But seriously folks

[Gottdammerung]

Though.. I was scanning a biog of Charles de Gaulle and came across this passage:


"In December 1967, in the name of France he rejected one more time British entry into the EEC. Again, his desire to build an independent Europe led him to consider that Britain, whose foreign policy was aligned with that of the US since 1940, would only stall the efforts of the other EEC countries if it was allowed in. "


History most definitely repeats itself...

[Obviousman]

asn't the Empire 'something bigger'. We've no problem being a part of it, we just want to dictate the terms of our participation.

Well, the point still is, you want to get better out of it (EU membership or empire), and whatever you do, it always tends to come down on ordinary egoism

Look at (mainland) Europe, without Marshall help, we'd have been next to nowhere (btw: apart from giving a fresh breath to postwar economy, it started EU too)... Why did the US give us that? Because they thought they could make money out of us...

Plus, Marshall help actually was intended to be spread to Eastern Europe too, but Moscow didn't allow those countries to accept it...

...I guess the answer is something along the lines of the investment in countries like Poland should pay off in the medium to longer term with more customers for our products and services. As for the money being better spent on the starving Biafrans, haven't we been doing that for he last 40 years in one way, shape or form with very little effect? At least the Poles aren't going to squander our charity on corrupt governments and weapons to wipe out the tribe next door.

Exactly

As for the whole of Europe moving further to the right. That was always on teh cards after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent 'triumph' of capitalism over communism.

It is a sorry part of the entire evolution politics are moving to the right, but I think that's a consequence of 50 years of peace too... People have that much comfort they don't know what really is important in life anymore and evoluate to more and more selfishness...

OK, on the idea of paying for roads in Poland..

Wouldn't it be interesting to see how much money the UK actually receives from the EU. Remember it is not a one-way transaction and on top of whatever money we receive - i.e for infrastructure, poor regions, regeneration etc - we get a rebate back.

Problem: Succes has thousand fathers, problems have none...

Getting money = succes => Local politicians run of with it ...
Giving money = problem => Blame Europe

The EU doesn't hand out money to member states nilly willy, they have to put money in too.

however, in the long run, building roads in Poland is good in that it will provide better communication between member states, allowing for the wider distribution of goods produced by member states. Its long-termism - something that isn't really a factor in UK politics...

Indeed, again... It's just too little politicians want to give away their own hide for the sake of whoever's next ....

[Eva]

I'm surprised at how similar the discussions about the EU in the UK seemingly are to those in Switzerland although the former is a member and the latter isn't...

As for the whole of Europe moving further to the right. That was always on teh cards after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent 'triumph' of capitalism over communism.

It is a sorry part of the entire evolution politics are moving to the right, but I think that's a consequence of 50 years of peace too... People have that much comfort they don't know what really is important in life anymore and evoluate to more and more selfishness....

I agree, and I also think that large parts of the people are victims of the economies. Since communism apparently failed it seems at least where I leave that the economy has less and less problems to do whatever suits it fine. There are a few winners who become very rich, and a lot of people on the other side, who loose their jobs. People are afraid of the future, they don't see much perspectives for themselves and they feel as if they had lost all the time. In Switzerland it is far easier to blame foreigners or the EU than to face the fact that it is our own economy who betrays us. And it's also our own greed that betrays us, because nobody here who comlains about the redicoulsy high wages and bonusses of managers would deliberatly choose less to have more people benefit from the money that is in the economy.

The right wing parties and politicians are gaining because they take up people's fears and offer cheap and easy answers to difficult questions. And because the left wing parties at least here in Switzerland have forgotten who their voters used to be and have neglected to take up the fears of the working class. They have become parties for the intellectual upper middle-class people, where as the understandable fears of the working class have only (though wrongly and with lies) been taken up by the right wing parties.

Sorry, people, I have some difficulties expressing my thoughts in English, I hope you bear with me or know how to scroll down quickly.

OK, on the idea of paying for roads in Poland..

Wouldn't it be interesting to see how much money the UK actually receives from the EU. Remember it is not a one-way transaction and on top of whatever money we receive - i.e for infrastructure, poor regions, regeneration etc - we get a rebate back.

Problem: Succes has thousand fathers, problems have none...

Getting money = succes => Local politicians run of with it ...
Giving money = problem => Blame Europe.

Wasn't Ireland among the big winners of the EU?

]The EU doesn't hand out money to member states nilly willy, they have to put money in too.

however, in the long run, building roads in Poland is good in that it will provide better communication between member states, allowing for the wider distribution of goods produced by member states. Its long-termism - something that isn't really a factor in UK politics...

Indeed, again... It's just too little politicians want to give away their own hide for the sake of whoever's next ....

As you might have guessed by now I'm pro EU. My personal problem with it is a very Swiss one: The EU needs more democracy and a more federal structure. European citizens need to be given the chance to set topics on the politiacl agenda, with instruments like "initiatives". And they should have more opportunities for referenda; be asked more often for their opinion, their approval. And not only _after_ things have been decided, but before.

I would like Switzerland to join the EU. BUT I absolutely don't want to loose our semi-direct democracy. Democratic decisions taken by the people, not the politicians, take longer, yes, but the benefits are stable decisions, and a State (or the EU) has no future without the approval of its inhabitants. Besides, more democracy for the citicens and the member states also helps allocate the money in a way that the majority agrees to.
Nobody here in Switzerland disagrees to the fact that the wealthier Cantons subsidise the poorer, because we perceive our federal state as a whole. And that's what has to happen with the EU too. And that will be easier to achieve if the people are more involved in decision making than they have before.

[andymackem]

A couple of snap shots, because I don't know when to stop

@ GD - belief in the Euro project. Fine, fair enough. I'd like to agree with you. But I'd also like some tangible evidence to back up the hunch, rather than a gut instinct that it is a 'Good Thing'.

If we look at the achievements of the EU (EU here is shorthand for everything post Treaty of Rome, just for convenience!) you can play a lot of 'chicken-and-egg'. Peace in Europe since 1945 (except for the Balkans, of course, and Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, parts of Corsica etc). A fine achievement, but was that the result of the EU alone, or a by-product of the NATO v Warsaw Pact stand-off? Without the threat of the USSR, would western Europe have continued its history of squabbles? Who knows?

Economic progress: to what extent does this rely on the Marshall money put up by the US, rather than the impact of EU policy? And wasn't a prime motivation of the Marshall plan to provide an economic bulwark against Communism, in the same way that Hirohito was allowed to rule post-war Japan to prevent the Communists gaining power there?

Then we can start on the downside: agriculture subsidies which keep our food costs unrealistically low and ensure the developing world can't trade fairly in the west. Politicians on a gravy train that lines their pockets at our expense. The economic problems caused by trying to allign wildly differing currencies into the ERM and now the Euro - get the gearing wrong, as we discovered in 1991, and it all goes wrong.

Either there's a lot of the European project which needs to be corrected, or the pro-Europe lobby needs to start giving us some good news so I can start backing my hunches with more convincing evidence than a nice football stadium in Sunderland (I'm getting bored of that Krakow ring-road I picked on earlier )

@ Francis - corrupt governments and the like. Does this mean if you're unfortunate to live in a country where we don't approve of the man in charge you can be left to starve? Might as well forget making poverty history then, huh? Or would you rather we changed the men in charge first? Don't forget that most developing world weapons programmes were largely funded and encouraged by the nations manufacturing arms .... who currently tend to be developed nations, EU or NATO members. Part of the solution, part of the problem.

@ Obviousman - of course there is selfishness involved. But as a supporter of the EU you seem to be struggling to list a string of its glowing achievements for me. I'm not saying there aren't any, but no-one is putting the case properly.

@ Eva - I take your point about the Canton system, but Switzerland is geographically compact. I'm sure you can see why someone living on an island at one end of Europe will feel little kinship with a nation bordering on Russia. There is a sense of remoteness, simply because we are remote from one another. Human nature strikes again, I fear.

I'm not trying to be anti-EU by any means. But I do believe if the project is to succeed we need a change in the way it is run and a far better presentation of what the Union means and what the costs and benefits are for member states.

A related note: the BBC last night told me that Britain had been given a £630m rebate on its contribution to Europe - the largest rebate of any member state. It didn't tell me what the balance was. Any thoughts?

