The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I was however, pretty pissed off that Zapatero suported Barroso's reappointment on the grounds that he's Iberian because I think he's about as bad as Blair, only less evil and with better teeth.
Then again
Because she has never been elected to anything
Given that diplomacy is not necessarily best conducted by elected officials, I fail to see why this is a huge problem.
was never a particularly senior or influential politician in the UK
Uh... in my view, that's a mark in her favor, when one thinks about recent senior and/or influential politicians in the UK.
The brief was for a nominally leftist women to balance male right wingers in all the other EU leadership positions.
Ah. So any woman named to this position would be a "token"?
No. Neelie Kroes (if you want a commissioner with a track record) Mary Robinson (if she could be persuaded) DALIA GRYBAUSKAITE (if you want someone with both a Commission and an electoral track record) Tarja Kaarina Halonen
All have more substantial track records. The only problem was they're not British. notes from no w here
Neelie Kroes I had to look up. It seems to me that has no real experience in diplomacy or foreign relations, other than her current position as Commissioner for Competition, in which her mandate is largely limited to business and commerce -- hardly the profile I'd want for this position, but I'm not European, so what do I know. As a side note, the Wiki entry says she's "a confidant of Ayaan Hirsi Ali," and persuaded her to join the VVD, which IMHO should be a huge mark against her.
(Just nitpicking: van Rompuy and Barroso did gave up their PM jobs. Though, for fairness, Barroso did so to flee a sinking ship...) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Jerome a Paris:
I think you need to add (none / 1) the list for the High Representative as well. The two will be selected as a pair. Names mentioned CATHERINE ASHTON, 53, a member of Britain's Labour Party, she has been the EU's trade commissioner since 2008; MASSIMO D'ALEMA, 60, is a former Socialist Italian prime minister and foreign minister; BERNARD KOUCHNER, 70, France's foreign minister and the founder of the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres) DAVID MILIBAND, 44, the Labour Party member is currently Britain's foreign minister; MIGUEL ANGEL MORATINOS, 58, is Spain's Socialist foreign minister with seven years prior experience as the EU's special representative for the Mideast peace process; URSULA PLASSNIK, 53, a Christian Democratic former Austrian foreign minister and ambassador to Switzerland; OLLI REHN, 47, a Finn, has been EU commissioner for enlargement for five years; ADRIAN SEVERIN, 55, member of the European Parliament, the Social Democrat is a former Romanian foreign minister. I'd also add Elisabeth Guigou
Names mentioned
CATHERINE ASHTON, 53, a member of Britain's Labour Party, she has been the EU's trade commissioner since 2008;
MASSIMO D'ALEMA, 60, is a former Socialist Italian prime minister and foreign minister;
BERNARD KOUCHNER, 70, France's foreign minister and the founder of the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres)
DAVID MILIBAND, 44, the Labour Party member is currently Britain's foreign minister;
MIGUEL ANGEL MORATINOS, 58, is Spain's Socialist foreign minister with seven years prior experience as the EU's special representative for the Mideast peace process;
URSULA PLASSNIK, 53, a Christian Democratic former Austrian foreign minister and ambassador to Switzerland;
OLLI REHN, 47, a Finn, has been EU commissioner for enlargement for five years;
ADRIAN SEVERIN, 55, member of the European Parliament, the Social Democrat is a former Romanian foreign minister.
