E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Yves Herman / Reuters, file
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron (right) faces some tough negotiations with the likes of Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel (left).
Updated at 8:55 p.m. ET: British Prime Minister David Cameron has cancelled a major speech, originally scheduled for Friday, because of the uncertain outcome of the hostage-taking crisis at an Algerian gas plant that started Wednesday, the Telegraph reported.
An unknown number of the hostages — which included dozens of foreign nationals and Algerians — were killed as Algerian forces attempted a rescue mission that reportedly went awry late Thursday. One Briton was reported dead in the hostage crisis, and Cameron warned that the country should be prepared for "further bad news."
Original report:
LONDON — It says a lot about Britain's ambivalent attitude toward its membership of the European Union that the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which wants the country to leave the bloc, has 12 seats in the European Parliament.
Although UKIP has yet to have any politicians elected to Britain's Westminster parliament, recent polls suggest it is surging in popularity.
In several recent by-elections, the party even placed ahead of the Liberal Democrats, junior partners with the Conservatives in Britain's coalition government.
Amid UKIP's rise and pressure from elements within his own Conservative party to loosen ties with Europe, British Prime Minister David Cameron is scheduled to give a key speech Friday mapping out how he sees his country's future role in the 27-nation bloc.
Britain is so close to continental Europe — the English Channel is just 26 miles across at its narrowest point — that people sometimes swim to France. But, politically, the country has arguably not been further away for decades.
The right-leaning Telegraph newspaper reported Thursday that "Cameron is expected to pledge to renegotiate Britain’s [EU] membership, if he is re-elected in 2015, after which the revised relationship will be the subject of a referendum."
Reuters described Cameron's looming speech as "one of the most closely watched Europe addresses by a British leader since World War Two."
Political and business leaders have voiced concerns over the risk of calling a referendum that could see Britain leaving the EU, which offers a market of 500 million people on its doorstep.
The EU has been awarded the Nobel Prize for its role in uniting the continent after two World Wars. ITV's James Mates reports.
There are those who want to extend British influence in the EU and build upon what one group called "Britain's epic post-war achievements" within the bloc, such as free trade and security. Last year, the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for turning the "continent of war" into a "continent of peace."
And Reuters noted that "international partners from the United States to Germany and Ireland have made it clear they oppose a British EU exit and believe that such a move would isolate and damage Britain itself."
But critics of the U.K.'s current relationship with Europe have multiple targets. EU legislation takes precedence over national laws in many key sectors and EU regulations dominate some industries.
Europe's common currency, the euro, is mired in turmoil, leaving most Britons glad the U.K. kept the pound.
John Curtice, electoral analyst and professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said UKIP’s poll surge was a major factor in pushing Britain’s relationship with the rest of Europe to the center of the political agenda.
"There is no doubt that recent electoral success for UKIP has made Europe an issue for Conservatives," he said.
"There is enormous pressure on David Cameron from within his party," he added. "Many Conservative members of parliament are looking ahead to the next election and thinking, 'I'll be damned if I lose because my party cannot come up with a coherent policy on Europe that voters can support.'"
Yves Herman / Reuters, file
The rising star of British politics? UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage stands near a coffin symbolizing "the death of the Euro" during a demonstration in 2011 urging the European Union to stop extending help to Greece.
Curtice said UKIP’s poll ratings appeared to be driven by mid-term protest votes that traditionally went to Liberal Democrats, but which were up for grabs now that the party has joined the Conservatives in the ruling coalition.
"However, regardless of why UKIP is getting attention, its presence is making Europe a problem for the Conservative party and its supporters, many of whom are instinctively wary of Europe," Curtice added.
One key challenge for Cameron is that getting the EU to change has proved notoriously difficult for successive British prime ministers. Cameron has also often been left isolated at EU summits due to his opposition to various proposals.
Professor Iain Begg, of the European Institute at the London School of Economics, said a hard-line stance by Cameron could potentially result in "amendments to some of the [EU] directives that Britain finds unpalatable."
However, he said that a total renegotiation of the treaties that bind the EU together was unlikely.
Cameron will need to reconcile demands from so-called Euroskeptics within his own party for the repatriation of powers from Brussels with calls from other parts of his coalition government for closer European integration.
And he'll need to do so while not offending his political peers and allies in Europe and beyond.
Speaking to Reuters, one unnamed EU diplomat wondered how Cameron could walk that tightrope:
"Britain's Europe policy has been confusing for a long time. He's going to have to sort out a lot of misunderstandings before he can convince people of what he's doing," said the official, underlining that uncertainty would not go away overnight.
"The risk remains of an exit by mistake. It shouldn't happen, but other things that shouldn't have happened did."
Finland's prime minister signaled he was worried about what Cameron might announce during Friday's speech.
