Mirrored: 4th of April 2010, 20:08 Original: www.bbc.co.uk Views: 72 Settings: Loading the mirror...
Link: index: A to Z Link: help: BBC Help Link: copyright: Terms of Use Advertisement BBC Accessibility links * Text only * Skip to content * Skip to local navigation * Skip to bbc.co.uk navigation * Skip to bbc.co.uk search * Help * Accessibility Help * Access keys help BBC BLOGS - Gavin Hewitt's Europe IN ASSOCIATION WITH << Previous | Main | Next >> Blair camp not hopeful Gavin Hewitt | 11:53 UK time, Thursday, 19 November 2009 tonyblair_595.jpgWith European leaders due to arrive in Brussels in the next few hours to select a president, those close to Tony Blair are downbeat about his chances. They have accepted for some time that the prevailing mood among EU leaders is for a low-profile chairman rather than a more charismatic president with international connections. It also seems there has been a deal done, whereby the top job will almost certainly go to someone from the centre-right rather than the centre-left and that, too, excludes Tony Blair. The former Labour prime minister has never offcially declared himself a candidate but he is not expecting a late-night call to head to Brussels. There is still a slender chance that if the dinner tonight is deeply split, Tony Blair's name could yet emerge, but that is not now thought likely by Blair himself. * Bookmark with: * del.icio.us | * Digg | * Newsvine | * NowPublic | * Reddit * - What's this? Comments Sign in or register to comment. * Previous * Next * 1. At 12:17pm on 19 Nov 2009, PDWilliams wrote: Well, I didn't vote for him. Somebody care to remind me why I wasn't consulted about whether I wanted a President? You weren't consulted either, were you? How is this democracy? Now to the more exciting stuff: when will be able to vote the current one out and choose a different one? Complain about this comment * 2. At 12:39pm on 19 Nov 2009, mikewarsaw wrote: As Mr Blair is a representative of a member State which does not use the Euro, is not part of the Schengen area, takes a permanent negative view of all things European and would simply prefer a free trade zone, this is frankly a disqualification for his being a candidate. Complain about this comment * 3. At 12:42pm on 19 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote: So Butcher Blair is not favoured? How sad. Complain about this comment * 4. At 12:58pm on 19 Nov 2009, Tigerjayj wrote: #1 Pdwilliams absolutely spot on! An EU version of jobs for the boys it seems! Complain about this comment * 5. At 1:02pm on 19 Nov 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote: "It also seems there has been a deal done, wherby the top job will almost certainly go to someone from the centre-right rather than the centre-left and that, too, excludes Tony Blair." That's a rather odd statement. Tony Blair may have been the leader of a party that had previously been left of centre, but I would have thought most people would accept that Blair himself is very much of the centre-right. BTW, it's a shame the picture was cropped where it was: is that a picture of cannabis plants on his lectern? Complain about this comment * 6. At 1:21pm on 19 Nov 2009, KC Kunnanz wrote: Too bad Europeans can't vote directly for their President. Of course, that would give an unfair advantage to the larger states to install leaders sympathic to their views as the expense of the smaller states. If only there were some example of a country that had found a compromise solution. Of course, the elected officials of each state could get together to pick the leader, but wouldn't it be better if the people of each state could vote directly for their leader instead, with their vote weighted in according to their representation? That way the people of every state would have some say, with the larger states having a larger say. Hmmm...if only there were such a system available...maybe we could come up with a name for such a system..."Electoral College" sounds sort of catchy. Complain about this comment * 7. At 1:57pm on 19 Nov 2009, Robert wrote: I totally agree with #6.I think we should vote for whoever we want thats just not fair. When i heard that EU is going to get a President, i was really happy because then the corrupted countries from the Eastern Europe might have a chance to decrease the corruption, because i think thats what they need, someone, who is not corrupted, to lead them, but now as i'm reading what are the presidential powers, i'm not sure if this could help to the Eastern Europe at all. Complain about this comment * 8. At 2:00pm on 19 Nov 2009, DiscoStu_d wrote: My recommendation is that they select a friendly dolphin for the post. Intelligent, wouldn't talk too much, could swim via the Med and rivers all across the continent (saving money). Complain about this comment * 9. At 2:03pm on 19 Nov 2009, schranzo wrote: You could find this far-fetched I know but I'll say it anyway. If Van Rompuy has too much opposition then it could well be Brutton. I can well see Sarkozy going with him due to yesterday's travesty game. I know its far-fetched but these summits can have some surprising twists and turns and sometimes decisions are taken on a near-whim. Complain about this comment * 10. At 2:09pm on 19 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote: Blair fits the EU and the EU fits Blair: Both are over-valued entities, over-indulged creations and overtly undemocratic. That the corrupt, venal politicians of the 27 consider his 'Iraq' record goes against him is symptomatic of the extraordinary con-job they have done on all Europe when you consider the individual demeanour and policies of each one of them in the decision-making process for the Council Chairman and the High Representative. I have no doubt after all the wheeler-dealing-under-the-table-back-scratching exchanges in Stockholm have been completed the EU will actually end up with exactly what was intended right from the outset of the Lisbon Treaty. A total nonentity of an appointee suffused by immeasureably mediocre political, management and leadership talents, but, one over-riding personal quality the Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis of ill-intent always admires above all else: Not a 'Democratic' principle in any vein of their duplicitous body! Complain about this comment * 11. At 2:15pm on 19 Nov 2009, ChrisArta wrote: #5 maybe palm trees, most likely he was at some resort somewhere getting a suntan and working on his smile:)) Complain about this comment * 12. At 2:59pm on 19 Nov 2009, Maria Ashot wrote: No. 8 "Dolphin" candidate: what a delightful concept. Duly noting the concerns from UK Eurosceptics -- legitimate & to be addressed by the next UK government, quite possibly -- the difficulty New Labour is having is facing up to how many people understand the great economic wipeout courtesy of the US was a number of years in the making -- and that New Labour's chumminess with Clintons & Bushes & now Obamas did indeed expose the average European to unnecessary risks. Anytime anyone questioned the underlying motives or trustworthiness of some American scheme or another, the UK PM would chime in with: "Oh, you just don't speak the lingo as well as we do: these Yanks are really nothing more than decent chips off the old (British Empire) block." As it turned out, that was a gross misrepresentation. And so the credibility of the mentor has declined along with the credibility of the protege. Which was which? Well, you tell me. If you are able to tell them apart, with certainty? As for