or would you care to show some intelligence on this site?
If you look around, you just might discern that Yurp has progressed mightily since the days of King Leopold. Unlike the land where "wise latinas" stir up opposition, and black presidents are "undocumented."
you couldn't half snark if your... say, how often have you been in Nepal anyway? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Europe has progressed a lot, as has America and the rest of the world. But the Yugoslav disaster was a European calamity too reminiscent of its recent past to go away believing that a return to those rivalries is not just a few misunderstandings away.
My point, however, was not that Europe is barbaric, but that it takes a Prince to govern effectively there as it does anywhere else. A weak but saintly EU president would likely spell disaster. And it is all the more so given that it is not popular support but institutional support that matters in that office.
...but that it takes a Prince to govern effectively there as it does anywhere else.
Perhaps it does take a Prince for people like yourself, though I doubt even that. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
The right calls it realism. Or realpolitik.
The real word for it is psychosis.
That whole self interest schtick only works if you can model reality accurately. If you're flailing around like an emo kid on a bad day, lying to everyone, getting into fights for the sake of it, and generally acting like a hormonal teen nightmare with a shit eating grin and a sharp suit, this is possibly not the pancakes we're looking for.
Someone who can deal with reality effectively might be a better choice.
This is as much of a FAIL™ in international relations as it is in economics.
Thanks for playing, anyway. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
I'm sure Hitler thought he was a great patriot, who was totally dedicated to maximising Germany's glory. Unfortunately, being a psychopath, he destroyed his Germany and himself instead.
So can we please stop pretending that 'maximising self interest' actually means anything non-crazy?
The kindest thing you can say about it is that it's inherently pro-cyclical. The mood swings when reality catches up with it don't seem to be fun.
Realism means assuming that actors work to maximize self-interest. Realpolitik assumes that nation-states are the relevant actors in international relations and that power is the element that each is trying to maximize relative to others.
that's our tone! a poster child for exactly why that approach leads to guaranteed Trouble.
that whole machiavelli adulation really served the neocons well, huh?
power-over instead of power-with, that is the basest of lower common denominators of human behaviour and political skills, and while it may have been the modus operandi of so many leaders through euro-history, there's no reason at all to assume that re-pursuing this bleakly evil vision of human affairs will do aught but mire us in the muck we spent much of the last few millennia roiling around in.
which is why characters like TB should be anathema to the future EU leadership, as emblematic of the nakedly expedient, rank opportunist, selfishly short-sighted wrong way to go about things on any level, be it matters personal or of state.
as for electing a saint, that's effing hilarious in its improbability, they're thin on the political ground, and if they exist at all, they would fess up to what they did, not run to swaddle their consciences under the vatican's seamy petticoats, while claiming to be blessed by faith.
the only thing TB ever believed in was that he was immune to consequences because of the intensity of his will-to-power.
he is the epitome of all that's worst and most hypocritical in the 'perfidious' part of shakespeare's famous quote, in fact he redefines the term.
like obama, he flew to grace on wings of rhetoric, and obama will be just as denigrated if he continues to appease all that's nastiest in anglo-atlanticist politics, ie bankstas and the MIC.
the harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Exactly, and also exactly the capability that Blair does not have.
As for "knows what its like to have blood on his hands", Blair has gained about as much knowledge of that as I have from playing RTS war games. He has ordered men to their deaths, but has he ever taken the time to look honestly and unflinchingly at what he wrought? You and I might agree that Blair has blood on his hands - I very much doubt that he does. And rest assured, he firmly believes he is right.
An ability to lie is definitely a negative trait if it is used to extensively lie to oneself.
And it's a pattern. While Saint Tony has been the Extra Secret Super Special Hot Sauce Quartet Envoy to the Middle East, the Gaza situation has devolved into naked barbarism and atrocity, and Israel is - still - seriously considering an attack on Iran.
Does Europe want someone so likely to destroy the EU?
That common knowledge undermines rather than strengthens his capacities for bringing people together ... setting aside the leap in the dark regarding believing that he has changed his ways and will be trying to bring people together.
After specifying that he is an able liar, we are supposed to believe that he has reversed his modus operandi by 180 degrees on his say so?
Indeed, even if he seriously intends and is 100% committed to changing his modus operandi ... he is entirely untested in that role.
Its like picking someone for the starting XI in the Ashes because he's the star pitcher for the Olympic Baseball team.