"The EU without Britain is pretty much the same as fish without chips," Jyrki Katainen told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday. "It's not a meal any more."
NBC News' Alastair Jamieson and Reuters contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Britains economic ties are more closely aligned with its former colonies (USA, Canada, Australia, India, etc) than with Europe. So is the mindset.
Britan has major global influence and respect, something that Europe despite its culture and beauty fails to get.
Britain is forwarding thinking while the rest of Europe glories in a faded past. Britain would/should do what is best for Britain ... I am not certain that being part of the EU has helped Britain at all.
Agreed !!!!
Britain should leave the EU ASAP !! Something big is cumming down the pipe. Germany is pulling it's overseas gold and that stored in France back home to Germany. Wounder what that is all about ??
I wouldn't say Germany "glories in a faded past." Britain (and us) could learn a lot from their work force structure, if nothing else. But what I'd really like to see is a discussion in this country about our continued membership in the UN.
"Britain (and us) could learn a lot from their work force structure, if nothing else."
Agreed. Germans and the German government understand that you can't consume more than what you produce. Germany may not be doing well, but it's doing a lot better than the other European countries thanks to Angela Merkels (PM of Germany) leadership. If only all leaders, especially our own president, would start following her examples.
The US could be leaving the world economy soon, as the Republican move toward such novel extremes as:
a) shutting down its government,
b) defaulting on its debt,
c) failing to change the direction of energy strategy and its economy,
d) its defense strategy to put down armed insurrection.
We'll be waiting see if Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron takes his lead from Randal Howard "Rand" United States Senator for Kentucky.
AG99, I want to see more than just dialogue. I want to see the U.S. withdraw form the UN altogether. I want to see the U.S. stop sending its tax dollars overseas completly. We are trying to cut our expenses. Well here is a great place to start. No foreign aid. Period. None. Not one red cent spent by our Federal government overseas until after we have a surplus. Not a deficit. I do believe we could balance our budget just in that move alone. If not, it would be a great start.
The whole point of the EU was to compete with the US and Japan as an economic titan. It remains a titan despite troubles in certain parts of it--Greece, Spain, Portugal.
Britain cannot compete on its own--and it knows that. It will stay in the EU.
random PA. thank you, then you would like to see stronger unions, a good gov't HealthCare system, and labor imported from the East European countries for cheap labor. Your ignorance is showing.
I wouldn't blame the idea of the European Union so much as the execution (pun intended) of it.
When you unite economies like France and Germany, and I would extend that to Italy and Spain even, it ultimately could benefit all involved.
But when you go out and decide to make it a political point of including Greece and Turkey, just because of geography, and NOT economically...which is the point of the union...it isn't a surprise what happened this past year.
I must agree with most of you guys.
I too would love to see the US leave the UN. Along with that stop all foreign aid, payments to the World Bank and the IMF. As they are all a den of thieves period. Charity begins at home and we have tons of work to do here at home. Way to many of our people are living hand to mouth, unemployed or under employed. Our infrastructure is a dilapidated joke at best and must be repaired now.
The EU is nothing but a nightmare. Greece and other southern European countries had nothing but grief after joining that thing. Britain would be well rid of it. It is nothing but trouble.
I agree with those who say that the U.S. needs to get out of all this foreign garbage, UN and all such nonsense. We probably could save a lot of money. I think treaties are things that are done one country at a time and unique to each country. These groupings of countries do not work and lead to repression and tyranny. Maybe we need a party that wants out of all this stuff. We need to tell the "New Word Order" just where to stick it.
The US money that goes overseas is more than just foreign aid lining dictators' pockets. Things like US military bases abroad and US-based companies provide part of the foundations of many foreign economies. Pulling out would be seen as an act of economic aggression, and would be met with retaliatory tariffs. You'd kill US exports and world trade, and cripple the economy you're trying to save.
We've already repeated so many of the mistakes that created the Great Depression. Please don't suggest we also repeat the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
They will be fine. Just like the United States territories will be when we break up soon.
@RichMJones@rcn.com
The US could be leaving the world economy soon, as the Republican move toward such novel extremes as:
a) shutting down its government,
b) defaulting on its debt,
c) failing to change the direction of energy strategy and its economy,
d) its defense strategy to put down armed insurrection.
We'll be waiting see if Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron takes his lead from Randal Howard "Rand" United States Senator for Kentucky.
Hmm...
a) If the Democrats would actually cut spending, there will be no shutdown.
b) If the Democrats would actually cut spending, there would be an agreement on the debt ceiling.
c) How is this a partisan issue? No President has ever had an energy policy since Eisenhower, except for Carter's, which was a "Gentleman's C". It didn't go far enough, but it wasn't all bad.
d) How does this do anything economically at all? Besides being non-sensical (the GOP favors Second Amendment Rights for citizens), any and all governmental plans to put down insurrections are acted upon by the sitting President.... that's Barack Obama.
