
wide-ranging in their off-topic discussions and a number of
matters and queries were raised which it is perhaps possible that
the good burghers of aue can assist with.
We had a rather good, mild, washed-rind, goats cheese with
dinner. What might this be?
Is Morecambe Bay fish-treading still practised? (We believe that
one diner's assertion that this is part of the making of the
curious Lancashire fish wine to be a mere red herring.)
What relationship does fish-treading have to guddling (poss.
Scots)?
Can anyone confirm the existence of speciality banana shops in
the North of England?
Has anyone in aue attended a performance of the British Empire
Coconut Dancers - a unique black-face troupe of morrismen which
annually beats the bounds of Bacup?
Mike Page
Let the ape escape for e-mail
Linz
> Has anyone in aue attended a performance of the British Empire
> Coconut Dancers - a unique black-face troupe of morrismen which
> annually beats the bounds of Bacup?
Not yet, mainly because I never hear about it till the day after it's
taken place!
Garry J. Vass
news:3a98d44a....@news.freeserve.net...
>
>
> Has anyone in aue attended a performance of the British Empire
> Coconut Dancers - a unique black-face troupe of morrismen which
> annually beats the bounds of Bacup?
As a side-note, the last issue of "Evergreen" magazine ("...as refreshing as
a cup of tea!") had an article on them with pictures! Quite adventurous in
these days of foaming mouth PCism I'd say...
Back copies are at http://www.thisengland.co.uk/everhome.htm
Kind regards,
GJV
Laura F Spira
Your correspondent fails to mention that he caused some amusement at
dinner by taking notes, but it is indeed true that all these topics were
discussed.
There is guddling at
http://www.firstfoot.co.uk/Tartan%20Trivia/finance/tommyboil.htm
The Bacup coconut dancers are at http://www.coconutters.co.uk/
But I really *don't* believe in the existence of shops in the North of
England that sell nothing but bananas.
It has been drawn to my attention that I am now designated a serial
boinker. I hope that this will be viewed as a compliment to my stamina,
rather than a slur on my reputation. I think we need some authoritative
guidance on nomenclature relating to boink size: boinkette, micro-boink,
mini-boink - how may these occasions be distinguished? And is a boink
still a boink when attended by others who have no idea that they are at
a boink?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Padraig Breathnach
>It has been drawn to my attention that I am now designated a serial
>boinker. I hope that this will be viewed as a compliment to my stamina,
>rather than a slur on my reputation. I think we need some authoritative
>guidance on nomenclature relating to boink size: boinkette, micro-boink,
>mini-boink - how may these occasions be distinguished? And is a boink
>still a boink when attended by others who have no idea that they are at
>a boink?
>
'Twas I who raised the question of designation. I would suggest that
serial boinking be regarded as a positive achievement.
Questions for The Committee:
Is a meeting of members properly regarded as a boink if it is not
announced in advance in the newsgroup?
Must a general invitation to members be issued?
What is the quorum for (a) a boink; (b) a mini-boink; (c) a
micro-boink; (d) a boinkette?
Can a lurker constitute part of the quorum? If yes, how can we confirm
that a person is a lurker? Is there a standard test (e.g. quoting
verbatim 50 P&D Oliver posts)?
Are there bonus points for getting Bun Mui to attend?
PB
Mark Barratt
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote
> Questions for The Committee:
>
> What is the quorum for (a) a boink; (b) a mini-boink; (c) a
> micro-boink; (d) a boinkette?
I think that if you're going to insist on the existence of a
micro-boink, then you're pretty much stuck with a full-blown boink being
at least a million people. That's impossible, of course, even with all
the lurkers. We couldn't even mananage a milli-boink. I suggest that you
junk the inelegant prefixes and adopt the "novel, novella, novelette"
paradigm. As a rough guide to the classification of such events, might I
humbly offer:
Boink: Participants from at least three continents,
Boinka: Participants of at least three nationalities,
Boinkette: At least three participants.
I suggest that anything else (e.g. the US government) be referred to as
a "piss up".
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> As a side-note, the last issue of "Evergreen" magazine ("...as refreshing as
> a cup of tea!") had an article on them with pictures! Quite adventurous in
> these days of foaming mouth PCism I'd say...
>
> Back copies are at http://www.thisengland.co.uk/everhome.htm
>
I'm fascinated by this magazine, or at least as much of it as I can see
on this website. I used to have a job that involved reading newspapers
and magazines from 1910 -- this looks like they're reusing articles from
then.
ObAUE: Can one be both an Anglophile and English?
--
SML
Queens, New York
Mark Barratt
"Sara Moffat Lorimer" <sl...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> ObAUE: Can one be both an Anglophile and English?
No, I'm sorry, that's simply not done, old thing.
Stephen Toogood
<padr...@iol.ie> writes
>
>Questions for The Committee:
>
>Is a meeting of members properly regarded as a boink if it is not
>announced in advance in the newsgroup?
>
>Must a general invitation to members be issued?
>
>What is the quorum for (a) a boink; (b) a mini-boink; (c) a
>micro-boink; (d) a boinkette?
We need a quick answer on this. Katy and I are performing together next
Saturday (details to follow), and if that turns out to have been a
boinkette, or even a garklein Boinklein, it will make the atmosphere
totally different.
>
>Can a lurker constitute part of the quorum? If yes, how can we confirm
>that a person is a lurker? Is there a standard test (e.g. quoting
>verbatim 50 P&D Oliver posts)?
That's a standard test all right; for being sectioned, probably.
>
>Are there bonus points for getting Bun Mui to attend?
>
One cannot 'get' Buns to attend. They fly whither they will. The best
one can hope for is a suspected sighting, as at Watford.
Bun-o-the-wisp, definitely.
And what do points mean?
--
Stephen Toogood
K. Edgcombe
Stephen Toogood <ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>What is the quorum for (a) a boink; (b) a mini-boink; (c) a
>>micro-boink; (d) a boinkette?
>
>We need a quick answer on this. Katy and I are performing together next
>Saturday (details to follow),
FSVO "performing".
>and if that turns out to have been a
>boinkette, or even a garklein Boinklein, it will make the atmosphere
>totally different.
Katy
Padraig Breathnach
>In article <3a997b30....@news.iol.ie>, Padraig Breathnach
><padr...@iol.ie> writes
>>
>>Questions for The Committee:
...
>>Are there bonus points for getting Bun Mui to attend?
>>
>One cannot 'get' Buns to attend. They fly whither they will. The best
>one can hope for is a suspected sighting, as at Watford.
>
Fair enough. I suppose that it was a silly question. It was born out
of a desperate hope.
>And what do points mean?
>
At a boink/boinkette/miniboink/microboink in Ireland: Standard
measures of Guinness.
PB
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Stephen Toogood" <ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CzEcdWAl...@stenches.demon.co.uk...
>
> We need a quick answer on this. Katy and I are performing together next
> Saturday (details to follow), and if that turns out to have been a
> boinkette, or even a garklein Boinklein, it will make the atmosphere
> totally different.
Please! This is a family newsgroup.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Mike Page
I gather, from the website provided by Laura's answer, that
Easter saturday is the next dance in Bacup.
Mike Page
<ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>And what do points mean?
They mean that you are either a poor sad man, or a fan of ISIHAC,
or both.
Laura F Spira
> Stephen Toogood <ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >And what do points mean?
> >
> At a boink/boinkette/miniboink/microboink in Ireland: Standard
> measures of Guinness.
>
>
Much prized, too.
Linz
I will put this in a safe place. And rediscover it on Easter Day.
Stephen Toogood
<ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>In article <CzEcdWAl...@stenches.demon.co.uk>,
>Stephen Toogood <ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>What is the quorum for (a) a boink; (b) a mini-boink; (c) a
>>>micro-boink; (d) a boinkette?
>>
>>We need a quick answer on this. Katy and I are performing together next
>>Saturday (details to follow),
>
>FSVO "performing".
>
Saturday, 3rd March
Cambridge, St John's College Chapel
World Premiere of The Glory and the Dream, by Richard Rodney Bennett
7.pm The composer in discussion with Michael White of The Independent
8.15 Concert, with three other works, by Berkeley, Britten and
Christopher Brown
We got a write-up in last Sunday's 'Independent on Sunday', partly
because this new work was commissioned as the result of a getting
together of music groups through the internet. Following our 'first
premiere' on Saturday, there will be other premieres in Albany, Denver,
London, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reykjavik, Scarsdale, San Francisco,
Pasadena, Seattle, New York, Hershey, Sydney, Lawrence (Kansas), and
Vancouver.
There' is also to be coverage on Channel 4 news this Friday.
I hope at some stage to post a list of premiere dates, but at present I
have only our own.
We're most impressed with the composition. This is, I feel sure,
something important, and we're dead chuffed to be a part of it.
Why am I telling you this?
You may well ask.
--
Stephen Toogood
Stephen Toogood
edm.orang.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:43:49 +0000, Stephen Toogood
><ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>And what do points mean?
>
>They mean that you are either a poor sad man, or a fan of ISIHAC,
>or both.
>
--
Stephen Toogood
Tootsie
Stephen Toogood wrote in message
>THUS:
>Saturday, 3rd March
>Cambridge, St John's College Chapel
>World Premiere of The Glory and the Dream, by Richard Rodney Bennett
>7.pm The composer in discussion with Michael White of The Independent
>8.15 Concert, with three other works, by Berkeley, Britten and
>Christopher Brown
>
>We got a write-up in last Sunday's 'Independent on Sunday', partly
>because this new work was commissioned as the result of a getting
>together of music groups through the internet. Following our 'first
>premiere' on Saturday, there will be other premieres in Albany, Denver,
>London, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reykjavik, Scarsdale, San Francisco,
>Pasadena, Seattle, New York, Hershey, Sydney, Lawrence (Kansas), and
>Vancouver.
Will you be performing in the subsequent premieres mentioned? That would
be wonderful, especially the Grand Rapids premiere. GR is an easily
driveable distance for me.
And which "Rochester"? Minnesota? New York? Michigan?
Tootsie
Stephen Toogood
<too...@sprynet.com> writes
How nice it would be to have a private income and drift from premiere to
premiere...
No, on second thoughts it would probably be corrupting in the end, and
I'd cease to get much stimulation out of it.
To answer your question directly, no. I get one bite at the premiere
cherry only. Katy is her own agent. Part of the set-up is that the other
choirs get their slice of the action, as they say, and wouldn't welcome
snotty-nosed Cambridge types arriving out of nowhere.
>
>And which "Rochester"? Minnesota? New York? Michigan?
>
I get the impression it's Minnesota, but their web-site wasn't terribly
up-to-date. Fortunately, the Grand Rapids one is fully-documented with
place and time.
Here are some urls to be getting on with. Some of them haven't posted a
date yet. Some of the partners I couldn't find.
http://cg.zip2.com/timesunion/scripts/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=1422
http://www.grcantatachoir.org/Current_Season.html
http://www.chambersingers.org/
http://www.serve.com/PasClassSingers/season.htm
http://www.seattlepromusica.org/
http://www.susquehannachorale.org/2000_2001schedule.htm#anniversary
http://sydneychamberchoir.homepage.com/
So it appears to be:
St. Robert of Newminster Church
Ada Drive, Ada, MI
Sunday, March 18
3.30 pm, (pre-concert talk at 2.30)
I had an Aunt Ada; wonder if it's any relation...
--
Stephen Toogood
N.Mitchum
-----
> How nice it would be to have a private income and drift from premiere to
> premiere...
Or from president to president.
----NM
Garry J Vass
news:1epenu6.j9wu9m1edjiioN%sl...@columbia.edu...
>
> ObAUE: Can one be both an Anglophile and English?
>
Yes. But a more contemporary vernacular uses the term "Antieuro"...
Matti Lamprhey
> "Sara Moffat Lorimer" <sl...@columbia.edu> wrote...
> >
> > ObAUE: Can one be both an Anglophile and English?
>
> Yes. But a more contemporary vernacular uses the term "Antieuro"...
New to me -- how is this distinguished from a europhobe?
Matti
Garry J. Vass
news:97lp9o$43s$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
The "europhobes" don't like it on the basis of fear or distaste; the
"antieuros" don't like it on the basis of believing their alternative is
superior.
Kind regards,
GJV
Tootsie
Stephen Toogood wrote in message
>>Will you be performing in the subsequent premieres mentioned? That
would
>>be wonderful, especially the Grand Rapids premiere. GR is an easily
>>driveable distance for me.
>How nice it would be to have a private income and drift from premiere
to
>premiere...
>
>No, on second thoughts it would probably be corrupting in the end, and
>I'd cease to get much stimulation out of it.
Or stimulating in the end, with you ceasing your corrupting ways...;-)
>To answer your question directly, no. I get one bite at the premiere
>cherry only. Katy is her own agent. Part of the set-up is that the
other
>choirs get their slice of the action, as they say, and wouldn't welcome
>snotty-nosed Cambridge types arriving out of nowhere. [...]
