You are right to dismiss those who are interested in constitutional law as weirdoes. The enlightened debate is around God’s preference for the gender of Bishops or the anatomical re-alignment of presidential candidates. The Lemming Press is full of it – so to speak.

More tiresome and predictable Eurosceptic nonsense from the usual suspects, the British media.

Say, what does Perfidious Albion mean, anyway?

The debates are giving people a headache (and are terribly boring).

So just leave it as it, touch nothing, decay slowly.

Paskalis: “Say, what does Perfidious Albion mean, anyway?”

You mean you’ve never met a Brit?!

P

….incidentally: My understanding of “pacifist” is “An invincible warrior who is confident and brave enough to not strike first.”

Am I close?

I think the English translation (from the US) of pacifist is “dummy”…or is that pacifier? I can never remember.

btw Paskalis, how is your creative writing course coming on?

Pasklais: A Pacifist is someone who thinks disagreements should be resolved by means other than wars. I guess that doesn’t preclude self-defence, if attacked.

AYC: A dummy (or a sucker) is someone whose army has only been shooting schoolgirls for the past 20 years but has illusions about resolving disagreements by military “muscle”

P,

I have heard of one brave and revolutionary Guard, who is threatening to send missiles at nursery school children…

RCS: I guess that guy would make an ideal IDF commander.

P,

You must mean “I” as in “Iranian” or “Islamic”.

chaps - your ability to turn anything into an israeli-iranian grudge match is remarkable. But its the weekend.
Knock it off.
Ill chuck you some red meat next week.

I respectfully apologise for my style, AYC. I see from your examples that creativity has no place in writing.

Not much room for facts either.

best,

…incidentally AYC, had you bothered with a creative writing course, you would have learned the expression “tongue-in-Cheek.” Fun stuff.

most best,

If you dislike the Brits so much, why are you reading a British paper? Is it because it is the only place you can find truly “creative” writing? Creative means adding to the overall debate - a linguistic definition which seems to have escaped some whose comments are notably more destructive than constructive!

Learn from the author - he is willing to allow comment he does not agree with, and then explains why rather than just attacking. Another good piece of journalism, thank you Gideon Rachman.

Excellent comments, Ogadai.

Most commenters on this blog (myself included) are non-Brits. Therefore this forum is unfortunately lacking in that great British tradition — the civilised debate.

Moderation is a virtue rare in our world; it is what made Britain great.

So much for the vaunted sense of humour. Next you’ll be tellimg me British men aren’t obsessed with dressing up as women and pretending it’s only a gag.

The British media endlessly delight themselves by making fun of other people – especially the French and Germans.

But now it looks like John Bull has a glass jaw and can’t take a punch line.

After years of institutional navel gazing, the EU very badly needs to concentrate on delivery, rather than yet another round of constitutional discussion - what we require, dare I say it, is more Lisbon Agenda and less Lisbon Treaty.

But on the subject of commissioners, why not just concede the point and let every country have one? Of course, on any sensible organisational analysis, 27 is too many, but a 27 member commission would be one of the EU’s lesser institutional absurdities when set against, for example, the byzantine arrangements of the CAP, or the extravagant travelling circus that is the European Parliament. A 27 member commission would at least have the major benefit that each country would feel it still had a seat at the top table.

Paskalis, interesting to see that under that icy exterior, you’re as prickly as the rest of us. If I remember correctly, you yourself are hellenic, a country the Brits don’t much bother with, except to deport our working classes to throw up on your beaches for the duration of the summer. Enjoy!

Unfortunately, a thoughtful and detailed analysis of the Lisbon treaty, like David Wilkins’above, was not part of the debate in Ireland where the deciding Noes were cast, as far as anyone can tell, against some non-existent “superstateâ€, a punishment for corruption in the Dublin government and a disapproval of Angelina Jollie having any more children.

I think, RYC, that all nationalities, including the 3 of mine, are ridiculous and deserve to be ridiculed which I try to do at every opportunity (i.e., whenever anyone is listening).

I have always striven for an icy exterior (and interior. I’m a Prussian Calvinist at heart) and I’m pleased if I’ve fooled some of the people any of the time.