the election? Positions have been identified and names put forth. Titles are about to be awarded. The rest of us are merely spectators. Only join in the Chorus if you care to... And that, too, is Democracy: 21st century style. In an American-style democracy not everyone votes, and there is not necessarily hard evidence that the votes are counted. Here, at least some impressive candidacies (unlike America). As an Anglophile, might I remind you that the US of A was an invention of some English men who owned property & commercial interests in the New World? You might ask them, if you ever meet them, what exactly they thought they were attempting to achieve for the rest of us? Complain about this comment * 13. At 3:22pm on 19 Nov 2009, InVarietateConcordia wrote: Had a meeting with a senior official at the Belgian EU Permanent Representation today and she seemed to think Ahtisaari might be in the mix for President... to be truthful she was actually pushing for him (definitely not the official Belgian Line) but i have to agree he does tick a lot of boxes... i think Belgians are starting to realise that they don't have a PM in waiting to replace van Rompuy... certainly not one who knows their national anthem (Leterme)! Complain about this comment * 14. At 3:38pm on 19 Nov 2009, Mathiasen wrote: - And now it is also clear that Tony Blair himself has been the source behind some of the articles. ! Complain about this comment * 15. At 4:31pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: InVarietateConcordia, Ahtisaary? oj. :o) Here in Russia "the man who received Nobel prize for dismantling Serbia". Complain about this comment * 16. At 4:36pm on 19 Nov 2009, Karl Kraus wrote: I like the British complaining about the lack of EU-democracy (we did not get a vote on this! The Magna Charta has been violated!) on all the blogs and in all the tabloids...You must be the country with the absolute lowest turnout in general and EU elections...you don't bother to go voting when you can but are great in complaining about potential elections for the EU that you would vote in if asked...By the way, except for a local newspaper from Brussels (the Sun spotted it, I don't even know it and I live here), I can not find a printed newsource that sells more than 2000 copies in this country that is openly negative on Blair, whereas major British newspapers seem very happy being cynical, diminutive and outright hostile about my country...I think that shows you where the gentlemen are in 2009. Good luck with your bellybutton, you seem to keep staring in them all the time... Complain about this comment * 17. At 5:32pm on 19 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote: KrlKraus Re #16 "...you (UK) must be the country with the absolute lowest turnout in general and EU elections.." Utter nonsensical drivel! Even the most cursory check of EU Election 2009 turnout would reveal the UK is a long way from bottom of the pile: Slovakia with 19.63% has the honour to be bottom and by comparison the UK with some 34.50% is 7th off the lowest rung. In fact the Uk was just 2.55 down on one of the founding EU Nations, the Netherlands and above the largest 'new' East European recruit, Poland which had only 24.53% voter turnout. Across the EU the overall voter turnout was a derisory 44% (and under 40% when you remove the 3 nations with compulsory voting): So please, lets not have any self-congratulatory smugness on the part of any Member Nation. As for the UK General Election: Whilst that has diminished over the last couple of decades Voter Turnout still far exceeds anything the EU has managed for its Parliament since 1979 (with EU pan-european turnout at under 44% in 2009)! So, whilst there is indeed some nationally unedifying fluff needing attention by Britons there is every bit as much navel-gazing stereotypical nonsense, as typified by your blinkered inaccuracy, generated by Germany, France etc. Complain about this comment * 18. At 5:57pm on 19 Nov 2009, ignace wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if Blair takes the High (foreign) Representative job. That job will have a higher on-going profile than the EU president. Complain about this comment * 19. At 6:17pm on 19 Nov 2009, The cookie monster wrote: No need to waste time speculating, both Belgian & Dutch TV have announced Van Rompuy/Ashton have received the nod... Complain about this comment * 20. At 6:35pm on 19 Nov 2009, Maria Ashot wrote: Who can tell us more about Baroness Cathy Ashton? Please? Of course, we have so many foreign policy experts here... I gather her field of specialisation has been trade & she follows the lead of Lord Peter Mandelson. Will be grateful to one and all who can provide further clarification, of all interpretative hues and levels of detail. Thank you. Complain about this comment * 21. At 6:53pm on 19 Nov 2009, David wrote: I think...(since no one asked me)... that they should choose a nation's leader like Merkel or Sarkovsky to be the EU leader... that way there would be an actual authority figure unlike a powerless symbol/person. :) Complain about this comment * 22. At 6:55pm on 19 Nov 2009, rg wrote: 16. KarlKraus "...British complaining about the lack of EU-democracy; 'we did not get a vote on this!'..." What is there to complain about? We elected representatives and they voted for the modified Constitutional Treaty. Except that they all stood on a platform that gave us the final say. Something to complain about or is it the only way the EU can progress? Complain about this comment * 23. At 6:56pm on 19 Nov 2009, democratic_Centrism wrote: EU turns down most effective communicator and global player shocker!!! You may well get your vote yet for the next president if it goes federal after all. Hurrah! Complain about this comment * 24. At 6:57pm on 19 Nov 2009, anglosceptic wrote: Let's face facts. Tony Blair never had any chance of becoming president tof the council. His candidacy did benefit from boosterism from the UK media including the BBC but this had no effect outside Britain. Blair was put forward as a "traffic stopper" but now the Beeb is pushing for Baroness Catherine Ashton to get the Foreign job. Now there's a traffic stopper for you. A politician who has never in her entire life stood for a democratic election to office, who has no record in Foreign Affairs and is almost unknown internationally. Has she a chance? I'd guess she has about the same chance as Blair. Both posts should go to politicians from countries that are committed to the European ideal than the UK is. This certainly puts Belgium in the driving seat for the Presidency and perhaps a German or French politician for the Foreign Affairs post which in the long run might be far more important than the presidency of the council. Complain about this comment * 25. At 6:58pm on 19 Nov 2009, rg wrote: 20. maria-ashot "...tell us more about Baroness Cathy Ashton? Please?" Perhaps a good starting point would see the Noble Baroness publish her manifesto. Complain about this comment * 26. At 7:03pm on 19 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote: The Ashton woman (I don't acknowledge titles, as I am a filthy commoner) was appointed to her current role by Gordon Brown, who was appointed to his current role by a political party. She is a life peer, which means that she overseas the passage of legislation for the rest of her life, without being subject to elections. Now that she has been appointed to represent the EU overseas, citizens of the UK are outraged by the process of appointment within the EU