“A Quartz analysis of the database shows that almost two-thirds of terror attacks in the (United States) last year were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations,” its posting says. The remaining attacks, the web site said, “were driven by left-wing ideologies … and Islamic extremism.” Globally, terrorist attacks dropped from about 17,000 in 2014 to about 11,000 in 2017, including a 40 percent decline in the Middle East, according to Quartz's analysis of the START data. But the United States has seen a recent surge in terror-related violence, with 65 attacks last year, up from six in 2006, it said.
Yes, the wave of Islamic terrorism ídoes seem to have spawned a resurgence of home grown terrorism, but not just in America of course. One could cite non-Islamic groups in many countries ... Russia, Spain, UK, Sweden, Germany and so on. One might be able to find a clear cause and effect there. Action and Reaction. Just recently, in the UK , MI5 has taken over the fight against "Right Wing" terrorism, although why the term "Right Wing" is used seems simplistic. Top, Bottom, Left of Right ... Terrorism is Terrorism.
The nation state has reached its zenith, but that is a global phenomena, and the nation state isn't quite dead yet, or anytime soon.
Nation states, and nation states only, are members of the European Union. The nation states have taken power over the EU. There was a period, particularly under Delors, when the EU as an institution pushed the envelope, but the nation states have since pulled that envelope back. That includes Ersi's hated "eurokommissars", commissioners. Picked by the national governments. The European Commission, providing quality bureaucrats, is in any case in a subservient role. Power lies in the Council of the European Union and the European Council, both representing national governments. Claiming these institutions to be "undemocratic" is disingenuous. All member states are democracies, their national governments are democratically elected.
Of course, unlike the European Parliament, they are not directly elected. That is a feature. All this (that parliament excepted) strengthen the nation state within the EU.
At the time of the EU referendum that is pretty much the same as I argued.
But it has flaws in the way in which EU laws bypass National Parliaments. The number of laws far exceeds those generated by national parliaments. Correction - they do in the UK so I am assuming it is true elsewhere.
Laws are basically written by the EU Executive and in principle commented upon by the EU parliament, and essentially rubber stamped by the Council. So democracy has a role but the guiding hand is not that of accountable politicians. The other real problem is that the European Parliament is not representative of National Parliaments. They become vehicle for protest voting.
I start to loose interest of course but I'd like to see the European Parliament abolished or perhaps better since that would leave a law writing vacuum having it's EMPs made up from nominated MPs from the national parliaments and become responsible for iniating all laws, leaving the Executive responsible for the typing. That would enable attendance statue EP to match the political flavour of national Governments rather than a maverick group.
For the EU organisation however the shortfall of 10 gigaeuro is about 7% of the annual budget. That's quite noticable. It could be resolved by members paying higher dues and/or the EU funding less. It most likely will be a bit of both.
Do you not think that the EU Executive should adjust it's plans in the light of it's budget reducing, rather than simply going on spending as if nothing is happening? (Over and above savings made in terminating the contracts of UK staff members that is).
Re the underestimation remark - Jax, you make, as usual a lot of good points and I concur with most.
I don't think folk should play down the effects of a no deal Brexit on either side. Harm will be done to both.
But the sad fact is that they tend to be irrelevant in the minds of many. I've noticed it in the Scottish Independence turmoil, in the Catalan independence on-going saga and now also in Brexit. There comes a time when people simply don't care about the economic arguments, the objective becomes limited to jingoistic notions of what winning means and practicalities get pushed aside. The is a context of what is happening when insults get thrown around. A bigger insult than one recieved neans a "win" however nonsensical thd insults were. Independence or bust becomes Independence whatever the consequences.
In my opinion the most vulnerable to falling into that way if thinking are the public who are not aware if the complexities and the political extremists who mould events and public opinion.
So I repeat my claim the a no deal scenario is a real possibility and behind that the argument that insults enhance that as a possibility. That would be a bad result for both sides of the negotiation table. That is why I object to such simplistic insults as having cakes while eating them.
The use of the term "dog" was but a device to get the point across, which was that the smaller nations have to bow to the larger nations, however elaborate that bow may be.
Does anyone think there is a move to reform the EU and if so in what direction? It could go the federal route, or revert to the mutual trade route. I suspect the federalist have the momentum at the moment.