I'd also add Elisabeth Guigou
As it turns out, looking at the field I ended up predicting Ashton's appointment. And Jérôme predicted Juncker-Plassnik, presumably with a dose of gender balance influencing the choice? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
It's useful to have the additional info given with this list: BACKGROUND: Who's who of possible candidates for EU posts - Monsters and CriticsJAN PETER BALKENENDE, 53, Christian Democratic prime minister of the Netherlands since 2002; TONY BLAIR, 56, former Labour Party prime minister of Britain; FELIPE GONZALEZ, 67, a Socialist former prime minister of Spain; DALIA GRYBAUSKAITE, 53, the party-unaffiliated president of Lithuania and a former EU budget commissioner; TARJA HALONEN, 65, the Social Democratic president of Finland since 2000; JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER, 54, Luxembourg's Christian Democratic prime minister and head of the Eurogroup of European finance ministers; PAAVO LIPPONEN, 68, the Social Democrat is a former Finnish prime minister and current president of that country's parliament; MARY ROBINSON, 65, former Labour Party president of Ireland; WOLFGANG SCHUESSEL, 64, a former lawyer and Conservative Party chancellor of Austria from 2000 through 2007; HERMAN VAN ROMPUY, 62, current Christian Democratic prime minister of Belgium; GUY VERHOFSTADT, 56, a former Belgian prime minister who currently heads the Liberal bloc in the European Parliament; VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA, 71, an unaffiliated former president of Latvia. Candidates for High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (in alphabetical order): CATHERINE ASHTON, 53, a member of Britain's Labour Party, she has been the EU's trade commissioner since 2008; MASSIMO D'ALEMA, 60, is a former Socialist Italian prime minister and foreign minister; BERNARD KOUCHNER, 70, France's foreign minister and the founder of the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres) DAVID MILIBAND, 44, the Labour Party member is currently Britain's foreign minister; MIGUEL ANGEL MORATINOS, 58, is Spain's Socialist foreign minister with seven years prior experience as the EU's special representative for the Mideast peace process; URSULA PLASSNIK, 53, a Christian Democratic former Austrian foreign minister and ambassador to Switzerland; OLLI REHN, 47, a Finn, has been EU commissioner for enlargement for five years; ADRIAN SEVERIN, 55, member of the European Parliament, the Social Democrat is a former Romanian foreign minister.
JAN PETER BALKENENDE, 53, Christian Democratic prime minister of the Netherlands since 2002; TONY BLAIR, 56, former Labour Party prime minister of Britain; FELIPE GONZALEZ, 67, a Socialist former prime minister of Spain; DALIA GRYBAUSKAITE, 53, the party-unaffiliated president of Lithuania and a former EU budget commissioner; TARJA HALONEN, 65, the Social Democratic president of Finland since 2000; JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER, 54, Luxembourg's Christian Democratic prime minister and head of the Eurogroup of European finance ministers; PAAVO LIPPONEN, 68, the Social Democrat is a former Finnish prime minister and current president of that country's parliament; MARY ROBINSON, 65, former Labour Party president of Ireland; WOLFGANG SCHUESSEL, 64, a former lawyer and Conservative Party chancellor of Austria from 2000 through 2007; HERMAN VAN ROMPUY, 62, current Christian Democratic prime minister of Belgium; GUY VERHOFSTADT, 56, a former Belgian prime minister who currently heads the Liberal bloc in the European Parliament; VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA, 71, an unaffiliated former president of Latvia. Candidates for High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (in alphabetical order): CATHERINE ASHTON, 53, a member of Britain's Labour Party, she has been the EU's trade commissioner since 2008; MASSIMO D'ALEMA, 60, is a former Socialist Italian prime minister and foreign minister; BERNARD KOUCHNER, 70, France's foreign minister and the founder of the international aid agency Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres) DAVID MILIBAND, 44, the Labour Party member is currently Britain's foreign minister; MIGUEL ANGEL MORATINOS, 58, is Spain's Socialist foreign minister with seven years prior experience as the EU's special representative for the Mideast peace process; URSULA PLASSNIK, 53, a Christian Democratic former Austrian foreign minister and ambassador to Switzerland; OLLI REHN, 47, a Finn, has been EU commissioner for enlargement for five years; ADRIAN SEVERIN, 55, member of the European Parliament, the Social Democrat is a former Romanian foreign minister.
JAN PETER BALKENENDE, 53, Christian Democratic prime minister of the Netherlands since 2002;
TONY BLAIR, 56, former Labour Party prime minister of Britain;
FELIPE GONZALEZ, 67, a Socialist former prime minister of Spain;
DALIA GRYBAUSKAITE, 53, the party-unaffiliated president of Lithuania and a former EU budget commissioner;
TARJA HALONEN, 65, the Social Democratic president of Finland since 2000;
JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER, 54, Luxembourg's Christian Democratic prime minister and head of the Eurogroup of European finance ministers;
PAAVO LIPPONEN, 68, the Social Democrat is a former Finnish prime minister and current president of that country's parliament;
MARY ROBINSON, 65, former Labour Party president of Ireland;
WOLFGANG SCHUESSEL, 64, a former lawyer and Conservative Party chancellor of Austria from 2000 through 2007;
HERMAN VAN ROMPUY, 62, current Christian Democratic prime minister of Belgium;
GUY VERHOFSTADT, 56, a former Belgian prime minister who currently heads the Liberal bloc in the European Parliament;
VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA, 71, an unaffiliated former president of Latvia.