Better pick someone who has some runs on the board for that particular contest. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
he knows hot to dissimulate and knows what its like to have blood on his hands, I suggest that those are possibly positive traits rather than negatives.
thanks for sharing, that's some belief system you've got going there, lol! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Not my belief system. But I'm not getting anywhere on this thread but knee-jerk reactions to presumed ideas rather than what is actually said,
i don't think you're convincing anyone here of your points of view, but you have a lot of knowledge and time to share it, helping to provide some interesting counter-arguments, thickening the mix, as it were, and certainly helping avoid any notion ET is a cosy corner of choral communion.
to me the fault line occurs when you say things are true, but you don't necessarily believe them, which is like trying to reverse engineer glenn beck's brain.
(he thinks it's important to believe in something even though it's wrong, hmmm, you could say these two approaches are halves of a whole.)
because everyone else in this discussion, it appears to me, (and everywhere else at this blog for that matter, is intent on sharing things because we believe them to be true.)
by the way, i do have a life, thanks.
although you will get the the occasional 4 by throwing insulting comments my way, i'm guessing that's not really why you're here, lol.
enjoy your stay, and thanks for helping to catalise the discussion through your comments here why it is we have such a strong desire not to see Tony Blair get any more rewarded for his actions than he is already.
ansi...
ciao ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Your comment could, as I pointed out, quite easily to be construed as trouble-making aka flame-baiting.
You seem to have no idea of Spanish history 1500-1700 either... The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
In the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor was elected by kings and regents and counts with election rights (Kurfürst). The post was usually given to the strongest. Which was also the source of its weakening; when there were two strong rivals who did not accept the rule of the other (i.e. Prussia and Austria in the end).
The only similarity with the European Council is the intergovernmental nature. (No cycling of the post every six months among all governments that are treated equal as of current, and the holder of the post had his own kindgdom(s), unlike the post-Lisbon Council President; and there were at least formal executive rights.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Of course, one might then argue about whether this is, in fact, the case, but that would take us a little farther afield...
The main difference between the EU project today is that of its democratic claims to legitimacy, as opposed to religious/aristocratic claims -- that sovereignty, in political discourse, is now generally agreed to rest with the governed instead of with the Church. In earlier attempts at pan-European governance, sovereignty was determined at the time to be a kind of relationship with God, for which the Church was the agreed-upon institution that could determine God's opinion on the matter.
However, it was Machiavelli who challenged that model directly. (He did not advocate "power over" or absolutism in any sense.) What he proposed is that just being named a prince because of the institutional decisions by the Church or other authority did not guarantee one's capacity to rule or remain in office -- that sovereignty is always a contested space which must be defended vigorously in every moment. That is why he is considered the founder of political science -- after his work, power was could no longer be considered to be a gift from God or fate, so sovereignty must rest, ultimately, in something more foundational than a mere institutional arrangement, which gave rise to the enlightenment idea that sovereignty ultimately rests with the governed and not the other way around.
Which one? The EU has Presidents of all three of its main institutions: President of the European Parliament (elected by parliamentary majority; currently Jerzy Buzek), the President of the European Commission (formally proposed by the Council and approved by Parliament; currently, José Manuel Barroso, who stands for a second term), and the President of the Council of the European Union (post rotating every six months, currently Sweden, resp. the corresponding minister or PM of the government of Sweden, whicheer form the Council convenes in). Once Lisbon is in effect, we would get the European Council officialised as fourth institution, adding a fourth, a permanent President of the European Council. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The provision of a permanent President of the European Council provides for a centralized political authority that, to me, may be disconcertingly powerful relative to other bodies. But if centralization of power is what one wants in order to strengthen the EU as a unified polity, than the person that holds that office should be judged on both his general ideological outlook (and for all his faults, Blair is a liberal, not a neo-con, after all) and personal leadership qualities as well as her or his capacity to effectively negotiate outcomes among institutional elites that are pretty well insulated from the effects of public opinion. I'd like to see criticisms of Blair that address those qualities and not merely the fact that he favored invading Iraq or appears to play the high-stakes game of bureaucratic poker too well, attracting the meaningless label of "hypocrite."
Well, not all of them. Only the President of the EP. However, he can do so only under exceptional circumstances; but normally, convening is automatic. (See rules -- the Conference of Presidents mentioned therein is a body also including the faction leaders.) The job of the President of the EP (and his/her deputies) is mostly, just like for the Speaker in British and US parliaments, to conduct the sessions.
The provision of a permanent President of the European Council provides for a centralized political authority that, to me, may be disconcertingly powerful relative to other bodies.