[Eva]

@ Eva - I take your point about the Canton system, but Switzerland is geographically compact. I'm sure you can see why someone living on an island at one end of Europe will feel little kinship with a nation bordering on Russia. There is a sense of remoteness, simply because we are remote from one another. Human nature strikes again, I fear.

I see what you mean, but it has taken the regions which are now the Swiss cantons centuries (and a few lost wars) to realize that they're a "compact" spot and had better stick together to improve things. Look at the EU from a global point of view. It is a "compact" entity between the U.S., Africa and Asia. But I guess it'll take Europe time to grow together from the "inside" (the citizens point of view). And again the problem might lie in the fact that it wasn't the citizens' decisions but the governments' that built the EU in the first place.
On the other hand, if you travel and get to know people from different (european) countries, you'll find common ground sooner or later. Let's look at this forum: We have people on here from America to Poland and further east, and from Finland "down" to Australia. Don't you feel a certain kinship with these people no matter whether they belong to the EU or not, just because you share certain interests? At least that's how I perceive it.... Yes, we have different mentalities etc., but in the end we all struggle for similar pieces of happiness and we more or less all face similar economic and social problems.

Besides, if we want this planet to survive, we'll have to work together. If the citizens did work together closer, across countries, for shared interests, they'd have more power against governments and global threats too.

[boudicca]

We really should have these sorts of posts compiled into a little book of "Heartlanders Opinions on Things".

Chapter 1 - Markfiend....

[Obviousman]

The right wing parties and politicians are gaining because they take up people's fears and offer cheap and easy answers to difficult questions. And because the left wing parties at least here in Switzerland have forgotten who their voters used to be and have neglected to take up the fears of the working class. They have become parties for the intellectual upper middle-class people, where as the understandable fears of the working class have only (though wrongly and with lies) been taken up by the right wing parties.

Indeed they live of nothing but a culture of fear... Fear for foreigners, fear for the state, fear for going outside, and I could go on like that until eternity...

Now the strangest thing was, this morning in the newspaper, there was something about our good friend *cough* Donald Rumsfeld, who said it is the culture of fear like 'guys who cut of other folk's heads in front of a camera' he despises most about them in Irak... Well, I don't know, but, isn't that what his own internal policy is about???

[quote="Eva]I would like Switzerland to join the EU. BUT I absolutely don't want to loose our semi-direct democracy. Democratic decisions taken by the people, not the politicians, take longer, yes, but the benefits are stable decisions, and a State (or the EU) has no future without the approval of its inhabitants. Besides, more democracy for the citicens and the member states also helps allocate the money in a way that the majority agrees to.
Nobody here in Switzerland disagrees to the fact that the wealthier Cantons subsidise the poorer, because we perceive our federal state as a whole. And that's what has to happen with the EU too. And that will be easier to achieve if the people are more involved in decision making than they have before.[/quote]

About semi-direct democracy, well, normally I'd be pro, democracy is a good thing, but in present days I don't know... People's opinions get more and more volatile because of mediatisation and whatever more... I think it can be of good use, and I admire good working examples of it, but also you have to keep in mind most politicians won't call for a vote on something unless if they're sure they'll win that vote, plus, you vote for parliament for four (or whatever the usual term is) years and as said before long-term policies are hard enough to work out yet, why make them even harder by calling all sorts of other elections in between, especially with the volatile public opinion in mind?

About federalisation, we have federalisation in Belgium too, but, in my opinion it is over-federalised... If ever there surfaces a problem, big enough for the entire county, Flemish (nationalists mostly, but anyway) blame the Waloons, and the other way round way too often...

@ Obviousman - of course there is selfishness involved. But as a supporter of the EU you seem to be struggling to list a string of its glowing achievements for me. I'm not saying there aren't any, but no-one is putting the case properly.

Well, there is economical progress, inter-European roads, standardised cars which make them cheaper for everyone (before they had to meet different specifications in each country, remember those crazy yellow French headlamps... Of course, exception for the UK with the wheel on the wrong side ) and probably loads more, but since I'm in the middle of my exams I'm not going to do a lot of research, but if you won't get not convinced in the next two weeks, I'll be glad to go and look for some more facts and figures

Besides, if we want this planet to survive, we'll have to work together. If the citizens did work together closer, across countries, for shared interests, they'd have more power against governments and global threats too.

Indeed, and remember, when Switzerland was founded (isn't that many many centuries back, 1200-something or so?), remember the other side of the country was the other end of the world too for most people, probably most of them never got outside of their villages over a couple of times back then...

[andymackem]

I see what you mean, but it has taken the regions which are now the Swiss cantons centuries (and a few lost wars) to realize that they're a "compact" spot and had better stick together to improve things. Look at the EU from a global point of view. It is a "compact" entity between the U.S., Africa and Asia. But I guess it'll take Europe time to grow together from the "inside" (the citizens point of view). And again the problem might lie in the fact that it wasn't the citizens' decisions but the governments' that built the EU in the first place.

Probably easier to see from the mainland than from an island, though I don't entirely disagree with you.

On the other hand, if you travel and get to know people from different (european) countries, you'll find common ground sooner or later. Let's look at this forum: We have people on here from America to Poland and further east, and from Finland "down" to Australia. Don't you feel a certain kinship with these people no matter whether they belong to the EU or not, just because you share certain interests? At least that's how I perceive it.... Yes, we have different mentalities etc., but in the end we all struggle for similar pieces of happiness and we more or less all face similar economic and social problems.

I do get off my island sometimes, honest! And I can confirm that people in other countries are indeed still ordinary people (in the last eight years I've dated a grand total of two girls from England, or four from Britain, amid a raft of passing foreigners )!

But I'm speaking in more general terms, and in Britain there is a perception that continental Europe is full of people who speak funny languages, eat funny food and chicken out of fighting their wars (except for the Germans). They also cheat at football (especially the Germans). These prejudices have endured over many centuries - you can go back to medieval English writers who thought the French were pompous and arrogant (read Shakespeare's Henry V), or reckoned the Germans had no sense of humour.

You can't expect such a chunk of our history to be dissolved overnight, even though it would probably be better if we did re-appraise it.

Besides, if we want this planet to survive, we'll have to work together. If the citizens did work together closer, across countries, for shared interests, they'd have more power against governments and global threats too.

Unless you feel that the EU is becoming an uber-government and thus creates a global threat. Then we would be working to create the problem, not solve it.

@ Boudicca - I wanted to be in chapter one /sulks and pouts/

[Francis]

Does this mean if you're unfortunate to live in a country where we don't approve of the man in charge you can be left to starve?

No. It means that if, for whatever reason and wherever you are, you don't have the where-with-all to provide for your children, don't have any.

Might as well forget making poverty history then, huh?

Yes. It's not in our power.

Or would you rather we changed the men in charge first?

We tried that with Rhodesia. Look what's happened.

Don't forget that most developing world weapons programmes were largely funded and encouraged by the nations manufacturing arms .... who currently tend to be developed nations, EU or NATO members. Part of the solution, part of the problem.

That old chestnut, again.

All of which basically boils down to Darwin's evolutionary theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest. There are reasons why some parts of our planet are more developed than others, and most of them are due to climate and susceptibility to natural disasters.

[Eva]

I would like Switzerland to join the EU. BUT I absolutely don't want to loose our semi-direct democracy. Democratic decisions taken by the people, not the politicians, take longer, yes, but the benefits are stable decisions, and a State (or the EU) has no future without the approval of its inhabitants. Besides, more democracy for the citicens and the member states also helps allocate the money in a way that the majority agrees to.
Nobody here in Switzerland disagrees to the fact that the wealthier Cantons subsidise the poorer, because we perceive our federal state as a whole. And that's what has to happen with the EU too. And that will be easier to achieve if the people are more involved in decision making than they have before.

About semi-direct democracy, well, normally I'd be pro, democracy is a good thing, but in present days I don't know... People's opinions get more and more volatile because of mediatisation and whatever more... I think it can be of good use, and I admire good working examples of it, but also you have to keep in mind most politicians won't call for a vote on something unless if they're sure they'll win that vote, plus, you vote for parliament for four (or whatever the usual term is) years and as said before long-term policies are hard enough to work out yet, why make them even harder by calling all sorts of other elections in between, especially with the volatile public opinion in mind?