Candidates for High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (in alphabetical order):
Ashton had Brown to propose her and Zapatero to second it, both Socialist and Brown her compatriot. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
In the current media-dominated, postmodern, electioneering brand of politics, elections are to a large extent popularity contests. Substance in public political debates is low. We discuss whether politicians are photogenic (I don't think Ashton is) or charismatic.
To borrow terminology from Bob Altemeyer, the proportion of authoritarian social manipulators among elected politicians is higher than in the general population. Sociopaths are not only drawn to power but they are more successful at emotionally manipulating crowds. In addition, to be selected by a political party to be a candidate tends to require taking part in the mutual backscratching of the patronage networks underlying political parties.
Thus, we get Blair. And Sarkozy. And Berlusconi.
The other day there was the following in the Salon
Bernard:
Tony Blair May Covet EU Presidency, But He's No Belgian Haiku Master - WSJ.comMr. Rompuy is the right man, Belgian political scientist Tobias Van Assche argued in a paper published last week by the University of Antwerp. After all, the 62-year-old Belgian scored low in a measure of "self-confidence" and "will to power."
Mr. Rompuy is the right man, Belgian political scientist Tobias Van Assche argued in a paper published last week by the University of Antwerp. After all, the 62-year-old Belgian scored low in a measure of "self-confidence" and "will to power."
If he got to Prime Minister nonetheless, it means that he probably has enough of both, and simply scored "relatively low" among the sociopathic manipulators he has for peers.
Let me give you another example: Jadranka Kosor of Croatia.
Croatia had a charismatic Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader. He got locked into a dispute with Slovenia's Borut Pahor which delayed Croatia's EU accession negotiations for over a year. Then he resigned abruptly and installed Kosor as his replacement. Apparently Kosor wasn't well respected in Croatia, even though she had even been a Presidential candidate, most people considered her to be an airhead. However, she happens to be one of those people who sit down and quietly do their job. One of the first things she did when she assumed office was to whip all the ministers into shape demanding a quick report from each of them. It appears they were shocked. She also has solved the diplomatic dispute with Slovenia in less than 6 months, though it is possible that the Croatian public or parliament won't like the deal she's struck. Her popularity seems to be suitably high at this point. But hey, at the time of her appointment people's perception of her was coloured by the current president's quip during the presidential election that pitted the two of them that all she was good for was coming out of a cake at a party. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
My concern is that we have just fought a very hard referendum campaign in Ireland where much of the NO argument was driven by British and Irish Eurosceptic arguments about "unelected elites" in Brussels taking over peoples lives and now we seem to be going almost out of our way to appoint someone who fits that description reasonably accurately.
Membership of the British House of Lords (and she is still a peer) does not sit well with most peoples idea of democratic accountability and all sides - even the yes campaign - conceded the EU had some way to go to make the EU institutions appear "closer to the people" and to encourage greater popular identification and emotional involvement with those institutions.
That argument always seemed particularly specious to me when it came from British Eurosceptics with their (frequent) attachments to the House of Lords, "distain for the masses", and attachment to direct democracy only when it came to demanding referenda on the EU.
But it is still an argument and a perception which gained a lot of traction in the campaign and appointing a Peer who has never submitted to a popular election doesn't help that perception. Politics is about popular engagement as well as administrative competence, and in my view Baroness Ashton has not conclusively demonstrated either. notes from no w here
Actually, an unelected second-reading chamber helps protect the State from the influence of money. Case in point: if the House of Lords votes down 42-day detention it will be in part because Brown can't threaten the Lords with a snap election where they'd lose their seats, or engage in horse-trading on individual constituency demands.So I am convinced that having two directly elected chambers is a waste but I am not convinced that an unelected second chamber is a bad idea. Spain's Senate definitely is useless as configured and I would much rather it be replaced with the Conference of Presidents.
So I am convinced that having two directly elected chambers is a waste but I am not convinced that an unelected second chamber is a bad idea. Spain's Senate definitely is useless as configured and I would much rather it be replaced with the Conference of Presidents.