Well, that's what Bliar would no doubt like it to become. But, at present, it is set out to be a rather weak institution: merely a chairman. He can't order around the heads of elected governments, nor does he control the money. It is a rough parallel to your Senate President, not to your THE President. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Do you favor a strong President model or a weak one? If you think Blair will be both strong and effective, and you really want a weak presidency, then I find that a compelling reason to oppose him. However, I think the winds on this are actually blowing the other way in Brussels. What was the problem with the rotating presidency after all, if you just wanted something like the US presidency of the Senate? I suspect that there is a dominant constituency of institutional elites who want a strong, powerful presidency and believe that it will help lead to a stronger and more powerful central European authority in Brussels, and that is precisely why someone like Blair, who has been successful in the face of significant adversity (and for good reason), is being considered as a candidate. Rather than call him a liar and a warmonger, which are terms that likely have little negative connotations for institutional elites, it might be better to simply oppose the strong presidency and those candidates that are likely to want to make it stronger.
Blair wouldn't try to be strong and effective. He'd try to be strong, he'd be a disaster, and he'd totally discredit the institution. But just his mere appointment would be a PR mistake for the EU as a whole.
Just look at what he's done as Quartet Envoy to the Middle East. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
Blair wouldn't try to be strong and effective
Finally? I think in one for or another, all of my arguments were told by me and others in this thread.
Do you favor a strong President model or a weak one?
For that specific post or the EU as a whole?
in Brussels
The Lisbon Treaty as is represents a compromise between the various players (e.g. the EU's main institutions). Behind that, winds blew in different directions in different quarters of Brussels.
What was the problem with the rotating presidency after all
Too messy. The holders of the office have to govern at home at the time, every six months there is a handover, and when there is a government crisis at home, the EU takes a second seat (see Czech Presidency earlier this year). I note that the rotating Presidency would stay on in the Council of the European Union (the day-to-day intergovernmental institution of the EU). I should also note that in discussions on ET, it transspired to us that the Lisbon treaty definitely solidifies the European Council as an institution of its own separate from the Council, which was seen negatively by most.
dominant constituency of institutional elites who want a strong, powerful presidency
Who would they be? Surely not the Commission and the bureaucracy under it; the Commission wants power for itself (even if Barroso is quite inefficient in seeking it). Surely not Parliament, which was against it and wants more influence for itself. As for the European Council, its members want power to themselves, but that quite obviously doesn't translate into wanting a strong power over their heads. Quite the opposite: they want someone representative to stand in the spotlight, who puts them in a better light -- more a figurehead than power position. (In Eurobarometer polls, the Council was persistently the leat popular EU institution with citizens; with the Parliament scoring highest.) For that reason, Tony would again be a bad choice; and I suspect that's why today the only voices for Tony for President come from Britain.
successful in the face of significant adversity
I am not aware of any real successes achieved by Tony. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In fact, I should point out, also within the institutions. In the Council, back then, it was just Tony who advocated a strong President, but with enough opposition for the end result to be severely de-fanged, fortunately. It was reported back then that Tony, who everyone knew wanted the post for himself, no longer wanted such a job -- however, recently he is said to have changed his mind, bored of his Middle East envoy job. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I would like to give an appleuse not only to DoDo, but also santiago for the consistant playing of the role as Devil's advocate (intended or unintended) which spurred DoDo to produce such a distinct list. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
attracting the meaningless label of "hypocrite."
boy, you won't quit, will you?
it's quite insidious, how you sneak in your 'values' within your comment.
just because Fran put a smiley after her comment, doesn't mean she was speaking in a flippant manner.
imo, it's you who are flippant, calling hypocrisy a 'meaningless label'.
because if that's how you really think, that's sad.
cue your reply that's not how you really think.
if you are so cynical as to believe conscience is a delusion, and politicians should lie like rugs, then why don't you just say so? it's certainly appears to be what you're inferring, between the lines... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I do NOT think politicians should lie, just like I don't think spouses should cheat, but I do think that you will find it difficult to come up with the names of very many statesmen or stateswomen at the international level who have been very successful and who haven't committed their share of dissimulation. Can you? (I can think of a few possible candidates off hand -- Dag Hammarskjöld and the Catholic Popes since John XXIII -- but their exception appears to prove the rule by their extra-ordinariness, doesn't it? And their success seems somewhat limited compared to other good statesmen who haven't been so pure.) Maybe some sins are more forgivable than others, so perhaps we can expand our criteria beyond obvious and useless cliches.