institutions. It points to a gross deficiency of democracy, apparently. I still don't understand why it is that LABOUR politicians take aristocratic titles. Why Baroness or Lord? Why not "commissar" or "exalted comrade"? Heck, why not "Light of Heaven", or "The morning dew that nourishes the thirsty fruit"? This is why I am so critical of the class system in the UK. Even the socialists call themselves by aristocratic names, if they can. It is beyond weird. It is perverse. Complain about this comment * 27. At 7:09pm on 19 Nov 2009, Albert the Teddy Bear wrote: I apologise for posting this piece in here, having already added it to the Glass Box, but I feel that this is such a momentous day, we ought to celebrate these images across our European non-boundaries. I've posted some photos below showing the momentous events taking place today as 27 people decide who will be President and Foreign Minister of Europe. The first photo, as you can see, shows them all sitting in conclave discussing their choices, over a light lager and Martini. The second photo shows the attention to detail as they choose which biscuits to have with their lager or Martinis. Photos 3 and 4, show their white board hidden behind a screen which has to block out any views through the windows from outside. Photo 5 is a Super Macro image of the pen nib they will use to sign the agreement that none of us will get to see or read. Photo 7 has been censored. Photos 8, 9, 10 and 11 show the concerted effort they are all putting in to playing musical chairs. Photo 12 was taken accidentally when someone pointed the camera at the ceiling while trying to set the Flash mode. This was supposed to be a follow up to photo 7. Photo 13 shows them all sitting down to a 9 course meal as they pretend to be taking hours to come to their decisions. Photo 14 shouldn't be in there. It's a picture of a ballot paper that none of us will ever get to use. So, having set the scene for the pictures here are the photographs...... What else did you expect ? Complain about this comment * 28. At 7:11pm on 19 Nov 2009, democratic_Centrism wrote: What do you mean Blair had "no chance" you should have told me that before I wasted -L-50 quid on 4/1 odds over at PaddyPower?! Complain about this comment * 29. At 7:21pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: no, democracythreat, see how cool it will be: yest at the press conf. post the EU-Rus. summit Medvedev kept addressing all "my European tovarisch XX and my European comrade XY :o))) will confirm now that (comrades startled slightly but nodded :o))), and the next summit it'll be "my European tovarisch Baroness Ashton will now confirm ...:o))))) Complain about this comment * 30. At 7:22pm on 19 Nov 2009, Zer_Matty wrote: Let's get a few things straight 1. No matter what the majority of the idiots on here say, the EU is a good thing that is necessary for the political and economic future of the individual states of Europe. It is a necessity, and by this I mean both political and economic integration. You keep moaning about 'sovereignty' whilst ChiMerica, ChIndia and BRIC start turning the European taps off. Euro-scepticism has no place in proper, informed debate anymore. Fact. 2. A vote on the President, or the reorganisational treaty was/is/always will be pointless. We are a democracy correct...a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. And our elected representatives need to be able to rise about the uneducated idiot masses/populist press and do what's right. Most people don't understand the EU and should therefore not have a vote on its future. 3. A vote on the President is a prime example of why this is so ridiculous. You want to have a Europe-wide vote on a consensus building figurehead of the European Council?!?!?! This is stupidity. Pure tyranny of the majority. Anyone who understands the European Council as a predominantly intergovernmental body, would get that most decisions are taken on grounds of unanimity. The President as a relatively mundane consensus builder is a pretty benign position. 4. However, the choice of Baroness Ashton as the Foreign Affairs Commissioner is an insult. For all of us in the field of foreign relations it is just a downright disgrace. This is a woman with little experience, with no diplomatic background, who has no experience of security or intelligence matters (areas where the EU needs to improve upon) and has absolutely no foreign service experience WHATSOEVER apart from 1 measly year as a Commissioner. It's an insult. And shows a trend of appalling Labour appointments to international bodies. Disgraceful. Complain about this comment * 31. At 7:29pm on 19 Nov 2009, Mathiasen wrote: #24. anglosceptic I am astonished over the journalism we have been seeing here. From the summit sources from Spain are saying that they expect an agreement to be reached soon. Well, let us see. The British government had the luck to get its evaluation of the Swedish presidency reprinted here. Contrary to this evaluation the Swedes have had the best possible start of the summit. It anything of the reporting here has hit anything it is that the two posts go to politicians that have a weak profile. So far. Complain about this comment * 32. At 7:38pm on 19 Nov 2009, Manneken wrote: BELGIUM RULES!! Long live Herman Van Rompuy! Long live the European Union! Complain about this comment * 33. At 7:42pm on 19 Nov 2009, Freeborn John wrote: maria-ashot (20): Baroness Ashton is famous for being the only politician we have who has never ran for election once in her life. Who could be more perfect as the 'High Representative' of the undemocratic EU to the outside world than her? When she visits the Chinese Premier they will immediately share the common bond of never having sought a democratic mandate in their lives. Blair and Bush only had the same brand of toothpaste, so just imagine how much better Ashton and Premier Hu Jintao will be able to get along. Complain about this comment * 34. At 7:43pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: stellarBeloved, "an actual authority figure", not all is lost in that respect, the moment of truth will be to see if Baroness Ashton will wear a brooch. I'm sure Russian Foreign Affairs office will be interested to check this "brooch factor" first thing - if yes - still un-confirmed - tomorrow morning. Brooches on ladies' outfots give all shivers here :o))), Madeleine Olbright (sorry I know I spell it wrongly), etc.. Complain about this comment * 35. At 7:45pm on 19 Nov 2009, Mathiasen wrote: General information from European media to only-English readers: Apparently Gordon Brown's insisting on Tony Blair has delayed the effort to nominate baroness Ashton and PM Rompuy. >>We have known for a long time that a large Social democratic country was pressing hard to get a person nominated, which in reality did not stand a chance", a Swedish source says. The Swedish presidency has been discreet in the last eight days in order not to make the negotiations more difficult. I believe everybody here can figure the rest. Complain about this comment * 36. At 7:50pm on 19 Nov 2009, Jukka Rohila wrote: To Zer_Matty (30): In regards your fourth point... The European Union isn't centered around normal relations and circles of diplomacy. The core competence and strength of the union is its economical and trading power. What the new European representative for foreign affairs has to obtain is background in economics and experience on working of issues of trade and commerce in the European level, because the only affective tool that the European Union has is to use its economic power for the good or for the bad. In my opinion Ashton would be a good choice. We need a person with a mindset of an economist, not a mindset of an English or political science major. Complain about this comment * 37. At 7:50pm on 19 Nov 2009, raindancer68 wrote: The Olympians got their puppet in Herman van Rompuy. Complain about this comment * 38. At 7:56pm on 19 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote: Zer_Matty wrote: "Let's get a few things straight.." Zer matty then shone his great white light upon the EU and declared (in a nubered list, no less).... 