Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the Migrant crisis has laid bare the EU’
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the Migrant crisis has laid bare the EU’s big delusion
Ever closer union: three words that have caused interminable difficulty for those who wanted – those who want – a European Common Market. Three words that are now superfluous, though not for the reasons that the Marketeers would like.
0
Comments
What has worried me over the past few years is that the democratic deficit seems to be widening- and without any real attemp to fix it...
Accordingly in contrast to @Mortimer I find this Herders offering to be absolute tosh and it should have been censored in favour of a thread on the wonders of AV that has long merited the attention of PB worthies.
I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.
The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.
But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY
So jackw you disagree as all europhiles would. But what is your view on what the EC should do?
That sounds complacent, but I don't like it any more than David does, for different reasons: I'd like to push ahead with greater integration and greater joint democracy (elected President etc.). But for all of us, an expectation of a grand redesign is a delusion, and it's important that reluctant Inners don't pin their hopes on it. There will be a series of rows followed by a fudged deal and warm words. It's possible that there will be something concrete on migration, and no doubt the City will get reassurance, but there just isn't a will for a massive rethink, or for any final deal at all before 2019.
I suspect that we too will vote for the status quo in the end, but if we let voters think that a cathartic moment of change (either to greater union or some sort of new structure) is coming, we are kidding them. This isn't unique to the EU - with the Scottish referendum we've had our own moment of existential crisis, but how much has actually changed in the way we organise Britain? Are we hurrying ahead with a grand redesign of how the UK is structured? No, we're muddling through. It's what governments do.
Until we stop the 'get to the border and you're home free' the problem won't go away. We need to start shipping economic migrants out pronto and find some way of processing refugees in circumstances which make getting to Western Europe in the first place irrelevant to the out come. Australia has seen a collapse in people smuggling......
Shocked, but not altogether surprised to read yesterday that the EU tariffs hit us more than he rest of the EU - we trade less with the common market than outside of it.
One thought I had was that if exporters from post-EU UK would be able to export without VAT - probably negating any impact our withdrawal would have on UK- EU trade.
Bring it on, I say.
Australia has more defensible borders, with hundreds of miles of sea, Kos or Lesbos are a few miles off the Turkish coast.
Stopping the flow would not be easy or palatable. It would be possible to build internment camps for the migrants rather than roam freely, it would be possible to deny them any relief at all, it would be possible to use our navies to sink boats rather than rescue them. It would be possible to land any arrivals back in Turkey or Libya, or even Assad controlled Syria. None of these are very palatable solutions, and are not going to happen.
We are experiencing globalisation.
Bring back TSE and give us want we crave - An EU sponsored poptastic AV thread to settle the stomach before gluttony overcomes us in the coming minutes.
David is right that the migration crisis has exposed some of the weaknesses and delusions of the EU. David is also right that the de facto leadership of the EU by Angela Merkel (who in fairness successfully steered the EZ through a series of crises in recent years) has been badly, perhaps fatally damaged by this crises.
But, in my view, David is wrong to see the issue in apocalyptic terms. The options for the EU are not either becoming a single country or breaking up. They never were. It is perfectly possible for the EU to continue in its current form indefinitely. It is the kind of thinking that concluded logically the Euro was bound to fail and break up. Well, apparently not.
If it is not to be the United States of Europe what is the EU's function? Well, ideally, it is a constitutional structure which allows the many small countries in this divided continent of ours to work together to address problems that affect them all. The European Arrest Warrant is a good example. If we are to have free movement of goods and people the opportunities for crime are almost endless and the authorities need to be able to act against those who exploit that movement for criminal purposes.
The EU also allows the small countries of Europe to have some say in international standards and gives EU companies a domestic market exceeding even the US in size. I think people underestimate how important that market is to the UK. It goes beyond simple free trade and a lack of duties. It creates standards that mean that a car built in Sunderland meets all of the standards and emission requirements (VW notwithstanding) throughout a market of 600 million people without alteration or local specialisation. Nissan simply could not be one of the most efficient factories in the world without that.
So if we did not have something like the EU I think we would need to invent it. It is a very, very long way from perfect. The dominance of the EZ bloc is a concern for the UK as is the reluctance to extend the free movement of goods to services (which we are much better at) to the same extent. There has to be more realism about what the EU can do and what it can't. Larger countries like the UK will have different views about that than smaller ones and some compromises will be necessary. But Europe is simply too small in the modern world to have 30 independent non co-operating countries without a single market and all that that entails.