Well, I'm disappointed. I had hoped it would be possible to see Katy and
you "live" as they say. (I'm assuming Katy won't be in Grand Rapids
either.) Looks like I'll just have to leave the state -- and the
states -- to see you both.
Best wishes, by the way, this coming Saturday.
OBaue: Does one say "break a leg" to choirs or is that phrase limited to
actors?
Tootsie
Mark Barratt
"Garry J. Vass" <ga...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:983482311.5046.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
ObEuroPoliticalPhilosophy:
I would like to point out here that I believe I'm Britain's only
federalist Eurosceptic. I have no idea what an "antieuro" might be.
Perhaps Garry would like to expand on this?
Schainbaum, Robert
Sara Moffat Lorimer wrote:
> ObAUE: Can one be both an Anglophile and English?
I notice that there's been a few other postings about this. The word
'Anglophile' is reserved for people who are not English. They might
even regard the place of their birth and upbringing as a misfortune.
Consider whether a Francophile is ever French. That doesn't seem
likely. This is not just a matter of strict definition. There's a
sense in the word of yearning for England and Englishness. The English
have England inside them and all that's needed to redress wistful
longings for home is a return trip to blightey. An Anglophile travels
to blightey on a pilgrimmage.
As for the words 'antieuro' and 'europhobe', I believe it's more
accepted to say that someone who takes those views is a 'euroskeptic'.
I agree that the word disingenuously understates the degreee of
opposition to European integration.
/r
Rowan Dingle
>"Garry J. Vass" <ga...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
>> > > "Sara Moffat Lorimer" <sl...@columbia.edu> wrote...
>> > > > ObAUE: Can one be both an Anglophile and English?
>> > >
>> > > Yes. But a more contemporary vernacular uses the term
>"Antieuro"...
>> >
>> > New to me -- how is this distinguished from a europhobe?
>>
>> The "europhobes" don't like it on the basis of fear or distaste; the
>> "antieuros" don't like it on the basis of believing their alternative
>is
>> superior.
>
>ObEuroPoliticalPhilosophy:
>
>I would like to point out here that I believe I'm Britain's only
>federalist Eurosceptic.
You're a what? You perhaps want to reform certain EU institutions but
are in favour of an eventual federation of European states?
The 'Euro-' words being what they are, you could of course mean that you
would be in favour of a federal Europe if you actually believed in the
existence of Europe.
An odd position, but who am I to talk? According to current usage, I
could legitimately describe myself as a Europhobic Europhile.
The 'Euro-' prefix in 'Eurosceptic', 'Europhobe' and 'Europhile' is very
misleading as commonly used - and often, I reckon, deliberately so. In
Britain, 'Europhile' used to mean someone with a fondness for the people
and cultures of mainland Europe. It is now most commonly used to mean
someone who approves of an ever-closer union of European states.
Or that is the most common overt meaning anyway. When these words are
used, there's often an unstated assumption that to love or hate the
European Union is to love or hate mainland Europe too. This subtext is
undoubtedly to the advantage of EU-philes, yet many EU-phobes use the
same terminology - they seem quite happy to have their own position
associated with a fear or hatred of mainland Europe. Very odd.
And now there's 'europhilia' and 'europhobia' too - being for and
against the new European currency.
I suggest the following definitions:
Approves Disapproves
European cultures etc. Europhile Europhobe
The EEC as was EU-sceptic Isolationist
The EU as is N/A[*] N/A[*]
Ever-closer union EU-phile EU-phobe
Ever-larger union Peasant farmer? Taxpayer?
The euro EMU-phile EMU-phobe
[*]: Nobody approves of the current EU. Everybody wants reform.
As clear as gin, n'est-ce pas?
So, I am a Europhilic EU-sceptical EMU-phobe. I'm still not sure what
you are, Mark. An EU-philic EMU-phobe?
> I have no idea what an "antieuro" might be.
>Perhaps Garry would like to expand on this?
What's an 'antietam'?
--
Rowan Dingle
Garry J. Vass
news:Z1Fn6.802$bd2....@news.chello.be...
>
>
> I would like to point out here that I believe I'm Britain's only
> federalist Eurosceptic. I have no idea what an "antieuro" might be.
> Perhaps Garry would like to expand on this?
>
>
Glad to help, Mark!
As always, I suggest consulting a dictionary first. This will help clarify
the meanings of any root words, and provide a foundation for further
understanding.
Once you've taken the root words on-board, the next step would be to examine
some citations in context. This activity is useful because it provides a
enveloping context from which various meanings can be inferred. Here's a
few to help get you started...
http://www.britainineurope.org.uk/news_stories/PressReleases/15december_anti
euro_incrisis.htm
http://www.csis.org/euro/efv6n4.html
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010201/business/03POLL.shtml
You can use search engines and what-not, there's also substantive
discussions and editorials at the bbc website. Generally, this would be
sufficient for understanding a given term, or at least the 'gist' of it. If
you need to take it further, just shout!
Kind regards,
GJV
--
"...Go everywhere,
Do everything,
Die if you must,
But try to avoid it..."
Mark Barratt
"Schainbaum, Robert" <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in message
news:3A9F3675...@Berlin.DE...
>
>
> Sara Moffat Lorimer wrote:
>
>
> > ObAUE: Can one be both an Anglophile and English?
>
> I notice that there's been a few other postings about this. The word
> 'Anglophile' is reserved for people who are not English. They might
> even regard the place of their birth and upbringing as a misfortune.
> Consider whether a Francophile is ever French. That doesn't seem
A rabidly francophobic Englishman and a rabidly anglophobic Frenchman
were once, due to a combination of improbable circumstances, compelled
to suffer a ten-hour train journey with only each other for company.
At first, they ignored one another, but eventually and inevitably they
began to talk - grudgingly at first, but with increasing enthusiasm. By
the time that the journey was half completed, each had put aside his
prejudice and was beginning to enjoy the other's company.
By the end of the journey, they had become firm friends, and as the
train approached its final destination, the Englishman was removed to
remark: "Do you know, I have always hated the French, but my
conversation with you, my friend, has lifted a veil from my eyes. I
would say that, were I not an Englishman, I should like to be French".
Thr Frenchman replied: "Mon ami, we are in complete agreement. If I were
not a Frenchman, I would wish to be."
Regards
Mark Barratt
Mark Barratt
>In alt.usage.english Mark Barratt <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>>ObEuroPoliticalPhilosophy:
>>
>>I would like to point out here that I believe I'm Britain's only
>>federalist Eurosceptic.
>
>You're a what? You perhaps want to reform certain EU institutions but
>are in favour of an eventual federation of European states?
>
>The 'Euro-' words being what they are, you could of course mean that you
>would be in favour of a federal Europe if you actually believed in the
>existence of Europe.
It would be a sceptic indeed that could doubt the existence of Europe.
Particularly one that lived in Belgium.
The law of averages dictates that I must occasionally write something
that is clearly understood. You are exactly correct. I would like to see
a united states of Europe, with a single democratic central government,
a single economy and a single currency. I do not see how the last item
can work on its own, though.
As for "Europhile" vs. "Europhobe" by your definition, I'm afraid I'd
need to be in a third category called something like "Can't see what
anybody's nationality has to do with the price of fish".
Regards
Mark Barratt
Rowan Dingle
>Rowan Dingle <din...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In alt.usage.english Mark Barratt <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>>>ObEuroPoliticalPhilosophy:
>>>
>>>I would like to point out here that I believe I'm Britain's only
>>>federalist Eurosceptic.
[...]
>>I suggest the following definitions:
>>
>> Approves Disapproves
>>
>>European cultures etc. Europhile Europhobe
>>The EEC as was EU-sceptic Isolationist
>>The EU as is N/A[*] N/A[*]
>>Ever-closer union EU-phile EU-phobe
>>Ever-larger union Peasant farmer? Taxpayer?
>>The euro EMU-phile EMU-phobe
>>
>>[*]: Nobody approves of the current EU. Everybody wants reform.
>>
>>As clear as gin, n'est-ce pas?
>>
>>So, I am a Europhilic EU-sceptical EMU-phobe. I'm still not sure what
>>you are, Mark. An EU-philic EMU-phobe?
ObAUE: Should I have written 'EU-philiac'?
>The law of averages dictates that I must occasionally write something
>that is clearly understood. You are exactly correct. I would like to see
>a united states of Europe, with a single democratic central government,
>a single economy and a single currency.
How refreshing to see such an unambiguous declaration of EU-philia! And
from an Englishman too! I don't think even Jacques Delors declared
himself so openly. Federasts usually prefer stealth and subterfuge: 'Oh,
this new power of the EU's is merely an administrative matter, a simple
rationalisation of existing powers. It means nothing. D'Yquem would go
rather nicely with the Fragomammella, don't you think, old boy?'
But glasnost has reached Bruxelles at last, it seems. Bravo!
> I do not see how the last item
>can work on its own, though.
That's the main reason I'm against the UK joining the eurozone. I don't
really care what the currency is called or whose head is on it or even -
being largely ignorant about economics - who controls interest rates. I
just don't want an irreversibly be-euroed UK to be told, in five years
or so, that political union is merely an administrative matter, a simple
and unimportant step necessary to make the ailing currency work.
>As for "Europhile" vs. "Europhobe" by your definition, I'm afraid I'd
>need to be in a third category called something like "Can't see what
>anybody's nationality has to do with the price of fish".
Eh? You mean you don't believe there are any cultural differences
between nations? You believe that we're all just individuals? (Or even
that, in Maggie's words, 'There's no such thing as society'?)
Well, I would say that, for example, a Spaniard's nationality - his
national cuisine, anyway: his liking for vast quantities of immature
fish - has quite a lot to do with the current price of fish.
And didn't you become quite indignant recently here in AUE when someone
mistook you for a Belgian?
--
Rowan Dingle
Mark Barratt
>In alt.usage.english Mark Barratt <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>
>>The law of averages dictates that I must occasionally write something
>>that is clearly understood. You are exactly correct. I would like to see
>>a united states of Europe, with a single democratic central government,
>>a single economy and a single currency.
>
>How refreshing to see such an unambiguous declaration of EU-philia! And
>from an Englishman too! I don't think even Jacques Delors declared
>himself so openly. Federasts usually prefer stealth and subterfuge: 'Oh,
>this new power of the EU's is merely an administrative matter, a simple
>rationalisation of existing powers. It means nothing. D'Yquem would go
>rather nicely with the Fragomammella, don't you think, old boy?'
But I am not a politician, nor do I believe all politicians are as
cynical as you believe. A federal Europe would be a good thing in many
ways, not least as a step forward in the civilisation of humanity.
[...]
>>As for "Europhile" vs. "Europhobe" by your definition, I'm afraid I'd
>>need to be in a third category called something like "Can't see what
>>anybody's nationality has to do with the price of fish".
>
>Eh? You mean you don't believe there are any cultural differences
>between nations?
Of course there are. There are linguistic and religious differences
also. But so what? You could say the same about the English and the
Scots.
>You believe that we're all just individuals?
I can't see in what sense that can be denied.
>(Or even
>that, in Maggie's words, 'There's no such thing as society'?)
Yes, I knew what she meant when she said that, and I agreed with her.
>Well, I would say that, for example, a Spaniard's nationality - his
>national cuisine, anyway: his liking for vast quantities of immature
>fish - has quite a lot to do with the current price of fish.
Perhaps you could give us a formula expressing the relationship.
>And didn't you become quite indignant recently here in AUE when someone
>mistook you for a Belgian?
I am not a Belgian. Somebody implying here that I am is simply spreading
disinformation. If I corrected the mistake impolitely, it was through
exasperation at the unreliable source.
In one year here, I have not noticed any significant differences between
Belgians, English people, French people, Americans, Hungarians,
Croatians, whatever. You can tell them apart by their accents and
languages, but that doesn't tell you what they're going to think on any
particular matter.
Regards
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Mark Barratt said:
<snips so various I'll lose the attributions many>
: But I am not a politician, nor do I believe all politicians are as
: cynical as you believe. A federal Europe would be a good thing in many
: ways, not least as a step forward in the civilisation of humanity.
I utterly disagree.
A federal Europe would be a step back in the civilization of humanity.
A federal Europe would, after a few Elysian years, highlight the ancient
fault lines rather than eradicate them.
A federal Europe would, after the dream becomes tarnished, more likely
lead to war on the continent than not. Look at the Soviet Union, and how
its constituent parts were straining to free themselves from the centre.
For God's sake, look at Yugoslavia.
: >Eh? You mean you don't believe there are any cultural differences
: >between nations?
:
: Of course there are. There are linguistic and religious differences
: also. But so what? You could say the same about the English and the
: Scots.