1. That the EU is a necessity because the only successful countries in the world belong to customs unions. (such as the late, great USSR, BRIC and so on. Oh, and the chinese and american custom union. Which you might not know about because you are an idiot.) 2. The EU president should be appointed because that is democratic. 3. The EU president should be appointed because democracy doesn't work. 4. The EU foreign minister should not have been appointed because zer matty was not consulted and he feels his own views are worth something. Please, be consistent. If you like representation, so be it. But don't waste everyone's time with your opinions if you do. And don't call representation democracy. What is the point? You don't know what you are talking about. That is why you need a representative. Remember? I don't see why folks like me, who do not want representation because we prefer our own opinions on political matters than representatives opinions, should have to listen to people who don't even know their own minds and who need representatives. Either you need representatives to work stuff out for you, or you don't. If you do, then shut up. It's easy. Be consistent, be sincere. If you need someone else to speak for you, you have no business speaking for yourself. Complain about this comment * 39. At 7:57pm on 19 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote: "Baroness Ashton is famous for being the only politician we have who has never ran for election once in her life." What about the Queen? You know the UK head of state? Complain about this comment * 40. At 8:05pm on 19 Nov 2009, ridoca wrote: Well, if anybody (especially eusceptics) needed a confirmation that this non-democratic, over-reaching brand of EU is definitely not up to par, well, here it is: the new pres+pesc duo! They perfectly embody the totally gutless and clueless style of the EU: I mean, Baroness Ashton (who is this person????) and Mr.Van Rompuy(!) a virtually unknown politician from a soon-to-be-failed Nation. It's a good follow up to the whole EU Constitution fiasco; back then, they wanted a good fundamental charter, but they just couldn't hack a simple and propoer constitution, so instead they cowardly downgraded to this "Lisbon-Treaty", now they had a choice to have at least strong figures in the top 2 EU spots, and honestly at least Blair has a recognzed name history, and a decent reputation abroad, while d'Alema was both a former Prime Minister and a Foreign Minister... But no; ladyes and gentleman, here they are: Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton. I don't know if I should laugh carelessly, or wholeheartedly pity both pro- and anti-Europeans right now. Complain about this comment * 41. At 8:16pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: oj, I heard it's someone Hartman? is any one "Hartman" from Hungary? may be simply heard wrongly 'Herman" Complain about this comment * 42. At 8:21pm on 19 Nov 2009, RomeStu wrote: 39. democracythreat wrote: "Baroness Ashton is famous for being the only politician we have who has never ran for election once in her life." What about the Queen? You know the UK head of state? Oh, come now Democracy Threat, you really do not think that playing the Queen will win that argument. Head of State in UK has no actual power. The point is that Baroness Ashton is a triple-appointee, in that she was appointed to the Lords, and then appointed as Trade Commissionner to Brussels, and finally appointed to the finance job. She has alot of power and no one has ever voted for her. The Queen has no power - she doesn't even write her own speeches! Complain about this comment * 43. At 8:22pm on 19 Nov 2009, Jukka Rohila wrote: Just noticed... Cathrine Ashton has an Degree in Economics... Van Rompuy has Master's degree in Applied Economics... Do I sense a theme in here? Complain about this comment * 44. At 8:22pm on 19 Nov 2009, David wrote: lol web alice :) Complain about this comment * 45. At 8:24pm on 19 Nov 2009, David wrote: One needs some humor here, WebAlice :) Complain about this comment * 46. At 8:31pm on 19 Nov 2009, Benefactor wrote: So, can someone explain, precisely why, you want to have a vote for President of the European Council? The position has precisely no legislative initiative, can lay out no manifesto for its term, can't veto any decisions of the council, infact, doesn't even get a vote on the council as he doesn't directly represent any country. With this in mind, what pro's and con's exactly would you be weighing up when you went to the polls? This is stupid, Eurosceptics complain that they don't get to vote for him, but if they did they'd complain he is powerless, or complain about a Federalist agenda. No pleasing some people. Tell you what, next Euro Election, vote for Commission President instead, it's a much more beneficial exercise. Complain about this comment * 47. At 8:35pm on 19 Nov 2009, Deadlylampshade wrote: I have been an avid reader of the posts on Gavin's Blog. I have refrained from commenting but it has got to the stage where I just cannot stop myself. Apart from the subject matter of this blog ( and yes I am anti EU) I really object to the likes of Matty making spurious assumptions about the intellect of the public at large and implying that they are not smart enough to vote. There speaks a real believer in democracy! Complain about this comment * 48. At 8:35pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: I don't know, I am glad it ended so. - Europian Council's (anyway will be labelled "first Europe's") first president has a beautiful well sounding name and pleasant looks. Good for history, symbolically, and from future kids' generation point of view (even, has no moustache, exactly as I "ordered") - Foreign Affairs are in British hands (symbolically, of course :o))) purely symbolically) - which I also think is very reasonable. From Europe's point of view :o))) Now, for Medvedev and Putin, a lady - it's good, will enact on them, how to say :o) a soothing-disciplining effect. Russia is still a men's society - which means women are found to be originally, eh, well, anyway - therefore have to be given concessions and contributions and various allowances , something in between paying for lunch among work colleagues or paying for gas. :o)))) I hope from Kremlin's point of view it'll mean one can't be nasty to them (provided they don't wear brooches :o)- I think that's how it will end up. And Lavrov is simply gentlemanly genuinely so all is well that ends well. Complain about this comment * 49. At 8:46pm on 19 Nov 2009, busby2 wrote: democracythreat #38 Zir _Matty wrote in #30 "And our elected representatives need to be able to rise about the uneducated idiot masses/populist press and do what's right. Most people don't understand the EU and should therefore not have a vote on its future". Perhaps Zir_Matty can explain how the "uneducated idiot masses" can be