One, it is still a nation-state based system, recognizing the sovereignty of individual member-polities.
After the Peace of Westphalia it did consist of sovereign states, as this peace created the concept. Before that it was a feudal state with a decentralised power structure. Not unlike France before and during the hudred year's war. The thirty year's war finished of a series of attempts at creating a more centralised state in HRE, like the failed introduction of common taxation around 1500.
But the concept of nation-state is hardly appliable at all when looking at the constituent parts of HRE, if the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had a nation, it was simply German. I would however rather argue that the modern concept of nation was not born until the late 18th century, and did not find traction in Germany until France abolished the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
So yes, the EU and the HRE are both confederacies but but not very similar at all.
Another similarity is that the conveners of the legislative bodies -- those who carry important agenda-setting powers -- are elected institutionally, not popularly. Their authority derives from their relationships with other institutional authorities of governance. This is not necessarily "power with" instead of "power over," as some have argued here. This is power exercised by a governing class of elites, and the presidencies answer to those elites, not any popular constituency. Correct me if I'm wrong.
This basically seperates states into two cathegories, those were the executives are popularly elected and those where are they are not.
And yes, the HRE and the EU share that they are confederate systems where the executive is not directly elected, but so was the Delian League or Swiss confederation.
How was the EU more similar to the HRE (and in what century of HREs development) then say to the abortive Federal German state of 1848-49? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Unless I'm mistaken, the authority will be more centralized in Brussels relative to what it is now, which means that the ability to unite disparate institutional interests in Brussels might be more important than placating popular interests in Paris, London, Madrid, or anywhere else. I don't know that TB is the right person at all for that, but I do suggest that being a leader in an unpopular war and being able to imply one thing to a popular constituency while doing another behind the scenes do not appear, from the historical evidence in Europe, to be negative qualities for forging institutional alliances that can unify and advance the EU project rather than stall it.
Nope. The nation state is the concept of disjunct territories ruled centrally on the basis of a community of citizens. The feudal state was a concept based on feudums -- land owned by noblemen. The feudal concept had no distinct countries, only a hierarchy of territories and corresponding titles. One nobleman could own multiple feudums, without an overarching title -- for example, the Habsburg Empire was not officially consolidated until it became Austria-Hungary; the empire was officially an assemblage of kingdoms and principalities whose titles were all held by the emperor. Furthermore, there were non-overlapping titles: some parts of the Habsburg Empire were outside the Holy Roman Empire; the French king was de jure the liege of the English king for some areas held prior to the end of the 100 years war; during that war, at times Burgundy had more de-facto sovereignity than France, which it was supposed to be part of; and so on. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
...and given by higher-ranked noblemen one was supposed to be loyal to. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Feudalism doesn't have the jack boots and comical posturing of Italian fascism. Or the jack boots, racism, and even more comical (but tragic) posturing of Nazism.
But the world view is essentially Hobbesian, with no quarter for weakness, and perpetual competition among those strong enough to compete. The strong leader survives as long as he (sic) stays strong and invincible. When strong leaders fail, they are killed and replaced.
The European Right would doubtless approve of that morality, although it might be circumspect about saying so in public.
But what makes Europe different is a strong socialist tradition which has a rather different and more measured and successful world view. There was class consciousness of a sort in feudalism. But it was random, sporadic, and never organised or properly socialised.
The HRE Emperor got weaker because the kings and princes and cities were ever more into paying lip service. Absolutism was the king finding ways to enforce loyalty beyond the feudal standard by binding the noblemen around his court. Meanwhile, no one in the European Council will even feign loyalty to its President. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If unification produces objectionable results, it is not to be supported. Only if it stands to produce, on balance, more favourable than objectionable results is there any sense to supporting it.
So I can live with slower unification if it means that we escape presidentialisation and escape having to live with a neoconservative traitor and war criminal in a high office.
I think there are many progressives, however, who see the EU project as primarily a means to contest American power in international relations, and an over-presidentialization might be a cost they're willing to accept toward that end. I hope that sentiment is not large and doesn't carry the day.
And overall, I'm hopeful that the last eight years of "a strong president" on the other side of the Pond (along with Corruptioni et al on our side) have convinced most progressives that an overly strong executive centred around a single person is A Bad Idea.