The English and the Scots.
The English and the Welsh.
The UK and the current appeasement of terrorist-driven Irish nationalism
(vis-à-vis Northern Ireland).
The Basques in Spain.
The Catalunians (sp?) in Spain.
The Flemings and the Walloons in Belgium.
If you can't keep these sub-nation groups happy within nation states, how on
earth do you imagine a Federal Europe is going to be a contented place?
: >(Or even
: >that, in Maggie's words, 'There's no such thing as society'?)
:
: Yes, I knew what she meant when she said that, and I agreed with her.
Ah: maybe I have found some ground of agreement with you here.
Somewhere within the bowels of my C-Drive I have the original text of what
LaThatch actually said. I might even add it to my website later.
It annoys me intensely that LaThatch has been so vilified, so misquoted
out of context, for this particular statement.
(Allow me to interpret her meaning, [in the absence of my weblink]: a man
throws down some litter on the London Underground; he does so in the full
expectation that he will be cleaned up after. He does so in the expectation
that there is such a thing as 'society' which is there to clean up after
him.
But, there is no such thing as society.
[My God, I actually said it.]
There is no such thing as society.
Society is other men and women.
Society is other men and women, individuals, who are required to clean up
another individual's mess.)
: In one year here [Belgium], I have not noticed any significant differences
between
: Belgians, English people, French people, Americans, Hungarians,
: Croatians, whatever. You can tell them apart by their accents and
: languages, but that doesn't tell you what they're going to think on any
: particular matter.
Of course there ain't no difference.
We share music.
We can swap recipes.
But.
But pen together national groupings into federal units, force
nationalities to be subservient under a federal government, and, when the
idealism has run its day, the individual constituent parts will start to
pull from the centre.
I have a theory.
I have a theory that many in UK have lost confidence in the UK government.
I suspect this is mirrored across Europe, various European peoples losing
confidence in their governments.
I suspect that idealists in UK and Europe imagine that a Federal Europe
could do better, that, in lieu of their national governments having failed
them, a Federal Euro-government could solve all their problems.
Well, I could paraphrase LaThatch......... 'There is no such thing as
Euro-Society..... there are individual Euro-states who should take
responsibility for their destiny, and not imagine that a Federal-Euro-Centre
will pick up their mess, their litter, their inability to run their own
affairs'.
I am, Rudolf, a Czech-Ruthenian-Austrian, born and living in UK, having
lived in Spain, cooking and drinking off the sheer richness of
'Europe'.......... hardly your Little Englander.
I love Europe.
I love it to utter bits.
I love it so much I hate the notion that it should be fitted within a
Federalist straightjacket.
--
rud...@ntlworld.com - Nottingham UK - www.lizardnet.freeserve.co.uk
Rowan Dingle
>Rowan Dingle <din...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In alt.usage.english Mark Barratt <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>>>The law of averages dictates that I must occasionally write something
>>>that is clearly understood. You are exactly correct. I would like to see
>>>a united states of Europe, with a single democratic central government,
>>>a single economy and a single currency.
>>
>>How refreshing to see such an unambiguous declaration of EU-philia! And
>>from an Englishman too! I don't think even Jacques Delors declared
>>himself so openly. Federasts usually prefer stealth and subterfuge: 'Oh,
>>this new power of the EU's is merely an administrative matter, a simple
>>rationalisation of existing powers. It means nothing. D'Yquem would go
>>rather nicely with the Fragomammella, don't you think, old boy?'
>
>But I am not a politician,
No. Sorry. I got carried away. (Re-reading my paragraph quoted above, it
appears more sarcastic than I'd intended. I do genuinely applaud your
openness about where you think the EU should be heading.)
> nor do I believe all politicians are as
>cynical as you believe. A federal Europe would be a good thing in many
>ways, not least as a step forward in the civilisation of humanity.
The road to Hell...
>[...]
>>>As for "Europhile" vs. "Europhobe" by your definition, I'm afraid I'd
>>>need to be in a third category called something like "Can't see what
>>>anybody's nationality has to do with the price of fish".
>>
>>Eh? You mean you don't believe there are any cultural differences
>>between nations?
>
>Of course there are. There are linguistic and religious differences
>also. But so what?
The So What (the price of fish, as you originally put it) is that the
differences are there for X-philes to like or dislike.
> You could say the same about the English and the
>Scots.
Yes.
>>You believe that we're all just individuals?
>
>I can't see in what sense that can be denied.
>
>>(Or even
>>that, in Maggie's words, 'There's no such thing as society'?)
>
>Yes, I knew what she meant when she said that, and I agreed with her.
This being AUE, I should do a Google search. But can you save me the
bother, please? What was the context?
>>Well, I would say that, for example, a Spaniard's nationality - his
>>national cuisine, anyway: his liking for vast quantities of immature
>>fish - has quite a lot to do with the current price of fish.
>
>Perhaps you could give us a formula expressing the relationship.
Young fish fishery fished out means no more fishery, young or old. No
more fishery means price of fish very high, for short time. Then no fish
at all.
(Unreliable memory says it's young hake the Spanish are particularly
keen on. Though everything gets scooped up.)
>>And didn't you become quite indignant recently here in AUE when someone
>>mistook you for a Belgian?
>
>I am not a Belgian. Somebody implying here that I am is simply spreading
>disinformation. If I corrected the mistake impolitely, it was through
>exasperation at the unreliable source.
>
>In one year here, I have not noticed any significant differences between
>Belgians, English people, French people, Americans, Hungarians,
>Croatians, whatever. You can tell them apart by their accents and
>languages, but that doesn't tell you what they're going to think on any
>particular matter.
You didn't mention Germans, I notice. Is that because you don't know
any? Or is it because they keep taking their clothes off whenever they
get near open water and you don't like to think about it?
--
Rowan Dingle
M.J.Powell
Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> writes
Attaboy Rudy! You tell 'em!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Harvey V
<NukxBOAG...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>:
>Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> writes
>>Mark Barratt said:
>>
>><snips so various I'll lose the attributions many>
<snips over 100 lines.....>
>
>Attaboy Rudy! You tell 'em!
>
>Mike
Jeez, Mike -- you could'a snipped some of that: I had to scroll for miles
to see those 5 words! ;)
Harvey
Brian J Goggin
<ta...@face.value> wrote:
> A federal Europe would, after a few Elysian years, highlight the ancient
>fault lines rather than eradicate them.
It might, if it were done wrongly. On the other hand, if it were truly
federal rather than unitary, the "ancient fault lines" could be a
source of good rather than of bad things.
Our American cousins seem to have managed to preserve, after several
hundred years, a strong attachment to states' rights: so much so,
indeed, that their federal government is pretty well powerless (except
when it comes to bombing other countries).
> A federal Europe would, after the dream becomes tarnished, more likely
>lead to war on the continent than not. Look at the Soviet Union, and how
>its constituent parts were straining to free themselves from the centre.
The Soviet Union was a Russian Empire, with satellite statelets
dominated by a single strong state. There is no comparably strong
state in the EU (except of course for the spiritual, saintly and
scholarly sovereignty exercised by Ireland).
>For God's sake, look at Yugoslavia.
That's right: the elements dragged into a unity that provided peace
and stability for many years. Then, after its constituents had
successfully strained to free themselves from the centre, many of them
began killing each other.
>The English and the Scots.
> The English and the Welsh.
> The UK and the current appeasement of terrorist-driven Irish nationalism
>(vis-à-vis Northern Ireland).
> The Basques in Spain.
> The Catalunians (sp?) in Spain.
> The Flemings and the Walloons in Belgium.
>
>If you can't keep these sub-nation groups happy within nation states, how on
>earth do you imagine a Federal Europe is going to be a contented place?
Ask them. Ask them whether they want to be in or out of (a) your
nation state and (b) your federal Europe.
> But pen together national groupings into federal units, force
>nationalities to be subservient under a federal government, and, when the
>idealism has run its day, the individual constituent parts will start to
>pull from the centre.
Ah.
Took us several hundred years to get that point across to your chaps.
Glad to see it's sinking in.
bjg
Padraig Breathnach
...
> The UK and the current appeasement of terrorist-driven Irish nationalism
>(vis-à-vis Northern Ireland).
...
>If you can't keep these sub-nation groups happy within nation states, how on
>earth do you imagine a Federal Europe is going to be a contented place?
>
It is a good idea, when you know nothing about a subject, to say
nothing.
PB
Mark Barratt
>
>Mark Barratt said:
>
><snips so various I'll lose the attributions many>
>
>: But I am not a politician, nor do I believe all politicians are as
>: cynical as you believe. A federal Europe would be a good thing in many
>: ways, not least as a step forward in the civilisation of humanity.
>
>I utterly disagree.
> A federal Europe would be a step back in the civilization of humanity.
> A federal Europe would, after a few Elysian years, highlight the ancient
>fault lines rather than eradicate them.
Maybe, but does this mean that it wouldn't work?
> A federal Europe would, after the dream becomes tarnished, more likely
>lead to war on the continent than not.
A major Challenge: There has never been a war between two (really)
democratic countries. True or false?
> Look at the Soviet Union, and how
>its constituent parts were straining to free themselves from the centre.
>For God's sake, look at Yugoslavia.
These "countries" were not democracies. Their existence was not the
opinion of the people who lived there. Wales, as a counter-example, is a
place where all sane people admit to being British, despite the fact
that a significant number of them will express distaste at this
political reality.
>
>: >Eh? You mean you don't believe there are any cultural differences
>: >between nations?
>:
>: Of course there are. There are linguistic and religious differences
>: also. But so what? You could say the same about the English and the
>: Scots.
>
>The English and the Scots.
> The English and the Welsh.
> The UK and the current appeasement of terrorist-driven Irish nationalism
>(vis-à-vis Northern Ireland).
Here you are expressing a political opinion about British Northern
Ireland. You are free, here on Usenet, to express such opinions with
impunity. But from the viewpoint of an impassionate observer (or about
as impassionate as a person can get when it's not his three-year-old
daughter being blown into raspberry jam to make a point about the
political insult implied by the presence of loads of 19-year-old British
soldiers in Northern Ireland), I find your views either ill-considered
or ill-expressed.
> The Basques in Spain.
Comparable, as I understand it (I've never visited any part of Spain),
to Northern Ireland. 95% of people think that they're madmen, but the 5%
of people who "will not rat on their mates" are enough to keep the
terrorists in business.
> The Catalunians (sp?) in Spain.
???
> The Flemings and the Walloons in Belgium.
Well, here I've obviously been, since I'll soon be celebrating a full
year in Flanders. The Walloons and the Flemings have their political
differences, and some of the "Belgian compromise" regulations that
result are hilarious, and there is undoubtedly a great deal of hatred on
both sides. But there are no murders "in the cause". Democracy is
universally accepted.
>If you can't keep these sub-nation groups happy within nation states, how on
>earth do you imagine a Federal Europe is going to be a contented place?
OK. Lots of little warring tribes must be better.
>: >(Or even
>: >that, in Maggie's words, 'There's no such thing as society'?)
>:
>: Yes, I knew what she meant when she said that, and I agreed with her.
>
>Ah: maybe I have found some ground of agreement with you here.
> Somewhere within the bowels of my C-Drive I have the original text of what
>LaThatch actually said. I might even add it to my website later.
I didn't need to hear the context. "Society" had become a cliche amongst
the mindless left-wing cliche-repeaters in Britain. Maggie was "having a
go" at them. She was a politician, and was speaking for the benefit of
the great unwashed. If I was to express the same idea for the liberal
intellectuals who frequent this ng, I might express it "So what does
'social benefit' mean? what good is that in actual terms to you and me?
Why should my taxes pay for a "community centre" that I don't want to go
to?
> It annoys me intensely that LaThatch has been so vilified, so misquoted
>out of context, for this particular statement.
Not just for this one. It used to be a game among the tabloid headline
writers, as to who could twist her words in the most creative manner:
When Mrs. Thatcher first became a grandmother (can you find the humanity
for a moment to imagine what that meant to her?) She was pleased to come
out of No. 10 to tell the waiting press about her reaction. In an
unscripted (and, to my ear, endearingly human) moment, she mixed up "We
have become grandparents (wrong, because she tried to avoid all mention
of her husband Dennis in political statements) with "I have become a
grandmother" and ended up with "we are a grandmother", a phrase for
which she was thereafter pilloried - it was *obvious* that "That Mad
Woman" thought that she was the queen (she used the royal "we").
> (Allow me to interpret her meaning, [in the absence of my weblink]: a man
>throws down some litter on the London Underground; he does so in the full
>expectation that he will be cleaned up after. He does so in the expectation
>that there is such a thing as 'society' which is there to clean up after
>him.
> But, there is no such thing as society.
> [My God, I actually said it.]
> There is no such thing as society.
