Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:

Thommo wrote:

No, he's not.

I did't think so.

However I seriously think that europeans (and Brits) have proven beyond any doubt that they are incapable of ruling themselves without some "supervisory entity" looking over their shoulders... 24/7/365.

Are you referring to Jean-Claude Juncker, or God?

I think we evolved arguing non-stop about how to organise our societies; supernatural supervisory entities don't exist, we have to make do without.

"Supernatural" never even crossed my mind.
If not the EU, then some other supervisory organisation (which btw also are called entities).
The European mentality is simply not constructed to be left to own, nationalstic tendencies without carrying out major screw-ups and atrocities.

zoon wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think that's exactly the kind of patriarchal attitude that has got the EU institutions into the mess they're in.

Yes, I think the Czech foreign minister was probably making a strong point as quoted in an article in the Telegraph here, headlined: "Brexit was Juncker's fault and he must go, says Czech foreign minister."

The Telegraph wrote:Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, should resign as a result of the Brexit vote, the Czech foreign minister said on Sunday, as splits emerged over the future direction of Europe among the EU's remaining 27 members.

The EU chief, who has repeatedly called for “more Europe” to fix the continent's mounting crises, was a “negative symbol” of the kind of federalism that British voters rejected, said Lubomír Zaorálek, the Czech foreign minister.

"In my opinion, he [Juncker] is not the right person for that position. We have to ask who is responsible for the result of the referendum in Britain," said Mr Zaorálek on Czech television.

Smaller EU states fear that Britain’s departure could leave them at the mercy of new plans to deepen integration.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:And yet we have just had a referendum...

Which was an exceptionally rare event, proximately caused by Cameron backing himself into a corner over the Tory EU split before the 2015 general election and sticking the referendum pledge into the manifesto as a band aid.

In terms of actually implementing that referendum parliament has the sovereignty to do so without another referendum. One referendum is not the promise of a new referendum on every detail.

GrahamH wrote:True, but the Chancellor doesn't even decide budget cuts without some sort of claim to a mandate and this is an eceptionally rare event in itself, of the sort that calls for a referendum.

Thommo wrote:

zoon wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think that's exactly the kind of patriarchal attitude that has got the EU institutions into the mess they're in.

Yes, I think the Czech foreign minister was probably making a strong point as quoted in an article in the Telegraph here, headlined: "Brexit was Juncker's fault and he must go, says Czech foreign minister."

The Telegraph wrote:Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, should resign as a result of the Brexit vote, the Czech foreign minister said on Sunday, as splits emerged over the future direction of Europe among the EU's remaining 27 members.

The EU chief, who has repeatedly called for “more Europe” to fix the continent's mounting crises, was a “negative symbol” of the kind of federalism that British voters rejected, said Lubomír Zaorálek, the Czech foreign minister.

"In my opinion, he [Juncker] is not the right person for that position. We have to ask who is responsible for the result of the referendum in Britain," said Mr Zaorálek on Czech television.

Smaller EU states fear that Britain’s departure could leave them at the mercy of new plans to deepen integration.

Well, I take his point and I'm not a Juncker fan, but I would say I find it overstated. Cameron is the culprit, not Juncker. It's probably fair to say that Juncker hasn't been helpful, but he had no direct role in forming British public policy or opinion in this instance.

Interesting read though, thanks.

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:
I did't think so.

However I seriously think that europeans (and Brits) have proven beyond any doubt that they are incapable of ruling themselves without some "supervisory entity" looking over their shoulders... 24/7/365.

Are you referring to Jean-Claude Juncker, or God?

I think we evolved arguing non-stop about how to organise our societies; supernatural supervisory entities don't exist, we have to make do without.

"Supernatural" never even crossed my mind.
If not the EU, then some other supervisory organisation (which btw also are called entities).
The European mentality is simply not constructed to be left to own, nationalstic tendencies without carrying out major screw-ups and atrocities.

Unless you are suggesting the United States deploy its impressive weaponry to subdue the EU, we are stuck with each other. Divine Right of European Commission Presidents is no better than Divine Right of kings.

Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:
Are you referring to Jean-Claude Juncker, or God?

I think we evolved arguing non-stop about how to organise our societies; supernatural supervisory entities don't exist, we have to make do without.

"Supernatural" never even crossed my mind.
If not the EU, then some other supervisory organisation (which btw also are called entities).
The European mentality is simply not constructed to be left to own, nationalstic tendencies without carrying out major screw-ups and atrocities.

Unless you are suggesting the United States deploy its impressive weaponry to subdue the EU, we are stuck with each other. Divine Right of European Commission Presidents is no better than Divine Right of kings.