The reality of the European market would mean a degree of standardisation would likely exist even without the largely non democratic institutions of the EU.
Or, perhaps the better alternative, less stringent regulations would be passed.
Th EU is a typically flabby and over legislated European response to globalisation. And it has been acheived really rather poorly.
This is what makes the common market work. It is not about tariffs or free trade, it is about the right to sell your product which meets the common standard anywhere inside the market without restraint.
If we left the EU we would still have to comply with all those standards set by the remaining countries without our input for all of our trade with our European partners. Of course we don't have to comply with such standards when trading elsewhere but even there EU standards are pervasive and persuasive in allowing access to local markets. We would not be able to press for such standards in the supply of financial service products, for example, which are really important to us.
I am exasperated by the EU and frustrated by its undemocratic nature, its bureaucracy, the self serving way it is exploited by countries like France, the way more and more QMV decisions are going to be made by the Euro bloc, the sheer cost of our membership, I could go on all morning. But I think this unified country or bust argument is tosh.
I am out for the day before the big match, but cannot see that the current migrant crisis would be much different if the EU did not exist.
It is like the borders of Rome in the 4th century. A lot of people want what civilisation has achieved, but without the discipline and freedoms that created it. We have new Huns in the form of IS etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html
Serious problems.
But withdrawal is not the way to solve them. And retreat to Westminster/Whitehall is hardly the answer.
Can't see anyone wanting to share secret info with Corbyn. It would be like offering David Icke a quick look.
I thought this central: "Europe has wanted it both ways: to play at Union by giving up what are essential national powers without handing that power up to anyone. It has simply been lost." The trouble with the EU is everybody wants it both ways. The commitment to the European superstate exists with many in Brussels, and a handful in national capitals. The rest of Europe looks at the UK like it is some spotty teenager, reluctantly dragged along by the parents to a party, where it insists on hogging the music with its favoured death metal that no-one else wants to listen to. But we are starting to see the spotty teenager in many EU members. And Merkel and Juncker are the parents every spotty teenager rages against.
To function as a superstate, the EU needs a common currency and secure borders. (Everything that wishes to call itself a state needs respected borders.) The bold thing to do would be for Brussels to grab the referendum initiative itself. Each country should take new vows. The Euro and Schengen. And ever closer union. And a European army. And a Constitution. All the stuff it wants, all the stuff it is trying to do by stealth. Call national bluffs. Are you in - or are you out?
Bet the farm that all bar the UK would cling to nurse for fear of something worse.
And those nations that do vote to fold into a European superstate will probably prosper in a reinvigorated Europe, shorn of so much of the pretence and subterfuge. The UK and those that don't join could still be offered some associate status (in reality, a non-aggression pact on tariffs and trade).
Chances of it happening? Nil.
We have to tackle the smugglers. Get the UN to pass a law stating that people smuggling of any sort will be tackled rigorously internationally, with the perpetrators dealt with at the Hague. Maximum sentence (for the people really making the money) would be death (*). Which is what they are condemning many of the people they are smuggling to.
(*) For the people who are against the death sentence, we can make it fair. Put the people smugglers into a rubber dinghy in the middle of the Pacific a few thousand miles from any land.
Once again, as I often find with a David H piece (for which, as always, many thanks), there are areas of profound disagreement.
One event, completely unforeseeable and wholly outside the EU's control, has shaped where we are today and have moved the European ideal far beyond where it was conceived to be in the 1940s and 1950s.
The fall of Communism in 1989 is, as I've often said, an event whose reverberations are being felt to this day and whose consequences were not well understood or appreciated at the time. The world was profoundly different before the Wall fell - it would be profoundly different if it had stayed up and we were "celebrating" the 70th anniversary of the Cold War.
The desire to bring the ex-Communist states of central and eastern Europe "back into the fold" radically altered the balance of the EU. The overhasty inclusion of distorted economies such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic as well as the unification of Germany created new tensions and inbalances. Ultimately, it offered prosperous but inflationary western Europe a potential source of cheap labour which could choke off that inflation while the end of the threat of war in Europe gave a huge fiscal boost to the whole Continent as swords were turned into luxury goods or welfare payments.