As a point of fact, NONE of these four things you mention would cause the country that is 20% of planetary GDP to "leave the world economy". Such a thing is impossible.
@Empress: I agree with those who say that the U.S. needs to get out of all this foreign garbage, UN and all such nonsense. We probably could save a lot of money. I think treaties are things that are done one country at a time and unique to each country. These groupings of countries do not work and lead to repression and tyranny. Maybe we need a party that wants out of all this stuff. We need to tell the "New Word Order" just where to stick it.
We tried that already.... it was called the League of Nations. It didn't work, and if we left the UN we'd actually add to planetary chaos. Which would get us into a World War III.
The US Government has been in the hands of the World Government since JFK went down. It's funny how for the most mundane crime, the perpetrator can be tracked, but whenever it is someone like a President, they can never find out "who" did it or a perform a shoddy "investigation".
The World Government (more like a few rich bankers) has already buried the US in a ton of debt like it has done to so many other countries. Now their next step is to disarm American citizens, slowly but surely, as they have done in countries where they have imposed the most harsh austerity measures. Plus they eradicated our Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. 2nd amendment, your next! Maybe they will start quartering their troops in the homes of any Americans that do resist to take away the 3rd amendment.
This has happened in so many countries, if we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it. Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins tells it like it is.
You ever watch a massive protest in a country and see tons of black clad 6'5 300 lb police officers ready to suppress the protest at any moment? Ever question what country they are from? How it's so easy for them to beat down the country's citizens?
Or why a country like Britain for example, defies international law by not allowing Julian Assange to go to Ecuador despite the fact he has not committed a crime in the UK? Or why Bradley Manning is being tortured in the US?
These individuals are more so a threat to the World Government in exposing them than they are to the US Government. In addition, with nationalistic countries not under control of the World Government, they vilify them through their press, use the US Military and NATO against the wishes of the American people and the countries of NATO, and use their spy agencies to get "the right people" in power.
It is quite a vicious organization once you dig deep and study it thoroughly.
Remember that the Brits were not permitted to deport several Islamic militants (real nasty troublemakers) because of some crazy EU Human Rights legislation and endless b.s. tax-payer funded appeals. No wonder Cameron has said to the EU, "Change or we are OUT of here!"
Hello folks, the reason our Administration is so concerned with an armed citizenry is because they know what is coming around the corner.
The battle of the century is not the gun debate but the debt bubble debate. Once people realize the extent and resultant inevitable collapse of our financial system their attention will be turned to reforming the financial system in a more equitable manner. There will be no place to hide regarding this situation and everyone will have to get involved. We aren't 16.3 Trillion in debt we are 222 Trillion in debt with no possibility of ever paying it off in the Fractional Reserve Banking system model. We have to infuse our economy with 85 billion dollars (40 billion QE3 and 45 billion Operation Twist III) a month into perpetuity to keep it afloat, keep interest rates at near zero percent until at least 2015 to keep the bond market afloat. It's not going to be Armageddon or a Mad Max landscape but people awakening to the fact that we have been economic slaves and it doesn't have to be that way. It's an illusion, a means to keep you down trodden and controlled.
The booms and busts are manipulated by the banksters. It's not by accident or bad luck it's rigged and manipulated and creates the illusion of scarcity. Look at the 800 Trillion Libor Interest Rate Rigging scandal or the High Frequency Trading algorithms used to rig the Ponzi Stock Market. People are waking up to these manipulations and scandals and that's what worries the current Power Structure. A disarmed population is easier to manipulate.
The international banking elite with tacit approval from Democrats and Republicans has given the world the 1.4 Quadrillion in Derivatives Fraud, the HSBC and Wells Fargo Drug Laundering fraud, the MF Global fraud, the PFG fraud, the High Frequency trading pilfering and Stock Market fraud, the manipulation of the Precious Metals and Bond Market fraud, the MERS Mortgage fraud, nearly countless individual frauds from both Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and the international 800 Trillion LIBOR interest rate fixing banking fraud, just to name but a few recent FRAUDS and breaches of Bankster credibility and trustworthiness.
The sheeple will call this paranoia, conspiracy or whatever adjective to keep their fragile sensibilities in a comatose state as ignorance is bliss compared to facing reality. What is abundantly clear is that there is a mass awakening; you can see it all across the globe. They are tired of the banksters and elite controlling their physical and economic environment and are fed up.
The Fiscal Cliff, the Debt Ceiling, the Trillion Dollar Deficits, the European Debt Crisis, those ships have all sailed long ago. They are simply reminders that under the current Federal Reserve System we are deemed insolvent. The system has collapsed not our planets ability to take care of humanity's needs. When people realize this they are going to be pissed off that's the main reason the Powers That Were are worried! They are afraid we will understand that we can zero out all the debt and take control of our currency and economic destinies. At the end of the day the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and their debts belong to them, not us, just like any other corporation.