> Society is other men and women.
> Society is other men and women, individuals, who are required to clean up
>another individual's mess.)
Yeah, my society is YOU. Your society is me. This is British
Conservatism. It is opposed to the idea that everything is someone
else's fault/problem.
>: In one year here [Belgium], I have not noticed any significant differences
>between
>: Belgians, English people, French people, Americans, Hungarians,
>: Croatians, whatever. You can tell them apart by their accents and
>: languages, but that doesn't tell you what they're going to think on any
>: particular matter.
>
>Of course there ain't no difference.
> We share music.
> We can swap recipes.
> But.
But...?
> But pen together national groupings into federal units, force
>nationalities to be subservient under a federal government, and, when the
>idealism has run its day, the individual constituent parts will start to
>pull from the centre.
You've lost me.
>I have a theory.
> I have a theory that many in UK have lost confidence in the UK government.
> I suspect this is mirrored across Europe, various European peoples losing
>confidence in their governments.
To lose something, you need to have it in the first place, no?
> I suspect that idealists in UK and Europe imagine that a Federal Europe
>could do better, that, in lieu of their national governments having failed
>them, a Federal Euro-government could solve all their problems.
Such people would be as disillusioned as those that think that their own
governments can solve their problems. This is not a function of
government, except where the problem is caused by a another government
action.
> Well, I could paraphrase LaThatch......... 'There is no such thing as
>Euro-Society..... there are individual Euro-states who should take
>responsibility for their destiny, and not imagine that a Federal-Euro-Centre
>will pick up their mess, their litter, their inability to run their own
>affairs'.
>
>I am, Rudolf, a Czech-Ruthenian-Austrian, born and living in UK, having
>lived in Spain, cooking and drinking off the sheer richness of
>'Europe'.......... hardly your Little Englander.
> I love Europe.
> I love it to utter bits.
> I love it so much I hate the notion that it should be fitted within a
>Federalist straightjacket.
Government has nothing to do with culture (or with society, either. If
society exists, it is neither because of, nor in spite of government).
Government began as the domination of small social groups by the most
powerful male. Isn't this obvious? Its continued existence is due to the
natural efficiency of hierarchical social structures.
Robert E. Lewis
Brian J Goggin <b...@wordwrights.ie> wrote in message
news:ufedatsdsi7pto375...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:50:20 -0000, "Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai"
> <ta...@face.value> wrote:
>
> > A federal Europe would, after a few Elysian years, highlight the
ancient
> >fault lines rather than eradicate them.
>
> It might, if it were done wrongly. On the other hand, if it were truly
> federal rather than unitary, the "ancient fault lines" could be a
> source of good rather than of bad things.
>
> Our American cousins seem to have managed to preserve, after several
> hundred years, a strong attachment to states' rights: so much so,
> indeed, that their federal government is pretty well powerless (except
> when it comes to bombing other countries).
The powerless state of the US federal government in the face of "states
rights" comes as news to me, and to most Americans, I think.
I attended a school system in my teens that was largely structured (through
a "magnet school" program) to comply with federal mandates to acheive racial
desegregation in schools despite continuing geographic racial segregation in
the city. The prison system in this state (Texas) was for many years under
the preemptive control of a federal judge who forced the early release of
prisoners and the expenditure of millions of dollars to build additional
prisons. I was nearly sideswiped on a highway last Friday by a
tandem-trailer tractor rig from Mexico that would've been illegal on the
state's highways, but was overridden by NAFTA (our own feeble first steps
toward a federalized North America). The federal goverment, under the
control of supposedly rabid states rights Republican has in recent years
attempted to or succeeded in overrulings efforts in states to decriminalize
limited marijuana use and physician-assisted suicide. Speed limits on state
roads, as well as interstate highways, were reduced in the ealry '70s by
fiat of the powers in Washington, and when they were raised in the '80s, it
was with the *permission* of the feds, not a reversion to the power to the
several states. The federal government, by dint of its control of a
bottomless purse, within the past couple of years forced the states to adopt
definitions of drunk driving far below levels of actual impairment -- the
list goes on and on and on.
Hasn't there already been an attempt by federal Europe to bully a
constituent nation (Austria) over that state's unpopular exercise of
democracy? Haven't some republican elements in the UK begun to float the
idea that the British monarchy violates EU mandates for a democratic society
(in favoring males for the position of head of state and excluding Jews and
Catholics)? American federalism never progressed so fast.
> > A federal Europe would, after the dream becomes tarnished, more likely
> >lead to war on the continent than not. Look at the Soviet Union, and how
> >its constituent parts were straining to free themselves from the centre.
>
> The Soviet Union was a Russian Empire, with satellite statelets
> dominated by a single strong state. There is no comparably strong
> state in the EU (except of course for the spiritual, saintly and
> scholarly sovereignty exercised by Ireland).
Not at the moment. Germany is heading that way, is it not?
>
> >For God's sake, look at Yugoslavia.
>
> That's right: the elements dragged into a unity that provided peace
> and stability for many years. Then, after its constituents had
> successfully strained to free themselves from the centre, many of them
> began killing each other.
And they began doing this precisely because they lost the single strong
unifying force of the dictator Tito. Is there a Tito in the wings to lead
Europe into a peaceful unity?
(obaue: Should the term "federal government," when specifically referring
to the government of the Untied States of America, be capitalized as a
proper noun?)
-- Robert
Robert E. Lewis
> "Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai" <ta...@face.value> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Barratt said:
> >
> ><snips so various I'll lose the attributions many>
<and yet more snips>
>
> > A federal Europe would, after the dream becomes tarnished, more likely
> >lead to war on the continent than not.
>
> A major Challenge: There has never been a war between two (really)
> democratic countries. True or false?
I can't think of any examples offhand of full-blown wars between liberal
democracies (well, I'd consider both Britain and the US to have been about
as democratic a pair of nations as existed at the time they went to war in
1812, but in practice sufferage was quite limited in both places then).
There have certainly been occasionally violent clashes between countries
that were democracies, and wars between nations that wavered in and out of
democracy in modern times.
But this comment leaves me puzzled by this, later:
> >If you can't keep these sub-nation groups happy within nation states, how
on
> >earth do you imagine a Federal Europe is going to be a contented place?
>
> OK. Lots of little warring tribes must be better.
The constituent states of the EU are all liberal democracies, are they not?
So there is no reason to suppose that they would be at war with one another,
even in the absence of a federal authority, is there? Or is the peace in
Western Europe for the past half century only the result of having a shared
common enemy? (There's a scary thought for you: nothing like conjuring up a
"common enemy" to bring bickering "tribes" together - who might a future
European president pick to be that bogeyman? Russia? The USA?)
-- Robert
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Robert E. Lewis said:
: Hasn't there already been an attempt by federal Europe to bully a
: constituent nation (Austria) over that state's unpopular exercise of
: democracy?
Quite.
http://www.dollynet.freeserve.co.uk/times.htm
And it might amuse (or even anger) you to hear that the EU regards itself
as having the right your lecture your Good Selves over in US on a matter of
your internal policy.
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=002830376029449&rtmo=lnFnQAot&atmo=HHH
H22NL&pg=/01/3/8/dl02.html
(This link may need reconstructing by pasting it in bits into your browser.)
Mark Barratt
>
>You didn't mention Germans, I notice. Is that because you don't know
>any? Or is it because they keep taking their clothes off whenever they
>get near open water and you don't like to think about it?
I did mention them once, but I think I got away with it.
Brian J Goggin
<ta...@face.value> wrote:
> And it might amuse (or even anger) you to hear that the EU regards itself
>as having the right your lecture your Good Selves over in US on a matter of
>your internal policy.
>
>http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=002830376029449&rtmo=lnFnQAot&atmo=HHH
>H22NL&pg=/01/3/8/dl02.html
>(This link may need reconstructing by pasting it in bits into your browser.)
My dear Rudolf, if you think that any state (even the sainted USA)
ever refrains from lecturing --- or attempting to influence --- other
states about their internal policies, you have not been reading the
blatts with any great attention. You might, for instance, consider
international trade, and especially the imperialist attempts by the
USA to tell staunchly independent states (like Cuba and the UK) how
they should run their economies.
I'm not complaining about it --- at least while it stops short of war
or economic blockade --- but you should realise that it happens. Look
at that poor Mr Milosevic, for instance, whose internal affairs were
so drastically interfered with. Or Colonel Gaddafi, the object of
assassination attempts by foreign states. Or General Pinochet, helped
to power by foreign states.
Being lectured, in contrast, seems rather mild.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote:
>The powerless state of the US federal government in the face of "states
>rights" comes as news to me, and to most Americans, I think.
[list snipped]
>The federal government, by dint of its control of a
>bottomless purse, within the past couple of years forced the states to adopt
>definitions of drunk driving far below levels of actual impairment -- the
>list goes on and on and on.
The examples you give seem relatively trivial by European standards,
though, and some of them seem to have more to do with the balance
between executive, legislature and judiciary than with states versus
central government.
It's also notable that (if I'm interpreting your sentiments correctly)
the rights of states versus those of the federal government is still a
live issue. In a unitary state, for example, there would be no
question but that an international treaty, entered into by the central
government and duly approved in whatever way the constitution calls
for, would apply throughout the state.
Thus it is not inevitable that a federal structure would inevitably
lead to the imposition of sameness throughout the polity.
>Hasn't there already been an attempt by federal Europe to bully a
>constituent nation (Austria) over that state's unpopular exercise of
>democracy?
I suppose it depends on how you define bullying. There certainly was a
concerted effort by the rest of the EU to influence the nature of
Austria's government. Such influence is seen as preferable to having
to go to war to overcome a fascist government (in saying which I am
trying to represent what I think some other states thought of Haider's
party; I don't know enough about Haider's views to say whether or not
he is a fascist, what that might mean and whether it might be
dangerous to anybody).
But states attempt to influence each other all the time. There is an
argument for saying that it's useful to provide a forum for the
activity and to conduct it in the light of day, rather than behind the
scenes.
>Haven't some republican elements in the UK begun to float the
>idea that the British monarchy violates EU mandates for a democratic society
>(in favoring males for the position of head of state and excluding Jews and
>Catholics)?
I *think* you may be confusing "EU mandates" with the European
Convention on Human Rights and its integration into UK law, but I'm
not really sure what you have in mind.
>American federalism never progressed so fast.
Well, indeed: that's rather my point.
>> The Soviet Union was a Russian Empire, with satellite statelets
>> dominated by a single strong state. There is no comparably strong
>> state in the EU (except of course for the spiritual, saintly and
>> scholarly sovereignty exercised by Ireland).
>Not at the moment. Germany is heading that way, is it not?
Certainly not. It is the largest state within the EU, but Russia,
within the USSR, accounted for a much larger proportion of total
population, wealth and military power.
Furthermore, the EU has formal structures that make it pretty well
impossible for a single state to dominate in the way that Russia
domiinated the USSR (and remember that the "unuion" there was never a
voluntary one). For example, at present I am watching a rather minor
matter that is being discussed by the European Commission and European
Parliament. The UK is likely to vote against the current proposal; it
needs the support of only two other states (whereof I hope Ireland
will be one) to block the proposal.
>> >For God's sake, look at Yugoslavia.
>>
>> That's right: the elements dragged into a unity that provided peace
>> and stability for many years. Then, after its constituents had
>> successfully strained to free themselves from the centre, many of them
>> began killing each other.
>
>And they began doing this precisely because they lost the single strong
>unifying force of the dictator Tito. Is there a Tito in the wings to lead
>Europe into a peaceful unity?
Ein reich, ein volk .... But my point is that the "escape" from
federalism is not necessarily an unmixed blessing.
>(obaue: Should the term "federal government," when specifically referring
>to the government of the Untied States of America, be capitalized as a
>proper noun?)
Not, I think, necessarily.
bjg
Harvey V
<snip>
>
>My dear Rudolf, if you think that any state (even the sainted USA)
>ever refrains from lecturing --- or attempting to influence --- other
>states about their internal policies, you have not been reading the
>blatts with any great attention. You might, for instance, consider
>international trade, and especially the imperialist attempts by the
>USA to tell staunchly independent states (like Cuba and the UK) how
>they should run their economies.
Or, IIRC, taking criminal action against Canadian companies for the
perfectly legal business (in that country) of selling locomotives to Cuba.
Harvey
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Brian J Goggin said:
: > And it might amuse (or even anger) you to hear that the EU regards
itself
: >as having the right your lecture your Good Selves over in US on a matter
of
: >your internal policy.
: >
:
>http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=002830376029449&rtmo=lnFnQAot&atmo=HH
H
: >H22NL&pg=/01/3/8/dl02.html
: >(This link may need reconstructing by pasting it in bits into your
browser.)