The end of the Cold War killed the inflation which had ended previous economic booms. Defence spending became "the peace dividend" and the EU was forced to accept an influx of new members for which it was unprepared. We also pushed NATO eastward but the EU isn't NATO and never has been.
I don't see a solution to the mess we have made for ourselves through our own shortsightedness. To her credit, Margaret Thatcher (and to his, Francois Mitterrand) were cautious about German re-unification but everyone assumed they were WW2 dinosaurs - they weren't. They saw, through the mass movement of peoples in 1989-90, a vision of the future.
So what happens ? If we vote to leave, will others follow ? Perhaps - I've always thought a German-based ring of northern European and Scandinavian economies in a Union could and would work pretty well. There are obvious synergies for France and some of the Mediterranean economies but the current waves of migration from the Middle East and North and Central Africa would challenge even the most robust economies and that requires a whole different line of thinking and solution for which the EU isn't the only provider.
As for the Referendum, as I see it, neither side has any answers to the big questions.
On the other hand I don't reckon the migrants would make the journey if there were no EU and I don't think merkel would have made her offer either
If we weren't in the EU, we would not be able to co-operate with our European neighbours.
What? You can have excellent relations with your neighbour, without sharing her housekeeping.
We would need to put something in its place, were we to leave the EU. Wrong. Nothing would be fine (though in practice, during the two year notice period, 'deals would be done'). BMW, JLR and all firms downwards in size would continue to trade across borders, much as they do now. Who thinks German car companies would be too stupid/straight-laced to continue to export to the UK?
I think the EU has had a very bad year - but I think it's a long way from being destroyed. The key problem, as Mr Herdson notes, is that it is simply incapable of deciding if it is a strong, centralised state or a union of sovereign nations. I think the Continental Congress analogy has merit, but the fact is, that was designed to be almost a state, but the EU has never even made that decision for itself, and is now paying the price for such confusion.
Don't you just love the complexities of history?
That's right, virtually none. This is the most bogus of the patriarchal arguments.
The other important thing about the collapse of communism is that it removed the alternative world view to liberal capitalism. Apart from a few Corbynites there has not been an alternative philosophy, until the rise of Islamism at least, which has stepped into that space.
Disenfranchised youth now become Islamists across much of the world where formerly those wanting to bring down the established order would have been communists.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/63553bf2-622f-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html
Jeremy Corbyn: how long can he last?
Apologies if it has been mentioned before, but it has some very interesting inside information which, if accurate, suggests that the upheaval in Labour is a long way from finished, while George Osborne's smugness may actually become unbearable.
I would recommend this video for an exploration of the growth of Islamism in Afghanistan: it was so annoying for the Americans after 9/11 that they reclassified the material it was based on and you still can't get it on DVD in this country so far as I know (warning - it's quite graphic):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bdE1D_fbV0&list=PL8hNHC9nbLlzb4miGp5pZPYCk9Zw0dGke&index=20
*They were also of course given considerable financial and technical aid by the CIA, which the Americans later found rather embarrassing for some reason.
CIA factbook currently considers the current UK's formation as 1927 based on the name change.
EDIT - it is of course worth pointing out that new constitutional arrangements were brought in in 1922 for Northern Ireland as well. But those were bestowed by London, rather than being part of a new statute. They were not very good either and were shockingly badly implemented, although I appreciate that isn't really relevant to your point.
This is a significant, large population and yet, despite the arguments that Germany is some stepping stone to the UK (despite better wages, better employment opportunities, better pensions, better state support, better living standards) is fundamentally wrong.
It is based on the old British patriarchal attitude that Britain is Best and any facts which suggest otherwise can be ignored.
The Kingdom of Northern Ireland was never created. Perhaps stupidly, the Crown decided to try to maintain it;s influence over the Republic of Ireland by giving it the mandate over the Kingdom of Ireland. A mandate they chose to end permanently and finally in 1962.
Blatter looking at 5yrs in jail apparently if found guilty.
The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.
The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist. Multiculturalism let them concentrate and continue the practise of revolting "cultural traditions" like FGM which they found increasingly difficult in the Netherlands.
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249717/Hospital-told-RAF-sergeant-leave-waiting-room-case-uniform-upset-patients.html
And isn't another donor pissed off that their donation was used to pay off a loan made by another one?