expected to elect anyone other than equally uneducated, idiot representatives who cannot make sensible decisions? Complain about this comment * 50. At 8:49pm on 19 Nov 2009, Maria Ashot wrote: Thank you, democracythreat (no. 26). You have me in stitches. Yes. points well taken. I am mystified. Shall duly search for "manifesto"... Centre-left...? Complain about this comment * 51. At 8:52pm on 19 Nov 2009, ChrisArta wrote: #40 ridoca wrote: "at least Blair has a recognzed name history, and a decent reputation abroad" decent reputation abroad? when did that happen? #42 So, if the Ashton lady did not write her own speaches and had less power she would be fine for you then! :) hmmm I can see your point here. So, it over and done. So lets see if the earth will stop spining now, because if the LT passed and it came into effect according to the Europhobes the antichist would rise, the days would turn into nights and worst of it all the ravens would fly backwards!!!! Complain about this comment * 52. At 8:59pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: Jukka, politics and economics are 2 different heavy books on the shelf. stellar-beloved, that was my one post which was not a joke. I know my mind works in un-orthodox ways but I am interested at this point in only one thing - a brooch or no brooch tomorrow, a turning point in the EU-Russia future relations. Complain about this comment * 53. At 9:10pm on 19 Nov 2009, ChrisArta wrote: #43 Economics hey??? Thanks god they don't have any real power we would ruined!! They'd explain to us why been poor is really good for us and why only very few people should have money, because it is easy to give billions of Euro (pounds/dollars) to say 10 people, but if you were to do the same thing for millions of people it would get tooo complicated and the maths is complicated also, better to give lots of money to the few you know and trust!:)) Complain about this comment * 54. At 9:16pm on 19 Nov 2009, Gheryando wrote: I thought bloggers are supposed to be fast...I kept checking this blog for the newest gossip and updates and it still doesnt who actually made it..Mark was faster. on a different note..can we have the comment box on top not on the bottom, so we dont have to scroll down all the time? Complain about this comment * 55. At 9:23pm on 19 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote: RomeStu wrote: "Oh, come now Democracy Threat, you really do not think that playing the Queen will win that argument. Head of State in UK has no actual power." Don't "come now" me. You think the Queen has no power? Then why does she exist? And I could say the same thing about Gordon Brown. He has no power, it is the party executive who groomed him and who issue the safe seats who have the power. It is the press lords who sponsor the labour party who have the power. Brown is just an appointed figurehead. Like Mandelson. His father ran a newspaper that promoted the labour party. Is the Mandelson family the power behind the throne? The truth is that the UK is riddled with phoney elections and phoney political offices, and everybody drinks their tea and tells themselves that they live in a glorious democracy. You didn't vote for Brown, you didn't vote for light of heaven ashton, and you didn't vote for the queen. Nor will you vote for the next british prime minister. Come now, tell me about how you live in a democracy. Complain about this comment * 56. At 9:25pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: And that Baroness Ashton has no int'l politics' experience... - You wouldn't console us in Russia with that! None of the Foreign Affairs' Ministry chaps will fall to this trap :o))), from doormen - to Lavrov. One word - "Britain". She's got who to advise her. Oh wow "that's such our Jewish luck!" Complain about this comment * 57. At 9:31pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: In the modern PC world will clarify for those not in the knowing what is "Jewish luck". That's a popular phrase with Russian Jewish when they philosophically summarise what happened with the Jewish people in the good part of the 20th century. Complain about this comment * 58. At 9:33pm on 19 Nov 2009, ChrisArta wrote: #55 But we don't have a "democratic deficit" it is the EU that "un-democratically" imposed it upon us :) we are a "free-will" people and love our "hard won" rights. We are thankful an Australian that gave up his Australian Citizenship to get an American one so he could buy "Fox" keeps reminding us how lucky we are and how democratic we are. We would take your advice on democracy seriously if you had a page three oicture in your posts :)) Complain about this comment * 59. At 9:40pm on 19 Nov 2009, Gheryando wrote: D'Alema should have made it. Serious former PM and FM with International experience. Choosing Ashton was simply a measure to soothen opposition from "The Sun" readers, which in my opinion is pathetic because the British people will need to know the truth about the EU sooner or later and make up their mind and join Schengen and the Euro or get out and let us continue to integrate. Complain about this comment * 60. At 9:41pm on 19 Nov 2009, rg wrote: 55. democracythreat "...You think the Queen has no power? Then why does she exist?..." Sorry I don't follow this. What practical political power does the Queen exert? Nelson's Column has no power yet it exists. Complain about this comment * 61. At 9:42pm on 19 Nov 2009, DiscoStu_d wrote: Sorry to see that my suggestion of a friendly dolphin for president wasn't heeded. EU's loss and the ocean's gain. I understand the choice of President - someone dull, pragmatic, etc. The French would certainly never countenance playing second fiddle to anyone and, hence, the presidency will be weak, I suspect, at least until the nation-states can see how the job evolves and then attach the appropriate chains to the person in the office (in order to yank on it, of course). But what I don't understand is the selection of Ashton. The EU foreign minister, er, 'high rep' (whatever you want to pretend it isn't) will have a large contingent of diplomats and a large budget. Perhaps I'm being a bit of a stickler but wouldn't someone with actual foreign service experience be a better choice? Complain about this comment * 62. At 9:53pm on 19 Nov 2009, Boilerplated wrote: Well that, especially the appointment of Baroness Ashton, should see the membership of UKIP increase, she was a controversial appointment when she took over from Mandelson. As "WebAlice" says @ #56, she has no international political experience what so ever (as far as I can tell), the closest she got to such a position was working for C.N.D... To put this in a sporting context, the EU has managed to score an own goal from the centre spot upon starting a game of football with the back-pass! Complain about this comment * 63. At 9:56pm on 19 Nov 2009, threnodio_II wrote: #55 - democracythreat The time you refer to in a previous thread spent studying German and French history has clearly been salvaged from the time not studying British history. Your antipathy towards the UK resembles that of MA in terms of blind prejudice but at least he has the grace not to seek the protection either of good manners or alpine neutrality. I am as bewildered as you are about the appointment of Ashton and not a little bit embarrassed by British posturing in the chase for high office in an institution for which it has precious little regard. Nevertheless your lambasting of all things British starts to smack of antipathy rather than reasoned