Check out what our economics look like under the Federal Reserve's Fractional Reserve Banking System.
www.usdebtclock.org
Umm for those advocating that the US leaves the UN you do realise that the US would lose more than it would gain right?
After all consider your friend Israel; they would drop you in a hot minute if you left the UN as it is Americas veto power that prevents the UN from enforcing all the legislation it has aimed at Israel. Furthermore, if the US left the UN it would not be able to fully engage in world affairs which would allow its rivals to enact global laws that would be to the US’s detriment, a good example would be environmental ruling on cuts on oil consumption (which America is the biggest consumer of in the world) oh and for those who think the US could take on the whole world I’d have to ask do you really want to tempt WW3 with such an experiment?
An American exit from the UN would be a huge global issue obviously, and the UN would probably have to get out of New York City, but I don't see why Israel would be affected that much as they rely on us for guns and money anyways and as long as Iran and Hezbollah call for their extermination, they will need guns and money. I really don't see why the world takes such an anti-Jewish stance in the 21st century; even the US, which is Israel's greatest ally, only supports them because of the pressure put on the government from pro-Israel organizations here.
Butlerman
The world doesn’t really take such an anti-Jewish stance, the world however does try to take a hard line with Israel for it’s illegal occupation, it’s un-declared nukes and other such issues, which it isn’t allowed to do anything about because of the US and it’s veto (well thats one reason.) Therefore, if you take away the US veto (as would happen by an American withdrawal of the UN) then you in effect take away the most effective shield Israel has internationally.
I was however just using that as one example the biggest point would be if the US left the UN it would lose its veto power which ultimately would prove more of a negative on the global stage then a positive
Yay, for England. I hope they leave the EU. Just like I hope we can take back America from Foreign control and leave the NWO as well. It has not helped America either. After both England and America leave this international oppressive Dictatorship than we can fix our alliance with England. We can get back the Churchill bust that used to sit in the White house and we can both enjoy running our own countries. England has always been our best and closest ally until the international dictators took over our countries and used the old "Divide and conquer" tactics. Now we are supposed to be allied with Russia??? I will be very glad when America and England gets their freedom and countries back. Good luck England. We will have that all American "victory Cigar" and that very British Vodka Martini on the rocks "Shaken Not Stirred" when we win and this is over. (wink).
The UK should pull out of the once good idea of a "Common Market" the concept of a federal Europe with one currency and one set of laws/taxes etc. has been a dream of (specifically) the Germans for decades. The French, (being scared of not only their own shadows, their farmers and the Germans) just suck funds from the EU.
The UK should follow the Singapore model and become a manufacturing base, warehouse etc. with an advantageous tax regime for importers and exporters providing both a local base for the worlds major manufactures and much work and income for an essentially very poor nation. Their poverty caused by an ever burdensome weight of the NHS (Health Service) and a belief they are still a world power and need a military to support that misguided belief.
No problem! As long as they still have Blue Beetle and Guy Gardner, at least they'll still be funny. ☺
Go ahead and leave. You wont be missed....
Ottavio, what is that Neopoltan. Of course I am probably wrong. I don't really care. I hope you are correct and that Britain leaves the EU. Oh and by the way, when your government goes with its hat in hand to Germany and they agree to lend them money to pay for your health care, just remember. Germany lost WWII. They are winning the peace. It took a while but they are slowly but surely becoming the rulers of Europe. Hitler and his children are very proud of them.
Actually if you look at the EU honestly the countries that could leave and never be missed would be in no particular order: Spain; Greece; Italy; Portugal and Iceland. No one misses the beggar who refuses to work hard.
To be fair, no-one would miss Iceland leaving, mainly due to the fact they have never joined
Which is of course why the EU bailed them out and imposed budget cuts.
Ottavio1
You obviously belong to one of those countries that sucks the EU dry.
Great Britain has lived without your help or your worthless country , for eons.
When the vote in GB to join the EU was put to the people, we the people wanted a referendum, our government decided for us that they were not going to ask the people they just went ahead and joined.
The consequence is you.
Germany would miss them, to be sure. Britain's liberalizing and business-friendly influence in the face of numerous countries that like aggressive regulation, protectionism, and social programs has been a huge help to them. Britain is also the largest financial center in Europe, which lends them considerable economic clout.
An EU without Britain would be a significantly diminished bloc, with a fraction of the geopolitical power and influence.
On the other hand, Britain mostly exports to the EU, and takes enthusiastic advantage of the single market. If they left the EU, the deregulation that could follow would provide an economic boost, but it would be lost among the great wall of new tariffs and import difficulties they would face. That advantage could probably be recovered over time, country-by-country if necessary, but the short-term damage would be significant.