More http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/exclusive-ukip-split-widens-as-douglas-carswell-backs-other-leave-campaign/
Already considering emigrating. This country is going to the dogs.
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Respect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34366569
The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.
This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.
I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.
Over half of German Turks still retain their Turkish citizenship indicating that vastly more have been post 1973 and given the age profile, significant numbers post 1992.
Although Ireland never officially gave up its claim to the North until the Good Friday agreement, when the Boundary Commission failed in 1926 it was accepted that Ireland would remain partitioned and that was when the Kingdom of Ireland was renamed the Kingdom of Northern Ireland and it was tacitly accepted the Free State would go its own way as a new Dominion of Ireland, not a kingdom. In response, its share of British debt was written off and at that point it really became a new country in its own right, although for various reasons it did not officially become a republic until 1949.
I know very little about Irish history after the fall of de Valera in 1948, and I have no idea what happened in 1962. So I can't comment either way on that point. The simple fact is that there is a clear Kingdom, in Ireland, united with the British crown since 1801 that can be traced without difficulty to the present day, and that is why I would argue the UK dates from 1801 although its boundaries have changed over time.
Hope that helps.
Will you define yourself as a migrant?
https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/647690396001267713
India is a very young country, it's long term stability is yet to be proven.
Meanwhile we have all the examples from history of multi-national states which have all fallen apart and this continues today in Europe and Africa.
The best example of the lot might be China - a civilisation state with innumerable different nationalities and indeed two roughly equal dominant languages (Mandarin and Cantonese) not including dozens of others. And how long has China endured as a major state, leaving out the weakness of its first republican government from 1912 to 1925 (or perhaps 1949)?
http://www.martinjacques.com/articles/civilization-state-versus-nation-state-2/
Very good piece, Mr. Herdson.
F1: frustrating about Sainz's tyres, good that Kvyat seems ok. Pre-race piece will likely be up around midday.
You bring up France - another fine example. How many French Algerians are there in the UK? Very few.
The irony here is that you are against something I am also against. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and based on age old Patriarchal biases which are completely alien to the real world.
The issue (AIUI) is (1) the process takes too long & then they claim right to remain under family ties or some such; and (2) they destroy identity cards making it hard to identify their country of origin (often leading to suspect CoO rejecting deportees).
It seems to me that (1) can be fixed by speeding up the process and limiting the ability to appeal - perhaps just to one appeal on the facts. Additionally an application for asylum should explicitly disclaim the right to any further appeal. It's in everyone's interests that decisions are made quickly. (2) can then be fixed by having deportation to the country of *entry* not country of origin. Hence people coming via Calais get deported to France (who can then track them back to their country of entry), by plane will be known.
Perhaps we should also limit the places asylum can be claimed to significant ports and airports?
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
What a fool Pierce is. The poor staff at the hospital are working in a poisonous atmosphere and simply don't want trouble. This comes from far higher up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34368181
The concept and idea of being German or Italian exists long before the Nations became unified. They are not good examples.
Whilst I'm not beyond being open to the odd conspiracy theory, talking about POTUS/CIA killing their own people in order to go to war...errr...
The EAW is a good example of how countries should cooperate.
International standards and free trade are a good thing.
Neither require a structure like the EU. The EEC, certainly, but no need to sublimate our sovereignty.
The fact remains that the West's response to 9/11 was to destroy one of the bulwarks against Islamic radicalism - Saddam Hussein.
He may have been guilty of many things, but blowing up the twin towers was not one of them. Going to war on that pretext was a giant lie.
I can't see that's the same as the migrants travelling from Syria now, who are not all from one country and would be arriving en masse rather than gradually
As we all now know, the WMD issue was the most rubbish to the square second since The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but I think that was the case rather than a direct responsibility for the Twin Towers.
If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.
This is from the current smash hit on Broadway - Hamilton: the Musical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wboCdgzLHg
Of course not. And neither does Corbyn, if you look at what he says.
He simply claims that this event was used to attack an enemy that had zero to do with that attack.
There was zero link between Hussein and Al Quaida, except that Hussein opposed AQ, like he opposed all islamist groups with a vengeance.
Attacking Iraq after 9/11 is a little bit like attacking China after Pearl Harbour.