argument. Complain about this comment * 64. At 9:59pm on 19 Nov 2009, Zydeco wrote: 16. At 4:36pm on 19 Nov 2009, KarlKraus wrote: I like the British complaining about the lack of EU-democracy (we did not get a vote on this! The Magna Charta has been violated!) on all the blogs and in all the tabloids...You must be the country with the absolute lowest turnout in general and EU elections...you don't bother to go voting when you can ......... **************************** The reason I, and many others I know, don't vote in the EU elections is quite simply that we refuse to give this corrupt organisation any legitimacy by taking part in their ballots. End of. Complain about this comment * 65. At 10:04pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: democracythreat, :o) I've got a song for your evening humming, reading pleasure and entertainment. Three Young Page-boys Were Leaving (dear moderators it's a Russian Ballad of 1917) Three young page-boys were leaving Forever their native land In their eyes tears glistened And bitter was wind of the sea. tra la. - I'm in love with the blond curls! (the first page-boy - sobbing, said :o)) Will dive under rocks , into sea depth, to ? tra la? la la? kind of - "anything - to forget the blond curls". The second, without emotion, said ? tra-la? la la? Blasted be those predating dark eyes! I'll live for revenge, from this point on ??? tra-la? etcetera. :o) That she will regret. And the third one - he loved Queen, And silently went to die. He couldn't - neither to praise - nor to angst - The beloved name to predate. The one who loves his Queen, He silently goes to die. Complain about this comment * 66. At 10:09pm on 19 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote: democracythreat Re #26 and #39 Curious how you cannot resist having a go at the 'english' element in any and all debates. It is not the 'english' who appointed this Baroness, it is not the unelected Queen who foisted Baroness or Belgian Minister onto the EU Citizens. Presumably those 27 leaders knew what/who they were discussing for the Posts and came to the compromise candidates we all more or less predicted: Total nonentities in terms of relevance to the ordinary Citizens and doubtless Party functionaries who after time has passed will achieve that 1 historic footnote beside their names - - they were the first creatures to take the jobs - - oblivion awaits. The 'English' clearly had little or no impact on the negotiations and all the annoyed stuff from Mathiasen etc. about the BBC presenting UK Government preferences is exposed as a sham. Then there's your input: Why point to the 'english-british-commonwealth' Queen? What about the Swedish monarch or the Belge: Did they have a say in the EU appointments? Then there's Spain and the Netherlands royalty: But as none of them are 'english' apparently they are not worthy of democracythreat's bile! Talk about plank in the eye bias: Tell us all - - why does it matter so much to you that the 'english' have a Monarch as Head of State, but not the other Nations also within the EU? Careful: You are in danger of becoming a bit of a MarcusA with this constant and often meaningless jibing at all things 'english'. Complain about this comment * 67. At 10:15pm on 19 Nov 2009, threnodio_II wrote: #64 - Zydeco End of? End of what? You seriously believe that abstaining makes a political point? The refusal to participate simply adds fuel to the belief that the people are cannot give a damn and those in power can do what they like. People you are not voting for are doing enough harm to the process without the help of guys like you who prefer to walk away rather than stand up and be counted. Ironic isn't it that the very people who whinge about the lack of democratic accountability are the ones who refuse to participate in the belief that they are doing the rest of us a favour. Complain about this comment * 68. At 10:16pm on 19 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: democracythreat, I don't exactly know what I wanted to say with the song (as it happens to me :o) Simply - because you like Queens in general :o) - Have past experience, as I understood, of trying to die exactly for that very Queen is question. - and overall who will sing you this song if not me? :o) that's first wave of immigration song, in revolution. Complain about this comment * 69. At 10:34pm on 19 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote: Threnodio_II re your #67 Completely endorse Zydeco and his #64. Utterly disagree with your view on the matter: Casting a vote, whether it be aye or nay, is giving credence to an institution that already claims for itself unmeasured, unfounded, unaccountable authority and power. Why you cannot see that participation in the EU Elections is an endorsement of the EU in its present wholly 'democratic-defecit' form is something that puzzles me as you are so often astute in other areas of the debate. Complain about this comment * 70. At 10:40pm on 19 Nov 2009, Zydeco wrote: *67* Threnodio If everybody in every Country didn't bother to vote the EU organisation would continue to roll along doing what it does best - looking after its own. The populace of the individual Nations don't matter. They are not important and don't figure in the politicians ambitions. As long as they can dip their hands in our pockets to finance their obscene lifestyles, they'll be happy. As I've said before on this and other blogs, the EU exists for politicians. When they clean up their act and start acting in the interest of the people they allegedly serve: When they finally manage to get their accounts signed off as being correct and in order, then, and only then will I consider voting. Complain about this comment * 71. At 10:44pm on 19 Nov 2009, Freeborn John wrote: Zer-Matty (30): There is no ChiMerica or ChIndia. Maybe you 'foreign relations' insiders impress yourself with word games like that, but back in the real world there is only China, India, America, etc. And they are not turning our taps off, but are our supplying us with low-cost manufactured goods and services and high tech products which enhance our lives and buy stuff from us which pays our salaries. Your rhetoric belongs to the foreign policies of the 1930s, being nothing but fear-mongering that there is some conspiracy of foreigners out to get us. Frankly people like you are a much bigger danger than your non-existent ChiMericans or ChIndians. Deadlylampshade (47): Welcome to the surface. Complain about this comment * 72. At 11:14pm on 19 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote: Gheryando Re #59 27 Leaders of 27 EU Nations selected Baroness Ashton to, ".. soothe oppositon from The Sun readers." The representatives of 450,000,000 Citizens based their decision on a tabloid newspaper read by about 3.8 million English people Monday to Saturday! Look, I am about as 'anti-EU' as they come and believe the EU is capable of the most despicable actions in order to maintain the gravy-train lifestyle, but, your suggestion is one of the most ridiculous and nonsensical ever to have been written on here. The EU is corrupt, it is undemocratic and unresponsive: However, it is not beholden to the Sun and it is most certainly not bothered by it when it comes to making key appointments to the EU hierarchy. Now, if you were referring to the 3 main English Political Parties then you might well have a point. Complain about this comment * 73. At 11:20pm on 19 Nov 2009, Benefactor wrote: # 70 Zydeco wrote: "When they clean up their act and start acting