The irony I am seeking to highlight (perhaps ad nauseam by now) is that British Eurosceptics never stop criticising the EU for a lack of direct democracy whilst being contemptuous of popular politics within the UK and being supportive of the Queen, The lords, and the constitutional privileges of the House of Commons. There is hardly a country in Europe with less direct democracy than the UK, and a highly flawed first past the post electoral system at that.
Appointing a Baroness to a top EU post is going to do nothing to challenges the faux "unelected Brussels elite" argument they so love to pedal. notes from no w here
Whatever about the UK - and they are as entitled to their internal traditions as anyone else - how is this relevant to the EU?
You are hardly advocating a second, unelected Chamber of the EU Parliament?
But, really, as I am forced to point out repeatedly, the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) is an unelected (that is, indirectly elected) second-reading chamber and nobody clamors for its removal, and it is very analogous to the European Council itself, where representatives of the Member States' governments act in codecision with the directly elected parliament in the EU's legislative process.
Appointing a Baroness to a top EU post is going to do nothing to challenges the faux "unelected Brussels elite" argument they so love to pedal
I thought the Lisbon Treaty and the new posts created under its terms was part of an attempt to encourage greater popular identification and involvement with EU institutions by EU citizens. notes from no w here
Baroness Ashton was only appointed to her various UK ministerial jobs on the basis of being an appointed member of the House of Lords.
Within the institutional context of British politics, her life peerage is totally incidental to a political apparatchik's career. If someone has to be made a peer in order to be a minister because they're not an MP, they are made a peer. It's pretty meaningless. Most non-hereditary peers know this and are not assholes about being a Baron(ess).
Sarah Ludford MEP is also a life peer and nobody questions that she works her arse off as a parlamentarian. Then again, she's in an elected position and in the Lib Dems you have to go through an open (to party members) primary in order to get the #1 slot on the party list. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Within the institutional context of British politics, her life peerage is totally incidental to a political apparatchik's career. If someone has to be made a peer in order to be a minister because they're not an MP, they are made a peer.
Precisely my point. In Britain it is possible to have an extensive ministerial career without ever standing for election - something which is less common in most other member states as far as I am aware - and not necessarilly a great way to tackle the acknowledged "democratic deficit" within the EU.
My point is that because of long-standing tradition (some would call in class prejudice) it is not very unusual for senior political leaders never having to be electorally accountable in the UK. As long as they're the right sort of British, that's all well and good old chap.
However the EU has nothing like the long tradition and legitimacy that appears to be bestowed on the British ruling class. What legitimacy it has is largely bestowed on it through popular elections and the participation of popularly elected Governments.
I'm sure if she ends up doing a very good job, none of this will be an issue. But its not a good place to start from right after the difficulties we had in getting a popular endorsement of Lisbon against allegations that it was all an elite project and a conspiracy against ordinary people. notes from no w here
In Britain it is possible to have an extensive ministerial career without ever standing for election - something which is less common in most other member states as far as I am aware
You make a factual claim, I rebut you and you reply with this? I was not part of the yes campaign in Ireland. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I've had enough of your populist demagoguery in this thread.
"I've had enough of your populist demagoguery in this thread."
I don't find these statements can be lumped together with other "reasoned arguments and fact."
Without going into the validity of anyone's arguments here, i would be displeased if ET lost the quality Frank Schnittger brings to the table simply because you might dig too deeply for civilized discourse.
If you've indeed had enough of x or y, the proper response is leave it alone.
And i may discuss the anti-Brit thread elsewhere, but not here. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Democracy has nothing to do with it - it's just a convenient stick they can use to beat the dog. If the electorate is dim enough to believe the sceptics have any interest in democratic accountability, more fool them.
Elected leaders are hardly models of excellence - Blair, Aznar, Burlesquoni, ad nauseam - so being elected isn't quite a benchmark of appropriateness.
What this debate underlines is the impossible criteria needed for leadership. If you're elected you're likely to be a spiv, a fool, and/or a sociopath, and if you're unelected you're undemocratic - which is even worse
I agree she's a fig leaf, but that doesn't mean she'll be insignificant. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
In other words, another Angela Merkel.