I would have thought that an agreed approach was overdue. It was the drive to federalism, with its trappings, which drove the UK away.
Come to think of it, trappings is maybe the right word. Is the EU a trap?
He has some role if the Good Friday Agreement were to break down, but he is not helping things by assuming it has merely playing the tune the Irish Nats want to hear. He is in effect just stirring the pot and encouraging a breakdown.
The most likely reason for the steadfast opinions, however, is that the referendum scrambled political identities. Ipsos Mori’s fascinating “Shifting Ground” survey shows how the UK’s political tribes have been reconfigured. Before the referendum, supporters of the Labour party sat on the left side of the economic axis, favouring tax and spend policies. The Conservatives were towards the right, advocating free market economics. On social issues, the Tory tribe flirted with authoritarianism while Labour voters floated towards liberalism. Crucially, there was substantial crossover on all these issues — in the political centre ground.
But Brexit has laid waste to that. The survey shows that the crossover between Leavers and Remainers is much smaller, and that these tribes are more starkly divided on social issues such as the death penalty and the pace of cultural change. Brexit has become a form of identity politics. And healing the divide is going to be difficult.
Personally I'm interested but deeply cynical about such charts especially considering:
o I voted remain but for me that is now history, the job now is to move forwards. A common attitude here but not so easy to place on such a chart. I would not know where to place myself o the traditional characterisation between Labour and Conservative stereotypes is much too simplistic, if it has any validity now at all which I doubt o authoritarian crops up now and then. Who was more authority - Stalin or Hitler, Corbyn or May? o there is a large, oscillating, middle ground of people either don't have opinions on theses things yet or don't care o In general (to authors of such things) - quit navel gazing, write your paper and get your brownie points but then get on and solve the issue in front of you
We over here have grown accustomed to this sort of insulting parody but the same can be said of the EU which seems incapable or realising that when you loose a wealthy member state of 65 million you have to be prepared to cut your cloth to suit the new budget reality. I suppose it's possible that the EU machinery is cutting budgets and will live within its reduced means, but if so I must have missed that.
The UK Government has stated from the off that it wished to retain good relations with the EU and that it had a political interest in the EU doing well. That has not been reflected (or only partially) by the EU negotiators who are clearly much more concerned with concepts of punishment and keeping the UK cash flowing into Europe at the same rate as before.
The phrase wanting to "have their cake and eat" it applies in spades to the EU.
The wish to have the EU do well was, I believe, generally well meant and genuine in the UK and that remains the case, but it's not an attitude that would survive much more of the knuckle-dragging attitudes that parody represents.
Maybe the EU does not want good access to the UK market and wants it to become an off-shore competitor instead of a friendly and cooperating neighbour . I doubt that those on either side who do not knuckle drag feel that way but people in Europe should understand that "no deal" is a very real possibility and it would not take much to give that popular appeal in the UK.
Incidentally in the overwhelming majority of the cases.
But yes, I understand, for the Brits, depending on the historical era, either France or Germany is the most imminent big threat and everybody else is the underdog that must be rallied against the threat. This is innate to Brits and this is why no union with them can work.
But I don't agree. Incapacity for reform is in the bones of the EU and it's good this way.
Why would you want reform? To make the EU more effective? To indeed become a superstate that would obviate nation states? I thought you were concerned about the demise of nation states. Now, I am certainly concerned about what effect a highly operative EU might have on the power of nation states, which is why I want the EU as it is. It may grab more functions as it likes, army or whatever, but it shall be clumsy and not obviate national armies, just like Interpol has not obviated local police authorities.
But I don't want a divided and quarrelling EU, which was how the UK always made it (the US and Russia can in turns manipulate the EU into internal disagreement whenever they like, no help needed from the UK). I want an EU under the spell of self-importance, casting an image of collegial consensus over the world, while really being a hollow shell inside. It's at its best right now.
Actually I was paraphrasing your post although, admittedly, exaggerating for effect.
I think you will find that many countries in Europe have been happily fighting different neighbours over years past.
Re Europe. I happen to cherish the diversity that Europe has to offer, stuffing all the counties into one mould will turn that diversity in mush (IMHO).