:
: My dear Rudolf, if you think that any state (even the sainted USA)
: ever refrains from lecturing --- or attempting to influence --- other
: states about their internal policies, you have not been reading the
: blatts with any great attention.
I read the blatts enough to know that the EU is not a state, but clearly is
straining at the leash to become one.
R
Brian J Goggin
<ta...@face.value> wrote:
>I read the blatts enough to know that the EU is not a state, but clearly is
>straining at the leash to become one.
I have evidence that you read the *Daily Telegraph*.
I recommend changing to the *Fortean Times*.
bjg
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Brian J Goggin said:
: I have evidence that you read the *Daily Telegraph*.
:
: I recommend changing to the *Fortean Times*.
..... the difference being?
R
M.J.Powell
<whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com> writes
I thought it was well worth reading twice!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Rowan Dingle
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:50:20 -0000, "Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai"
>> A federal Europe would, after a few Elysian years, highlight the ancient
>>fault lines rather than eradicate them.
>
>It might, if it were done wrongly.
How many more decades does the EU need before it does something rightly?
Surely it's legitimate to take a pattern of behaviour established over
30 or 40 years as a model for likely future behaviour? (How many decades
is it now that CAP reform has been universally recognised as the single
most urgent matter that the EU should attend to?) If, instead of a
multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-aspirational, multi-definitional
federal state (tricky), the EU wanted to become a simple forum for
occasional discussions between sovereign heads of state (easy: merely a
matter of fixing a date and booking a conference centre), it would still
cock it up somehow. That's what the EU does: it cocks things up.
The probationary period has expired. Don't sack it just yet; take away a
few of its responsibilities and send it on a course. And perhaps, while
it's away, find it a new job, something that's within its capabilities.
It likes paper. Perhaps it would be happy in the print room?
[...]
>>For God's sake, look at Yugoslavia.
>
>That's right: the elements dragged into a unity that provided peace
>and stability for many years. Then, after its constituents had
>successfully strained to free themselves from the centre, many of them
>began killing each other.
Er, we've had peace and stability in western Europe for nearly six
decades. We don't need no steenking federales to tell us how to have
peace and stability.
[...]
>> But pen together national groupings into federal units, force
>>nationalities to be subservient under a federal government, and, when the
>>idealism has run its day, the individual constituent parts will start to
>>pull from the centre.
>
>Ah.
>
>Took us several hundred years to get that point across to your chaps.
>Glad to see it's sinking in.
You're not trying to have it both ways are you, by any chance?
--
Rowan Dingle
Rowan Dingle
Don't mention the swimwear (or lack thereof).
--
Rowan Dingle
Robert E. Lewis
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:02:55 -0000, "Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai"
> <ta...@face.value> wrote:
>
> > And it might amuse (or even anger) you to hear that the EU regards
itself
> >as having the right your lecture your Good Selves over in US on a matter
of
> >your internal policy.
> >
>
>http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=002830376029449&rtmo=lnFnQAot&atmo=HH
H
> >H22NL&pg=/01/3/8/dl02.html
> >(This link may need reconstructing by pasting it in bits into your
browser.)
>
> My dear Rudolf, if you think that any state (even the sainted USA)
> ever refrains from lecturing --- or attempting to influence --- other
> states about their internal policies, you have not been reading the
> blatts with any great attention. You might, for instance, consider
> international trade, and especially the imperialist attempts by the
> USA to tell staunchly independent states (like Cuba and the UK) how
> they should run their economies.
... And South Africa. I remember, in the latter years of apartheid, a very
humorous exchange on an American news program, between Senator Edward
Kennedy of Massachussetts and some official of the South African regime.
The South African made an oblique reference to Senator Kennedy's notorious
personal conduct and suggested the voters of the Commonwealth of
Massachussetts might want to select a more respectable person for his post.
Mr. Kennedy chided the South African for daring to interfere with the
internal affairs of a sovereign state (the US). The Senator was of course
appearing on television to urge further interfering in South Africa's
government.
> I'm not complaining about it --- at least while it stops short of war
> or economic blockade --- but you should realise that it happens. Look
> at that poor Mr Milosevic, for instance, whose internal affairs were
> so drastically interfered with. Or Colonel Gaddafi, the object of
> assassination attempts by foreign states. Or General Pinochet, helped
> to power by foreign states.
>
> Being lectured, in contrast, seems rather mild.
It does seem to be threatening a bit more than lecturing, in both instances.
The EU delegates were threatening to obstruct American justice (as Americans
view it) by refusing to extradite wanted criminals if the possibility exists
that they will face American justice, rather than European justice. And
while I forget the details of the "political sanctions" the EU wanted to
impose on Austria for that state's internal exercise of democracy, it was
more than just lecturing, was it not?
-- Robert
M.J.Powell
<b...@wordwrights.ie> writes
Most of 'The Fortean Times' is in the Telegraph!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Robert E. Lewis said:
: The EU delegates were threatening to obstruct American justice (as
Americans
: view it) by refusing to extradite wanted criminals if the possibility
exists
: that they will face American justice, rather than European justice. And
: while I forget the details of the "political sanctions" the EU wanted to
: impose on Austria for that state's internal exercise of democracy, it was
: more than just lecturing, was it not?
It was more than just lecturing.
It was very petulant and childish,
I'm-not-going-to-sit-in-the-same-room-as-you stuff, Austria being frozen
out, ignored.
(It's worth noting that, although Haider's lot had then been accepted into
the coalition, not one single piece of supposedly far-right legislation had
been passed, let alone even proposed; and yet the EU reacted as if Genghis
Khann himself had taken up residence at the Hofburg.)
Good came of it though.
Many anti-Haider Austrians saw the EU for what it is, (a Federalist
machine on the run), and, in spite of their dislike of Haider, decided to
dislike the EU even more.
It's amusing (or not) to note that these EU characters who came over to US
to lecture you on your barbarous ways, (here in UK convicted child killers
get to do Sociology degrees, look after the Prison Governor's dog, and even
think they have the right to be released), aren't in any way elected you
know, or even accountable.
You have the likes of Euro-Commissioner Chris Patten, appointed to office,
quite outside any popular-democratic terms of reference, presuming moral
superiority over the currently-elected US administration.......... (well,
OK, I *know* many on AUE don't think Bush *was* elected; but Gore's view on
the death-penalty issue was the same, so, for the sake of argument, if there
were a President Gore today the EU would still have the same gripe).
Brian J Goggin
They both have the same obsession with aliens, but the *Fortean Times*
has a slightly firmer grasp on reality.
bjg
Rowan Dingle
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:25:27 -0000, "Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai"
>>: I have evidence that you read the *Daily Telegraph*.
>>:
>>: I recommend changing to the *Fortean Times*.
>>
>>..... the difference being?
>
>They both have the same obsession with aliens, but the *Fortean Times*
>has a slightly firmer grasp on reality.
Isn't it that the Fortean Times is obsessed with people who think
themselves under attack by aliens, whereas the Telegraph obsessively
attacks those who are obsessed with the notion that aliens are under
attack?
--
Rowan Dingle
Harvey V
<PN2Z+NAv...@wickenden.demon.co.uk>:
Nah -- the Telegraph just doesn't like aliens. Of any sort.
Harvey
(who is partial to the Guardian crossword rather than the
Telegraph's -- the only legitimate basis for choosing between
papers......:))
Brian J Goggin
<din...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>How many more decades does the EU need before it does something rightly?
What sort of thing interests you?
>Surely it's legitimate to take a pattern of behaviour established over
>30 or 40 years as a model for likely future behaviour? (How many decades
>is it now that CAP reform has been universally recognised as the single
>most urgent matter that the EU should attend to?)
Sure.
Now convince the member governments --- rather than the central
secretariat --- that they should put their farmers out of business.
Very few governments --- New Zealand's is an honourable exception ---
have had the courage to tell their farmers to take a running jump. In
Briitain's case, one insane, homegrown policy was replaced by another
--- and significant elements of the current CAP reflect British ideas.
>If, instead of a
>multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-aspirational, multi-definitional
>federal state (tricky), the EU wanted to become a simple forum for
>occasional discussions between sovereign heads of state (easy: merely a
>matter of fixing a date and booking a conference centre), it would still
>cock it up somehow. That's what the EU does: it cocks things up.
You've reified this thing called "the EU". You somehow seem to feel
that it exists in some sphere above and beyond the member governments.
It is run by a Council of Ministers: that's ministers of the member
governments. If you don't like something, ask your government to
change it.
If, on the other hand, you prefer to imagine plots concocted in smoky
back-rooms by evil foreign johnnies, go right ahead.
It is possible, of course, that you have a better alternative to
offer: an incredibly efficient, lean, effective bureaucracy, for
instance, like the Board of Trade under dear old Wedgie (which brought
you Concorde, the flying white elephant). If you have discovered the
secret, do please let us know.
But I think it possible that objection to bureaucracy is not the sole
source of your unhappiness with the EU.
[...]
>Er, we've had peace and stability in western Europe for nearly six
>decades. We don't need no steenking federales to tell us how to have
>peace and stability.
Yes: during most of which decades the EU and its predecessor bodies
were in existence. During most of that time, the single largest armed
conflict within the Eurozone took place in the UK. And during most of
the period, HMG was involved in armed conflicts over a goodly portion
of the world: Korea, China, much of Africa, South America, Cyprus,
Malaysia, the middle east .... The EU is actually a plot to have
violent British instincts subdued by contact with peace-loving nations
like Ireland and Germany.
>>> But pen together national groupings into federal units, force
>>>nationalities to be subservient under a federal government, and, when the
>>>idealism has run its day, the individual constituent parts will start to
>>>pull from the centre.
>>
>>Ah.
>>
>>Took us several hundred years to get that point across to your chaps.
>>Glad to see it's sinking in.
>
>You're not trying to have it both ways are you, by any chance?
Snigger.
More seriously, I wrote it in the context of my earlier point, that
asking peoples whether they wanted to be involved in a Greater Union
was a good idea. Personally, I would have no objection were England
--- or regions thereof --- to withdraw from the EU.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote:
[...]
>It does seem to be threatening a bit more than lecturing, in both instances.
>The EU delegates were threatening to obstruct American justice (as Americans
>view it) by refusing to extradite wanted criminals if the possibility exists
>that they will face American justice, rather than European justice.
I read the *Telegraph* editorial and fell about laughing. the same
newspaper has in the past been unhappy when US judges refused to
extradite to the UK certain persons of the republican persuasion.
>And
>while I forget the details of the "political sanctions" the EU wanted to
>impose on Austria for that state's internal exercise of democracy, it was
>more than just lecturing, was it not?
Lecturing was Rudolf's word, used in the context of the Telegraph
editorial; it seemed to me that for the EU to lecture the USA was
preferable to our sending our bombers to attempt to kill your head of
state, reduce your chemicals factories to rubble, bomb your car
factories or spread depleted uranium over your landscape.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<ta...@face.value> wrote:
[...]
> Many anti-Haider Austrians saw the EU for what it is, (a Federalist
>machine on the run), and, in spite of their dislike of Haider, decided to
>dislike the EU even more.
States interfere in each other's affairs all the time. Britain and the
USA do it by bombing and economic blockades; other EU states take less
drastic action.
>It's amusing (or not) to note that these EU characters who came over to US
>to lecture you on your barbarous ways, (here in UK convicted child killers
>get to do Sociology degrees, look after the Prison Governor's dog, and even
>think they have the right to be released), aren't in any way elected you
>know, or even accountable.
You're getting carried away, Rudolf. There are lots of appointed,
unelected officials around the place. Look at the US Cabinet, for
instance, or the UK head of state, or even the Lord Chancellor.
In order to avoid further ocnfusion, perhaps the debate on penal
policy might be taken to another thread.
> You have the likes of Euro-Commissioner Chris Patten, appointed to office,
>quite outside any popular-democratic terms of reference, presuming moral
>superiority over the currently-elected US administration.......... (well,
>OK, I *know* many on AUE don't think Bush *was* elected; but Gore's view on
>the death-penalty issue was the same, so, for the sake of argument, if there
>were a President Gore today the EU would still have the same gripe).
Indeed. And we've had Britain and the USA interfering in Serbia,
Libya, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chile .... Neither the British nor the US
government was elected by the people of Serbia, Libya, Iran, Iraq,
Cuba or Chile.
bjg
Padraig Breathnach
>... it seemed to me that for the EU to lecture the USA was
>preferable to our sending our bombers to attempt to kill your head of
>state, reduce your chemicals factories to rubble, bomb your car
>factories or spread depleted uranium over your landscape.
>
You sure?
PB
Michael Jameson
Are you referring to a paper copy? I've enjoyed trawling through the
website several times but I've never seen a copy of the thing as a
newpaper or magazine.
> bjg
Michael Jameson.
Mark Barratt
>Er, we've had peace and stability in western Europe for nearly six
>decades. We don't need no steenking federales to tell us how to have
>peace and stability.