I hope it is me that is unclear, and not you purposely misunderstanding my point.
History shows with horrid clarity that europeans are incapable of peace, unless there is a financial gavn larger in peace than in war.
EU might smell foul, taste worse and feel a bit like being treated as naughty 5-year olds, but at least europeans within the European Union haven't bashed eachothers heads in or dropped bombs since they recovered from WWII. Not because we are all suddenly pleasant and wonderful people, but because it is more profitable not acting the nationalistic knobheads most of us really are.

Thommo wrote:

zoon wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think that's exactly the kind of patriarchal attitude that has got the EU institutions into the mess they're in.

Yes, I think the Czech foreign minister was probably making a strong point as quoted in an article in the Telegraph here, headlined: "Brexit was Juncker's fault and he must go, says Czech foreign minister."

The Telegraph wrote:Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, should resign as a result of the Brexit vote, the Czech foreign minister said on Sunday, as splits emerged over the future direction of Europe among the EU's remaining 27 members.

The EU chief, who has repeatedly called for “more Europe” to fix the continent's mounting crises, was a “negative symbol” of the kind of federalism that British voters rejected, said Lubomír Zaorálek, the Czech foreign minister.

"In my opinion, he [Juncker] is not the right person for that position. We have to ask who is responsible for the result of the referendum in Britain," said Mr Zaorálek on Czech television.

Smaller EU states fear that Britain’s departure could leave them at the mercy of new plans to deepen integration.

Well, I take his point and I'm not a Juncker fan, but I would say I find it overstated. Cameron is the culprit, not Juncker. It's probably fair to say that Juncker hasn't been helpful, but he had no direct role in forming British public policy or opinion in this instance.

Interesting read though, thanks.

zoon wrote:I certainly agree with this latest post of yours, you are citing financial advantage as the glue, not "supervisory entities"

Edited to add: perhaps you meant by "supervisory entities" what I would call "supranational institutions", and I was, as you say, misunderstanding you.

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:
"Supernatural" never even crossed my mind.
If not the EU, then some other supervisory organisation (which btw also are called entities).
The European mentality is simply not constructed to be left to own, nationalstic tendencies without carrying out major screw-ups and atrocities.

Unless you are suggesting the United States deploy its impressive weaponry to subdue the EU, we are stuck with each other. Divine Right of European Commission Presidents is no better than Divine Right of kings.

I hope it is me that is unclear, and not you purposely misunderstanding my point.
History shows with horrid clarity that europeans are incapable of peace, unless there is a financial gavn larger in peace than in war.
EU might smell foul, taste worse and feel a bit like being treated as naughty 5-year olds, but at least europeans within the European Union haven't bashed eachothers heads in or dropped bombs since they recovered from WWII. Not because we are all suddenly pleasant and wonderful people, but because it is more profitable not acting the nationalistic knobheads most of us really are.

I certainly agree with this latest post of yours, you are citing financial advantage as the glue, not "supervisory entities"

GrahamH wrote:He makes the UK news, mostly for bad reasons. If he personifies the EU bureaucrat telling us what to do he bears some responsibility. If he had helped Cameron come back with a better "reform" deal we might be a different place now, both because there might be less discontent and there might be more hope of further reform to come. I'd not discount that Junker might have averted this situation.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:True, but the Chancellor doesn't even decide budget cuts without some sort of claim to a mandate and this is an eceptionally rare event in itself, of the sort that calls for a referendum.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Chancellors frequently make cuts, or reduce increases without a general election or referendum. They put a budget before the house each year in exactly the kind of way I was talking about. And the chancellor of the exchequer is simply appointed by the prime minister (and again, not always immediately following an election or referendum).

Thommo wrote:

zoon wrote:I certainly agree with this latest post of yours, you are citing financial advantage as the glue, not "supervisory entities"

Edited to add: perhaps you meant by "supervisory entities" what I would call "supranational institutions", and I was, as you say, misunderstanding you.

Even then, citing an 18th century invention as having been responsible for "thousands" of years of wars seems more than suspect to me.

GrahamH wrote:Just pointing to recent history. There's nothing unusual about seeking a mandate for big or difficult policy decisions. I'm not suggesting they have to, just that they do do that. The 12bn welfare cuts being a recent example where reference was made to the manifesto.

Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:
Unless you are suggesting the United States deploy its impressive weaponry to subdue the EU, we are stuck with each other. Divine Right of European Commission Presidents is no better than Divine Right of kings.

