re (Bud): "I know that, but what I was asking was is the popular vote binding on the government? In other words, if a majority vote against it, can Blair still legally go ahead and approve the constitution?"

REPLY: A very good question. There are referenda, so-called 'binding' referenda and plebiscites. Usually, governments themselves call referenda when they know they can get them through, i.e. 'win' them. If they lose, they do not always respect the decisions.

In 1992, in Denmark, they held a referendum on whether or not to approve the Maastricht Treaty, which significantly extends E.U. powers. They voted 'NO'. So 'they' (the political elite) cooked up some changes, and then got the 'right' result (which was still desperately close) a year later.

The same happened in the Republic of Ireland over the 2000 Nice Treaty. A 54% 'NO' vote was followed by a narrow vote in favour a year later, again after some cosmetic changes.

The referendum that the British have been granted on the Constitution has been extracted from a reluctant Prime Minister like extracting a wisdom tooth. Opinion polls show around 3 to 1 against the European Constitution. There is no doubt at all that the political elite desperately wants this Constitution because it gives them a huge array of additional powers and makes their agenda of destroying national Parliaments easier to accomplish.

Already the government has announced that they will 'respect' the British decision but that does not mean they will accept it and be bound by it.

The funny thing is, when a country votes to give more power to the E.U., or join the E.U., there is NEVER a second referendum!

However, the Norwegians have TWICE rejected E.U. membership and yet there is an active lobby there now for a THIRD referendum. The point being that the 'right' result hasn't yet been achieved by those who want Norway to submit to E.U. rule.


FINAL NOTE: One of the tragedies about the whole European Union project is its very divisiveness. It simply puts people who might otherwise get on very well into opposite camps. As the transfer of power to Brussels progresses, the 'anti-E.U.' voices are growing and the battle is becoming more bitter than ever. It will be a historic struggle IF we are allowed to vote in this referendum.

P.S. In 1996, the governmen of the day, yielding to popular pressure, promised a referendum on whether or not we should join the euro (the 'single currency'). Eight years later, it hasn't happened. Wny not? Because opposition to it has grown and grown and there is no prospect of the government winning it. A victory of sorts for those of us who oppose the euro - and certainly the euro has been great for Britain, even though we haven't adopted it - the economies of Germany and France are struggling as they have lost one key lever of economic management, viz., the power to set interest rates. Their growth is non-existent, and unemployment is high there compared with a low rate of unemployment in Britain.

Having been warned by the 'pro-euro' camp four years ago that joining the euro would lead to gloom and doom, no-one really listens to them any more and opposition to the euro is running at around 4 to 1

Tony wrote: "The referendum that the British have been granted on the Constitution has been extracted from a reluctant Prime Minister like extracting a wisdom tooth. Opinion polls show around 3 to 1 against the European Constitution."

An opinion poll conducted by News of the World shows that 55% of the British is against the EU Constitution and 25% is in favour of it. According to The Sunday Telegraph, 21% is in favour and 68% against.

Opinion polls also show that more than half of the British want to stay *inside* the EU and only slightly more than a third wants to leave the EU.

Tony Bennet: "The Norwegians have TWICE rejected E.U. membership and yet there is an active lobby there now for a THIRD referendum. The point being that the 'right' result hasn't yet been achieved by those who want Norway to submit to E.U. rule."

You give the impression that they had two referenda in a row, like in Ireland. That's absolutely not the case. The first plebiscite was organised in 1972 (53% against) and the second more than 20 years later, in 1994 (56% against).

According to a recent opinion poll conducted by Dagbladet 42% of the Norwegians want to get into the EU and 36% don't. 22% hasn't got a clue whether they're in favour or not.

There's one thing you don't realise, Tony, and that is that you cannot stop progress. The whole world - even South America and South East Asia ! - is evolving towards centralisation of power. Almost every country realises that the creation of solid power blocks is the only way to to retain political, economical and military influence.

Do you honestly think that Britain has yet been able to change ONE SINGLE THING in the American Iraq policy ? Of course not !

A riddle for you: what country would have most influence: one with 57 million inhabitants or one with 500 million ?

If there is a referendum on the EU constitution as promised/threatened, and the result is a Yes vote, would UKIP continue to campaign for a referendum on Britains membership of the EU, in the hope that they get the "Right Result"?