The trouble now as I perceive it is, that these referenda are only held if the governments are sure they're winning it or at least decide to do it. So it's not a regular power the people can use. That's a kind of manipulation for my taste, far from true democracy, and it damages people's trust in their governments. The trick would be to have procedures fixed in the constitution, that say if the government decides such-and-such, the citizens have to decide over it the latest after a certain amount of time. Example: If the Swiss government decides to sign bilateral contracts with the EU, the Swiss citizens have to give their approval for example a year later. If they disaprove, the Swiss government can burn these contracts with the EU in the oven. So the trick will be that the Swiss government will have to make contracts that they see a chance of getting the citizens' approval to, and they have to do their best to explain the necessity and the advantages of these contracts to get the citizens' YES. They're capable of making contracts reflecting people's will, because the government knows this will from previous (regular!) citizens' decisions (votes over issues).
What I mean: It has to be something regular, not something that only is held if it pleases the government. Also because citizens have to get used to their power and to the importance of what they're doing by voting - not for a government, but for a political issue..
And the citizens have to have the chance to set a political agenda with initiatives. Such items were in the first idea of a European constitution, but they got dropped because they either didn't suit the governments, or these same governments don't think their citizens are capable of decision-making.

Yes, votes are volatile, and people can be manipulated. That's what happened here in Switzerland 1992, when we had to decide whether we wanted to join the european monetary union or not. And it happens again and again - don't force me to give examples, because the swiss voters can maake me very angry.....
But on the other hand these same citizens have proven again and again, that if they get proper information (amongst all the crap) they're capable of good and useful decisions, because they have a sense of responsability. And that's not a Swiss thing, but a thing of being used to being asked (votes, elections). Any people can develop this sense of responsability over time.

Besides: Certain decisions not only need the majority of the people, but also the majority of the cantons. And this is the system that I'd advice the EU to get. BUT: the votes would have to be held on the same day. THEN you'd have the chance to get sensible decisions on a broad democratic and legitimate level. If we held our votes in different cantons on different days, like it has happened now in France and Netherlands, and one NO being enough to stop the whole process, wd never achieve anything here in Switzerland.

About federalisation, we have federalisation in Belgium too, but, in my opinion it is over-federalised... If ever there surfaces a problem, big enough for the entire county, Flemish (nationalists mostly, but anyway) blame the Waloons, and the other way round way too often...

I think Belgian federalism is on the right path insofar, as the more you give the regions a certain federal freedom, the more chances you have that they will work together deliberately. Maybe the difference to Switzerland's federalism lies in the fact that the regions in Belgium had to fight for so long to get a certain independence. Besides, I don't have a clue where this gap between the Flemish and the Wallons comes from, and therefore I have difficulties to understand the gap.

We often have gaps in Switzerland along the language border, between the French and the (Swiss-)German speaking part, especially when it comes down to decisions about the EU. The French part is strongly pro EU, the german part still thinks we don't need anybody else in this world. But the cantons stick together across this "roesti-gap" nevertheless, because they perceive the whole country as one nation, held together by will. The french part wouldn't want to belong to France, the italian part wouldn't want to belong to Italy, and the german part wouldn't want to belong to Germany... This has to do with history: We've made the experience of being far better off together, than if the cantons did belong to any of those larger countries. And I think this is an experience that the European countries can make as well, so that over time they can develop this nation-like bond of will too.
And a second, but far more rational, peaceful and sensible power besides America is desperately needed.

Besides, if we want this planet to survive, we'll have to work together. If the citizens did work together closer, across countries, for shared interests, they'd have more power against governments and global threats too.

Indeed, and remember, when Switzerland was founded (isn't that many many centuries back, 1200-something or so?), remember the other side of the country was the other end of the world too for most people, probably most of them never got outside of their villages over a couple of times back then...

The first bond was indeed made between 3 cantons in 1291. But one can leave that aside, because a) some other cantons were still held like colonies, either by Swiss or by other powers, and b) a lot of wars between Swiss regions or against foreign powers were still to be fought. Switzerland as it is today has only existed since 1848, that's when we accepted the constitution we have today. So you can say, it has taken us at least from 1291 to 1848 to realise we'd better stick together as equal cantons.
So I think Europe just needs more time, but they could enhance the process if they gave their citizens more regular power to have their hands in the decision-making process.

Sorry, I must sound like one pathetic freak of a Swiss nationalist. I'm not. The only thing about my country that I really am proud of (if that is allowed when I didn't do anything to achieve it) is its semi-direct democracy.

[Eva]

I see what you mean, but it has taken the regions which are now the Swiss cantons centuries (and a few lost wars) to realize that they're a "compact" spot and had better stick together to improve things. Look at the EU from a global point of view. It is a "compact" entity between the U.S., Africa and Asia. But I guess it'll take Europe time to grow together from the "inside" (the citizens point of view). And again the problem might lie in the fact that it wasn't the citizens' decisions but the governments' that built the EU in the first place.

Probably easier to see from the mainland than from an island, though I don't entirely disagree with you.

Probably yes. And probably easier to see for a country that never has had such a grand past as Britain whith the British Empire. Still it makes me laugh that the Swiss have a similar attitude of grandeur, although whenever they tried to expand their country they got horribly beaten and defeated.... That has probably helped us over time to realise it might be better to mind our own business...

On the other hand, if you travel and get to know people from different (european) countries, you'll find common ground sooner or later. Let's look at this forum: We have people on here from America to Poland and further east, and from Finland "down" to Australia. Don't you feel a certain kinship with these people no matter whether they belong to the EU or not, just because you share certain interests? At least that's how I perceive it.... Yes, we have different mentalities etc., but in the end we all struggle for similar pieces of happiness and we more or less all face similar economic and social problems.

I do get off my island sometimes, honest! And I can confirm that people in other countries are indeed still ordinary people (in the last eight years I've dated a grand total of two girls from England, or four from Britain, amid a raft of passing foreigners )!

Whoops, sorry, again I obviously haven't had a good hand with the words I've chosen.... I wasn't aiming at you personally, but merely reacting to the points you mentioned, which are so familiar to me, because that's exactly what the average Swiss will say....

But I'm speaking in more general terms, and in Britain there is a perception that continental Europe is full of people who speak funny languages, eat funny food and chicken out of fighting their wars (except for the Germans). They also cheat at football (especially the Germans). These prejudices have endured over many centuries - you can go back to medieval English writers who thought the French were pompous and arrogant (read Shakespeare's Henry V), or reckoned the Germans had no sense of humour.

You can't expect such a chunk of our history to be dissolved overnight, even though it would probably be better if we did re-appraise it.

There is a sketch somewhere in my "Xenophobe's guide to the Swiss" which shows Switzerland in its geographic position. France and Italy are just labelled as "very dirty" countries, Germany and Austria as "slightly less dirty" countries.....

This sketch describes the Swiss prejudices quite well, although we theoretically do all speak those languages, because they're Swiss national languages too. Travelling obviously hasn't helped the Swiss enough to open up their minds enough, because it's all fine as long as they meet the foreigners in their foreign countries. Then they're all "cute" and "so nice and friendly", but wait until these foreigners come to Switzerland for a job... What the Swiss underestimate is the fact that these other countries - especially those in Eastern Europe - aren't all as poor as we picture them, and that they can hold benefits for us too.
Besides, I think one effective kind of help for development is exactly the people from those countries coming to a richer country to get a job. 40 years ago it was the Italians in Switzerland. They worked in the building of streets, tunnels and buildings. And with the little money they earned not only did they survive here, but they also built their second homes in Italy and suported their remaining families over there. In this way you could say Switzerland (which was not the only country) has helped the more rural parts of Italy to develop and gain a certain wealth. Now we here also benefit of that wealth in Italy. A similar process can be seen with the foreigners in Switzerland of today.
On the other hand: If the EU helps building and improving streets in Poland (to stick with the example) not only does it improve transport from western Europe to eastern Europe and vice-versa, but it also creates jobs over there, so these people wil feel less need to try and find a job in the west. Those people will get wealthier in turn and buy more western products. And there's the benefit of the west again.
Besides, and again I'm referring to a Swiss fear not intending to aim at you: It's not as if the people in poorer countries were just waiting to invade western Europe. The people who emigrate are those who don't see another chance for themselves to survive. And in my opinion every human being has a right to do so. Like, my favorite example is the following: As long as we Swiss are not willing to pay reasonable prices for coffee, bananas, pineapple etc., but ripp Africa (or southern America or Asia) off, we don't have to wonder if people from those regions are trying to come to Europe for better chances. It is their right to.