A potentially powerful narrative.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Also, when Javier Solana (of all people) became Spain's foreign minister he came from the ministry of education and had no diplomatic experience. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I mean, you can always find a soundbite to argue whichever way. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
On the one hand, experience in the workings of state-level foreign policy gives you an idea of how foreign policy works. On the other hand, it means that you come with an existing patronage network and conventional wisdom, which may or may not be A Good Thing, depending on how parochial your local foreign ministry apparatchiks are.
On the state level, I guess Tory Bliar represents someone with no foreign policy experience prior to having to deal with it. That does not seem to have done him any favours, but that may be because of the peculiarities of the British Foreign Office.
On the other hand, long foreign policy experience means - and this is a simple matter of mathematics that would apply to all experienced candidates equally - that much of the conventional wisdom they'd have in their baggage would predate the fall of the Berlin Wall (or, at the very least and depending on your definition of "experienced," predate Schengen, Vietraq and the €). Which does not seem to have ever done anybody any favours either.
Low-level and only trade.
Also, when Javier Solana (of all people) became Spain's foreign minister he came from the ministry of education and had no diplomatic experience.
Nor did Joschka Fischer and now Guido Westerwelle in Germany when getting the job. But that was not tokenism, that was (self-imagined) alpha males wrangling for top jobs.
As for Ashton, just your bilingual column about Zapatero points to tokenism as a main motivation for selecting her. But, look, don't misunderstand: from the little I know, I agree with you that she is an able person, and I hope she'll grow into the job just like into her previous (or like Solana and Fischer grew, and hopefully Westerwelle will grow into theirs). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
To list the non-competence related criteria: explicit:
To list the non-competence related criteria: explicit: one man, one woman; one left-wing, one right-wing; the High Representative takes away the commissioner from its country of origin; some geographic balance, considering that the EP president is from Poland and the Commission President from Portugal/Iberia;
That to me should have been reason NOT to let them have one. I would have been happy for a competent Brit to be considered. But a demand from the UK that they of all states should be certain to have one of the two jobs, no, that's not acceptable. For those who claim that this is being anti-Brit on sight, how do you think the UK would have reacted to seeing the command of operations in Irak given to a French general? Even a competent one mind you. Then, add to that that France would have demanded it be given the position.
"the EPP wanted the President (and thus the High Rep would have to be from the left)"
Ahh, a failure on that count though. The High Rep is from the Right. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
The High Rep is from the Right.
Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Between 1977 and 1979 Ashton worked at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and was later elected as its national treasurer and subsequently as one of its vice-chairs. As of 1983 she worked for the Social Work Training Council.[8] From 1983 to 1989 she was Director of Business in the Community working with business to tackle inequality, and established the Employers' Forum on Disability, Opportunity Now, and the Windsor Fellowship.
Between 1977 and 1979 Ashton worked at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and was later elected as its national treasurer and subsequently as one of its vice-chairs. As of 1983 she worked for the Social Work Training Council.[8]
From 1983 to 1989 she was Director of Business in the Community working with business to tackle inequality, and established the Employers' Forum on Disability, Opportunity Now, and the Windsor Fellowship.
Either she has changed, or at least one of her allegiances (to New Labour or to her previous campaigns, the Business in the Community being the more significant to me in a left-right discussion) is insincere. And I have no idea which one.
But if a Madrid-born lad plays for Barcelona, you can expect him to try to score against Madrid, even if he secretely wants Madrid to win. So, to rephrase, the political persona of the High Rep is from the Right. What she thinks and says at home, indeed, I don't know. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
But last night we already established that campaigning for the UK to drop its "nuclear deterrent" during the early 80's was not sufficient to endear her to one of this site's most prominent anti-nuclear advocates because she's British.
I must be missing something. I think I've followed and scanned through again the discussions here. What are you referring to? And why all this pissy innuendo from you and Colman?
There are serious arguments against the UK holding high office in the EU. And the UK's official attitudes and communication may rub other Europeans up the wrong way. But where on ET has there been denigration of British citizens per se?
what's positive about being for nuclear disarmament? What are the alternatives, agnostic? Pro armament?
Doesn't do it for me (though I don't necessarily agree with CH's scepticism).
You could start by reading Jerome's own FP post
Looks like Blair's persistent lobbying did open the route for the UK to grab the most important of the two new jobs. The only silver lining is that the Commissioner in charge of banking reform in the next Commission will not be British...
Crazy Horse:
And echoing Fran, it will take much to convince me that the UK, outside of Schengen and the Euro, should have been given such a supposedly key position.