I'm sorry, is that me? <sniffs armpits> Well, it's the end of a long day
Rowan. I'm sorry, I hadn't realised you could detect it. Tell you what,
I'll take a shower before I post anymore, OK?
Een federaaliste
Mark Barratt
> And
>while I forget the details of the "political sanctions" the EU wanted to
>impose on Austria for that state's internal exercise of democracy, it was
>more than just lecturing, was it not?
This is the same mindless Eurobabble I complained about recently from
another poster. When you construct such a patently self-contradictory
sentence, who or what do you imagine this strange, alien "EU" to be? All
those foreign johnnies with their funny languages and preponderance for
eating the obviously inedible?
Simple logic tells us that if "The EU" wanted to do something, then it
would need to be beyond their power to do so to prevent them from doing
it, no? The remainder of the argument is left as an exercise for the
awake.
As an Englishman, and therefore British, I am equally a citizen of the
EU. This gives me the right to live, work and trade anywhere in any of
the member countries of the union. It also gives me the right to
participate in the election of the European Parliament.
Of course, the European Parliament is just a powerless talking-shop
populated by national politicians that have been manoeuvred out of any
real position of power in their own countries, and the real power is
manipulated by the European Commission, which is appointed by the
respective governments, but as an EU citizen I also have the right to
vote for the national government of whichever country I'm residing in,
so that's also partly down to me.
My vision of the future of Europe is of the not-directly-democratic
commission (and thus, ultimately, the individual national governments)
yielding more and more power to the directly elected Parliament,
eventually leading to a Europe with a single legal system, a single
economy, and the advantage of shared rather than competing resources; in
which the election of national governments will become as much a
non-event as local council elections are all over Britain today.
Just mijn twee centen.
Mark Barratt
Charles Riggs
<mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>I am not a Belgian. Somebody implying here that I am is simply spreading
>disinformation. If I corrected the mistake impolitely, it was through
>exasperation at the unreliable source.
You've been in Belgium for a year now so you are part Belgian. As the
great Flann O'Brien noted, what makes a person Irish is eating, over a
period of time, food grown in Irish dirt. So it goes with Belgians.
>In one year here, I have not noticed any significant differences between
>Belgians, English people, French people, Americans, Hungarians,
>Croatians, whatever. You can tell them apart by their accents and
>languages, but that doesn't tell you what they're going to think on any
>particular matter.
You are not an observant man; you could never be an artist. People
differ radically due to their nationality and anyone who knows and
loves people is aware of this. In the tourist town I live in we get
people visiting from all over the place and the town consensus is as
follows:
Scots -- the best. Who couldn't love them?
Australians -- very sociable. I've never heard a bad word said about
them.
English -- respected and liked wherever they go.
Americans -- friendly, popular people. A little loud sometimes, but
tolerable.
Spaniards -- though they tend to keep to themselves, they are fun when
you get to know them.
Germans -- mixed reactions. They can be a bit pushy, can't they?
Chinese, Japanese and Negroes -- to be avoided. (Personally, I don't
hold this opinion about the Chinese and Japanese.)
French -- absolute bottom of the list. (Perhaps because we don't get
many Belgians.) Totally disliked by barmen because they'll sit for
hours over a single cup of coffee or a coke. My main experience with
them was in Paris where I found them to be the most boorish people
I've ever encountered. But then I haven't been to Brussels.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
(Harvey V) wrote:
>"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
><NukxBOAG...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>:
>>In article <L0yp6.2199$qB4.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>>Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> writes
>>>Mark Barratt said:
>>>
>>><snips so various I'll lose the attributions many>
>
><snips over 100 lines.....>
>>
>>Attaboy Rudy! You tell 'em!
>>
>>Mike
>
>Jeez, Mike -- you could'a snipped some of that: I had to scroll for miles
>to see those 5 words! ;)
I'm with you, Harvey. I generally skip altogether any post over 80
lines. Most of them are merely quotes of what others have already said
and most of the others are just rants. It seems that some of us here
don't know where their delete button is located and others can't write
concisely.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<ta...@face.value> wrote:
>I am, Rudolf, a Czech-Ruthenian-Austrian, born and living in UK, having
>lived in Spain, cooking and drinking off the sheer richness of
>'Europe'.......... hardly your Little Englander.
> I love Europe.
> I love it to utter bits.
> I love it so much I hate the notion that it should be fitted within a
>Federalist straightjacket.
I agree. I'll also say that I may love Europe even more than you love
Europe for who can love Europe more than sometime who comes from
somewhere else and therefore better appreciates what Europe offers.
I've lived in Ireland and Germany and have visited Denmark, Spain,
Italy, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Austria, England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland, France, and Wales. Prague and the Greek islands are next on
my list of fine places to go.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<b...@wordwrights.ie> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:50:20 -0000, "Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai"
><ta...@face.value> wrote:
>
>> A federal Europe would, after a few Elysian years, highlight the ancient
>>fault lines rather than eradicate them.
>
>It might, if it were done wrongly. On the other hand, if it were truly
>federal rather than unitary, the "ancient fault lines" could be a
>source of good rather than of bad things.
>
>Our American cousins seem to have managed to preserve, after several
>hundred years, a strong attachment to states' rights: so much so,
>indeed, that their federal government is pretty well powerless (except
>when it comes to bombing other countries).
Name one which didn't damn well deserve it. You should thank America
for preserving your freedom. Without them, this would be
alt.usage.german instead of alt.usage.english. Mightn't be so bad at
that -- at least I'd be able to find veal in my supermarket.
Charles Riggs
Mark Barratt
[...]
>Yes: during most of which decades the EU and its predecessor bodies
>were in existence. During most of that time, the single largest armed
>conflict within the Eurozone took place in the UK. And during most of
>the period, HMG was involved in armed conflicts over a goodly portion
>of the world: Korea, China, much of Africa, South America, Cyprus,
>Malaysia, the middle east .... The EU is actually a plot to have
>violent British instincts subdued by contact with peace-loving nations
>like Ireland and Germany.
Well, it wouldn't be too hard to find examples of either Germans or
Irishmen who fall somewhat short of your ideal, but your point is made.
[...]
>More seriously, I wrote it in the context of my earlier point, that
>asking peoples whether they wanted to be involved in a Greater Union
>was a good idea. Personally, I would have no objection were England
>--- or regions thereof --- to withdraw from the EU.
Wouldn't bother me much, either. I have one Irish grandparent so I
figure I could always sneak in the back way. I think your
characterisation of the British regime as historically "violent" is
naive, by the way. Violence is merely an expression of power.
Kind regards
Mark Barratt
Mark Barratt
>Indeed. And we've had Britain and the USA interfering in Serbia,
>Libya, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chile .... Neither the British nor the US
>government was elected by the people of Serbia, Libya, Iran, Iraq,
>Cuba or Chile.
Although, to be fair, neither have the people of those countries had a
chance to elect anybody.
The people of Argentina have an advantage over those of America and
Britain: No government of their choice has ever chosen to wage war upon
another country. This innocence is shared by the peoples of the
countries that you mention. Let us hope that they can maintain this
innocence as they all (as I hope is inevitable) gradually become
democracies.
Aspirations,
Mark Barratt
Michael West
"Charles Riggs" wrote:
>
> You are not an observant man; you could never be an artist. People
> differ radically due to their nationality and anyone who knows and
> loves people is aware of this. In the tourist town I live in we get
> people visiting from all over the place and the town consensus is as
> follows:
[...]
> Chinese, Japanese and Negroes -- to be avoided. (Personally, I don't
> hold this opinion about the Chinese and Japanese.)
"Negroes" is not a "nationality". It must be their incessant tap-dancing,
watermelon-eating and banjo-playing that annoys you, Charles.
Surely it wouldn't be their skin pigmentation, because that would
make you a petty bigot rather than the sophisticated bon vivant
you know yourself to be.
I'd question whether "Chinese" defines a nationality in any
except a very technical sense. There are diverse language and
ethnic groups in the "nation" of China, and I doubt they exhibit
many similar behaviors. They just about all do have slanty eyes,
though, which is a real turn-off.
--
Michael West
Melbourne
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
>"Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai" <ta...@face.value> wrote:
>
>...
>> The UK and the current appeasement of terrorist-driven Irish nationalism
>>(vis-à-vis Northern Ireland).
>...
>>If you can't keep these sub-nation groups happy within nation states, how on
>>earth do you imagine a Federal Europe is going to be a contented place?
>>
>It is a good idea, when you know nothing about a subject, to say
>nothing.
>
>PB
Good God, man! The whole world knows about the subject.
Ross Howard
<rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote:
>It does seem to be threatening a bit more than lecturing, in both instances.
>The EU delegates were threatening to obstruct American justice (as Americans
>view it) by refusing to extradite wanted criminals if the possibility exists
>that they will face American justice, rather than European justice.
That was just tit for tat, following the USA's determination to stymie
all initiatives to progress with international criminal law, largely,
it appears, as a knee-jerk reaction to the unthinkable notion that the
child rapists in their armed forces could be tried by any body other
than a court martial back home). The mutual threatening and lecturing
is called diplomacy, I gather.
Ross Howard
Padraig Breathnach
> You should thank America
>for preserving your freedom. Without them, this would be
>alt.usage.german instead of alt.usage.english. Mightn't be so bad at
>that -- at least I'd be able to find veal in my supermarket.
>
Thank you, America.
But please don't let the occasional success go to your collective
head: many of your robust foreign policy activities have been wrong.
PB
Brian J Goggin
<mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>Wouldn't bother me much, either. I have one Irish grandparent so I
>figure I could always sneak in the back way. I think your
>characterisation of the British regime as historically "violent" is
>naive, by the way. Violence is merely an expression of power.
Yes; sorry: I intended that semi-jokingly, in response to RD's point
>we've had peace and stability in western Europe for nearly six
>decades.
I wanted to show that the original EEC member-states had been more
peaceful throughout that period than Britain had been.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>Brian J Goggin wrote:
>> >: I have evidence that you read the *Daily Telegraph*.
>> >: I recommend changing to the *Fortean Times*.
>> They both have the same obsession with aliens, but the *Fortean Times*
>> has a slightly firmer grasp on reality.
>Are you referring to a paper copy? I've enjoyed trawling through the
>website several times but I've never seen a copy of the thing as a
>newpaper or magazine.
You can subscribe online.
Personally, I read about it in the *Sunday Telegraph*.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:45:31 +0000, Brian J Goggin
><b...@wordwrights.ie> wrote:
>>Our American cousins seem to have managed to preserve, after several
>>hundred years, a strong attachment to states' rights: so much so,
>>indeed, that their federal government is pretty well powerless (except
>>when it comes to bombing other countries).
>Name one which didn't damn well deserve it.
You must keep up, Charles. We're not talking about "deserving" as
though there were some absolute standard of morality; we're talking
about who gets to make the decisions and whether others can comment on
them.
>You should thank America
>for preserving your freedom. Without them, this would be
>alt.usage.german instead of alt.usage.english.
Personally, I felt under no threat from Libya, Serbia or Vietnam ---
and I had not realised that any of them was likely to force me to
speak German.
>Mightn't be so bad at
>that -- at least I'd be able to find veal in my supermarket.
Charles, it is clear that you are too good for us in Ireland.
bjg
Stephen Toogood
<whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com> writes
>Harvey
>
>(who is partial to the Guardian crossword rather than the
>Telegraph's -- the only legitimate basis for choosing between
>papers......:))
>
Set by Bunthorne a while back.
--
Stephen Toogood
Stephen Toogood
<mark.b...@chello.be> writes
>
>Of course, the European Parliament is just a powerless talking-shop
>populated by national politicians that have been manoeuvred out of any
>real position of power in their own countries, and the real power is
>manipulated by the European Commission, which is appointed by the
>respective governments, but as an EU citizen I also have the right to
>vote for the national government of whichever country I'm residing in,
>so that's also partly down to me.
>
>My vision of the future of Europe is of the not-directly-democratic
>commission (and thus, ultimately, the individual national governments)
>yielding more and more power to the directly elected Parliament,
>eventually leading to a Europe with a single legal system, a single
>economy, and the advantage of shared rather than competing resources; in
>which the election of national governments will become as much a
>non-event as local council elections are all over Britain today.
>
for me to join all the jolly swimmers in the water.
I'm with you in general terms, Mark, but I must react to the last
paragraph.
There seem to be at least three mis-conceptions that the majority of
anti-Europeans has. The first is that the un-accountable behaviour of
the Commission is something that is inherent to the EU set-up. The
Commission should of course be accountable to the European Parliament,
and the fact that it isn't is due entirely to the refusal of national
governments to give the parliament the powers it needs. A greater role
for MEPs is a means of redressing this, not of submission to it.