I hope it is me that is unclear, and not you purposely misunderstanding my point.
History shows with horrid clarity that europeans are incapable of peace, unless there is a financial gavn larger in peace than in war.
EU might smell foul, taste worse and feel a bit like being treated as naughty 5-year olds, but at least europeans within the European Union haven't bashed eachothers heads in or dropped bombs since they recovered from WWII. Not because we are all suddenly pleasant and wonderful people, but because it is more profitable not acting the nationalistic knobheads most of us really are.

I certainly agree with this latest post of yours, you are citing financial advantage as the glue, not "supervisory entities"

Yet that is what EU de facto is. The financial benefit is just a byplay.
Where I live people are incredibly better off because of the supervision from EU. Having rights and benefits they would not have had if the EU had not put it's foot down, conditioning financial gain with social benefits and progress.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:He makes the UK news, mostly for bad reasons. If he personifies the EU bureaucrat telling us what to do he bears some responsibility. If he had helped Cameron come back with a better "reform" deal we might be a different place now, both because there might be less discontent and there might be more hope of further reform to come. I'd not discount that Junker might have averted this situation.

Cameron spent his time assuring Juncker that he'd win the referendum 70-30. Juncker cannot realistically be blamed for taking his confidence and reassurance to heart.

I get what you're saying though, and it's very much what I mean when I talk about him not having helped.

Thommo wrote:

zoon wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think that's exactly the kind of patriarchal attitude that has got the EU institutions into the mess they're in.

Yes, I think the Czech foreign minister was probably making a strong point as quoted in an article in the Telegraph here, headlined: "Brexit was Juncker's fault and he must go, says Czech foreign minister."

The Telegraph wrote:Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, should resign as a result of the Brexit vote, the Czech foreign minister said on Sunday, as splits emerged over the future direction of Europe among the EU's remaining 27 members.

The EU chief, who has repeatedly called for “more Europe” to fix the continent's mounting crises, was a “negative symbol” of the kind of federalism that British voters rejected, said Lubomír Zaorálek, the Czech foreign minister.

"In my opinion, he [Juncker] is not the right person for that position. We have to ask who is responsible for the result of the referendum in Britain," said Mr Zaorálek on Czech television.

Smaller EU states fear that Britain’s departure could leave them at the mercy of new plans to deepen integration.

Well, I take his point and I'm not a Juncker fan, but I would say I find it overstated. Cameron is the culprit, not Juncker. It's probably fair to say that Juncker hasn't been helpful, but he had no direct role in forming British public policy or opinion in this instance.

Interesting read though, thanks.

Globe wrote:

Thommo wrote:

zoon wrote:I certainly agree with this latest post of yours, you are citing financial advantage as the glue, not "supervisory entities"

Edited to add: perhaps you meant by "supervisory entities" what I would call "supranational institutions", and I was, as you say, misunderstanding you.

Even then, citing an 18th century invention as having been responsible for "thousands" of years of wars seems more than suspect to me.

Europeans have fought each other for 1000's of years, starting with the romans trying to rule the continent by force.
Then the vikings attempted a "Trade, pay or bleed" approach, and it's contained on from there.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Just pointing to recent history. There's nothing unusual about seeking a mandate for big or difficult policy decisions. I'm not suggesting they have to, just that they do do that. The 12bn welfare cuts being a recent example where reference was made to the manifesto.

It happens, sure. But over the last two parliaments I can recall quite a few instances of cuts, reorganisations and so forth that did not appear in the manifesto. Indeed I recall a certain amount of controversy against Tory changes to the NHS, to schools and against the Lib Dems regarding university funding just off the top of my head.

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:

zoon wrote:

Globe wrote:
I hope it is me that is unclear, and not you purposely misunderstanding my point.
History shows with horrid clarity that europeans are incapable of peace, unless there is a financial gavn larger in peace than in war.
EU might smell foul, taste worse and feel a bit like being treated as naughty 5-year olds, but at least europeans within the European Union haven't bashed eachothers heads in or dropped bombs since they recovered from WWII. Not because we are all suddenly pleasant and wonderful people, but because it is more profitable not acting the nationalistic knobheads most of us really are.

I certainly agree with this latest post of yours, you are citing financial advantage as the glue, not "supervisory entities"

Yet that is what EU de facto is. The financial benefit is just a byplay.
Where I live people are incredibly better off because of the supervision from EU. Having rights and benefits they would not have had if the EU had not put it's foot down, conditioning financial gain with social benefits and progress.

You are talking here as if the people where you live had no say in what the EU does or doesn't tell them; on the contrary, it's people like them across the EU who elect the MEPs and their own governments which, between them, set out the EU rules.