On balance, I'd say the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, but both will lose from a break-up.
skibum609
Iceland bailed out by the EU; budget cuts imposed by the EU?? lol Try replacing the "c" with an "r", and then you'll be referring to the right country!
Once again, this is very simple. Britain does not need the EU. The EU needs Britain. In the same sense the U.S. does not need the UN. The UN needs the U.S.. I believe that Britain would be better off without the EU. The EU wants to suck some more money out of Britains wallets to bail out corrupt and failed economies. Why should the common man of England want to be part of the EU. It is only the rich and the owners of big businesses that need the EU. I find the comparison of Britain and the EU with the U.S. and the UN compelling.
The U.S. has been the backbone and main support for the UN since it's inception. The UN has been a drain on the wallets of the American people the whole time. Who cares about UNESCO. I don't. Who cares about supporting and giving economic aid to governments that spit on the shadow of Americans and Britains alike. I don't.
It's time for America to withdraw from the UN. Britain has long past the point in which the EU is tolerable.
Think of it this way, who gets the most out of the participation of the U.S. in the UN. It is certainly not the common American citizen. Likewise, who gets the most out of Britains participation in the EU. It most certainly is not the common citizen of Britain. In the old saying, "If you want want to find the criminals, follow the money. Think about it.
The UN has value beyond what the United States alone receives from it. It is far from an effective institution, but the world would be a more dangerous place without it. The existence of a global forum for all nations, where they have a reputation and face for everyone to see rather than just those states it chooses to deal with directly, is valuable.
Does all this benefit the US? Probably not, and definitely not directly. But I'd like to think we're a bit bigger than that. If we can help maintain an institution that furthers the goal of world peace, that's worth the funds, even if we get "spit on".
Its up to the British People to decide, not Europe or the United States.
The EU needs Britain more than they need the EU .......take that to the bank.....literally
Um, not really. Because of the way the EU is structured, it doesn't get much from Britain now.
Conversely they don't get much from the EU either.
Like navyvet98 said it's up to them to decide.
I'd have to think though a deeper alliance with their Commonwealth countries would serve them better in the long run than the EU.
The EU doesn't get much from Britain only if you think strictly in material terms.
In terms of influence and political balance, the EU would be far more of a wreck than it is today without Britain. Britain... would be much the same, although I believe they'd miss that single market.
And actually vet, it's not necessarily up to the British people to decide. The government doesn't HAVE to put EU membership to a referendum.
In any case, it's doubtful Britain loses much through its EU membership. I hope they stick with it.
GB is a mess. I drove from Ireland to N. Ireland once. It was like driving from France into Detroit.
Amazing.
If you drove from Ireland to Northern Ireland that would have nothing to do with GB, i.e Great Britain, now would it? Or is your geography so impaired that you fail to comprehend that Great Britain is the island comprising England, Wales and Scotland? Seriously, try looking at an atlas once in a while and/or understanding the difference between geographic and political entities.
Just so you don't go crazy, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom which comprises the island of Great Britain, the Northern tip of Ireland, and many smaller islands.
The WiKi on the UK is actually pretty well written. I'd suggest a little reading for you there.
Could not disagree more...........it is a beautiful ride from southern Ireland right thru the Inishowen region up north.
If you want a real mess, drive the I-95 corridor from Wilmington DE up toward Bridgeport Conn.
If you want a real mess, drive the I-95 corridor from Wilmington DE up toward Bridgeport Conn.
Hey! We're working on that!!
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Bridgeport-Steel-Point-gaining-steam-again-3643139.php
http://articles.courant.com/2012-07-06/business/hc-bridgeport-bass-pro-shop-steel-point-20120706_1_steel-point-construction-jobs-governor-malloy
A technicality: N. Ireland is a part of the U.K. but not a part of Great Britain. One is political, the other is geographical.
No. Ireland is not like Detroit.
get out and keep the EU in more rurmoil
Globalist EU will not work. The UK should pull out before they become total slaves in the Globalist ( similar to Communist ) Socialist Republics of Europe with no voice and only directives from Brussels. Ireland lost its sovereignty like others in the E.U. after it was shoveled down their throats in a vote the third time - now they are sorry , I bet. The only thing that makes sense in Europe is a common military force - how many atomic bombs do you need for defense ?. The social , monetary policies should be up to each country. Otherwise, they will be debt ridden with Globalist tyranny, as I see them. The fact that I am not able to puchase Thilo Sarrazin's "Europe Does Not Need the Euro" in English proves my point of a lack of freedom to publish. There are other authors that are persecuted for writing truth , even jailed.
The movement of gold (which idiots claim has no real value in computer age ) to Germany from the US and France is VERY INTERESTING ! Something is up people !
It's hard to see a "globalist" ambition from a region comprised of a single continent.