The second mis-conception is about the principle they call
'subsidiarity', which was quite deliberately so badly explained by our
own press and politicians. Subsidiarity means limiting the
centralisation of powers as much as possible, and taking decisions at
the most local possible level, and not the maximum centralisation of
powers as most seem to suppose. What Westminster has to fear, and it
does indeed fear it very greatly, is loss of power to local government,
rather than loss of power to Brussel.
This then is where I question what you wrote, because I think that in
your vision local elections would become actually more important, and
'an event' again, as they once were before central government began
clawing away their powers. I have to agree though, that the Westminster
elections would lose some of their importance. The prize almost complete
power would shrink, (much the same as it would if we had a decent
electoral system, but I digress).
The third, and in some ways the most distressing misconception is that
there is actually any long-term possibility of things remaining as they
are. The trends in globalisation will force a choice between increasing
ties with Europe, increasing ties with the USA, or becoming completely
sidelined. It is mischief to pretend otherwise.
--
Stephen Toogood
Michael Jameson
Nope, I haven't got it but I have to offer my all time favourite cryptic
clue -
At the end of the trail the Pearly Gates are unattended (6,3).
I think it was in The Times, no idea when.
Michael Jameson.
Harvey V
<usAna7BG...@stenches.demon.co.uk>:
Apprehension?
Harvey V
<3AA9081E...@hunterlink.net.au>:
I think I got Stephen's OK; I'll have to think on this one a bit. (I'm
looking for the catch of different setting conventions of the two papers.)
In the meantime, how about:
Ofofofofofofofofofof (10)
Or, the perhaps one that was supposed to have appeared in the Times or FT
around 1970:
Listen carefully for a sexual perversion. (5,2,4,4)
Harvey
Harvey V
<snip>
>Nope, I haven't got it but I have to offer my all time favourite
>cryptic clue -
>
>At the end of the trail the Pearly Gates are unattended (6,3).
>
>I think it was in The Times, no idea when.
>
>Michael Jameson.
>
>
Aha. Peters out.
Harvey
Brian J Goggin
<m.ja...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>At the end of the trail the Pearly Gates are unattended (6,3).
Peters out?
bjg
Brian J Goggin
(Harvey V) wrote:
>In the meantime, how about:
>
>Ofofofofofofofofofof (10)
Oftentimes.
>Or, the perhaps one that was supposed to have appeared in the Times or FT
>around 1970:
>
>Listen carefully for a sexual perversion. (5,2,4,4)
Joe Orton.
bjg
Mike Barnes
>Ofofofofofofofofofof (10)
Neat! <ROT-13>Bsgragvzrf</ROT-13>
--
Mike Barnes
Mike Barnes
>around 1970:
>
>Listen carefully for a sexual perversion. (5,2,4,4)
The shocking pink FT? <ROT-13>Cevpx hc lbhe rnef</ROT-13>
--
Mike Barnes
Mike Barnes
uk> wrote
>Fear of arrest (12)
How does <ROT-13>Nccerurafvba</ROT-13> sound?
--
Mike Barnes
Rowan Dingle
>Rowan Dingle <din...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Er, we've had peace and stability in western Europe for nearly six
>>decades. We don't need no steenking federales to tell us how to have
>>peace and stability.
>
>I'm sorry, is that me? <sniffs armpits> Well, it's the end of a long day
>Rowan. I'm sorry, I hadn't realised you could detect it. Tell you what,
>I'll take a shower before I post anymore, OK?
>
>Een federaaliste
Thank you. You smell like a badger.
--
Rowan Dingle
Rowan Dingle
[...]
>The third, and in some ways the most distressing misconception is that
>there is actually any long-term possibility of things remaining as they
>are. The trends in globalisation will force a choice between increasing
>ties with Europe, increasing ties with the USA, or becoming completely
>sidelined. It is mischief to pretend otherwise.
Is this third assertion of yours the one about global trends being
towards nations co-operating in regional associations?
This does seem to be true. In various parts of the world, nations are
signing up to regional economic communities. It's also true that multi-
national federations are being dismantled.
And what does Europe do? It turns it back on world trends, that's what.
It converts its regional economic community into a multi-national
federation.
Bring back the EEC, I say.
--
Rowan Dingle
Rowan Dingle
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:15:17 +0000, Rowan Dingle
>>How many more decades does the EU need before it does something rightly?
>
>What sort of thing interests you?
Well, how about the EU's annual accounts? (Or is it the EC's?) The
official auditors have refused to sign them off for the last five (six?)
years because of the huge amounts of money gone missing from the books
through pilfering or cluelessness. IIRC, the percentage of 'lost' money
averages about 15% of the total budget - several UKP billions a year.
>>Surely it's legitimate to take a pattern of behaviour established over
>>30 or 40 years as a model for likely future behaviour? (How many decades
>>is it now that CAP reform has been universally recognised as the single
>>most urgent matter that the EU should attend to?)
>
>Sure.
>
>Now convince the member governments --- rather than the central
>secretariat --- that they should put their farmers out of business.
Personally, I'm in favour of some form of subsidy for some types of
farms. What I don't like is the scale of CAP subsidies and the monstrous
inefficiency and corruption in the system, plus lunacies like Britain
(and other states?) not being allowed to produce more than 90% of its
own milk requirements and subsidies being paid to tobacco farmers when
the EU is spending money trying to curb smoking. In the US, I think,
they have a system whereby if small, inefficient farms are seen as
necessary for social (or perhaps even scenic) reasons in a certain area,
small-farmers are paid a regular dole (not tied to output) to boost
their earnings. Social engineering if you like, but it sounds good to
me. Larger, efficient farms still determine market prices, so the
consumer doesn't suffer, yet certain inefficient farms are able to
survive.
>Very few governments --- New Zealand's is an honourable exception ---
>have had the courage to tell their farmers to take a running jump. In
>Briitain's case, one insane, homegrown policy was replaced by another
>--- and significant elements of the current CAP reflect British ideas.
NZ's example might suggest to some that a sovereign state can reform
itself the way it wants easier than can a supra-national dog's dinner.
Britain, the home of agricultural subsidy, would surely be able to mould
the subsidy system to its own requirements far easier if not constrained
by the needs of, say, Italian politicians needing the support of olive-
growers in an election year.
The solution? Dunno. I'd say 'Abolish CAP and let each member state
find its own solution using its own funds' but that would probably lead
to heavily-subsidised producers putting the less subsidised out of
business. (A problem even now, despite all the regulations.)
The usual answer is 'more power for Brussels': a federal government. No
matter how loose the federation, it would be a more centrist entity than
the current EU and it would probably be able to break the stranglehold
that parochial pork-barrel politics has on CAP.
Well, I don't want a one-size-fits-all agriculture policy. (So I must be
a Little Englander after all, right?) If British politicians need the
support of pig-farmers in an election year (unlikely) they should be
able to offer policies they can deliver. Likewise, if pampered, confused
metropolitan Britons want to do away with pig-farming altogether and
they can out-vote their country cousins in a British election, no 'we
know best' supra-national body should be able to over-rule them - and
certainly not a supra-national body that has grown out of an
inefficient, bloated, corrupt, bizarre, push-me-pull-you entity like the
EU. (As I said originally, after a while it's legitimate to take past
performance as an indicator of things to come.)
>>If, instead of a
>>multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-aspirational, multi-definitional
>>federal state (tricky), the EU wanted to become a simple forum for
>>occasional discussions between sovereign heads of state (easy: merely a
>>matter of fixing a date and booking a conference centre), it would still
>>cock it up somehow. That's what the EU does: it cocks things up.
>
>You've reified this thing called "the EU". You somehow seem to feel
>that it exists in some sphere above and beyond the member governments.
>It is run by a Council of Ministers: that's ministers of the member
>governments.
The EU is steered (now and then) by a Council of Ministers; it is run by
the European Commission, an inefficient but tireless body of unelected
'ever-closer union' enthusiasts led by a panel of unelected elder
statesmen drawn by quota from the member states - a panel which was
sacked by the European Parliament a year or two ago for corruption and
incompetence yet is still somehow largely intact (unless I'm out of
date).
And I do indeed think that the EU 'exists in some sphere above and
beyond its member governments'. The European Commission, the motor of
the EU, is almost completely unaccountable to the electorates of the
member states. It has a life of its own, an agenda of its own. It's an
unelected executive-in-waiting (except that it's not really waiting).
And the 'above' in your 'above and beyond' is, in my view, very apt. At
the heart of the EU is a large coterie of enthusiasts who are so certain
of the rightness of their vision that they consider themselves above
such petty considerations as legality and democratic accountability.
(Glenys Kinnock, MEP for (North?) Wales and wife of (sacked but somehow
still in office) European Commissioner Neil Kinnock, was interviewed on
Radio 5 Live the other day. She sounded like she's been living on Mars,
a place where she is obviously very healthy, wealthy and happy but where
equally obviously she is completely unaware of and unconcerned about the
doings and needs of the people who have sent her there. All she wanted
to talk about was little babies dying in South Africa (where she'd just
come from) and World Women's Day (where she was going next), whatever
(and wherever) that is. She also mentioned recent trips she's made to
Papua New Guinea and a few other far-flung places - very nice, I'm sure,
but nothing much to do with Wales, or even with Europe. With all this
jetting about it's perhaps not surprising that she'd forgotten that the
UK's annual budget was to be announced and debated a few hours later.)
> If you don't like something, ask your government to
>change it.
Ha! I thought you read the British papers.
Anyone who expresses reservations about the current state of the EU or
about where it's heading is pilloried as a xenophobic monster - and not
just by the government (which describes itself as the Listening
Government: double ha!) but by the Lib Dems, many Conservatives and a
large section of the general population.
Our problem? Yes. (Personally, I think it has something to do with post-
colonial guilt.) But even if we solve it and get an open and grown-up EU
debate going, in and out of Parliament, our government is only one
amongst... sixteen is it now?
>If, on the other hand, you prefer to imagine plots concocted in smoky
>back-rooms by evil foreign johnnies, go right ahead.
Now we're getting to the heart of it. I am a xenophobic monster. See how
you are?
But perhaps you were thinking of my 'd'Yquem' dialogue in another post?
When I wrote that, I actually had in mind Roy Jenkins or Edward heath.
It's not a question of evil foreign johnnies but of an international
club of like-minded enthusiasts and I'm parochial enough to be chiefly
concerned about what the British members of that club get up too.
(Though the audacious scale of corruption practised by the foreign
johnnies does, of course, catch my eye every now and then.) British EU-
enthusiasts, unlike many or even most of their foreign colleagues, *are*
addicted to 'plots concocted in smoky back-rooms' - they are unwilling
to pursue their aims openly. Mainland politicians haven't ever concealed
the 'ever-closer union' aspect of the EEC/EU from their electors; almost
all mainstream British politicians always have.
>It is possible, of course, that you have a better alternative to
>offer: an incredibly efficient, lean, effective bureaucracy, for
>instance, like the Board of Trade under dear old Wedgie (which brought
>you Concorde, the flying white elephant). If you have discovered the
>secret, do please let us know.
Yes, Whitehall is out of control. It is responsible for much of the red
tape labelled as 'EU interfering' by the tabloids and by 'Bonkers'
Booker in the Telegraph. The EU has been a very useful smokescreen for
whatever it is Whitehall thinks it's up to.
But what's that got to do with the rights and wrongs of a federal
Europe? If Britain wants to go to hell in a hand-basket it has every
right to do so - as much right as Bangladeshis or Cubans. Self-
determination, old boy.
(As my independent state paid some of the bills to help your independent
state get through its economic adolescence, I think I have the right to
say the following: if you want to make a clear case for a federal
Europe, it would help if you disentangled your disapproval of certain
aspects of Britishness from your approval of the EU.)
>But I think it possible that objection to bureaucracy is not the sole
>source of your unhappiness with the EU.
You're right. You've been paying attention, I see.
Apart from a throwaway snigger about 'paper', I didn't mention
bureaucracy in the post you've just responded to. My objection was that
the EU doesn't work - indeed, in its current quasi-governmental form, I
reckon it's unworkable. Bring back the EEC (with or without CAP).
>[...]
>
>>Er, we've had peace and stability in western Europe for nearly six
>>decades. We don't need no steenking federales to tell us how to have
>>peace and stability.
>
>Yes: during most of which decades the EU and its predecessor bodies
>were in existence.
Yes. Its predecessor bodies. We are (or were) talking about a future
federal Europe.
> During most of that time, the single largest armed
>conflict within the Eurozone took place in the UK. And during most of
>the period, HMG was involved in armed conflicts over a goodly portion
>of the world: Korea, China, much of Africa, South America, Cyprus,
>Malaysia, the middle east .... The EU is actually a plot to have
>violent British instincts subdued by contact with peace-loving nations
>like Ireland and Germany.
