Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you can’t join them, beat them: Denmark, football, Maastric
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you can’t join them, beat them: Denmark, football, Maastricht and Brexit’s genesis
They shouldn’t even have been there, and had it not been for the disintegration of Yugoslavia, they wouldn’t have been. However, they didn’t let their second chance go to waste and as the leaders of the twelve EC members met in Lisbon, the plucky Danes overturned the natural order of things and defeated Germany’s assumed unstoppable progress.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jonathan-friedland-exits-netflix-1122675
As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.
As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.
Peter Bone agrees with you re the Single European Act. He described Maastricht - IIRC - as a pimple on the arse that was the SEA.
#SaveTheTrees
Not that we should be too critical of the politicians of 1991-3. For one thing, we don’t know that their prime motive wasn’t right – after all, Germany’s strength was enough of a problem within the Euro; what greater problems might it have caused had it been freer to determine its own tax, spending and interest rate policies?
I find this really odd. Surely the Euro has made Germany more powerful not less. And what problems did Kohl envisage? He must really have had a low opinion of his countrymen/women to think that the horrors of the past could be repeated.
Why use the actual n-word and not the phrase n-word like you did?
Good article, Mr. Herdson. I especially agree with the line about us wanting neither to be within nor without the EU. The UK likes the economics but not the politics, yet the EU's deranged federalist fantasies and cramming together, inextricably, those two aspects put us in an invidious position.
Of course, had the promised Lisbon referendum been held, that would've acted as a strong signal we didn't like the direction the organisation was going in. But Brown preferred to renege on a manifesto pledge.
Edited extra bit: final practice starts at midday. Qualifying and race times are (around) 3pm.
Bit of a risk of three dull races in a row.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Meeks, assuming you think Belgium will win, seems like a good moment.
They succeeded for a generation. I’m far from convinced that the current failures can be blamed on decisions taken then.
Spain or Portugal for me. Portugal has the better odds.
7-9% for Golden Dawn.
ND are on about 35%, and SYRIZA are in the low 20s.
It's interesting that the UK has taken drastic action in voting to leave the EU but the two main parties remain strong in polling terms. Of course, one of those has been taken over by the far left...
(As an aside, while PASOK in Greece bears most - internal - responsibility for the financial crisis there, the ND government of Konstantinos Karamanlis was guilty of running budget deficits during the Greek boom prior to the GFC. ND has got off very lightly for some very poor decisions.)
Today is the second anniversary of the momentous EU referendum, those who don’t want to watch F1 or football might be interested in BBC Parliament Channel’s replay of the mad night we all stayed up with @AndyJS’s spreadsheet - starting just before 10am today.
https://gizmodo.com/[object Object]
Explaining what’s wrong with these two points of the legislation in detail is difficult because the articles themselves are so vague. That’s the primary issue for critics. Both articles make unprecedented demands on anyone operating a popular website to monitor copyrighted material and to pay fees to news organizations when linking out to their articles. Defenders of the plan say that critics are exaggerating because of assumptions they’re making about how the legislation will be implemented....
That last bir reminds me of something we might have heard of before relating to Europea legislation....
The EU's off its head.
https://youtu.be/1TmUP1StPf0?t=6h40m6s
The UK should never have signed the Maastricht Treaty.
And a Love Island contestant...
He once tried to impress on Thatcher by his outlook, habits, language etc. that he was European, not German. How far he succeeded may be judged by her first comment on getting to the plane: 'God, that man's so German!'
I think that there were concerns that the addition of another 17m people would make Germany over dominant. It was why Thatcher instinctively opposed German unification but that proved unstoppable. The Euro was thought to be a way of constraining German power. Not sure that has worked.
I am also not sure I agree that the SEA was more important than Maastricht either. the SEA was designed to make the common market a reality by tackling the NTBs that the CJE had not managed to strike down and, importantly for the UK even then, to move on the concept of the common market to the field of services. The latter did require an extension of competence of the EEC institutions but it was really more of the same.
Maastricht was much, much bolder in its concepts. It was really Delors' baby and his answer to the left wing charge that the EU was a right wing trading club designed to do down the workers (which was of course behind the hostility in the Labour party). He sought to balance this by making it a social institution and the source of workers rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice. He was spectacularly successful and most thinking lefties (this excluding Corbyn of course) have been instinctively supportive of the EU ever since.
https://twitter.com/thomasklau/status/1007959569354690561
As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.