As for the benefits of the EU, you're forgetting the single market, harmonized business regulations (to a degree), and the passport-free zone that makes travel and cross-border business ventures easy and cheap. Most countries in the EU specifically join for those aspects, since the increased efficiency is judged to be worth more than the lost sovereignty (Britain largely does not). There's a reason Germany still wants to keep the EU and the Euro, after all, and it's not because they feel sorry for the Greek and Spanish deadbeats.
Europe ..." a single continent ", SF ?. Globalism is a system , international in scope like Communism, where people are enslaved and a small group of oligarchs run the show. Keeping Assange in the Equadorian Embassy is similar to keeping Cardinal Mindszenty in Budapest at American embassy in the 1950's. Jailing people for speaking their minds is a part of Globalist idealogy- David Irving in Austria some years back. Thilo Sarrazin , a German banker with a PhD and a politician wrote " Europe Does Not Need the Euro " but the Globalists do not want you to read it so it is not published in English. If we read Sarrazin's book maybe we could get a much more intelligent discussion ?
You are wrong; globalism is not a "system", it is a mere decriptor of the weakening of international barriers to travel, communication, and business. Nobody "established" globalism, just like nobody established capitalism. It developed on its own naturally as technology progressed and countries liberalized their economies. In this way it is distinctly unlike Communism. Globalism has no masters. Nobody controls it. Governments try, sometimes, and usually fail. Those that have succeeded at isolating themselves (the only true remedy) are a laughingstock; look at North Korea.
As such, it does not have any "ideology," and saying that it enslaves people or fosters censorship of certain books you want to read is paranoid nonsense. If that book isn't available, it's a national government, serving so-called "national interests" that censored it (assuming censorship is the actual reason you can't find it), not "globalism".
No country wants to be bound to a failure .......The EU along with its "Euro" are just another failed socialistic experiment ...
Nice, now if only the US could get out of the UN and NATO...
The EU was a nice idea in theory, but when not everyone plays by the same rules and responsibilities, bad things happen.
Right ....that's why a socialistic ideology does not work ....Ever
Interestingly, the ONLY time the NATO common defense clause was used... was for the United States on 9/11.
More interesting, the US did most of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. Most of the other NATO troops have tended to avoid dangerous combat areas.
(Certainly if the Soviets had invaded Europe, the US would have paid a higher price for helping Europe than the Europeans did on 9-11 helping the US)
same in the "United States": some states are takers , some are givers.
@Paganponderer: Oh, no doubt. And then there's the little detail that the US provides over 90% of NATO's transport. Most European nations cannot deploy outside of Europe without the US's help.
Even the big 3 of Germany/France/UK can't deploy quickly or largely on their own. And as their defense budgets continue to decline, the problem grows more accute.
If the US left NATO, it would quickly desolve into a neighborhood watch program.
That's the thing about geopolitical union...
There's no reason why a United States of Europe wouldn't work, but the individual states aren't willing to go that far. Yet they want many of the benefits of a close political union as well. It's led to the series of half-assed treaties we see from the EU that chain countries together without committing them to each other's success (only survival).
The whole point of the EU was to compete with the US and Japan as an economic titan. It remains a titan despite troubles in certain parts of it--Greece, Spain, Portugal.
Britain cannot compete on its own--and it knows that. It will stay in the EU.
Ever since the Elizabethan era, the UK has remained free and secure by pursuing limited alliances with the smaller/weaker nations of Europe, thus building consensus around mutual defense and free trade. The Common Market, spearheaded by the UK, was initially successful because it was merely an economic union instead of an all-encompassing social one. Time and history have proven it practically impossible to jam together disparate cultures into a "United States of Europe."
I applaud the UKIP and David Cameron for working to renegotiate the UK's place in the EU. Years ago while living in the UK, I was thankful that the Eurosceptics forestalled P.M. Blair's predilection for closer UK integration into the EU.
There is no compelling reason why countries such as Germany and Britain - which have pursued more-or-less rational economic policies - to have to endlessly bail out countries such as Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Greece, which have not.
We Americans should learn our history and give credit where credit is due. By force of arms and the persuasion of diplomacy - both properly backed by enlightened self-interest - it is the UK (with the US' help), not the EU, which is most responsible for turning a continent of war into a continent of peace.
Britain isn't bailin out debtor countries. They are not part of the currency union (much to the chagrin of debtor nations). And Germany has a good reason for wanting to be part of the Euro, since they sell most of their exports to the EU nations. Not Germany's fault that suddenly the deadbeats can't afford their own budgets.
I feel bad for those country's citizens. They got disarmed to the point where it would be hard for them to revolt against a dictator.
They have much bigger concerns than dictators taking over their countries. Besides, I'll bet the police in Greek certainly appreciate that the angry crowds full of people too stupid to understand basic finances aren't armed.
