Brexit

[Doktor]

Well I am all about defying the will of the people. It's the first thing I think about every morning.

When we live in a world where we don't need to to put warnings on bleach not to drink it then you are allowed democracy.

Do I have to quote Churchill? Of all men in history?

[zara]

Do I have to quote Churchill? Of all men in history?

Just a joke from david brent Doktor



http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21711886-still-its-sexiest-job-brussels-eus-brexit-negotiators-prepare-disaster

[Toby]

The failure of the EU to create meaning and identity

Here we come to the most glaring failure of Europe’s political elites. They are very busy with managing complex problems from the debt crisis to the refugee crisis; and when they are not, Brussels is notoriously bogged down in administrative, legal and economic minutiae. The only thing the average citizen knows about the European Union is that it suddenly intrudes by telling them how to produce or label cheese or wine they produce, or forces new standards on their products.
This was by no means the case at the onset of the European project, for the original motivation for the unification of Europe was an exalted one indeed: Europe, for most of its history had been ridden with war and conflict, culminating in the horrors of WWI and WWII. The visionaries like Schuman, Adenauer and de Gaulle already towards the end of WWII wanted to create a unified Europe that would no longer be torn by wars.
But today’s voters have only known a Europe in peace; the original purpose of Europe’s unification no longer means anything to them. And there has been no Churchill, Adenauer or de Gaulle capable of rising above day-to-day politics and formulate a new vision for a unified Europe.
Such a vision can formulated, as is demonstrated eloquently by eminent thinkers like the and German historian Heinrich August Winkler in his monumental History of the West. Europe could stand for a unique combination of the protection of individual freedom and rights, and the possibility to realize one’s potential – values which it shares with the US – combined with the solidarity embodied in social-democratic values and institutions. German-American historian Peter Gay in his classic The Enlightenment has also shown that there is a European cultural history and identity over and above that of particular national narratives.
But none of this has played any role in recent political discourse in and about the EU, and the chance to work towards a distinctly European meaningful identity was missed. As a result, a large proportion of Europe’s population does not experience itself as European, but as French, Dutch, Italian or British, and see the EU as soulless administrative apparatus that has no meaning and does not contribute to their sense of pride and identity.
The result has been growing dissatisfaction with the EU, and the writing has been on the wall for a while: fully a quarter of the members of the European Parliament is composed of Euro-skeptics. Brexit may just be the first result of the failure to imbue the European project with deeper meaning.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/eu...emium-1.726906

[kato]

The visionaries like Schuman, Adenauer and de Gaulle already towards the end of WWII wanted to create a unified Europe that would no longer be torn by wars.

... i'll give em Schuman. But Adenauer? And de Gaulle? Seriously?

[Toby]

... i'll give em Schuman. But Adenauer? And de Gaulle? Seriously?

It was De Gaulle that said:"Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals" is that not visionary?

Konrad Adenauer was a tireless unifier and one of the founding fathers of the EU along with De Gaulle. There were others of course.

[kato]

Adenauer went for the ECSC proposed by Schuman because he saw that it would have the effect of creating powerful capitalist industry conglomerates in Germany. That's also why Kurt Schuhmacher in Germany opposed it. De Gaulle actually opposed the ECSC because at the time - himself out of power - he saw France as "too weak" to successfully dominate it. The EDC went the same way - Adenauer used the idea as an attempt to remilitarize Germany, while de Gaulle opposed it as a threat to French sovereignty.

And Adenauer's relation to Britain with regard to integration was about the worst of any politician on the continent. Stemmed partly from the fact that he had to deal with British occupation forces in 1919 and in 1945 (both as mayor of Cologne). By the time he went for his last reelection in 1963, he'd formed the opinion that the European project was mostly an attempt to establish a Franco-German hegemony over Western Europe, hindered by mostly London which he saw in cahoots with Moscow, and "perforated" by Gaullists in France. He was also pretty isolated with this opinion in the German government, with many members - led by economics minister Gerhard Schröder, no relation to the later chancellor - openly opposing him in public.

[Doktor]

... i'll give em Schuman. But Adenauer? And de Gaulle? Seriously?

None of them is a Brit. Nor the Brits were interested in the project until it came to the coal and iron.

Just an observation.

[Toby]

None of them is a Brit. Nor the Brits were interested in the project until it came to the coal and iron.

Just an observation.

Our position is as it always has been. Free movement of goods, Trade! Which is not we have in the EU. its Bureaucratic and protectionist, Where I'm from we call them Luddites!

[Doktor]

Our position is as it always has been. Free movement of goods, Trade! Which is not we have in the EU. its Bureaucratic and protectionist, Where I'm from we call them Luddites!

Explains why most of your Commissioners were there. Look how well they did their job

[Toby]

Adenauer went for the ECSC proposed by Schuman because he saw that it would have the effect of creating powerful capitalist industry conglomerates in Germany. That's also why Kurt Schuhmacher in Germany opposed it. De Gaulle actually opposed the ECSC because at the time - himself out of power - he saw France as "too weak" to successfully dominate it. The EDC went the same way - Adenauer used the idea as an attempt to remilitarize Germany, while de Gaulle opposed it as a threat to French sovereignty.

And Adenauer's relation to Britain with regard to integration was about the worst of any politician on the continent. Stemmed partly from the fact that he had to deal with British occupation forces in 1919 and in 1945 (both as mayor of Cologne). By the time he went for his last reelection in 1963, he'd formed the opinion that the European project was mostly an attempt to establish a Franco-German hegemony over Western Europe, hindered by mostly London which he saw in cahoots with Moscow, and "perforated" by Gaullists in France. He was also pretty isolated with this opinion in the German government, with many members - led by economics minister Gerhard Schröder, no relation to the later chancellor - openly opposing him in public.

He sounds a bit confused....

[Toby]

Explains why most of your Commissioners were there. Look how well they did their job

Where? you've lost me...

[Doktor]

Where? you've lost me...

Look at the posts UK held in the Commission. Trade, foreign affairs, economy...

[kato]

He sounds a bit confused....

Just for a timeframe: This guy had already finished college and was working as a trainee at a district court for a while when German and British troops were last fighting side-by-side. In the Boxer Rebellion.

[tankie]

Merrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry xmas .

[Toby]

Look at the posts UK held in the Commission. Trade, foreign affairs, economy...

Or lack of them. All the material I can access is referring to the lack of candidates wanting to become EU officials. Doesn't look like the British government were particularly bothered as the FCO only started an EU Staffing unit in 2010?? All the reading I can see is showing a decline in percentage of candidates. Which would beg the question why?