And another thought: During the wars in former Yougoslawia we had a lot of refugees here. The children then went to school here etc. I think this can also help. Especially if people from a region that has never experienced a working and just political system and only knows dictatorship, sees that a political system can work and be just, they might be able to establish something similar in their own countries too. The Swiss constitution is a child of the French and the American revolution, where as the direct democratic rights in American states have been inspired from the Swiss constitution...

Besides, if we want this planet to survive, we'll have to work together. If the citizens did work together closer, across countries, for shared interests, they'd have more power against governments and global threats too.

Unless you feel that the EU is becoming an uber-government and thus creates a global threat. Then we would be working to create the problem, not solve it.

There is only a risk of uber-government if the citizens don't get the democratic rights I've mentioned elsewhere. The more centralist and government-ruled a country or a community is, the more you risk uber-phantasies of that government.
And exactly here is the point where your power as a citizen comes in again. You, the European citizens, have to fight for more democratic rights.


Please forgive me my long speech, but I have these discussions every day here, and I can't help trying to make the Swiss understand that foreigners aren't barbarians and that the EU isn't Babel.....

[Shadow_Smile]

So what's the future for the EU?

whahahahaaaaaaaa we Dutch have Harry Potter for president

so what future can we have ?

[markfiend]

We really should have these sorts of posts compiled into a little book of "Heartlanders Opinions on Things".

Chapter 1 - Markfiend....

Bloody Oi! (™ and © Sexygoth)

[Francis]

to Eva and Obviousman both for an interesting mainland European viewpoint and an outstanding ability to express your thoughts so coherently in a foreign language.

[Obviousman]

The trouble now as I perceive it is, that these referenda are only held if the governments are sure they're winning it or at least decide to do it. So it's not a regular power the people can use. That's a kind of manipulation for my taste, far from true democracy, and it damages people's trust in their governments. The trick would be to have procedures fixed in the constitution, that say if the government decides such-and-such, the citizens have to decide over it the latest after a certain amount of time. Example: If the Swiss government decides to sign bilateral contracts with the EU, the Swiss citizens have to give their approval for example a year later. If they disaprove, the Swiss government can burn these contracts with the EU in the oven. So the trick will be that the Swiss government will have to make contracts that they see a chance of getting the citizens' approval to, and they have to do their best to explain the necessity and the advantages of these contracts to get the citizens' YES. They're capable of making contracts reflecting people's will, because the government knows this will from previous (regular!) citizens' decisions (votes over issues).
What I mean: It has to be something regular, not something that only is held if it pleases the government. Also because citizens have to get used to their power and to the importance of what they're doing by voting - not for a government, but for a political issue..
And the citizens have to have the chance to set a political agenda with initiatives. Such items were in the first idea of a European constitution, but they got dropped because they either didn't suit the governments, or these same governments don't think their citizens are capable of decision-making.

Now if they'd imply such a thing, I'm pro
Agree about the fact they've let it out because of 'not suitableness', but the constitution was made by a comission, the countries only had a say over it afterwards... This was one of the pro's because, thanks to this, it was no longer compromising or 'rule applies to all except country X can do so and so', and thus we finally had a powerful instrument which made every European really equal...

Yes, votes are volatile, and people can be manipulated. That's what happened here in Switzerland 1992, when we had to decide whether we wanted to join the european monetary union or not. And it happens again and again - don't force me to give examples, because the swiss voters can maake me very angry.....
But on the other hand these same citizens have proven again and again, that if they get proper information (amongst all the crap) they're capable of good and useful decisions, because they have a sense of responsability. And that's not a Swiss thing, but a thing of being used to being asked (votes, elections). Any people can develop this sense of responsability over time.

Besides: Certain decisions not only need the majority of the people, but also the majority of the cantons. And this is the system that I'd advice the EU to get. BUT: the votes would have to be held on the same day. THEN you'd have the chance to get sensible decisions on a broad democratic and legitimate level. If we held our votes in different cantons on different days, like it has happened now in France and Netherlands, and one NO being enough to stop the whole process, wd never achieve anything here in Switzerland.

People can make the right decisions if they get real, honest information and answer to the right question, indeed of voting against a constitution because of things totally not connected to it...
And indeed, if they wanted to do referenda, they had better done it in every country and all on the same day, this would've been the only way countries would've not been able to influence others, and votes would have been much fairer... The system of "x% of the people, x% of the countries" was in the constitution too, and if the constitution would have been active already, that problem wouldn't have existed, so again good point ...

I think Belgian federalism is on the right path insofar, as the more you give the regions a certain federal freedom, the more chances you have that they will work together deliberately. Maybe the difference to Switzerland's federalism lies in the fact that the regions in Belgium had to fight for so long to get a certain independence. Besides, I don't have a clue where this gap between the Flemish and the Wallons comes from, and therefore I have difficulties to understand the gap.

We often have gaps in Switzerland along the language border, between the French and the (Swiss-)German speaking part, especially when it comes down to decisions about the EU. The French part is strongly pro EU, the german part still thinks we don't need anybody else in this world. But the cantons stick together across this "roesti-gap" nevertheless, because they perceive the whole country as one nation, held together by will. The french part wouldn't want to belong to France, the italian part wouldn't want to belong to Italy, and the german part wouldn't want to belong to Germany... This has to do with history: We've made the experience of being far better off together, than if the cantons did belong to any of those larger countries. And I think this is an experience that the European countries can make as well, so that over time they can develop this nation-like bond of will too.
And a second, but far more rational, peaceful and sensible power besides America is desperately needed.

The more or less history of Belgium (or some main points of it )

Belgium was founded in 1830, first it was a part of Holland, but the French speaking bourgeois didn't like their commander spoke Dutch, so they made a bit of war, looked at every Flemish speaking person like they were idiots and just good enough to be slaves... In WWI a famous thing was the officers always said "...et pour les Flamands la même chose", so the Flemish had a bit of protesting against that, and they got themselves the right to have Dutch as an official language...
In the sixties (I'm leaving gaps, just the most important thingies are mentioned, but anyway ) the Walloons wanted a bit of federalisation, and after that there was the famous waffle-iron politcs (if they had a canal in Flanders, the Walloons wanted a ship lift, or something equally expensive), Flanders protested a bit (by then they became the stronger region, in the begining, Wallonia was higly industrialised and thus stronger), and they took federalisation further and further, and now no-one still knows who is responsible for what

"roesti-gap", just love that word

The first bond was indeed made between 3 cantons in 1291. But one can leave that aside, because a) some other cantons were still held like colonies, either by Swiss or by other powers, and b) a lot of wars between Swiss regions or against foreign powers were still to be fought. Switzerland as it is today has only existed since 1848, that's when we accepted the constitution we have today. So you can say, it has taken us at least from 1291 to 1848 to realise we'd better stick together as equal cantons.
So I think Europe just needs more time, but they could enhance the process if they gave their citizens more regular power to have their hands in the decision-making process.

Sorry, I must sound like one pathetic freak of a Swiss nationalist. I'm not. The only thing about my country that I really am proud of (if that is allowed when I didn't do anything to achieve it) is its semi-direct democracy.

Thanks for further info on the history of Switzerland, that is one of the things I always like to be informed about
And no, you do not sound like a pathetic freak or a Swiss nationalist, you sound (and always have sounded) like a clever woman with interesting (and realistic) options and opinions to me

There is a sketch somewhere in my "Xenophobe's guide to the Swiss" which shows Switzerland in its geographic position. France and Italy are just labelled as "very dirty" countries, Germany and Austria as "slightly less dirty" countries.....

Show show show, must see!!!

40 years ago it was the Italians in Switzerland. They worked in the building of streets, tunnels and buildings. And with the little money they earned not only did they survive here, but they also built their second homes in Italy and suported their remaining families over there. In this way you could say Switzerland (which was not the only country) has helped the more rural parts of Italy to develop and gain a certain wealth. Now we here also benefit of that wealth in Italy. A similar process can be seen with the foreigners in Switzerland of today.

Nowadays Morrocans and Turks in Belgium (and most probably everywhere else) do the same thing... The reaction nowadays is, instead of being proud to help devellop those countries, 'they do nothing but investing our money into their country... At some point I can agree with that point of view, but if Belgians spend all of their money on whatever (Lotto, expensive cars, tourism), even if it comes from social benefits, you don't ever hear any complaints...