<<
The whole world - even South America and South East Asia ! - is evolving towards centralisation of power.
>>

Not necessarily. There are several places where the opposite is taking place. In many federalist countries, the United States for example, the trend in recent years has been more power going to the states and less to the central government. The breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and the recent establishment of new countries such as Eritrea and East Timor, demonstrate decentralization of power.

re: "There's one thing you don't realise, Tony, and that is that you cannot stop progress..."

REPLY: I think that's a quote from either Stalin or Lenin. Or maybe Hitler. Or maybe Tony Blair said it, a week or so before he conceded a referendum on the E.U. Constitution

re (Conrad): "A riddle for you: what country would have most influence: one with 57 million inhabitants or one with 500 million?"

REPLY: In the great tradition of riddles, Conrad, here's one for you. Would your main criterion for which country you wanted to live in be the one with the greatest influence? Or might you rate other criteria higher? To put it another way, would you rather live in, say, China (pop. 1 billion) or any major E.U. country (pop. > 50 million)?

re (Conrad): "The whole world - even South America and South East Asia! - is evolving towards centralisation of power. Almost every country realises that the creation of solid power blocks is the only way to to retain political, economical and military influence".

REPLY: I agree, of course, with your premise, namely that the whole world - most of it, anyway - is moving towards centralisation of power. However, it is something I oppose wholeheartedly. And so do a great many other people. It is interesting to observe how over-centralisation of power tends to weaken economic progress. Look at the success of Switzerland and Norway (outside the E.U.) and the United Kingdom (outside the eurozone) as key local examples. Look no further than the multinational, 'united' and centralised Soviet Union as a classic example of a superpower whose economy stagnated and whose international 'clout' ultimately collapsed

Tony wrote: "It is interesting to observe how over-centralisation of power tends to weaken economic progress."

I never wrote about 'over-centralisation', I only talked about 'centralisation'. Look at the US... Do they have a bad economy ? They also have 1 single currency and 1 single interest rate...

Why wouldn't that be possible in in Europe ?

The US are also one country. Europe is not. It's a group of countries that each have their own deep cultures and identities. Some of them were at war with each other for thousands of years! It developed completely differently from the United States. You have different languages, legal systems, cultures, traditions, monetary systems etc.

In the US, you have one common language (no Spanish, while widespread is not used like English nationwide), one common legal system governed by a central authority originally set up as such. I have a feeling that people in Europe have some kind of notion that the United States are a group of states that would otherwise be independent, but band together for reasons of cohesive power. This hasn't been the case since the Confederation before the Constitution was signed, and was certainly put to rest with the War Between the States. We haven't had state independent currency or similar autonomy since 1791 when the US Constitution was signed by men all speaking the same language and basically having the same notions, ideas, and backgrounds.

MattS: "We haven't had state independent currency or similar autonomy since 1791 when the US Constitution was signed by men all speaking the same language and basically having the same notions, ideas, and backgrounds."

Europeans all have - more or less - the same ideas, notions and backgrounds. The only (enormous, I admit) obstacle is the language barrier. Apart from that, the gap between the way we think in the UK and the way they think in, let's say, Poland is not that different.

Many people seem to forget that there IS something like a EUROPEAN culture. E.g. Every European country had its own expressionist and romantic poetry.
Countries like Lebanon, Morocco, Israel and Egypt - which are all situated very close to Europe - DID NEVER have such kind of poetry. Why not ? Simply because they are no part of European culture.

PS: Matt, I can assure you that the differences between an average Briton and an average Lithuanian are by no means bigger than the differences between a Texan and a New Yorker. Keep that in mind !

Europe does not have one common labor market. A British company usually cannot ask its employees to relocate to Germany. As long as the employment/unemployment, wages, etc. cannot "even out" over the entire market, one currency and interest rate will probably not be too beneficial.

And there was me thinking that Conrad's views on Europe would have softened over time!

But I still look at your viewpoint and realise that currently there is no political party that goes quite as far as your views - which must be quite irritating.

SteveH: "But I still look at your viewpoint and realise that currently there is no political party that goes quite as far as your views - which must be quite irritating."

I suppose this means that not many people like my ideas... It's not really irritating. I have an opinion and you have another one. I'm more the type of man that resigns to the future. We'll see what the day brings.