Frenzied- your description if the Dutch government hierarchy seems to show that the state is already considered defunct in the Netherlands (Maybe in part due to endless coalition government's and the passing if policies which are not popularly mainstream?). But whether that lessening if the state is regrettable or not depends on where one sees one's essence; if one's identity, in town, region or state or, indeed thd EU. But I think it illustrates my point that the concept of the nation states as we have known them in Europe is shrinking.
One could be trite and argue that Belgium does so nicely as a result if hosting the EU that it might be expected to be the last place to acknowledge a downside but what is its influencd on Wallon / Flemish independence vis-a-vis the Belgian state? Is the latter becoming more or less relevant?
ERSI - no I had not been referring to the Polish business, rather arguing (debating) from the viewpoint of the logic of politics in Europe.
The views you expressed about over-stuffed commissioners, as I mentioned before, were.also used as a mainstay of the Leave campaign in the UK.
It really is time those peopk were brought to heel. I don't share your faith in the benefits of political anarchy in the EU being z good thing for the member state. I think the EU can be of more service if it us reformed and its ambitions downsized.
The EU Executive seem to be intent on inventing laws that keep their megalomaniacs in power, they need to revert to their proper status of apolitical civil servants.
Re the border. Yes I do believe it is quite feasible, not optimum certainly but feasible. We could expect many squeaked and moans but in the end if this country agrees to free passage from Ireland there's little that others can do about it.
Britain leaves the EU next year and will not impose border checks; if there are border checks it will be on the Irish side manned by Irish Border Guards or the EU Army () troops for all I care. One can be sure of that. What is not so clear yet is the laws which would accompany that: They are unclear because there are many options, for example
o An interim open border until blah blah blah ( wait it out or take it slow) o All products imported into the UK must have their country of origin available to non-contact sensors o All non Irish products are considered illegal in the UK unless and until they have passed through a central clearing house o Illegal products will be confiscated
One could go on, but it's necessary to remind ourselves that this is in the context of no-deal from the EU.
Overall the above is a heck of a lot of government layers...
Artificially increased by inserting "individual" and probably also "regional government".
Now, I know France has some seven layers of government[1] and maybe some other big&old&respectable continental countries do too, but Mid-and-Northern European countries generally have two or three layers. So your argument works only if everybody think and act British. Luckily not everybody is British.
Perhaps if I'd used the word "Voter" it would have been easier to understand.
Didn't follow the rest; maybe somewhere perhaps in a few cases there might be some exceptions to what the insidious British do is hardly a convincing counter argument.
1 The lowest of which, canton commune, can include just one person, so the question arises who is the ruler and who the ruled under such circumstance. It is apparently just a nonsense formal relic level.↵
Look, you were wrong to have friendly feelings towards EU in the first place. Not a good idea to have a feelings-relationship with impersonal entities. Such entities do not embody any ideals. It's better to view them as pragmatic tools for more specific purposes, but better high than low purposes.
I should have written about Europeans, not the EU, I sit here now with my Danish wife and brother in law wondering whether to serve English beer with Aquavit tonight or skip it and go to a nice glass of Sangre del Toro.
Your own country has the sort of low cynical relationship to EU as described in jax's clip. It's a good idea to be aware of this, to be realistic and diplomatic.As do we all apparently
From the continental point of view, we (the continentals) are aware of the cynicism and self-interest of the UK. We would like to be friendly and we would be happy to consider the UK as a member among European nations. But let's be honest: The UK came in negotiating (i.e. demanding like a spoiled brat) the biggest number of exceptions to themselves and, while inside, kept asking for more. This is the objective character of the UK. There is no friendly way to initiate a divorce, but luckily under Cameron the UK maneuvred itself into the position that made the UK the initiator of the divorce.
You are arguing in slogans, you'll start talking about cake soon. Look at the basic, both sides want a good result for themselves.
Quote from: string on 2017-12-18, 12:00:12The UK has stopped the formation of a European army and pan-European taxation. But, hey, Europe can now look forward to both. Maybe at least Europe will pay its own defence costs and not act like a parasite on the American tax payer.
To me it's clear that as the power of the European Parliament increases, the influence of national governments will diminish to the point that they become anachronisms concerned only with ceremonial duties Views like this do not reflect the objective nature of the EU, but they fully reflect the warped perception prevalent in the UK.