Please forgive me my long speech, but I have these discussions every day here, and I can't help trying to make the Swiss understand that foreigners aren't barbarians and that the EU isn't Babel.....

to Eva and Obviousman both for an interesting mainland European viewpoint and an outstanding ability to express your thoughts so coherently in a foreign language.

Pleased to be of any help, and thanks for compliments on my English, although I think it is far from perfect and I'd still like to see it improved

[andymackem]

Part of the referendum problem is that it hands decision making to people who aren't always well qualified to do so.

Take the EU constitution. As something that would have a profound impact on the UK's long-term future it is entirely right that I, and my fellow UK citizens, should be given the chance to register our approval or otherwise via a vote.

But who has actually read (and understood) the constitution? I haven't, and while I count myself as reasonably well-informed (stop sniggering at the back), I don't really know what it means for me personally, for the UK or for Europe as a whole. Short of actually wading through pages of complex legal-political argument I have no means of finding out without having to filter carefully through the pro- or anti-Europe bias that inevitably infects the debate.

How can I vote on that basis? I'm taking third and fourth-hand opinions, largely on trust, and making an instinctive decision. Alternatively, I'm looking to stick two fingers up at the government because I'm not happy about other things they have done which are not relevant to the European issue. What percentage of voters across Europe would be able to make a more informed choice? Uninformed democracy is hardly a way forward.

On the other hand: If the EU helps building and improving streets in Poland (to stick with the example) not only does it improve transport from western Europe to eastern Europe and vice-versa, but it also creates jobs over there, so these people wil feel less need to try and find a job in the west. Those people will get wealthier in turn and buy more western products. And there's the benefit of the west again.

If people in Poland are going to be made wealthier so they can buy products made in 'the west', is that sustainable? If they buy western products, isn't that the death-knell of their own manufacturing industries and ultimately the end of their prosperity?

In the north of England and the populated areas of Scotland our manufacturing industries have been in decline for most of my life (30 years) and probably longer. Our financial sector has boomed, and our service industries have taken over as a major economic contributor. As a nation we now suffer a north-south divide in terms of economic prospects, life-expectancy and all the other indicators we argued about previously. It's one of the reasons why people from Glasgow die 10 years younger than people from Devon. Why won't this happen across Europe?

Immigration, and people's 'rights': I tend to agree, but you have to keep in mind that the EU is a major reason why Europe pays unrealistically low prices for its food. Those subsidies mean 'fair trade' is impossible. How would Switzerland vote in a referendum which offered 10% higher food prices and zero immigration? I think the UK would throw that out, even though we are increasingly anti-immigrant.

And foreigners are barbarians - but only because they are the same as us

About semi-direct democracy, well, normally I'd be pro, democracy is a good thing, but in present days I don't know... People's opinions get more and more volatile because of mediatisation and whatever more... I think it can be of good use, and I admire good working examples of it, but also you have to keep in mind most politicians won't call for a vote on something unless if they're sure they'll win that vote, plus, you vote for parliament for four (or whatever the usual term is) years and as said before long-term policies are hard enough to work out yet, why make them even harder by calling all sorts of other elections in between, especially with the volatile public opinion in mind?

That sounds like you only want a democractic vote for people who agree with you

I'd argue (indeed, in a PM discussion with Markfiend I did argue) that the media follows the public as much as it leads. You won't sell papers or attract viewers if you always tell them things they don't like. It's too easy to over-estimate the power of the media, IMHO. But I only work for it, so don't blame me ....

On a seperate note I'm a bit disappointed that we seem to have spent nearly 50 years of Euro-endeavour and the best example available is dispensing with French headlamps With your exams going on I'll let you off for now, and might do some research of my own.

[Obviousman]

How can I vote on that basis? I'm taking third and fourth-hand opinions, largely on trust, and making an instinctive decision. Alternatively, I'm looking to stick two fingers up at the government because I'm not happy about other things they have done which are not relevant to the European issue. What percentage of voters across Europe would be able to make a more informed choice? Uninformed democracy is hardly a way forward.

It's all about informing people properly, but with over 1/3 of them not caring for anything political-like or acting like they care but do nothing instead of admiring some (99% chance of him being right wing) populist-'politician'-guru-like guy

If people in Poland are going to be made wealthier so they can buy products made in 'the west', is that sustainable? If they buy western products, isn't that the death-knell of their own manufacturing industries and ultimately the end of their prosperity?

In the north of England and the populated areas of Scotland our manufacturing industries have been in decline for most of my life (30 years) and probably longer. Our financial sector has boomed, and our service industries have taken over as a major economic contributor. As a nation we now suffer a north-south divide in terms of economic prospects, life-expectancy and all the other indicators we argued about previously. It's one of the reasons why people from Glasgow die 10 years younger than people from Devon. Why won't this happen across Europe?

Immigration, and people's 'rights': I tend to agree, but you have to keep in mind that the EU is a major reason why Europe pays unrealistically low prices for its food. Those subsidies mean 'fair trade' is impossible. How would Switzerland vote in a referendum which offered 10% higher food prices and zero immigration? I think the UK would throw that out, even though we are increasingly anti-immigrant.

And foreigners are barbarians - but only because they are the same as us

Well, normally, we'd be producing at least a good part of the goods they're going to buy with their new money, because the industries they will be asking for, whatever they be, have more chance to be develloped overhere rather than back there
Indeed, one of the weakest points of the EU is the fact they're spending over 50% (or at least waaay to much) on agriculture, and I'm affraid I don't see how that'll get stopped, with the very aggressive farmer-lobby in France, and all the new agricultural nations like Poland who've just joined

That sounds like you only want a democractic vote for people who agree with you

Well, if i'd be politician that'd be the sensible thing to do ... But I'm not (yet ), so, except for the fact my opinion is the right one, they're free to have a vote

I'd argue (indeed, in a PM discussion with Markfiend I did argue) that the media follows the public as much as it leads. You won't sell papers or attract viewers if you always tell them things they don't like. It's too easy to over-estimate the power of the media, IMHO. But I only work for it, so don't blame me ....

On a seperate note I'm a bit disappointed that we seem to have spent nearly 50 years of Euro-endeavour and the best example available is dispensing with French headlamps With your exams going on I'll let you off for now, and might do some research of my own.

I don't know about the influence of media, but look at all the celebs going in politcs, if they were sure to be defeated, they wouldn't, would they? Also media made politics (and much more) into slogan business, but correct me if I'm wrong

Plus it's more than just yellow headlamps, it's about the filters (direction they point to) colours of indicators and many other parts... It's just that I'm a car freak, and it was the best thing that came to my mind at that point

[Eva]

First of all, thank you Francis for the compliments!
And thanks a lot to you all who take part in this discussion. It is very interesting for me to hear your points of view, and I enjoy this a lot.


@ Obviousman: Thanks a lot for the compliment! And thank you very much for telling me more about Belgium - I still don't know enough about any European country and all informations are always very welcome, cause they help me understand...
As for the commission making the constitution: yes, I think this was a good idea, but I wonder wether it is better to force all countries to join it at the same time or wether it would be better to do it like with the monetary union, in the sense of a "Europe of different speeds". This might sound like a stupid question, but I just don't know enough about it yet and therefore am grateful for any information/points of view. I just think that different european countries have different governmental traditions and different mentalities and therefore some might need more time than others to agree with certain procedures and concepts.
Regarding the rösti-gap (actually "rösti-ditch" - I've looked it up again - "Rösti-Graben" in German): this word exists and was coined by the media in the context of votes where this gap had shown.... As to the "Xenophobe's Guide to the Swiss": it explains a lot about us in a very funny way... If I knew how to show pictures in this forum I'd post the sketch... And if anybody is interested: the booklet was written by Paul Bilton, who is British and somehow ended up in Switzerland, got married to a Swiss woman and now "lives entirely off rösti and müesli (but never on the same plate)"....

As to the foreigners in Switzerland today: The Italians now are regarded as the "better Swiss", and everybody wants to have at least one in their family!... Whereas the same speeches one heard 40 years ago about the Italians carrying the knives, causing trouble, scaring (or worse: taking away by marriage, like my father did) women, being the criminals etc. now are applied to people from former Yugoslawia and Africa. That's what leaves me fuming. Give these same Swiss another 40 years time, and they'll all eat Kebab and will regard these people as "our kin" like they think now of the Italians. It's not even the money that is "carried" away, what they're worrying about. It's just that these foreigners "are lazy and carry knives". What nobody sees is that "these foreigners" are not allowed to work during their first 6 months here, so no wonder they hang around having nothing to do. One difference between them and the Italians is, that the former are traumatized by their wars. And of course that shows in a more violent approach to conflict. But give them time to learn, to go to school (not only the children, but also the adults) for chrissake! How would we behave if we came from a war-shaken country?!