(Peace-loving states like Ireland, yes, but 'nations'?)
What's your point?
The 'single largest armed conflict' in western Europe has been in the UK
(if by 'largest' you mean numbers of soldiers on the streets etc.,
you're probably right; if, however, you mean numbers killed, I think
Spain has that honour), plus the UK has fought wars outside western
Europe.
And?
A few small nationalist conflicts, no matter how bitter or bloody, don't
change the overall picture: western Europe has enjoyed peace and
stability for 56 years, and it has achieved these without the help of a
Federal Government of Western Europe (Titoesque or otherwise). The
credit belongs to the Marshall Plan and Mutually Assured Destruction,
then to trade agreements, prosperity and, most of all, an almost
universal popular desire not to repeat the horrors of the first half of
the century. People, not governments.
>>>> But pen together national groupings into federal units, force
>>>>nationalities to be subservient under a federal government, and, when the
>>>>idealism has run its day, the individual constituent parts will start to
>>>>pull from the centre.
>>>
>>>Ah.
>>>
>>>Took us several hundred years to get that point across to your chaps.
>>>Glad to see it's sinking in.
>>
>>You're not trying to have it both ways are you, by any chance?
>
>Snigger.
Good lord, has the virus crossed the Irish Sea already?
>More seriously, I wrote it in the context of my earlier point, that
>asking peoples whether they wanted to be involved in a Greater Union
>was a good idea.
Yes, I see that now.
> Personally, I would have no objection were England
>--- or regions thereof --- to withdraw from the EU.
Beware! If London and the other wealthy regions withdraw, Ireland might
have to start subsidising the rest. You won't mind, of course, but what
about your great unwashed?
--
Rowan Dingle
Robert Lieblich
Well, you'll just have to take my word for it that I, an American,
got it on my own.[1] And here I was feeling so proud.
This is a rerun (no cheating, those of you who have seen it), but I
do so love it: Bust down reason (9).
[1] Having arrived after much development of the thread, I figured
someone might have preceded me.
Richard Tobin
Land of hope and - (7)
-- Richard
--
Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the headers.
printf("%.*s\n", len, str);
Brian J Goggin
<din...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, how about the EU's annual accounts? (Or is it the EC's?) The
>official auditors have refused to sign them off for the last five (six?)
>years because of the huge amounts of money gone missing from the books
>through pilfering or cluelessness. IIRC, the percentage of 'lost' money
>averages about 15% of the total budget - several UKP billions a year.
Tut tut. Dreadful. I'd speak to them, if I were you.
However, the sums involved are very small. Do you have opinions on
anything important?
>Personally, I'm in favour of some form of subsidy for some types of
>farms. What I don't like is the scale of CAP subsidies [...]
Well, we might agree on agricultural policy. Worldwide, it's insane,
but I think that national governments --- driven by a lunatic desire
to subsidise producers and penalise consumers --- are to blame.
>NZ's example might suggest to some that a sovereign state can reform
>itself the way it wants easier than can a supra-national dog's dinner.
>Britain, the home of agricultural subsidy, would surely be able to mould
>the subsidy system to its own requirements far easier if not constrained
>by the needs of, say, Italian politicians needing the support of olive-
>growers in an election year.
Er, Britain had its own insane system for years. Personally, I think
that the answer lies in the soil ... er ... the answer lies in
abolishing subsidies and letting world prices reign, while taking full
advantage of any subsidies that foreign governments offer to their own
producers. I'm proposing that at length in another forum, so I won't
bother you with it. I think you're giving too much prominence to the
CAP, though.
[...]
>The EU is steered (now and then) by a Council of Ministers; it is run by
>the European Commission, an inefficient but tireless body of unelected
>'ever-closer union' enthusiasts led by a panel of unelected elder
>statesmen drawn by quota from the member states - a panel which was
>sacked by the European Parliament a year or two ago for corruption and
>incompetence yet is still somehow largely intact (unless I'm out of
>date).
Er .... You are, a bit. First of all, its members are appointed by the
member governments, just as (say) ambassadors are. Second, one
commission did depart, but it has a successor.
>And I do indeed think that the EU 'exists in some sphere above and
>beyond its member governments'. The European Commission, the motor of
>the EU, is almost completely unaccountable to the electorates of the
>member states. It has a life of its own, an agenda of its own. It's an
>unelected executive-in-waiting (except that it's not really waiting).
You are right that it is unaccountable to the electorates, and some of
us think it should be. However, it is controllable by the member
governments, which are (I gather) elected by their national
electorates. If it is out of control, it is because national
governments are not doing their job.
>And the 'above' in your 'above and beyond' is, in my view, very apt. At
>the heart of the EU is a large coterie of enthusiasts who are so certain
>of the rightness of their vision that they consider themselves above
>such petty considerations as legality and democratic accountability.
Again, you ignore the role and potential power of national
governments.
>(Glenys Kinnock, MEP for (North?) Wales and wife of (sacked but somehow
>still in office) European Commissioner Neil Kinnock, was interviewed on
>Radio 5 Live the other day. She sounded like she's been living on Mars,
[...]
I understand that she is a Labour politician. What do you expect?
[...]
>Anyone who expresses reservations about the current state of the EU or
>about where it's heading is pilloried as a xenophobic monster - and not
>just by the government (which describes itself as the Listening
>Government: double ha!) but by the Lib Dems, many Conservatives and a
>large section of the general population.
To be honest, there seem to be both pots and kettles. To the
Telegraph, which I read, wogs begin at Calais and anything beginning
with the letters "eu" is bad (odd, considering that some must have had
a classical education); in the Observer, the points raised by the
Telegraph are rarely mentioned. Your government, in the meantime,
seems to do its best to avoid any serious engagement with the issues.
[I'm mentioning your government because we're talking about the UK,
not as a way of claiming that our gang of mad rent-seeking corporatist
fascists is either saintly or competent in comparison.]
The result seems to me to be (if you'll forgive my saying so) a debate
conducted with little reference to realities (including, that is, real
alternatives), little grounding in facts and a lot more heat than
light. It began with Sir Ted's being economical with the actualite'
and has continued ever since with every government avoiding the full
truth, good or bad, and trying to eliminate debate.
>Our problem? Yes. (Personally, I think it has something to do with post-
>colonial guilt.) But even if we solve it and get an open and grown-up EU
>debate going, in and out of Parliament, our government is only one
>amongst... sixteen is it now?
I dunno about post-colonial guilt, but I do think you have been badly
served by your governments in discussion of the options. I don't,
though, think that Britain is alone is having, or needing, discussion
of the issues; it might be useful to learn more of what's going on
elsewhere.
>When I wrote that, I actually had in mind Roy Jenkins or Edward heath.
>It's not a question of evil foreign johnnies but of an international
>club of like-minded enthusiasts and I'm parochial enough to be chiefly
>concerned about what the British members of that club get up too.
>(Though the audacious scale of corruption practised by the foreign
>johnnies does, of course, catch my eye every now and then.)
Cirruption is done in different ways in different places. It's to some
extent a matter of what you define as being legally acceptable and
what you define as being wrong. To my mind, anyone who gets rich by
using governmental power to distort the market or to screw the
consumers is a Bad Lad, whether it's done by putting a hand in the
till or by getting to sit on the board of the local TEC (or local
development commission or whatever they have nowadays). I read
*Private Eye* too, you see.
In these parts, planning permissions featuer largely.
>British EU-
>enthusiasts, unlike many or even most of their foreign colleagues, *are*
>addicted to 'plots concocted in smoky back-rooms' - they are unwilling
>to pursue their aims openly. Mainland politicians haven't ever concealed
>the 'ever-closer union' aspect of the EEC/EU from their electors; almost
>all mainstream British politicians always have.
Agreed.
>Yes, Whitehall is out of control. It is responsible for much of the red
>tape labelled as 'EU interfering' by the tabloids and by 'Bonkers'
>Booker in the Telegraph. The EU has been a very useful smokescreen for
>whatever it is Whitehall thinks it's up to.
Especially MAFF.
Ours, by the way, is called DAFF.
And deservedly so.
>But what's that got to do with the rights and wrongs of a federal
>Europe? If Britain wants to go to hell in a hand-basket it has every
>right to do so - as much right as Bangladeshis or Cubans. Self-
>determination, old boy.
>
>(As my independent state paid some of the bills to help your independent
>state get through its economic adolescence, I think I have the right to
>say the following: if you want to make a clear case for a federal
>Europe, it would help if you disentangled your disapproval of certain
>aspects of Britishness from your approval of the EU.)
Well, you did help yourselves to some of our silver in the olden days.
But I accept your basic point: for both of us, it would be useful to
disentangle the issues. I felt that your anti-federalist case was
mixed up with many other issues, some purely internal, and that I
couldn't really sort out the threads.
[...]
>Yes. Its predecessor bodies. We are (or were) talking about a future
>federal Europe.
[snip further illustration of the point]
I thought you were objecting to the current EU, rather than to a
potential future federal entity.
>Beware! If London and the other wealthy regions withdraw, Ireland might
>have to start subsidising the rest. You won't mind, of course, but what
>about your great unwashed?
Manual labour is a declining industry. they'll be so happy drinking
their latte frappes (or whatever the hell: I drink black coffee, so I
don't have to bother about all that) and chattering into their WAP
phones that they won't notice. Anyway, I gather our tax rates are, or
will soon be, below yours, so we'll be able to afford a few quid for
the deserving poor. So, as our 12.5% corporate tax rate attracts lots
more firms to Ireland, we'll be able to subsidise Germany and France.
I think we'll give up on Italy, though.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<b...@wordwrights.ie> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:15:40 +0000, Rowan Dingle
><din...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Well, how about the EU's annual accounts? (Or is it the EC's?) The
>>official auditors have refused to sign them off for the last five (six?)
>>years because of the huge amounts of money gone missing from the books
>>through pilfering or cluelessness. IIRC, the percentage of 'lost' money
>>averages about 15% of the total budget - several UKP billions a year.
>Tut tut. Dreadful. I'd speak to them, if I were you.
>However, the sums involved are very small. Do you have opinions on
>anything important?
[snip the rest of my posting]
Sorry: that was impolite and, in the context of the later discussion,
inappropriate. I withdraw the question and apologise for it. I should
have checked back to the start of my posting before sending it.
bjg [post & mail]
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>
>"Charles Riggs" wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> You are not an observant man; you could never be an artist. People
>> differ radically due to their nationality and anyone who knows and
>> loves people is aware of this. In the tourist town I live in we get
>> people visiting from all over the place and the town consensus is as
>> follows:
>
>[...]
>> Chinese, Japanese and Negroes -- to be avoided. (Personally, I don't
>> hold this opinion about the Chinese and Japanese.)
>
>
>
>"Negroes" is not a "nationality".
Right. I didn't say it was.
> It must be their incessant tap-dancing,
>watermelon-eating and banjo-playing that annoys you, Charles.
No, I hold those particular characteristics in the highest regard.
>Surely it wouldn't be their skin pigmentation, because that would
>make you a petty bigot rather than the sophisticated bon vivant
>you know yourself to be.
Their relative blackness or brownness is of no importance to me.
>I'd question whether "Chinese" defines a nationality in any
>except a very technical sense. There are diverse language and
>ethnic groups in the "nation" of China, and I doubt they exhibit
>many similar behaviors. They just about all do have slanty eyes,
>though, which is a real turn-off.
I don't mind them and since I am not a breast man, I often find their
women pleasant to look at as well.
Charles Riggs
Michael West
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:7kajat0tqbgvcmt12...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 05:38:09 GMT, "Michael West" <mbw...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles Riggs" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You are not an observant man; you could never be an artist. People
> >> differ radically due to their nationality and anyone who knows and
> >> loves people is aware of this. In the tourist town I live in we get
> >> people visiting from all over the place and the town consensus is as
> >> follows:
> >
> >[...]
> >> Chinese, Japanese and Negroes -- to be avoided. (Personally, I don't
> >> hold this opinion about the Chinese and Japanese.)
> >
> >
> >
> >"Negroes" is not a "nationality".
>
> Right. I didn't say it was.
Yes, you did. See above.
Your thesis was that "people differ radically due to their
nationality " and your next sentence was intended to
support that thesis. But as usual, trying to be cool, you
tripped on the rug and farted.
--
MW
Melbourne
Michael Jameson
Given that your reply saying you didn't have it yet was at 2:04 in my
browser and this was at 2:07 I'd have to say you're pretty acute when it
comes to cryptic clues, Harvey. I'll keep my eye out for any others that
might be interesting one way or another. I can't tell you why I like
this so one much, I think it's the twin meaning and the slightly
irreverent air to it. I really like the 'oftentimes' clue too. Umm,
there's another one that's trying to claw its way back from memory...
To receive a female in company (8).
> Harvey
Michael Jameson.