Come on, don't backpedal, you did. I'm talking about the essential similarity between historical attempts to unify groups of independent polities
Which cannot be essential, given the essential differences between the polities you consider -- for one, the feudal polities weren't independent. For the other, the example you named (or mis-named -- you first gave the Habsburg Empire, which emerged from personal union rather than a meta position, while you meant something else), the Holy Roman Empire, was not an attempt to unify groups, but to keep together parts of a pre-existing falling-apart empire (the Carolingian one).
The essential similarity is this I think: the centralized political authority answered not to popular consent except in indirect ways, but instead it answered to institutional elites who were insulated from popular opinion.
With that, we get back to another basic problem of your analogy I pointed out in the very first reply: none of the polities in the feudal HRC were democracies. No indirect answering to popular consent. That top-level feudal overlords are undemocratic in an undemocratic feudal world, let's say, doesn't come as a surprise... As for the EU, by all democratic deficits, you should not forget about the EP, and about referendums.
Or are the differences between them and the present EU in fact so great as to make them useless as case studies?
Since I don't see them as historical predecessors, not direct at least (the EU's structure is in no small part modelled on the federal structure of West Germany, so there the long lineage back to the HRE behind that; but just the strength of the intergovernmental side is a deviation), I would obviously say yes. To be more specific, I can't compare feudal lords with their own kingdoms elected for life to people without other positions elected for fixed terms. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I used the Habsburg name because of its long association with the HRE and also because of its success in holding the most power within the system for the longest time. Obviously Blair would have trouble using their marriage strategy to achieve inter generational success among electors, but I think a sound application of political theory (which has come a long way since Machiavelli) to both European history and the EU would yield some very helpful information about what are desirable and undesirable leadership traits for a council president at this time, and for whom they would be desirable or undesirable. I think they will also provide more sound arguments about why Blair might be the wrong man for the job, as well.
Pachacuti would send spies to regions he had wanted in his empire. They would then report back on the political organization, military might, and wealth. The Sapa Inca would then send messages to the leaders of these lands, extolling the benefits of joining his empire. He offered gifts of luxury goods like high quality textiles, and promised that all living in those territories would be materially richer as subject rulers of the Inca. Most accepted the rule of the Inca as a fait accompli and acquiesced peacefully. The neighboring rulers' children would be brought to Cuzco to be taught about Inca administration systems, and then would return to rule their native lands. This allowed the Inca to indoctrinate the former rulers' children into the Inca nobility, and, with luck, marry their daughters into families at various corners of the empire. It was traditional for the Inca's son to lead the army; Pachacuti's son Túpac Inca began conquests to the north in 1463, continuing them as Inca after Pachucuti's death in 1471. His most important conquest was the Kingdom of Chimor, the Inca's only serious rival for the coast of Peru. Túpac Inca's empire stretched north into modern day Ecuador and Colombia, and his son Huayna Cápac added significant territory to the south. At its height, Tawantinsuyu included Peru and Bolivia, most of what is now Ecuador, a large portion of modern-day Chile, and extended into corners of Argentina and Colombia. Tawantinsuyu was a patchwork of languages, cultures and peoples. The components of the empire were not all uniformly loyal, nor were the local cultures all fully integrated. For example, the Chimú used money in their commerce, while the Inca empire as a whole had an economy based on exchange and taxation of luxury goods and labor. (It is said that Inca tax collectors would take the head lice of the lame and old as a symbolic tribute.) The portions of the Chachapoya that had been conquered were almost openly hostile to the Inca, and the Inca nobles rejected an offer of refuge in their kingdom after their troubles with the Spanish. They ended up being conquered by Francisco Pizarro.
It was traditional for the Inca's son to lead the army; Pachacuti's son Túpac Inca began conquests to the north in 1463, continuing them as Inca after Pachucuti's death in 1471. His most important conquest was the Kingdom of Chimor, the Inca's only serious rival for the coast of Peru. Túpac Inca's empire stretched north into modern day Ecuador and Colombia, and his son Huayna Cápac added significant territory to the south. At its height, Tawantinsuyu included Peru and Bolivia, most of what is now Ecuador, a large portion of modern-day Chile, and extended into corners of Argentina and Colombia.
Tawantinsuyu was a patchwork of languages, cultures and peoples. The components of the empire were not all uniformly loyal, nor were the local cultures all fully integrated. For example, the Chimú used money in their commerce, while the Inca empire as a whole had an economy based on exchange and taxation of luxury goods and labor. (It is said that Inca tax collectors would take the head lice of the lame and old as a symbolic tribute.) The portions of the Chachapoya that had been conquered were almost openly hostile to the Inca, and the Inca nobles rejected an offer of refuge in their kingdom after their troubles with the Spanish. They ended up being conquered by Francisco Pizarro.