I see from your post that you, certainly, are in no need of a creative writing course. However, it’s unnecessary to brag about a certain people’s uncontrollable public expectoration. They are famous for it, and it is well known.

Best, and thanks for the invitation.

One of the most interesting things revealed by the “No” vote in Ireland’s recent referendum on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty is the reaction of the EU & EU member countries’ leaders to that “No”. Hardly any of the leadership of the 27 member countries (including Ireland’s, it seems) want to accept that “No”, & those who are prepared to do so (eg Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic) are quickly shouted down.

So what it is revealed to ALL to see is that the EU is nothing about democracy, & everything about it being a self-righteous, bureaucratic, & elitist autocracy. So that’s why the Irish “No” is an issue that won’t go away, thank goodness.

This lack of democracy is why I, who used to support the EU in the days when it was just a free trade association, reject it so strongly now. Because of its secrecy & lack of democracy, I personally want the EU to disintegrate. And preferably soon!

Paskalis: “all nationalities, including the 3 of mine, are ridiculous…” so my question to you is where does power sit if not at the level of the nation state? Does it migrate up, or down? We’ve tried down - tribes, clans and the like - and that is essentially to a grouping too small to exist unless in some form of federation, unless you are irrelevant from a geopolitical point of view (think Amazonian Indians not wiped out by the common cold or smallpox).

The Dutch, French, Irish, Czechs and Poles have all rejected the former at one time or another over the past couple of years. The Scandinavians and British continue to rail against it. Power is just too remote from the people. I agree the nation state doesn’t seem ideal, but what is the alternative?

If you want to stop the institutional debate teh best way is to have the Lisbon Treaty come into force.

A thoughtful question, AYC. Thank you.

Tribal. Religious, ethnic and all other allegiances are artificial, not natural phenomena. There was a time when people risked all for their regional allegiances and balked at the idea of an Italian or German or British identity. Later, of course, they wept and merrily killed and died for their national selves and felt damn good about it

We happily answer the question, “What name were you born with†when no human is ever born with a name since names are artificial and not facts of nature. Yet names (even when changed by kings and Popes and thieves) are probably our first line of identity.

If we can do good or do harm as Italians or Swedes or Catholics, we can do it just as well as Europeans.

If Demosthenes had prevailed against the (real) Macedonians, he would have lived to see the city states crushed by the coming imperial age. To that end we have seen new statelets come into being with artificial names and bogus histories, yet their citizens feel the full passion of their constructed identity and align themselves completely with it. Ready to sacrifice for it if necessary.

You are very right to say that humans need to identify with a larger group as much as they need oxygen: as Milanese, as Italians, as Europeans.

The beauty of the European Gestalt to me is that it is the sum of all its parts, all of them and nothing is lost: not one neighborhood or mountain or national dream. It is a greater not a lesser identity.

That it is both necessary and inevitable only adds to its beauty.

I look forward to your corrections.

Cheers,

Mathios Paskalis

ΓιώÏγος Ιωάννου: Για ένα φιλότιμο

I very much enjoyed these stories (through the wonderful, as always, Hebrew translation of Rami Saari).

A sensitive man; a good person. If only there were more Europeans like him, Lisbon and its opposition would both seem less frightening.

Kein Angst

Paskalis: My view is that governments should be large enough to look after the wider interests of the people - whether through diplomacy, trade, or war - whilst at the same time being close enough to the people to listen to what they actually want - whether that is merely fixing the potholes in the road, or something grander. My problem with the European project is that whilst it is large enough to do the former (unlike tribes, clans and so on), it falls short in many regards as a direct consequence of its failure in the latter.

Because it is held hostage by special interest groups (a good example is French farmers via CAP) it cannot look after the wider interests of the populace. If the politicians in Strasbourg and Brussels listened to the people - is they were more democratically accountable - then the whole project would be more popular (and they would only be the politicians in Brussels for a start…). Of course, that would then take even more power away from national governments and it may be that they like the current structure, but I digress.

The EC seems to take all of the blame and none of the credit for things that happen under its remit; and the Augean Stables seems to have nothing on the expenses claims of European parliamentarians. Why?