@andymackem: Thank you very much for your contributions too! This discussion wouldn't more be than mutual "mind-wanking" if we all shared the same opinions...
And also thank you for the informations about what "the British" think - I still don't know enough about Britian.
Several points I would like to comment on:
a) handing decision making to people who aren't always qualified to do so: 1. Every now and then this same argument comes up in switzerland as well, brought up from people who'd like to reduce our democratic rights. I hate this point. People aren't stupid, and usually they know quite well what's going on in their country, or they don't give a damn about politics. But the latter is ok too, in my opinion: at "normal" votes only about 30% of the swiss citizens go voting. If it regards something about the EU or joing the UNO it will be between 60% and 70%. But so what? Everybody has the right to vote, but you can't force people. They stay quiet as long as they're happy enough in this State. The main thing is: nobody can complain as everybody has had the opportunity to vote.
2. I judge citizens as more competent than politicians/governments, because although each citizen acts in his/her own private interest, the winning majority expresses a public interest, because it is a majority. A government/politian never looks further than to the next election. They don't have a public interest in mind, just their own interest of gaining and keeping power and maybe the interest of their small lobby, if at all.

b) Regarding your statement "Who has understood the constitution?": Point taken. I don't know about British education, but we hardly learn anything about our Swiss constitution at school. I wouldn't have a clue about it, had I not studied "constitutional law" as a side subject at university. Again and again I have my rants against the Swiss system that expects people to vote, but doesn't teach them to think.
On the other hand: The fact that the Swiss voters every now and again manage to vote intelligently (well, let's face it, read: vote according to my opinion) shows that they're able to get the needed information somewhere. That's where the media come in. I don't know how "free" the press (and tv) is in Britain (please feel free to tell me more, I don't have a clue). Here we have several trustworthy and "serious" newspapers, some completely independent, one slightly biased by economic points of view (slightly more right-wing, but not at all populist) that nevertheless gives very good information, one very left-wing. In short: there is variety, choice, and you get serious information that also explains you things like the constitution or whatever. Obviously the people read one or more of these newspapers.
Then there's public tv and even public radio. I hate the political discussions we have each fridaynight on tv, because I just explode when I hear those right wing populists lie and tell their s**t, stirring in people's fears, but still, even hearing and watching the leftwing and the rightwing politicians having a go at each other bears some useful information for those with stronger nerves than I have...
What is it like in Britain?

c) Polish people buying western products: first: Please, all you dear Polish people, forgive us abusing you as an example!
Seriously: No country can produce everything it needs. I agree with you that one should try to support local products, because that means local jobs/industries are kept, less transport means less polution and less transport costs etc. But that's not what people do (at least here where I leave). They might prefer Swiss meat (because the British might carry the desease which's name I don't recall, regardless of the fact that our Swiss meat can carry the same desease), but often they'll buy the cheaper stuff. They even bother to take their car an drive over the border to France or Germany to get some food (or brands) cheaper. Or they'll buy the Hungarian goose for Xmas instead of the more expensive Swiss gooze.
Now don't nask me what kind of products the Polish people will want to buy from us, cause I don't know. But I'm sure there are western products they'd like to get. I just remember the big "Sony" advertisment in Warsaw, and the "Tesco" in Warsaw I've been dragged to (by British friends though). But, above all: we want them to buy our stuff, because our economies want to grow and grow and grow, so we need new markets. And you and me, we want that too, because we want the jobs in our industries to be kept etc. etc.
Now the protection of our own industries: As we've said before, Switzerland doesn't belong to the EU, so in theory we could protect all our industries and tell the rest of the world to fcuk off. BUT: Our industries are moving east anyway, to Poland, to Romania, to China with their productions, because there they can produce cheaper (human labour doesn't cost as much), which gives them more profit, while we here in Switzerland won't pay less. So: you cannot prevent your industries to move to "cheaper" countries, whether you're in the EU or not. The "advantage" for the Swiss people, if we did belong to the EU, from a one-dimensional point of view would be that the prices for food would drop considerably, because - subsidising or not - they are more expensive here than in the EU. Wages would drop too, of course, but let's leave that aside for the moment.
What I try to get across is also that I believe that this gap between the north and the south as you have described it for Britain is something that happens anyway, wether a state is in the EU or not, because this depends on the private economy, which doesn't give a fcuk about the people and their life expectancy. But the EU at least will try to help poorer regions to regain their strenght. That's why I brought the example of Irelend in a previous post. Ireland had a huge benefit from the EU. So it is not only "eastern" countries that benefit from this community.
Agriculture and subsidising: What some of the more sensible people here try to do, is linking agricultural subsidies (what's the proper noun?) to "care of nature". The farmer looks after nature and keeps our green spaces as they are, and therefore he gets the subsidies (?) for his products. I cannot explain this properly, but it is aimed at giving the farmer who works with organic productions, cares well of his animals and doesn't damage nature a reward and a financial helping hand to do the job as society wants him to do it. I don't know whether I can get across what I mean. That, I think, could be an intelligent way of subsidising agriculture. We all want our green spaces to stay clean and intact.

d) Interesting question, the one with "10% higher prices and zero immigrants"... I'm not sure wether I'd like to know how the "average Swiss" would vote in such a situation. But I'd like to think that given the fact that the left wing party still holds slightly more power than the right wing, we might decline such an "offer". But a country of citizens who have launched about 10 anti-immigrant initiatives in the past 30 years is somewhat unpredictable when facing such a choice.... I hasten to add though that each of these racist initiatives have been declined by the voters. If not I'd have emigrated a long time ago!

e) the power of the media. Here there is 1 newspaper (tabloid) that follows the public, but the others rather lead the public. I think media (freedom of press! freedom of speech! etc.) can be very strong and very important! Just look at all those countries (at the moment for example Russia!) who try to manipulate their citizens: First thing they do is trying to get control over the media. Never underestimate their power, if they use their freedom.
On the other hand: the trouble of every journalist is that he doesn't get in contact with his audience, so he never (or rarely) gets the feedback. And therefore I do understand the doubts of people who work for a newspaper (I work for one too, though not as a journalist - I've done that and decided that it's faaaaaaaaaaar to stressful for my taste ), as the journalists hardly ever see the effects of their writing....

[Dark]

So much text.. o.o

[Eva]

Are you suggesting I should try and get a life?

[Obviousman]

Another exam done, and another day to spend on talking about stuff like this

Eva, I think the thing Europe'd better do is stopping this two-speeded Europe, because it is (again) one of those short term/long term things... This two-speed Europe is also about the best explanation why you cannot easily find out what the plusses are for country X (in the case of this entire story: most probably the UK) compared to EU country Y (Belgium, Poland, whatever other country...)...
You can only make people (across different countries) equal if the same rules apply to all of them, and therefore they all get the same chances...

I agree to your statement on people coming from countries where there is war, and therefore they bring (more) agressive people, it indeed sounds like the natural reaction...

In Belgium too, there isn't too much education about the constitution, and wel, laws, there tend to come so many new ones, you just have to loose the plot
Just out of interest, Britain doesn't have a constitution, but only laws (they do teach us British legislation hasn't evolved since Magna Carta ), or is this a mistake

One of the two newspapers I read (almost) daily was talking about some Swiss newspaper, ZRR (Zürcher something, IIRC), in which they were making fun about our foreign affairs secretary, is that a good newspaper ?

Great explanation for the advantages of the EU , I couldn't have explained it better Just liked to add, the Union even is some sort of safeguard against industries going to the East (although I don't like to think of it that way): Because of the free market zone, there are absolutely no import/export taxes inside of Europe, which brings an advantage if you're producing things within the Union that need to be transported. That's, I think, about the only reasons we did not get lots of Chinese cars (I know, cars again, but they just make a good example for much things ) yet, it just costs too much to transport them, and so their prices have to drop even lower if they want to make car export real cheap (BTW: this morning on the radio: Chinese shoe export, up 689%, or something in that region, last year )

Some other point I'd like to bring up:
How about (illegal) immigration, shouldn't this better be more 'Europeanised'? Now the country where they've entered the EU through, have to take the immigrants, shouldn't all of the immigrants entering the EU better be spreaded over the entire Union?
Oh, and why do they all try to get to the UK? Is it just because the smugglers can ask those folks more money (they have to cross a border and a bit of water extra)

Oh BTW? are you german/italian/german-swiss?