If the United States of Europe never comes, well, no problem. I'm perfectly happy in the UK as it is. But I still think we could get a better future inside some kind of United States of Europe.

I'm just not sure you can make the comparison of the USA to the USE idea. The United States formed for a completely different reason. It was a response to the tyranny of a monarchy and the desire for a new and free society with a system that gave unheard of amounts of power to the people.

I would say that USE would be more akin to maybe the unification of Germany in the 19th century or that of Italy. But even then the folks in Germany and those in Italy at least had a more common culture and language.

And no, I don't think that someone in the UK and someone in Lithuania are comparible to someone in Texas vs. someone in New York.

One other thing to keep in mind, the US was formed from 13 British colonies with common language, ideas, and legal systems (That's not to minimalize those colonial folks of different heritage/language, my anscestors being some). It was after that the country grew and the people in the US moved west creating states like Texas and Wyoming and California and these people were trying to move the American culture that already existed into these new places.

In Europe, you do not have a country being formed from people who were all one nationality and culture trying to break away from another, and then expand. Granted, there are similarities in European culture, but there are more differences. Each country has it's own history, language, hopes, dreams, and systems. The US is composed of states that were originally united, never separated. The comparison is just not there.

One note to add. The states in the US did not really have autonomous power for themselves at any point. They all answered to a central government. The European states, however, are not used to having their governments answer to a new central one.

Matt, the fact that almost every country in Europe has its own language, legal system, etc makes the European unification so exciting.

BTW I think that in the end the language barrier will disappear. I'm confident that within 50 years or less, English will have become the EU's only lingua franca.
Sorry froggies... ;-)

What!? I completely do not see what you are getting at.

Hang on! The fact that we are, by your own admission, quite incompatible for union, makes exciting the prospect of union?? Hey, just play Russian roulette by yourself and leave the rest of us out of it, mate.

Conrad, if anything that I have heard about the French is true, they will go to war before they allow their people to speak English.

"BTW I think that in the end the language barrier will disappear. I'm confident that within 50 years or less, English will have become the EU's only lingua franca"

I will bet my house that this will not happen, not even in your grandchildren's lifetime.
It's often cited that the [shudders with disgust] "EU" tries its best to keep alive old languages (but, obviously, not old measuring systems). In fact it's often quoted that the EU breathed life into my countries language - Welsh. In this case its totally untrue, as it was the attempt of succesive Westminster based govts to push Welsh out of existance culminating in ordinary welsh people tearing down english-language road signs (hi Tony). Margaret Thatcher was responsible for finally letting the Welsh have their own TV station, in Welsh, making it compulsory for Welsh language at school and even to have ATM machines give you a language (Welsh/English) option when you put your card in.

Oops, went a bit off-topic there.

But back to your point - your viewpoint of seeing off French as the language of France to standardise to English is what seperates our viewpoints.

I believe that I am totally pro-european - totally- 100%. I believe that the French should keep there language and infact all countries in europe should keep what marks themsleves out as different to their neighbours, if that's what they choose, and no-matter how "quirky".
Believe it or not, I reckon your average italian *likes* seeing the Frenchness of France, or the Britishness of Britain, or even the Welshness of Wales. I certainly (used to, to a degree) like seeing the differences in Spain, Portugal etc. I can't even be fascinated by their currencies anymore!

Your viewpoint is far more pro-EU than pro-european than you realise. And I honestly believe you don't realise it.


Vive la France! Regardless of their penchent for garlic!

(P.S. I realise that many northern european countries are almost bilingual (or tri/quad etc) with English being one of the spoken languages)

Steveh: "But back to your point - your viewpoint of seeing off French as the language of France to standardise to English is what seperates our viewpoints."

Wow wow, hang on a minute ! I never said anything like that. I only said that I'm confident that within 30 years or so English will have become the EU's only LINGUA FRANCA.

I never said that French or Swedish would die out. I'm only saying that communication between Polish, Lithuanian, French and Portuguese people will happen in English, because it will have become the union's lingua franca (i.e. the (second) language everyone in the EU speaks).

To leave no doubt, I love language diversity, but having 1 common "transnational communication language" is an absolute must.

By the way Steveh, I LOVE garlic !