I don't think I'm particularly a Thatcherite so have no reason to defend her record for its own sake.
Certainly the SEA introduced structural reforms, including the extension of QMV, in order to assist the integration of the Single Market. But the question isn't just about the voting mechanism but what it's used for. The SM was the culmination of the economic project; the final stage of the EEC, if you like. Maastricht quite consciously went a lot further, building a role for the EU with Home and Foreign Affairs, and with a Social agenda, as well as the even more significant creation of the Euro (which was not necessary for the purpose of the SM, though it did aid it a little further).
In any case, the national veto on day-to-day affairs was becoming increasingly unsustainable even in 1986, when the SEA was signed. What was designed for six was becoming inappropriate for the expanded EC of twelve, and would have been ridiculous in today's EU of 28.
The SEA certainly rebooted the European integrationist project but it was Maastricht which firmly embedded it as a primarily political project. Until then, while there had always been that political edge, it was possible to ignore that as not particularly significant for practical purposes; after Maastricht, it wasn't.
A number of mainly US-based websites have blocked European visitors as a result of res no reason to think the same actions won’t happen with this legislation. Good news for those selling VPN and proxy services outside the EU.
Edit: another thought that crossed my mind yesterday, what if we can persuade Donald Trump, when he visits the UK next month, to announce that he’s exempting British cars from his new 20% tariff on EU cars? We all know he can’t do that while we are in the EU, but his US audience wouldn’t understand that and it would focus minds here and in Brussels that there are advantages for us of being outside.
He didn't necessarily think particularly badly of his contemporary countrymen; it was more the natural dynamics of international relations he was worried about - though his Nazi-era experiences inevitably left a deep mark.
Thank the sky fairy that we never joined.
However obviously we have no interest in restarting the Empire again, we just want to be a free self governing nation able to control its own borders and govern its own affairs and have good relations with most of the world
Trump is a New York real estate magnate. He sees every deal as a way to screw people, and that includes his own staff and suppliers. I see no reason why we in the UK would be exempt. He has no friends because he is a narcissist sociopath.
We should get out of the group, but I cannot see us getting past the QF. If we come out with 9 points then I may start to believe.
2 weeks today I am off to the Semi-Final for a week. Should be fun.
As for the EEC not being "political" then somehow becoming political at Maastricht, this is a bit mad. It was always political, but if really have to pick a decisive point on that journey then it would be the Single European Act not Maastricht. British Conservatives like to pin everything on Maastricht to avoid messing up their Thatcher mythology.
The Single European Act was an economic act which created the Single Market and free movement of goods, services and people, it was only when the latter included the post Cold War free movement of people from lower wage Eastern Europe it created a problem for the higher waged Western Europe (especially as Blair did not introduce transition controls).
It was not a primarily political act like the Maastricht, Nice or Lisbon Treaties pushing towards a Federal EU or indeed the creation of the Euro
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44581546
A reciprocal deal for tarrif-free trade in manufactured good and components should be relatively straightforward for the UK and US to agree.
Unlikely results are surprisingly common in football.
Though I suppose she might stumble across your recent videos....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/6224723/Tory-public-spending-cuts-could-push-unemployment-to-5-million.html
That would make an interesting comparison to the actual out-turn.
A Panama Hat Trick.
(I'll get my coat, and hat)
https://www.eui.eu/DepartmentsAndCentres/RobertSchumanCentre/Publications/WorkingPapers/9833t
(search for crypt or Bach)
Panama defended well against Belgium, they will be tough to break down. I suspect that they would be happy with a point, then try to beat Tunisia and go through on goal difference.
This isn't unique to EU bureaucrats, we've seen, from all sides, UK MPs who think magic filters and alchemical algorithms can use the mystic power of numbers to make the internet safe/child-friendly for everyone. (And I've not forgotten the demented proposal to destroy encryption). But the EU's propositions are so obviously vile those backing them are damned fools, or just plain villains.
Stage 1 could be for manufactured good and machines, stage 2 for professional services, stages 3 and 4 for the difficult stuff like agri and pharma. If we allowed say 18 months to negotiate and agree each stage, it could lead to the more difficult industries understanding the mutual benefits of agreeing a deal.
Right now, Trump doesn’t think that Britain is screwing Amercia, this gives us an opportunity.
*In her case it was more about re-creating a previous golden age but it was forward looking and optimistic about itself.