However, Google-translating the much longer Spanish version of the article on Pachacuti, and on his son who was active as military leader under him, "most" doesn't seem justified -- there is plenty of military action described; plus damming rivers upstream from cities; and fooling the enemy with messengers bringing the fake news of a peace agreement, followed by takeover while the enemy foolishly celebrated. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The neighboring rulers' children would be brought to Cuzco to be taught about Inca administration systems, and then would return to rule their native lands. This allowed the Inca to indoctrinate the former rulers' children into the Inca nobility, and, with luck, marry their daughters into families at various corners of the empire.
So the Inca had their own School of the Americas too? Just how much bad karma did they acquire in their short reign?
So well said!
BTW, the HRE got the "German Nation" tag after its loss of influence in Italy due to the Anjous, French kings and Northern Italian cities -- including, crucially, Rome itself. Then, I think it was a zombie at least from the start of the Seven Years War. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And the position is not that of President of the EU, but of President of the Council.
I suggest that you read these two comments... The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
If you think Tony Blair would be appropriate for the job you're saying what you want the job to be like. And I disagree.
Remember the President is supposed to coexist with the rotating national presidencies. The Lisbon Treaty can be construed as separating Solana's two current jobs (Secretary General of the Council, and HRCFSP) and giving the former role a higher internal profile. And I choose to construe it that way. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
why we don't need someone who wants to usurp both the attributions of the High Representative for the CFSP and of the Commissioner for trade; we need someone who doesn't rule by directoire of the few largest states, and someone who is able to broker agreement among the council.
Is the EU really a break from history, or is it just the latest attempt at pan-European governance, a project that many have tried, and has even seen success, since the end of Roman power on the continent? The Habsburg system was an elected means of providing for peace, trade, and mutual defense among European powers within it. The Catholic Church provided an international governance structure by adjudicating questions succession and sovereignty in European principalities. Both were actually elected positions, not much different from the institutional selection of an EU president that we witness today. I think it is actually really important, if honesty is part of anything at all, to get away from the idea, much expressed in various forms in this forum, that history somehow began anew in Europe after WWII. The major difference, since then, has been that a major part of sovereign responsibility -- military defense -- has been provided and governed by a power outside of Europe. It would be foolish to presume that that has no impact on European governance, just as it would be naive to presume that the model of statecraft in Europe is significantly different from the basic models provided by the political sciences, which began with Machiavelli's "The Prince."
Both were relatively strong executive positions, elected by non-democratic rulers. The President of the European Council is not an executive position, nor strong (at least now), and the governments and heads of states at the table are elected. And the power of none of those two was counterbalanced by a parliament.
If you are not troll-baiting, then you ignore roughly 800 years of political development. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
What you said was a deliberately provocative short-cut of the kind that doesn't produce dialogue. And it can be seen as flame-baiting, troll-baiting, trouble-making - I don't care what it's called, but please stop it.
I've no more time to waste on your disruptive behaviour.
Two reasons - to me he is a hypocrit and war criminal. Hope that is not hyperbol - at least it doesn't feel like to me. :-)
Hope that is not hyperbol - at least it doesn't feel like to me. :-)
A half-serious, half-playful response to a half serious comment. I didn't realize that ET was just an anti-Blair mosh pit, with no sense of humor at all regarding European politics.
The EU pretends to be a post-Enlightenment project, and you insist on saying it's an ancien régime project.
Ironically, Chomsky examines these very narratives --"post-Enlightment" and "ancien régime"-- in Hegemony or Survival (of Yurp and the USA since, oh, 1900). I happen to be in my first reading of it at the moment.
Next is Dallek's Nixon and Kissinger. hehehe. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Specifically:
Such ratings should never be used to indicate that you disagree with the comment.
Thank you.
It simply never occurred to me that anyone here is actually embarrassed by those episodes of European history, instead of animated by it.
hilarious...
charlemange sounds like a dog's skin infection.
oh, yes, animated is exactly the word one might use to describe reacting to the mercenary, bloodthirsty, creepily underhanded, morally reprehensible machinations of the vatican through european history. 'embarrassed' is very mild... may i suggest 'totally disgusted' as more appropriate?
very droll, you wag, you! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Is the EU really a break from history
...is called a strawman. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