Why a Brit?
How can the UK get ANYTHING?
I feel robbed, or raped.
This is pretty unbecoming...
This is disingenuous
She looks only half female to me...
RogueTrooper:
Whilst this one ebbs and flows it has been a constant during the time I have been coming to ET. It's the reason I turned into a lurker.
this was clearly the gut reaction. Then it has been rationalised in all ways
That is entirely your interpretation.
As for the others, they are based on Ashton as an official representative of the United Kingdom in the EU. Not on her Britishness as a person.
And no, this is not about frames and narratives. You are plainly exaggerating the focus of these remarks. Given Colman's top comment, I'd say he is too.
Migeru:
Whenever I have spoken for the Stop Blair! campaign I was careful to stress that it was not an anti-British campaign but an anti-Blair campaign. Maybe I was wrong.
You were not wrong (none / 0) It was an anti-Blair campaign, and not an anti-Brit campaign. But what do you think of the large scale campaign mounted by Britain to get one of the two jobs, and do you think that it's amongst the first countries we should look to for a candidate for these EU-wide jobs? Why did the "no one from the big countries" somehow did not apply to the UK? And can you not admit that for some people, it was also legitimately about him being a anti-EU Brit, even if we agreed to downplay this?
But what do you think of the large scale campaign mounted by Britain to get one of the two jobs, and do you think that it's amongst the first countries we should look to for a candidate for these EU-wide jobs? Why did the "no one from the big countries" somehow did not apply to the UK?
And can you not admit that for some people, it was also legitimately about him being a anti-EU Brit, even if we agreed to downplay this?
It's not that he was an anti-EU Brit. It's that being a Brit he proved he was anti-EU by failing to make the case for the EU to his fellow citizens when he enjoyed an immense amount of political capital.
Absolutely! I am a Frenchman who moved to the UK when it would be clear that I would not be getting any better career prospects from the move (quite the contrary in fact) and am about to go to the pub to meet a bunch of friends who, when I met them, had the reaction that I seemed British to them. I'll spend Christmas in Cheddar. I was, before moving to London, and ICC qualified cricket umpire. I have read more words in English than French since I turned 14. There is nothing in me against Brits per se -and I'm sure it's the same with the other people being quoted.
Maybe some signatures in the Stop Blair campaign came from people who genuinely hate the Brits (I'd guess it's actually directed more against the English btw), but we are not responsible for them.
Symbols and context do matter in politics. The campaign by the UK to have at all cost one of the two positions was ungainly. And as for the symbol, I may quote myself:
"For those who claim that this is being anti-Brit on sight, how do you think the UK would have reacted to seeing the command of operations in Irak given to a French general? Even a competent one mind you. Then, add to that that France would have demanded it be given the position." Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Symbols and context do matter in politics. The campaign by the UK to have at all cost one of the two positions was ungainly.
And no, that's not about Britain. I take precisely the same line when I hear Danish eurosceptics piss and moan about the €, or hear the Danish government demand an a la carte opt out from judicial cooperation (which as it happens they only do because they want to be in Frontex but don't want to accept any of the refugees that Frontex picks up in the Mediterranean).
Although I'll grant that Britain has better reasons to not be in the € than Denmark, on account of not already being pegged to the D-mark.
Jerome asked the question Why a Brit? to answer it with the information that there was probably a trade-off for France involved:
It looks like the trade off is that Michel Barnier will be getting the Commissioner for the Internal Market and Financial Regulation
Crazy Horse continued his comment I feel robbed, or raped, with:
What ever has Britain done to enhance operation of the European Union?
Jérôme himself said clearly it is legitimate to be anti-Brit
I explained (in more than a little bit of detail) why it was legitimate to fight against a stronger representation of UK appointees in the top European posts, and you call that being "anti-Brit"?
And I hope you won't respond by quoting again my "anti-Brit" title because that's not an argument and you know it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
why all this pissy innuendo from you and Colman?
And, would you mind counting the number of unabashedly anti-Brit comments in the last 24 hours? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Where are the big bad creep-crawlies you (and apparently Colman) see?
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
And saying that other countries also send people that embody their governments and their policies is not an acceptable retort, given how different the consistent UK government's approach to the EU is to pretty much every other government's.