[andymackem]

To clarify, since it's been raised.

The UK has no written constitution. Instead we rely on a combination of statute and case law.

If you want you can trace back to at least 1215 and the signing of the Magna Carta - a document drawn up by members of our aristocracy in a bid to formalise the relationship between the King and his council of advisors. This could be seen as one of the earliest examples of a parliamentary democracy, unless you think democracy should actually involve the population of a country rather than its wealth

Since then our parliamentary system and our laws have been modified by acts of parliament. Key pieces of historic legislation include the 1707 Act of Union which finally forged England, Scotland, Wales and whichever bits of Ireland we fancied into the United Kingdom (early federalism?) and the 1832 reform act which opened out voting rights to a wider swathe of the population.

In more recent times various criminal justice bills are fundamentally altering the way our courts and police work: increasingly there are facilities for lengthier detainment of suspects (especially in terrorism cases), trials without juries (intended for financial cases where the technical complexities are perhaps too difficult for the general public to properly understand) and broader powers of arrest on suspicion of terrorism or public disorder.

As a system an unwritten constitution has advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, it is very flexible. Changing our laws is within the remit of the government of the day, with none of the complexities needed to complete a constitutional amendment in the US model. This means that the post-1997 creation of a Scottish Parliament and elected assemblies for London and for Wales proved a straightforward legislative move, for example.

But it also means we have very few definable rights as citizens. There is no legally enshrined right to freedom of speech, privacy etc. That has a potential for abuse, although in practise I don't think it's a big problem. And, of course, when it is easy to make a change there is a danger that you will easily make the wrong change. But that's true in any system.

I'm working at the moment, but I'll get back to you on the media later. If you're really that interested!

@ Obviousman: your point about immigration is a huge issue in the UK. It is widely assumed that we take in more refugees / asylum seekers than anywhere else in the world. However, the UNHCR has Germany as Europe's biggest destination, and Pakistan as the biggest in the world.

The UK does have large visible ethnic minorities, mainly from Commonwealth countries, like any former imperial nation. We also speak the most widely-studied language on the planet, so there is a greater chance of any immigrant having some knowledge of English than they would French, Italian, Icelandic etc.

There is a widespread belief, stoked by some politicians, that we are a 'soft touch' for immigrants, who can come here and get a free house, welfare payments, healthcare etc. From time to time a newspaper will get excited about a (usually Muslin) family from the Balkans who have about 80 children and 'cost you, the British taxpayers, £1500 a minute' or some such claim.

It gets people angry, but doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. In particular, the 'they don't work, they don't pay tax' issue is precisely because they are not allowed to work and without an income they claim the same tax concessions that anyone else would have.

[Eva]

Another exam done, and another day to spend on talking about stuff like this ?

I still have my exams ahead of me (in autumn), so this discussion for me is the best means of revising stuff I could imagine! And I keep my fingers crossed for you that everything goes according to plan and well...

Eva, I think the thing Europe'd better do is stopping this two-speeded Europe, because it is (again) one of those short term/long term things... This two-speed Europe is also about the best explanation why you cannot easily find out what the plusses are for country X (in the case of this entire story: most probably the UK) compared to EU country Y (Belgium, Poland, whatever other country...)...
You can only make people (across different countries) equal if the same rules apply to all of them, and therefore they all get the same chances...?

Yes, I agree with you. I only came up with that because I thought it might be easier to get acceptance for certain issues, if you allow countries to implement them at a different speed. So I was just seeing it from a practical "diplomatic" point of view. Like the monetary union: Maybe the whole thing would have had to be dropped if the UK hadn't been allowed to stay away from it for the time being? I might be wrong, but that was my train of thoughts.

I agree to your statement on people coming from countries where there is war, and therefore they bring (more) agressive people, it indeed sounds like the natural reaction...?

Yes, and I'm idealist/naive/whatever enough to believe that peaceful countries might be able to show these refugees that and how multiethnic societies, political systems and justice can work and treat all citizens as equals (well, more or less).... And give them the chance to go to school, make an apprenticeship, something that helps them from the practical side to establish better conditions in their home countries when they can go back one day.

In Belgium too, there isn't too much education about the constitution, and wel, laws, there tend to come so many new ones, you just have to loose the plot
Just out of interest, Britain doesn't have a constitution, but only laws (they do teach us British legislation hasn't evolved since Magna Carta ), or is this a mistake ?

I've never really twigged it. In some books I've read that the British constitution just isn't written down, others maintain the British don't have a constitution at all, but just a load of laws (some of them dating back to when the dinosaurs still roamed the world)...
By the way, if you or anybody else here has any good articles about the British and/or the U.S. political/governmental system from a comparative point of view, I'd be very grateful to get them. I've got a few in German, but my professor wants me to read some "authentic" English/American stuff, and I don't mind at all, it just didn't occur to me and therefore I don't have anything in English/American yet.

One of the two newspapers I read (almost) daily was talking about some Swiss newspaper, ZRR (Zürcher something, IIRC), in which they were making fun about our foreign affairs secretary, is that a good newspaper ??

I guess they were talking about the NZZ (Neue Zuercher Zeitung). That's the one which is biased in favour of the economic (right wing/burgeois, but not populist) point of view. I hardly ever read it because I don't like their "high-brow"/"stiff-upper-lip" attitude, but usually they provide quite useful information (each student is expected to read it). I can't comment on that article, because I haven't read (nor even seen) it. But I'll try to get hold of it and if you can provide your newspaper's comment on it I'd like to see that. Usually the NZZ is too "serious" to make fun of anybody, but if your foreign affairs secretary is left wing (or extreme right wing, which I doubt) then he might have been a target for them.

At the moment we have hysteria ruling here, because Benita Ferrero-Something, an EU commissioner or something, has said that if the Swiss don't accept the "Free Moving of People accross the EU, including those of the new menber states" (I don't know the word in English, in German it's "Personenfreizügigkeit") in autumn, we can forget about the Schengen/Dublin contract. Big confusion on the side of our Bundesrat (7 people Executive of the nation), and the people, some maintaining the two contracts have nothing to do with each other, others maintaining that's nothing new, we knew and said that before. The Anti-EU people saying: "See?!, We told ya!", the left wing voters trying to keep the damage as small as possible by calming people down.... Benita is right in a way, but it was very unwise to say something like that aloud, to the Swiss, so shortly after the vote on Schengen. We feel threatened quite easily and tend to say NO to anything we feel threatened by.

Great explanation for the advantages of the EU , I couldn't have explained it better Just liked to add, the Union even is some sort of safeguard against industries going to the East (although I don't like to think of it that way): Because of the free market zone, there are absolutely no import/export taxes inside of Europe, which brings an advantage if you're producing things within the Union that need to be transported. That's, I think, about the only reasons we did not get lots of Chinese cars (I know, cars again, but they just make a good example for much things ) yet, it just costs too much to transport them, and so their prices have to drop even lower if they want to make car export real cheap (BTW: this morning on the radio: Chinese shoe export, up 689%, or something in that region, last year )?

Yes, you're right, I haven't thought of that...

Some other point I'd like to bring up:
How about (illegal) immigration, shouldn't this better be more 'Europeanised'? Now the country where they've entered the EU through, have to take the immigrants, shouldn't all of the immigrants entering the EU better be spreaded over the entire Union?
Oh, and why do they all try to get to the UK? Is it just because the smugglers can ask those folks more money (they have to cross a border and a bit of water extra) ?

1. As far as I know they like to get to the UK, because as it's an island, it is harder to get there, but once you are there, it is easier to get a permit to stay, than in other European countries. Again, I might be wrong, but that's what I've heard.