UK stopped pan-European taxation? In reality, UK only fought to be individually exempt from pan-European taxation, while taxation for everyone else was okay. (Depends of course which particular issue you have in mind.) The meaning of Pan European is that it is applied to all parts of the EU, not part only The UK stopped pan-European army and that's a good thing? It's an ambivalent thing, at best, particularly in connection with the silly view that the EU acts like a parasite on the American tax-payer.
It is not silly, the US has kept us all safe for many years and Europe has not paid it's fair share• A European Army makes sense only if the EU is one country, otherwise It is a duplicate of NATO and is wasteful with more Generals, more headquarters in addition to the national and NATO facilities [/]
The parliament has hardly any power in the EU. Eurokommissars have the power. There is no legal or institutional corrective to the kommissars, unfortunately. The only corrective against their abuse of power is collegial agreement within their own clique. The UK in its own narrow self-interest always had a destructive effect to the sense of collegiality.
The EU Executive is indeed exceeding what would be the more defensible role of an apolitical civil service; I would hope that Europeans will get wise to that soon and deal with it. It was a concern that had great weight in the UK for the leave campaign, sentiments with which you seem to agree. I argued against it at the time, but it was difficult
It's not that I like the EU as it is, but there is no way to alter it other than destroy it, which would make someone/something worse to take over the power vacuum, so let's be sensible about it. God save us from the UK. Good riddance, seriously.
As to national governments, given the ambivalent legitimacy of the EU and its likely eventual doom, the EU can be viewed as a protective shade for the time being. I'm of course presupposing that national entities ("states" or "countries") consist of (a) populated communities with concrete linguistic and cultural cohesion and historical tradition rather than (b) governments with fiscal power. Apart from common currency, (b) is not under further threat from the EU, much less is (a).
Re the "good riddance stuff". Over the last year or two I've peeked in here and seen comments of that type being thrown around. I'd rather not contribute to it. Seriously.
I agree that the EU needs reform, my sorrow is that the UK is not in it to help which I honestly think would have been the case if "my side" had not lost the referendum. As it is, were there another referendum I'm not sure I would vote the same way, too much vitriol has been vomited.
The EU is moving inexorably towards a Federal State.
Individual countries are becoming irrelevant, and relics of yesteryear, curious cultural enclaves gradually losing distinction and individuality and submerging into enforced uniformity.
That is pretty much completely independent of the EU. You will see exactly the same forces afoot outside as inside the EU, being a member of the EU or not doesn't change that. The EU is about power and trade. Sure there is a veneer of Europeanness on top, Ode to Joy, and all that.
I don't agree with you there, I think the decay of the original Nation State has been going on for some time and, as I wrote, is inexorable. Think of it this way; I'll use my English Government hierarchy here but I assume it is much the same in all countries.
At the moment the term "Government" is not quite there for Europe but more and more funding is tied to EU decision making, leaving the national governments abandoned by the population as a provider in that area of subsidies, policy eff. Furthermore, that funding is given to local levels of government or regional levels, but not normally national level.
Overall the above is a heck of a lot of government layers and one has to ask the questions Are there too many layers and if so which one can we drop? I think the answer is going more and stealthily more the national level, increasing the status of the regional government at the expense of the national.
An increase in the local tribal identities is likely and for "power" people will look to the EU, not the former national constructs.
There's a kernel of truth in that video Jax. The attitude of the Brits to identity cards is very accurately portrayed for example. Mind you identity cards as such will become obsolete with the advance of biometrics. The expansion of Europe eastwards which the UK encouraged was to promote trade, not Union. It had the effect though if creating vassal states in hoc to the EU. ... Unintended consequences.
In a similar theme, it may be recalled that May has spoken on a close relationship with the EU after Brexit; more to the practical, it has been explained internally here in the UK that we gave a vested interest in the EU doing well in view of our expected close trading relationship. All of that underpins a genuine sentiment along those lines.
However the option of a no-deal is a real option and by no means gone and while that remains a credible option and especially if that really does happen, I sense that Pro EU sentiment in the UK is waning. It's not a healthy situation in the short term at least for the UK but nor is it so for the EU.
I remain optimistic for a mutually good result but there's always a chance that the UK will be outside telling those East European States "Come outside, it's lovely".