in the interest of the people they allegedly serve: When they finally manage to get their accounts signed off as being correct and in order, then, and only then will I consider voting." They act in the interests of people who vote for them. If you don't vote for anyone you don't matter to anyone. Oh, and re. the accounts. Do you want the EU to start fining every nation that fails to keep track of EU funding? or spending its budget overseeing the funding itself? Improvements have been made to the EU's accounts year after year and from what I hear the measure by which it's judged is a lot stricter than those that many businesses and national Governments are judged by. But whatever, makes a good page 5 scandal I suppose. Complain about this comment * 74. At 11:38pm on 19 Nov 2009, Zydeco wrote: 73. At 11:20pm on 19 Nov 2009, Benefactor wrote: # 70 Zydeco ....Oh, and re. the accounts. Do you want the EU to start fining every nation that fails to keep track of EU funding? or spending its budget overseeing the funding itself? Improvements have been made to the EU's accounts year after year and from what I hear the measure by which it's judged is a lot stricter than those that many businesses and national Governments are judged by. But whatever, makes a good page 5 scandal I suppose. ******************************* Yes I would like some penalty imposed on the Countries that don't keep proper accounts. Its mine and other taxpayers money they're spending - not their own. If such a penalty causes financial problems for the Country so penalised, I welcome that. It might just might make that Country realise what a corrupt organisation they've signed their people up to. If they are not capable of running and controlling a financial system that is honest, what chance of managing anything else properly. If they are tightening up their control that's good. But as I said before until they get a clean balance sheet from the auditors, I give the EU no credence whatsoever. Complain about this comment * 75. At 00:10am on 20 Nov 2009, Maria Ashot wrote: No. 63, threnodio, Kindly take notice that my initials are "also" MA and I am NOT to be confused with Marcus Aurelius II, who should by rights be "MAII". This has already created all kinds of confusion in other parts. Now honestly you don't want me challenging people I have never met to duels right & left, now do you? As a lady, I would prefer a champion, but am forced to bend the rules since none will fight on my behalf. I am a European, an Anglophile of Russian ancestry (ancien regime by the way), and a US citizen born in Argentina. I love America -- well, the bits that still work, as in: Jerry Brown, Steve Jobs... That kind of thing. Please do not mistake me for a certain prolific eccentric (some of us consider him a borderline hatemonger) whose nom de blog happens to align -- however implausibly -- with my own (partial) true name. In US elections, I am an independent voter who has lost all capacity to be surprised after the past few rounds. But I also hold Her Majesty in great reverence; consider you lucky to have a hereditary monarchy to lend historical continuity, cultural authenticity & an additional honest perspective to modern times -- but inevitably find quite a bit of what democracythreat has posted tonight to offer food for thought. Whether tonight's results will be of monumental consequence or a footnote in history remains to be seen. I do not agree with Alice in Wonderland that the Russians are going to be watching for flashing brooches of any kind. My take on what is happening there right now is that they have far bigger fish to fry than waste time serenading, winking or flattering ladies. In Russia, precious little time remains open to clean up a huge mess. Europeans complaining about human rights seem to be forgetting about the paramount human Right to live in a reasonably corruption-free society that functions. To me, that is a whole lot more important than 100 or even 1000 cases in the p.c. p.r. headlines (such as those religiously cited at the Stockholm press conference): corruption in Russia/Ukraine impacts scores of millions of lives, far more than any other disease, addiction or disorder Europeans like to jaw about. It is a destabilising factor that can lead to all kinds of unforeseeable and unmanageable emergencies to come. And if you really care about what happens on this vast Europe+Asia landmass over the next 30 or 40 years (if we have that many) you will help the leaders of these countries actually achieve changes -- something they are afraid to do because it will require at least a few years of draconian measures (mass prosecutions & serious prison terms with confiscation of ill-gotten riches) that are bound to elicit howls from entrenched parasitic nouveaux riches & assorted political or even "celebrity" parvenus. With that caveat, I am prepared to toast all good intentions present, and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, for at least a few weeks... with their due diligence being matched by our vital vigilance. Complain about this comment * 76. At 00:13am on 20 Nov 2009, David wrote: ooops--sorry w2b alice, :) Complain about this comment * 77. At 00:17am on 20 Nov 2009, David wrote: I thought it was humor, because I remember her as a very ..um...not making an much of an impression type person, But, if she was involved in wars in Europe (against Serbia), I'm sure she is not remembered that way there or by friends of Serbia.. So, my apologies, David Complain about this comment * 78. At 00:56am on 20 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: Dave, yes here Albright and her brooches are not very fondly remembered, the saying is "Belgrade saved/helped her family three times, and she bombed it". I don't know about "three" - but pre war and post war - twice for sure Serbs gave them hospitality and cover. Complain about this comment * 79. At 01:51am on 20 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote: To those offended brits who feel I am unkind towards your glorious nation: It is true, the British do annoy me. I do tend to have a go at them. Not just the brits, but English speaking folk in general. The reason is that I am acutely embarrassed by what I perceive as idiotic arrogance on the part of the English speaking world, most especially when it comes to political concepts like democracy. Now the reason i perceive the British take on "the way of the world" as idiotic, and not simply the way of the world, is because I don't live in an English speaking part of the word. And where I live, I am constantly shamed by english speakers, most especially by Brits. I have Swiss friends come to me and say to me "You know when I go to the UK, if I start speaking German because I am lost and need directions, people make faces at me like I am a dog. They tell me to speak English in a very unfriendly way. But then they come here, and they can't speak french, or german, or italian, and they speak to me in english and just expect an answer. Why is that?" Well, why is that? Threnodio, why is that? And have you any idea how it feels to be sitting around a table with people who are genuinely trying to work out how the English are going to war in order to spread democracy, when England has a Monarch and an upper house that includes people who are life peers and even hereditary lords? It is ABSURD. When you are out numbered and speaking a foreign language, and when you live in a society that has been neutral for hundreds of years and has direct democracy, there is no easy way