The EU is a failure. There are too many language and culture barriers between these very small countries. The larger countries are only twice the California population. The socialist movement in some countries has totally destroyed the economies and the countries have no output of goods! Greece is as good as dead. Spain, Italy, and Portugal are not far behind. Big government entitlement programs and organized labor have destroyed the countries. Only a World War can save them from third world status. And what would the war do?
Get real. They aren't in any danger of losing first-world status. You seriously overestimate the damage caused by shrinking economies and austerity (either that, or you don't actually understand what a third-world nation is). Additionally, socialism totally can work, you just have to be smart about it and pair it with efficient, free-market capitalism. The reason why so many socialist economies decay is because socialists treat capitalism and business as their enemy rather than the forces that allow them to exist. Socialism can ONLY exist with the considerable surpluses generated from capitalism. This is something the Germans have learned well.
F.C.U.K. the Brits...!!!!!!!!!
As Nigel Farage is the only politician to stand up to the bankers and beaurocrats in Brussels, I must say "Good Show"! He also reiterates that leaving the EU does not mean that Britain cannot trade with Europe, it just means greater independence from a body that is sucking the life out of the poorer countries by having given them "overwhelming credit" but not allowing them their own currencies which they could devalue in the past to pay their debts! He also points out that these countries, like Greece and Ireland, are not allowed a referendum to see whether they want to stay in the Euro or not!
While there's no reason why Britain can't have free trade without belonging to the EU, EU nations might be unwilling to grant them such EU-club advantages while the Britons shun all the EU rules that they have to put up with. Granted, it's the EU's fault for demanding such restraints in order to have free trade and travel, but it's still wishful thinking.
The EU has just become a welfare handout state to Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland. Any logical person in England or any other country in the EU giving massive handouts to those 5 countries would want out.
You mean the Euro zone, not the EU. Those are two different things. Related, but still different.
Judging from some of the posts, it looks like many have either never lived in Europe (U.K. included), only 'know' about the situation with Greece and other EU countries from what you read in the U.S. press (which has done a poor job of explaining) and have a very skewed idea of how the EU works.
Suggestion: read online sources beyond U.S. and U.K. media of all political persuasions, not just the ones that fit your beliefs. Get informed about the reasons why Greece is in such a mess. Read about the EU and how it's set up. If you have the means, spend some time in Europe away from the tourist traps.
Obviously most Americans have never lived in Europe, and we have no reason to visit parts of Europe that don't cater to tourists (what do you expect us to do, check out your law libraries and courtrooms?), though you're absolutely right that the US press does an awful job of explaining the intracacies of the EU and the Euro crisis.
For those seeking more, and better, information, I'd recommend the Economist. They're particularly well-disposed to explain the crisis, its difficulties, and the possible ramifications, much more so than ordinary news outlets (American or European in origin).
That said, the reason why Greece is in the mess it is aren't terribly complex or distorted. They had a huge deficit, awful tax compliance, lavish public sector, and restless unions. Eventually creditors were going to seriously question whether they could meet their obligations indefinitely.
No wonder that you do not have a clue as to causes of the Greek crisis, SF.
Yes, it's no wonder, when I put my faith in objective, verifiable information and an advanced understanding of economics and finance.
But I know that's hard, so you feel free to stick to your conspiracy theories, Joe. If pretending that someone actually "runs" the world and is the secret supervillain responsible for its ills helps you wrap your head around the difficulties of the real world, what right do I have to take away that delusion?
So does this dark society have a secret volcano fortress? That would be so cool if it did!
The British are an odd lot. They constantly bad mouth the French and yet every weekend they travel there by the thousands. In mind-set, that 26 miles is more like 26 million miles.
Same with America. Both in terms of Americans bad-mouthing the French and going there anyway, and in terms of people hating America but visiting here constantly. It's not really unique; in fact, having contempt for another nation probably encourages one to visit the place, just to see how the grubby little foreigners actually live.
If I were British, I wouldn't much care to have Germans, French, Italians, Greeks or anyone else imposing their views on me. The British should, in my opinion, maintain as much sovereignty as they can. In fact, I don't much care to have Californians, Texans, and New Yorkers imposing their will on me as it is. Strengthen the States and weaken the feds, and I'll be happier.
The fate of the European Union is sealed. That conclusion follows from the analysis of the Bible. An ancient vision says: "And [the king of the north] will go back (to) his land with great wealth [1945]; and his heart (will be) against the holy covenant [state atheism]; and will act [it means activity in the international arena]; and turned back to his own land [1991-1993. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Russian troops returned to their country]. At the appointed time [he] will return back." (Daniel 11:28, 29a) The return of Russia in this context means crisis, which will eclipse the Great Depression. Not only the eurozone will break up, but also the European Union and NATO. Then many countries of the former Eastern block will return to Russia's zone of influence. Russian troops will be stationed here again.
