tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post8316988044343682545..comments2024-01-16T08:40:53.682+00:00Comments on <a href="http://www.openeurope.org.uk">Open Europe</a>: UK report on EU foreign policy: Is it working? Is it accountable?OEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00556463374230498875noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-36451209199085953782013-07-24T14:15:42.971+01:002013-07-24T14:15:42.971+01:00@AE
Fully agree. The basics are completely simple:...@AE<br />Fully agree. The basics are completely simple:<br />-Freetrade zone is economically profitable;<br />-rest is not plus is highly unpopular at the UK homefront.<br /><br />You donot need a 2 year study for that.<br /><br />And starting from the abovementioned 2 basics.<br />The freetrade is still far from perfect (see the discussion on services) also caused by the fact that the EU looks mainly busy saving hamsters in Timbuktu iso making money (let their inhabitants make money).<br /><br />Rest of the stuff (the political part) simply looks like the hobby projects by some written off former national politicians with no platform in the respective populations as well as an employment project for the EU apparatus, all with very little results on top of that.<br />Again you donot need 2 year study for that. <br />The EU itself has made a study on that a few years ago, might be open for some discussion for obvious reasons, but they indicate themselves that THE advantage is the large common market. The advantage of the Euro was much smaller (and that was before it collapsed) and the advantage of the rest wasnot even mentioned in monetary terms.<br />Riknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-9256343076037929292013-07-24T11:39:45.481+01:002013-07-24T11:39:45.481+01:00There is no EU foreign Policy so of course it is n...There is no EU foreign Policy so of course it is not working. The boss, Ashton, was only appointed because they had to give the UK a senior spot; and she was not Blair; and she was not a threat to any one else's ambition; and she had no financial knowledge<br />EU aid is a propaganda tool only; we should not channel one penny through the EU, as so little of it gets to worthy targets; and even less of it is sourced in the UK, which should be a benefit both giver and receiver.Rollohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255460090580758354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-69339437675649939192013-07-24T11:38:53.784+01:002013-07-24T11:38:53.784+01:00@Rik is correct.
EU red tape, stolen fish, arrest...@Rik is correct.<br /><br />EU red tape, stolen fish, arrest warrants, vast waste, cash out/in deficit, uncontrolled immigration, etc., bad for the UK but EU trading benefits good for the UK.<br /><br />However, the 'balance' of these matters is not the real problem for an Average Englishman like me. The real disaster is the completely non-democratic nature of the whole ghastly edifice and the continuing push to unwanted integration. The running of my country has now largely been taken over by a bunch of overpaid, arrogant, unelected officials residing in Brussels. Put simple, I want my country back and no blathering on about this or that benefit on a good day will do.<br /><br />In addition, any correct assessment of the benefits of the UK staying in the EU should not compare the current situation to the UK stopping EU trade altogether but to the UK moving to join EFTA and retaining most of its trade benefits, whilst ditching the other rubbish. To do otherwise (as I believe is intended by three of the four main UK political parties at the moment) is just more deceipt and it will not work. I am not alone in being very angry at the way I have been lied to about Europe by politicians over the years and I will not accept another dose of their garbage.<br />Average Englishmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-12653561945736326782013-07-24T11:35:23.930+01:002013-07-24T11:35:23.930+01:00On the policy area itself.
Also this is appallingl...On the policy area itself.<br />Also this is appallingly bad.<br />What is needed for European Foreign Policy and from the people dealing with it:<br /><br />1. Setting up an organisation that works (it is new and in general to function properly you need to have an organisation that works);<br />2. Give itself a face (as said it is new);<br />3. Come home with some successstories;<br />4. Look for costreduction say to replace some of the national embassies (national level) or make it easier to get a passport abroad (citizen level), things like that). Makes it much easier to sell the more costly set up to its stakeholders.<br />Not getting into priority setting between these 4 as well as the links between them.<br /><br />1. In general it is the opinion that this is not a success far from that. Most people including insiders would give it the totally insufficient label. Probably caused by the fact that top management is totally crap.<br /><br />2. Give itself a face. Ashton is complete rubbish for that. Solano did a much better job with less backing and much less resources at his disposal.<br /><br />3. Successes. Sucksesses would be more appropriate. Iran hard to see where the success is in there. If the EU FS had not existed we would most likely be at the same point. Burma, breakthrough happened mainly because internal reasons. And if foreign influence can take the flowers it is that of China, US and the neighbouring countries.<br />Horn of Africa, again what success?<br />Not even mentioning complete failures like Libya and now Syria. A lot could have been gained by acting properly with an eye on your own interest and acting timely. Syria it was clear that this would end in a civil war if the rebels were not surpressed earlier, Assad simply has too much backing also with large parts of the population who fear the other parts. It could however have been used as a way to decouple it from Hezbollah and Iran or increase the chance of formal peace with Israel. Now it is moving into the other direction plus likely at the end with several 100 000s casualties.<br /><br />4. Basically is very similar to 1. And nothing mentionable happened in this respect.<br /><br />Future prospects. Simply looks more of the same.<br /><br />Anyway the fundamental question how to deal with the lack of military power is not properly adressed. To make it work the EU would have to move towards that. As I see it the UK cannot bring its military under an EU umbrella. Simply way to risky (depending on again the French). In that respect splitting the UKs FPolicy in a European and national part on a structural basis simply overall weakens it.<br />The UK is much better off teaming up more structural (except for the economy) with the US which is:<br /> a) a more credible and effective power as far as military power goes and can make decisions much more quickly;<br /> b) reliable (compared to say eg the French or some of the other handbag carriers);<br /> c) the UK is more often on one line with anyway; and<br /> d) the structure of cooperation makes pulling out of certain stuff much easier for the UK. <br />Riknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-15225359210617456652013-07-23T12:43:48.105+01:002013-07-23T12:43:48.105+01:00Oh Herr wirf hirn vom Himmel.
The communication s...Oh Herr wirf hirn vom Himmel.<br /><br />The communication strategy/tactic for this report were again appalling. <br />It ended up with something like report says EU good for Britain.<br /><br />Hague looks to have a sort of bipolair disorder on this subject. It is either simply good or total crap (like here), with very little in between these 2 extremes.<br /><br />They can make a press release in the line like commonmarket of freetradezone good for the UK but rest need a lot of work.<br /><br />Do these people still not understand that it is not mainly about the UK being economically good for Britain. Its population has heard that since 1975. It is about the UK electorate feeling at ease with the thing. And find things that can be improved (and there are a lot of those). Plus these 2 subjects are heavily related anyway.<br />No thoughts at all as well about being flexible when other ways of looking at things come up in the population.<br /><br />In other words the reports look to be written from a completely wrong <br />starting point/ perspective.<br />Next to this is absolutely not the way to sell the EU. As said people have heard the crap (as crap as how the majority will see it) since 1975. <br />Plus it is very likely not the way to strengthen your negotiation position.<br />And a complete waist of time, it is simply as said before answering the wrong questions. I and about 10 million others could have told them from within 1 minute that the freetrade zone is very benificial and from an economic perspective outweights the political stuff attached to it. That doesnot have to take a year or so.<br /><br />Overall very disappointing, simply a crap job and what is worse a total waist of time. Riknoreply@blogger.com