to rationalize your way out of this situation. You can't say "Come on now chap, English law is a complex matter. History, don't you know?" You can't say "Oh, the queen is just a figurehead. She doesn't have any power really." Not unless you want to sound like a total buffoon and an anti intellectual. Not unless you want to be hated for your patronizing and self righteous attitude towards conversation itself. None of you here have addressed the fundamental facts of my post. You didn't vote for Brown. You didn't vote for Ashton. You didn't vote for the Queen. You didn't vote for Blair. You will not vote for the next prime minister, or the next head of state. And yet you will all tell yourselves, and me, that you live in the most perfect form of democracy that graces the earth. Because that is what you were taught to say in school. It is the willful blindness of any possibility of a better system that offends me, and makes me want to kick the UK so far out into the Atlantic that it drowns and is forgotten. The USA has nationalistic fever gone mad, but at least their marines can take care of business, and they have economic might. The Ruski's have Sputnik, and a nation that spans nine time zones. And they won the only real war of the past sixty years. The UK is just a little part of Europe, and I don't understand why the inhabitants carry on as if yesterday was today, and today will be tomorrow. Most of all, I don't understand why people in the UK worship the office of the queen, or why they tolerate concepts like hereditary right to rule in parliament. It is a form of cultural blindness and arrogance that is embarrassing and outdated in the extreme, and if it is good enough for Brits to travel the world making jokes about how they won the war, loudly, and in English, then it is good enough for me to sneer at britain. I own the concept of Great Britain as much as any flag waving nationalist, and if I say it is rubbish then I trust you will accept I have my reasons, and I am entitled to my opinion. God willing it will change, but I am sick and tired of waiting. Complain about this comment * 80. At 01:58am on 20 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: maria-ashot, while threnodio is sleeping :o) I'll slip a word. I don't think threnodio meant you by "MA" abbreviation, simply because you're alas a rare visitor and MA- properly -the II is our regular companion for dinner :o))) For example, if I were adding "II" to the every post to him... ??? I don't know what would happen :o) it'll look like a forest of II II IIIIIII. Then of course I am glad that such an eloquent and elegantly writing and well-meaning blogger (as you are) remembers suddenly o her Russian origins, even in times of family distant past. On courting and winking to ladies - oh they'll do exactly that, I understand speed is of essence, in , how to say, that Russia tries to save itself - but that's a reasonable outsider's estimation - while internally - LOL - no one seems in any way in a hurry to start doing anything about it. We are not at all at "Save yourselves all who can" and "Take cover" moods. To the opposte :o)), seem to pretend that nothing special happens :o))) Population didn't get even a wink yet from the Government that they are serious about corruption. Words cost nil; fish starts to rot from the head; until we see one major head cut-away :o))) What is fed to us meanwhile is some mediocre "corruptioners", who managed to grabatise smth in an individual manner, some 1 mln roubles LOL of pension fund routed away or things :o) Now, this isn't serious, it's not a matter of "1 mln" or "all stop to bribe traffic police and doctors please your government heartily asks you for you own benefit". I think in the matter of what is "corruption" population and Kremlin are in slight disagreement - that's why may be all people want death penalty back and Govnt says "no-no". :o) While state duma votes down every suggestion that its memebers, and Federation Council (Upper Chamber) members, and governemnt members - report their earnings in every tax year publicly - including family members' property - this is not serious. They took a law that they report - but only their own's - even wives were crossed out. To say nothing of kids babushka-s and dedushka-s :o) This is all a joke. No one would dare start asking for sources of income any house owner in the vicinity of Moscow - and there are a million plus new mansions built around Moscow - each behind 4 metre walls, with security and dogs, on land that by all papers was state land and now is "of un-known ownership". In the past 10 years only one minister undertook a flight above on a helicopter trying to figure out - who are all these people? :o))) but then was down-shifted and tucked away some place ASAP. That was the only brave attempt, in 10 yrs. So, no, I don't think we are in any earnest in the "save ourselves" mood. Complain about this comment * 81. At 02:00am on 20 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: I don't know what guts should a man have to take it up, on the whole system. And granted then you must be made of steel and be bullet-proof by definition. Complain about this comment * 82. At 02:03am on 20 Nov 2009, WebAliceinwonderland wrote: :o) Russia took 146th place in the world, in the corruption index. Ukraine - 134th. "Forever together!" :o))))) 2. "To allocate money for the "war with corruption" is the same as allocate vodka for the war with alcoholism. :o)))) Complain about this comment * 83. At 02:06am on 20 Nov 2009, democracythreat wrote: CBW: "Talk about plank in the eye bias: Tell us all - - why does it matter so much to you that the 'english' have a Monarch as Head of State, but not the other Nations also within the EU?" I never said that. In your rush to defend the monarchy in the UK, you have put words into my mouth. For the record, I think ANY country that carries on with concepts like monarchy is repulsive and outdated, and fundamentally decadent. I think titles like "Baron", "Lord", "Duke", "Prince" and so on are a farcical nonsense. And an affront to people of "low birth" who work hard and who aspire to be treated with intellectual dignity. At the bottom of likes and dislikes for these trappings of aristocratic history, there exists a fundamental loyalty to political philosophy. You can't understand the rule of law if you get teary eyed about the Queen. Not really. And you cannot believe in democracy is you are willing to socialize with people who call each other "Lord" and "Baroness". Sure, you can say that you do, but these titles have meaning, and they have a context. I asked earlier "Why have a Queen, if she has no power?" That wasn't rhetorical. It is the same as asking "Why have a church, if there is no god?" Because the institution of the church serves vested interests. Of course. And it is the same with the Queen. The institution of the royal family serves vested interests by promoting certain beliefs. And if you can't see that, and you can't see what is wrong with that in the modern world, then I can only cite you and your views as evidence of how the power of the Royal institution operates. Can you imagine if someone tried to make themselves King or Queen in the USA? Imagine what would be said. Now think of the UK. Everyone just puts up with whatever they are told to do by their betters. If you believe the people of the UK make a conscious decision to favour tradition, what you are arguing is that they reject the freedoms and liberties of the American people. I don't see that. I don;t s