If Brown had been pushing for a UK citizen with a track record of working or spending political capital for the EU (say, to take vaguely plausible exemples, Chris Patten or Kenneth Clarke), then theinr nationality would have been less of an issue.
But if you can't see how the European Council giving in and placating the most anti-EU country in the union at this point in time can be perceived by me and others as grating and unpleasant, I'll just say, "bah."
(you'll answer with your stock answer that no rational dialogue is possible when narratives are clashing, and I'll answer that you can't possibly be serious....)(then you'll say I'm putting words in your mouth, to which I answer "duh") In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
As Jerome has stated, the brief was to find a female, at least nominally left wing candidate to complement the appointment of Van Rompuy and two other centre right men to key European posts. In the end she had to be British as well to get Brown to ditch Blair.
To criticise her appointment or query her qualifications is not to be sexist, extreme leftwing, or anti- British. It is to query why the price of not appointing Blair had to be the appointment of another British candidate (there are 25 other member states in the EU all with legitimate claims to push their nominees).
If she turns out to be a nuLabour Atlanticist are we to be labelled anti-Brit, sexist, extreme socialists for criticising her? If she turns out to be not very good at developing and projecting a coherent EU foreign policy around the world or achieving public support for same, are we to be debarred from pointing out that well, actually, she never had senior prior foreign policy experience, never did more than inherit an already well developed trade negotiating brief, and never led a public election campaign to achieve popular endorsement for any particular policy agenda?
Is it not elitist and contemptuous of democratic politics and absurdly racist to discount the claims of 25 other member states to the post on the grounds that it has to be a Brit who is not particularly well qualified for the post and who has never seen fit to seek a popular mandate for anything? This is politics we are talking about here, not administration, and ultimately what the citizens of Europe think and feel and believe and perceive IS important even if some intellectuals want to tell them they are all ignorant and wrong and have no right to disagree with their expert analysis. notes from no w here
the price of not appointing Blair
This turn of phrase got me thinking. This thread strikes me as having less assumption of good faith and more tiredness then usually on ET. Could it be that we did win - we got our stated goal of stopping Blair - but not much more. We did not get Robinson, or any other really good one. We got what the political machinery delivers - a rightist and a NuLabor - given where the political power rests. And then faultlines in our own not to stable coalition (and the perceived coalition formed with others around the petition) becomes easy targets for frustration over the general situation (and pies, though we have failed to drag the americans into it for once).
To be clear I am not trying to analyse any of the posters, just describing how I see the threads climate and trying to understand it. If I am right, what we need is a new concrete goal. Blair defeated, what is next on the agenda?
Or to quote the immortal poet: The battle's done and we kind of won So we sound our victory cheer Where do we go from here? Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
That's probably inapplicable in a European context, due to the differences in our political traditions (except perhaps in England, where they do FPTP?). But it gives a nice meter-stick to measure ambitions against.
The fact that a number of people have said to you in various ways that such a remark is out of line here does not mean that we are all PC, OTT and having hissy fits over nothing.
Why do you even see the need to comment on her looks at all? If we tolerate that kind of comment, then it appears everywhere - which is exactly what happens to women politicians in the media. As soon as they show their faces, their policies don't matter, just their looks, boobs, shoes, dresses. I'm sick to death of that, it is a reflection of how our society views and devalues women.
If you can't accept that we don't wish to perpetuate that devaluation of women on ET then go somewhere that doesn't give a shit.
Why do you even see the need to comment on her looks at all?
Because I'm a human being and a male. Human beings attribute a lot of importance to looks - whether they be the looks of their partners, their colleagues, their friends or indeed their politicians. In fact, I've read entire business reports on the subject which conclude that those with better looks have a much better chance of succeeding in whatever they do than those who look like crap. In politics especially, our society is presented a packaged image of individuals to vote for. Content comes second place - if it comes at all. It's all about the image. If you can't handle a comment like mine about the physical traits of Lady Ashton then I guess you must experience a lot of frustration in our post-modern society.
Does not mean that we're all PC or OTT...
That's an interesting one, really. I live a relatively privileged life and mingle with many cultivated people. Discussions where sexist humour has been interjected (not necessarily by me) have taken place on occasions - and not once has the crowd reacted with such collective badgering and bullying. Not once. So I can only conclude one of the following:
That proves my point.
And some things that fly (or at least are allowed to slide) in face to face conversation translate poorly to the online format.