2. I'm not sure yet what to think. It certainly is a reason why the Swiss voted YES for Schengen/Dublin last sunday (and I lost a bet and even had to be grateful for having lost it!), that with these contracts, somebody who's asked for asylum somewhere in the EU and has been declined, cannot ask again in another European country or Switzerland. The Swiss are a xenophobe people. About the spreading: I guess the more spreaded foreigners are (and the more mixed a society is), the less racist trouble might occur. The most racist communities/cantons/cities/villages here in Switzerland are those with the least percentage of foreigners. My area has about 20%-30% foreigners, and there's hardly any racism (and mostly leftwing voters), because we're used to live with each other, the Swiss and the foreigners. One tends to fear what one doesn't know, and it's easier to have prejudices against an anonymous mass, than against your neighbours. But I'd think it inhuman to move the foreigners around Europe as if they were cattle...

One of my concerns is the following: There are foreigners coming to Switzerland who have no passports or other papers of identification. We call them "Sans-Papiers". The french speaking part of Switzerland has adopted a practice of mostly allowing them to stay for humanitarian reasons, and thus somehow legalising their status, where as the German speaking part deals with them saying if they have no papers they can't apply for a permit to stay and have to leave Switzerland immediately. I think this is a tragedy, because usually the Sans-Papiers are those who have the most reasons to leave their home countries.
What I like is that the french speaking part can still adopt their own policy (and I'd wish the german speaking part would adopt it too). I hope this kind of different strategies of dealing with Sans-Papiers is not going to be inhibited, because somebody has to give them a chance for a better life.
Here again, I don't know enough about how the EU deals with refugees etc. But I've just read in the newspaper today (I read the "Tages-Anzeiger" more or less daily, as it's independent, slightly left wing, and I work there... ) that Switzerland got critizised either by the European or United Nations Human Rights people, because of our severe laws "against" asylum seekers (what's the proper English term?). I'm glad the international community sets us under pressure for improving the situation and become more humanitarian again, respecting human rights more etc. regarding refugees, because I think it's the only way at the moment to stop this racist right wing groove which has been taken over since about 10 years or more in Switzerland.

Oh BTW? are you german/italian/german-swiss?

I'm half Swissgerman, half Italian, my mother is from Zürich, my father from Genova, Italy, and I'm lucky (and very glad!) to have two citizenships (Swiss and Italian) So I can consider myself as a citizen of the EU and still vote in Switzerland....
If I remember correctly you also have mixed origins - where are you/your ancestors from?

[Obviousman]

I've made a translation of the article in my newspaper (it was a rather short one, so)... The article deals with the fact our foreign affairs secretary, Karel de Gucht (a liberal, don't know if I should consider him "dark blue" -right wing- or "light blue" -leftwing-, as they call it here), said Dutch prime minister Balkenende is 'a mixture of Harry Potter and utter boringness', which was according to him (and to me) an unexplainable difference in comparison to Fortuyn (he became prime minister shortly after Fortuyn got killed)...
My comment on the 'reason': Balkenende made himself look like such a grey figure, and never said anything important (in favour or against Fortuyn) during the campaign, and because of this utter boringness, he got to winning the elections...
Context: It was put in the category light news or "In between friends" as they call this part of the newspaper. De Morgen is a newspaper originating from socialist newspapers and now it is a lifestyle-newspaper (sort of thing) but with high quality reporting and a slight left inclination...

(my comments are between brackets and start with OM )

Fatpot

Not that it was the biggest news around, but the (psuedo) riot between Karel de Gucht and Jan Peter Balkenennde, but the news made it's way to some places in Europe, though in the category lighter and slightly funny news. De Gucht is wieder einmal in Fettnäpchen getreten - a fatpot. Another faux-pas for the Belgian foreign affairs secretary. Lecture of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung yesterday looked like the lecture of most Flemish newspapers. In a long article in the Swiss quality newspaper De Gucht's comments -"known for his direct and undiplomatic language" (OM: True, but mostly 99% chance he's right ) - are discribed as "rude". There even is a slight echo of Leterme in it (OM: Flemish prime-minister, Flemish Catholic Party CD&V), with referals to the Schelde-deeping (OM: Now that is what they should have a riot about ) and the Iron Rhine (OM: An 'ancient' railway from Antwerp to the Ruhr area, Holland more or less blocks it, progress being made though). Of course De Gucht's biggest international 'tour de force' could not be missed here. "Also then", NZZ knows, "prime minister Verhofstad (OM: Federal) had to come in between to prevent diplomatic damage"

It also appears to have been in The Times and on BBC, as you see Belgium is big news
(the Kongo thing is about him having said Joseph Kabila (president of Kongo) was a bastard child of the previous Kabila-president-guy)

Terrible Riot

The Times mostly talks about JP the MP's lack of humour, prime minister Balkenende, to put it differently. Balkenende previously posed with Harry Potter pictures (OM: Very true, I'll look them up, very funny ), but he cannot laugh if someone else points out the resemblance. The diplomatic incident between "the bordering Low Lands" is described by the conservative British newspaper as "improbable", while De Gucht is said to have a sharp tongue (OM: again, true). Because after Verhofstad excused himself to Balkenende - not entirely correct version by the way - The Times pleases themselves De Gucht kept on telling his words were torn out of context (OM: Well, he denied it at first, afterwards the recorded interview surfaced, he said something else he shouldn't have said, and after that the Consul offered his apologies to the Dutch foreign affairs secretary

Tintin

BBC's reporting on the incident was somewhat dryer. They tell the complete story of the riot, to directly conclude with De Gught's precedents. Those were mainly in Kongo. "The Belgian foreign affairs secretary went onto thin ice before", thus it goes. With undercooled irony BBC dig up the comparison made by the government of Kongo then, the one with Tintin, "the colonial comic book hero". A short search through BBC's most recent coverage on De Gucht isn't necessarily meant flattering. One title goes "Belgian foreign affairs secretary blunders in Kongo" and the other articles mainly deal with that diplomatic failure in Central Africa too.

I'll make my comments on the posts of the both of you in another posts if that's okay (have to read through them again and think of some stuff that can actually be put in )

[Obviousman]

@andymackem: Thanks about clarifying the non-constitution part
Also thanks for the interesting part about immigration, now wouldn't a more European policy make this much easier to take care of?
This way people would stopped being going to whatever country they feel like, but rather fill up quota. And I do not necessarily mean this in a negative way, much more like one to Belgium, one to Holland, two to England, three to Germany or whatever-like...
The not paying, just drawing money-thing is a very general one, across Europe, that's about Right Wing complaint number one... As an economist (to be) my comments are: they spend the money they get too, and spending means someone makes money out of it (though I won't be saying if they spend it on the right thing )

@Eva:
Well, next week, I'll be giving exams on "European and International environments", sure all this will be of help (Mathematics and Financial Markets too, but that's another thing - by the way, half that Financial course consists of: all the world goes like X, the UK does Y )

About two speeded Europe: Indeed, half is better than none, but they should make real choices, not like the UK, short time advantage means we're in and short time disadvantages means we'll leave this part to the others... You have to be prepared to have some (slight) losses and take risks to get somewhere... There's this Dutch saying that goes "Samen uit, samen thuis" (or "Leave home together, get back home together")

The idealist thing: I'm idealist too on that sort of matters, I think you have to be somewhat an idealist in life if you want to be able to believe in your goals... As long as you know you're one, no problem

On Benita, well, I guess she's like De Gucht too than

The assylum thing: I've read before Switzerland has a very, very, very strict law on that (and I somewhat track that down in your post too), aren't there any problems because of the French part having their own rules/policy on immigration, because, if they're in in part A, they are in in part B too, no?
One way I think strict laws are necessary, you don't want to get half of the world in your country, and if they want to come to the Western World, well, as there's practically no way of getting (legally) into the US, Canada or Australia, so only one option left: EU... If we would do nothing about it, well, it'd be much of a problem too... Now we shouldn't conduct policies like the US and others do, because that's nonsense, they get in anyway, but remain illegal, but we should think of something much much better instead... This is one of the reasons why I always thought the EU is a more humane answer to US and others...

My ancestors, well, my mother and father are both from just across the border in "Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen", the part of Holland stuck to Belgium with the Scheldt river separating it from the rest. My mother said to have some Spanish blood, but for the rest she's mostly native from back there, my father his mother, originated from Vienna and was adopted after WWI, her parents came from Hungary and Bayern IIRC, and my father's father had his 'roots' in Belgium... I think that is about it

EXTRA/EDIT Just not to make 3 succeeding posts :
Just came to my mind, shouldn't yesterdays Bush/Blair speech about freeing the third world from debts better have been a Bush/Barroso (or Solana/Michel) speech