All the details of this vision are being fulfilled from the time of ancient Persia, in chronological order. It is true that this vision is variously interpreted. As one can see, it has a lot of details. Therefore the insightful person is able to detect any error or sophistry.
In 1882 British troops occupied Egypt. Great Britain then took the role of "the king of the south". Around the same time, Russia expanded its influence in the region, which previously belonged to Seleucus I Nicator, and took the role of "the king of the north". (Daniel 11:27)
It's not sophistry. I say this since 1998, when Russia was almost bankrupt.
Looking to the Bible for the fate of the EU is a lot like searching the dictionary to find Microsoft's financial records. In that it makes no sense, and you should feel stupid for looking.
Britain lives off banking and wants to be free of European interference. It makes it possible for British and American bankers to set up another European war like the last one.
Got any true facts to support this?
1) The banker owned Federal Reserve controls the countries money. It creates depression and inflation by selling (deflation) and buying (inflation) govt bonds.
2) Germany was bankrupt after WWI. The Fed picked a guy to carry out their war agenda by giving him all the money he wanted to create a booming economy for support and to rearm. Since there was a gold standard at the time, it couldn't simply print money as it does now. It sold massive amounts of bonds which created a depression and got massive amounts of money from the sale of the bonds and by taking advantage of the market crash it precipitated.
3) In 1929 we get the crash, and Hitler (a homeless bum from Austria), gets all the money he wants.
4) So by the time Germany has full employment and is fully armed, the Fed owns Germany. The options for Germany are to become a colony or go to war to get the money to repay. Either way the Fed (and the British Centrral Bank, also involved) win. Actually, Germany winning was not an option. That's why they had to start with a mad man and never assasinated him which would have been ridiculously easy. Appeasment was just making sure Hitler was strong enough to start a war.
Again Where are you source of these things and also how liget are they?
The best you can do is piece it together from scraps on the internet. The Fed is never discussed by the media, for obvious reasons.
The crash of 29 and Hitlers suddenly having all the money he wants in 29 are incontrevertible.
The banker-owned Fed's books are not open to anybody but the banker-owners and their allies (accomplices).
Also interesting. The Fed was creatred in 1913. WW1 started in 1914.
They are not legit. The reason conspiracy nuts have to piece together "scraps from the Internet" for this absurd theory is because they are searching an ocean of data for puzzle pieces that look vaguely like what they've accepted is the truth.
The Fed is featured quite frequently in a variety of media reports, and reports on the institution are not silenced. Do a search on the FED and you'll find far more than "scraps". They are reported on more rarely in the mainstream media because financial news is complex and specialized and most people don't understand it.
Banks don't start wars. Governments do. The idea that bankers and financiers control governments has some truth to it, definitely, but major military campaigns need much more than a few handy bribes to start.
As a final note, assassinating Hitler was not easy, apparently, since there were several attempts on his life and he survived them all. But then, I suppose that's just the Fed bankers rewriting history, isn't it?
On another note, it's quite exasperating to see every single mistake and incompetence of government attributed to bankers, as if they're the focus point of all worldly evil and everyone else is either their loyal minion or hapless victim. I don't see why it's so hard to understand/believe that people elected based on how charismatic they are and then handed extraordinary power sometimes cause huge problems.
Brilliant, objective. I did not get my info about WW II from the Internet and come to the same conclusions. Wyndham Lewis in his book ' Count Your Dead ..." just prior to WW II blames international bankers for WW II and predicted the outbreak of WW II within a month 18 months earlier. He felt the slaughter of millions was going to be for nothing, to make "the world safe for Communism". No wonder that Wall Street is pumping money into China and supported Communism from 1917 and even financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to destroy non-Wall Street capital.
Why would Briton want to be pulled under by the EU?
The EU is getting more out of Britain's involvement than the Brits are. The Brits were unsure about the whole EU arrangement from the get-go which is why they never fully immersed themselves in the bloc by keeping their currency separate, which was smart.
The only two major countries in the bloc that have it together are the Brits and the Germans, most of the rest are fiscally out-of-control hangers on. Would you like to be using your credit and capital to fund the non-stop party for the Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese etc.? I love those Mediterranean countries but they are like children when is comes to fiscal responsibility and in their minds, quality of life outweighs logic and fiscal responsibilities.
To the poster above who bashed the republicans with the insinuation they are responsible for a potential fiscal downfall in the US by trying to reign in the crazy deficit spending, a catastrophe in the making, you must be a spend, spend, and more spend liberal where you spend lavishly and worry about the astronomical debt later, just like in Europe were the PIIGS countries, who have adopted that same liberal/socialist attitude and are dragging down the EU, causing the Brits and other more responsible members to question the benefits of remaining in the EU and maintaining a common currency. The way Obama is spending, we will be like the PIIGS countries soon.