My apologies for all the spelling mistakes. It's due to me typing on a virtual keyboard whichvsedms which seems to have a mind if it's own. The least pointing error and it goes off on a rampage. The rest is poor lighting, poor eyesight and laziness in proof reading.
Maybe I should put on record here my own politics inn the matter.
I voted remain in the UK Referendum and thought the result to leave the EU was daft.
However once the decision was made am intent on making the way forward as beneficial to the UK as possible noting that in all things there are advantages as well as disadvantages. I had no particular disaffection with the EU.
But I have seen the clumsy way that the EU has approached the negotiations in claiming unreasonable and also undeserved payments and not honouring the defined process for States leaving the EU which is that all things should be agreed in the light of the post exit velrelationship. I have also noted statements from EU politicians demanding punishment if the UK for deciding to leave. So my friendly feelings towards the EU have been, let's say, damaged.
On the comments above,
The EU can speak sign language for all I care. It should go down well in the rest of the world. Not.
At the moment there are wide differences in culture between European countries but that will lessen considerably over time if the EU survives, Professing unique culture differences is the stuff of separatist feelings.
The UK has stopped the formation of a European army and pan-European taxation. But, hey, Europe can now look forward to both. Maybe at least Europe will pay its own defence costs and not act like a parasite on the American tax payer.
To me it's clear that as the power of the European Parliament increases, the influence of national governments will diminish to the point that they become anachronisms concerned only with ceremonial duties
The EU is moving inexorably towards a Federal State.
Individual countries are becoming irrelevant, and relics of yesteryear, curious cultural enclaves gradually losing distinction and individuality and submerging into enforced uniformity.
So we can expect Polawho with Itawho with Portuwho, with Grecewho, Francowho with Germawho , Sedewho and so on.
The common currency is established as is a common foreign policy, common civic rights and obligations, a common army is on its way and an EU Chancellor for tax raising is on the horizon. Police force? Well Interpol.
Escaping from the EU will become progressively more difficult and will reach impossibility on the peaceful side armed revolution.
Maybe tgere was a chance of avoiding the demise ofvEuropean Nation States while the UK acted to block such things, but the UK saw it coming and wanted out.
So for those counties not in The EU, think not of dealings with Germany or Spain eto, deal directly with the real centre of power, the EU, not provinces of the Collective known as the EU.
Re the Airbus thing. I don't think the Chinese option is viable, at least not in the short term. Working practices are set up and agreed, jigs are made and (blast it) the pound has evaluated by around 30% which offsets a bit of tarif.
The Airbus cooperation had it's roots in the inter-European cooperation fostered by ESA in the Space Industry where groups of companies got together to his against competing pan-European Groups. Such things don't spring magically from thin air.
But the most import and comment on this sort of cookery is that nothing has yet been finalised and until it is all of that stuff is pure speculation.
Anyway, last time I looked, China was not in the EU, nor was the EU in China to put the proper perspective on it.
Re Northern Ireland. One problem with that matter has been the uncooperative attitude if the EU. That, with Ireland and the UK have obligations to support the Belfast agreement but have refused to offer tangeable support, claiming that the UK caused the problem and should solve it by itself. A semantic nonsense: if one has a responsibility one should attempt to support it on some way, not play a blame game.
At the moment there is a fuzzy situation, with alignment with EU regulations for those specific areas related to the Belfast agreement which acts as a diplomatic placebo for tthe Irish but that is, in the end, secondary to reading a good overall agreement. Alignment, by the way, does not mean identical, it means equivalent.
Incidentally, I support rjh on this, the DUP were right to object and saw things clearly when others didn't.
The argument to be used by the UK is clear --- if Northern Ireland can have, effectively free trade with thd EU then so can the rest of the UK.
In the event that there is no deal, the approach by the UK can simply be to declare, unilaterally, on their side an open border between The UK and Ireland, while again unilaterally, that all goods not more than 90% made in EI shall be tagged for later application of tariffs or summer confiscation. There will be some leakage, but who really cares. As for the free mivemdnt part, that would be civered by other means since no-one not from Ireland eould have a valid vusa.
Of course, the Irish or the EU could put up a birder, but that would be their problem, but I doubt they would shirk their responsibilities to that extent.
) troops for all I care. One can be sure of that. What is not so clear yet is the laws which would accompany that: They are unclear because there are many options, for example