Very few vote in European elections. Why? I do not think this is a sign of lack of interest, but rather a sign of a democratic vacuum. The ballot box, when it functions properly, is the safety valve for our way of life. If you ignore the people, sooner or later they build barricades (metaphorical or actual).

“The beauty of the European Gestalt to me is that it is the sum of all its parts, all of them and nothing is lost: not one neighbourhood or mountain or national dream. It is a greater not a lesser identity.”

But is it? Europe is an entirely artificial construct borne out of a false reading of history - Charlemagne, pax Romana etc - through the traumas of WWII (not to mention the Franco-Prussian war of the late 19C and WWI) as a way of linking France and Germany so tightly that they could never again go to war.

Maybe it is that formula which has prevented any further European war. Maybe it isn’t. My bet is on the Russian threat and European demographics as the main forces stopping the rise of European nationalism. In any case, the clear trend over the past few years has been for a closer identity with smaller communities - Basque nationalism, Scottish independence, Welsh self-determination, the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia (gone but not lamented), whilst at the other end of the scale politicians and the European elite collude in a scheme that becomes ever more reminiscent of the Tower of Babel.

As history shows, forcing people together tends not to work. Sooner or later the constructs fall apart under the weight of their own contractions. That is why nation states are so important - for better or for worse, they have stood the test of time. Maybe they really are outmoded and we should look to a new model of governance. But the lessons of history have to be observed and my perspective is that the European Union is pushing ahead too far too fast in the face of those lessons.

Unlike you, I do not think it is an inevitable project. But nor do I think it is destined to fail if the structure is right. The question is - can it ever get the structure right?

AYC,

That´s why we want the European Union to become a nation-state, which anyway would be less fragmented from an ethnic, linguitic and religious point of view than either India or South Africa…

Hello AYC.

In a federal system (which few Europeans, and apparently no Britons, understand) different levels of government have different responsibilities – like fixing potholes for instance. Consider Canadian federalism where the central government is much more “hands off†and the other levels much closer to the people than any European one.

We shouldn’t have to repeat, again and again, that any democratic deficit in The EU is a result of the refusal of some national politicians to permit closer democratic accountability in EU institutions.

You say that, “forcing people together does not seem to work,†yet it has worked in Britain (and France and Italy and etc., etc.) for centuries. But there is no “forcing†in the EU and each country applies for membership. Lisbon would happily allow them to leave as well.

You ask, “can the EU ever get the structure right?â€

This reminds me of when Britain was invited to the meeting of foreign ministers who were to consider the creation of the EEC. In contempt, and fear, of European states aligning themselves, Great Britain sent a low-level diplomat who could very well have been a Knightsbridge concierge, in full uniform of course.

He naturally could not join discussions at the ministerial level, but he did make a memorable statement to the others.

He said “What you intend, you will never agree to, and if you agree to it, it will not work.â€

His words were not remembered years later when Britain was relentlessly knocking on the doors to EU membership, the doors that were eventually kicked open by the United States on Britain’s behalf. Something much regretted by many today.

….when you refer to “artificial constructs” and being “held hostage to special interests groups” I assume you are talking about every nation state and its government. I agree with you that the EU will be no different in that respect.

Paskalis, you claim that the entry of the UK into the EEC is now much regretted by many people - and that seems certainly to be the case amongst British Eurosceptics, and, you imply, amongst European federalists.
So why is it no one (outside the fringe UKIP) is suggesting that Britain leaves the EU? And if it were to happen, how should it? Or how would it happen?

You are right to imply that it is parties of the extreme left or right and the least representative, like the UKIP, who are the core anti-Europeans. That alone, must tell us something.

The Lisbon Treaty contains a provision for the negotiated withdrawal of any member. It is only one of its very many good points.

As a European federalist, I am a great suporter of the British Eurosceptics at their most extreme and wish them Godspeed.

so does that mean you think you are equally extreme?!
any other countries you think aren’t EU enough?

I’m sorry. You’ve lost me. You have taken the discussion to a much higher level of logic which lies well beyond my intellectual climbing ability. I can only look up in dizzying amazement.

Best,

P.