I live a relatively privileged life and mingle with many cultivated people.
Colour me astounded.
If we find ourselves unable to live up to your exclusive and cultured standards of diversity and tolerance, is it too much to hope that you'll be spending more time with those who do?
It's certainly too much to hope that you might understand that one of hallmarks of privilege is taking secret - and sometimes not so secret - pride in transgressive and inappropriate behaviour.
ET is not whatever group of people you consider cultivated may be, it's a public online forum. It is moderated by user ratings and by an editorial team. To post here, you accept that. If you don't accept it, then don't post here. It's not something we are going to spend days arguing about.
In that case, I suggest you make it abundantly clear, with something like '(('macho vladimir'))' (without the ' of course), which would have appeared as [vladimir's Macho Moment of the Day™ Technology]
I guess this would have helped somewhat. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Lightening up the place with humour is fine, and I'm a great fan of that. What is not fine is humour grounded in disparaging how a woman is "supposed" to "look" to be considered female.
There was nothing "machist" is the photo I posted nor in the accompanying comment - which was simply to say that, in my opinion, Ashton lacks feminine traits. Indeed, the woman is, in my opinion, ugly. Saying this is what - politically incorrect? Machist? Misogynous? WTF?
Why should my photo and comment be interpreted as being more "machist" than the entire discussion above around Ashton's "token" appointment because she's female? If you read Ashton's speech accepting her nomination and responding to her detractors, you will notice that she does not say ANYWHERE that she was chosen because she is a woman. Any "warnings" distributed those comments? Noooo.
I have nothing to say on the "misogynous" accusation since it is so obviously devoid of any sense.
Thank you to ThatBritGuy for understanding and appreciating a bit of humour. What a relief.
Indeed, the woman is, in my opinion, ugly.
For the men as well.
The EU is good at functional politics, but very bad at narrative politics, with theatre and pageantry. Theatre and pageantry are stupid and annoying, but very necessary.
Swimsuits should, however, be obligatory.
Though in the interests of gender equality I have on a at least two occasions voiced my objection to Geert Wilders purely on the basis of his horrible hair.
One more time... the discussion was about the role that her sex had in getting her appointed. My comment was that she didn't look all that female. It was funny for some... grotesque to others. C'est la vie. That's all there was to it. No misogyny. No machism. Just a bit of (unfunny) humour. At least it made two people laugh!! And 6 distribute yellow cards??????
I don't much care what word is used to describe it, and I also don't care who you find attractive or not. Her appearance has no relevance to her ability to do the job, or to why she was selected for it. Aside from being fundamentally sexist, "jokes" about how powerful or influential women "aren't feminine" are as tired and unimaginative as they get. Yawn. Great sense of humor you've got there, pal.
It was a joke.
Zapatero. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
When there's an individual who defends a position which isn't "The Party Line" the "mob" (no hard feelings) gangs up for a lynching. It's been done to many a contributor. Just look at The Brit Guy... he's been what, posting on ET for years now and he mistakenly gave a 4-Excellent grade to the Ashton photo when he meant to give a 0... yeah right. When he realised that he was on the "mob's" wrong side, he turned his coat.
Whatever. Your community, your friends, your rules - which, by the way are applied unfairly. But there have been many fantastic essays and books written on the subject. I recommend "Le terrorisme intellectual" from jean Sevillia (dunno if it's been translated to English). Read it. Have fun... oh and have a nice WE.
Call it groupthink, herd mentality, or whatever makes you feel better, but you should realize that the kind of humour you attempted there does not go down well on ET.
"Le ET c'est moi!"
I suppose I should be flattered that you thought I was the only one who appreciated your fine sense of comedy, before crumbling under the Stalinist demands of peer pressure.
But sadly - no.
Fixed.
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2 2 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 21 10 comments
by gmoke - Nov 12 6 comments
by Oui - Dec 76 comments
by Oui - Dec 5
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 32 comments
by Oui - Dec 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 22 comments
by Oui - Dec 26 comments
by Oui - Dec 112 comments
by Oui - Dec 14 comments
by Oui - Nov 306 comments
by Oui - Nov 289 comments
by Oui - Nov 276 comments
by gmoke - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 268 comments
by Oui - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 2513 comments
by Oui - Nov 2318 comments
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 222 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2110 comments