Thanks for this Jose

Federal Europe will be \’a reality in a few years\’, says Jose Manuel Barroso
A fully fledged federal Europe may seem like \”political science fiction\” today but will soon become reality for all European Union countries whether inside or outside the euro, Jose Manuel Barroso has said.


That thumping
sound you hear is Cameron\’s forehead banging against his desk.

Because what Our Jose intends to do is outline, before the euro-elections, how Europe is to become a truly Federal State.

\”Further economic integration would transcend the limits of the intergovernmental method of running the EU and the eurozone in particular,\” Mr Barroso said.

Sounds like a good way of ensuring that UKIP top the poll really.

48 thoughts on “Thanks for this Jose”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    It is probably a mistake for little Maoist Jose to confuse what he wants to happen with what will happen. As a southern European, national bankruptcy is his default state and I can see why the vision of endless German cash gives him a hard on. But it is harder and harder to see what is in it for the Germans. So perhaps he thinks taking the power of the German taxpayer to say no away from them makes sense, but I am not sure that the German taxpayer will agree.

  2. Well, Barroso’s right, of course. One can quibble over whether it’ll be a few years or a few decades, since a prerequisite is to get rid of the existing structure of which Barroso is part, but it’s bound to happen eventually.

    Given that Tim just wrote recently about how the functions of government are bin-emptying and investment in public-goods, I’d have thought he’d be all in favour of abolishing the level of government least able to do either. Emptying bins is a job for local government, and the very nature of public goods makes them something best pursued by the largest possible group of people – which in this case would be a federal European state, rather than a bunch of individual states.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “and the very nature of public goods makes them something best pursued by the largest possible group of people – which in this case would be a federal European state, rather than a bunch of individual states.”

    Well China and India must be well governed then. Considering how well those public goods could be pursued.

    The problem is that Europe is not a community. Europeans could give a damn if other Europeans die. As I have pointed out even the Dutch – closer to us than most – did not give a damn that an IRA cell was operating from their country, murdering British soldiers from the BAOR. The French turned a blind eye to ETA.

    If you give the Sicilians control over the Germans’ money we can be sure of one thing: public goods will not be achieved well.

  4. “Well China and India must be well governed then. ”

    That’s a non sequitur. I don’t think you’ve understood the point.

    And let’s not get into the mad racist diatribes again, OK? Everyone here except you, apparently, is bothered by the deaths of others, whether they live in the UK or not. Hence why we all bang on about helping the extremely poor, why Tim keeps writing about how best to help Africans out of poverty, and so-on.

    You can test just how widespread the view is, if you like. All you need to do is go outside, stop people in the street, and ask them if they’d be bothered if you killed some random person they don’t know. According to you, no-one will be bothered – but I rather think you’ll find yourself being carted off for a psych-eval by the police. Whether you’d pass, I have my doubts, because your claim that you couldn’t care less if ‘other Europeans’ die is so sociopathic that there must be something pretty seriously wrong with you.

  5. Yes Tim, I think UKIP might do extremely well indeed at the next Euro elections which should also see the annihilation of the Lib Dems.

    As for the General Election: well, the maths are completely against you, but you can extract a pretty good price from any Conservative in a vaguely marginal seat.

    If success in politics is really about the difference you make, (and I accept the selfish cretins in Westmninster aren’t really in it for that) then the UKIP legacy really could be spectacular. However, if you don’t reach an accomodation with the Conservatives, the outcome will be Labour. Then the legacy will be membership of the federal European super-state.

  6. Barosso’s wrong here, it’s been tried several times and effectively abandoned for good with Lisbon. This might be one of the cases where the venality of the corrupt elite maintaining the status quo and hindering progression is actually a good thing.

    Ironically the septics might stand to gain from a loose federation if it meant the end of “ever closer union”.

    But really, as Dave has it there is an optimum level for all things to be governed at. A lot of those things are best done at the town (or even street) level, things that are pretty much universal human interests done on the largest possible level. It seems inevitable that the national level will become less relevant compared to the other two. Not because of corrupt socialist fascists imposing a European superstate, just the onward march of history.

  7. Ironman,

    If success in politics is really about the difference you make, (and I accept the selfish cretins in Westmninster aren’t really in it for that) then the UKIP legacy really could be spectacular. However, if you don’t reach an accomodation with the Conservatives, the outcome will be Labour. Then the legacy will be membership of the federal European super-state.

    If you vote Milquetoast tory, you get Milquetoast tory. The only way you get anti-federalism is to vote anti-federalism. And that might mean, in the short-term, having a Labour government.

    To be honest, I don’t want the Tories to adjust, to realise that all that “nasty party” stuff was ridiculous. Their backbenchers think the whole reason for UKIP’s success is gay marriage, when only 5% of Conservative voters rate it as a priority issue.

  8. Putting on my tin foil hat: Presenting a federal europe as a done deal will allow Cameron to say ‘This isn’t what people want so we’ve got to stay in to prevent it and stand up against the Eurozone’.

    Which of course will be a lie. We’d stay in and still get a federal Europe.

  9. Dave–are you joking?.

    Sure–if you put the question “Do you want to see a fellow human killed for nothing, at random?” the vast majority of people would say no and mean it. If that was all their was to it however, how the fuck have all the Earth’s government scum managed to murder 150-200 million people in the past 100 years and get another 80 million or so killed in wars in that same time?. Right next to compassion in people there is also a vast and callous indifference to suffering. How many meat eaters would like to slaughter the animal themselves?. People eat their dinner and they know the main course has paid its life to provide it but they just don’t think about it.
    So the Dutch could have put a stop to the IRA in their midst but they mostly didn’t know, didn’t think about it and didn’t care to cause any more problems for themselves. If they had seen a blown up child’s limbs land on the ground in front of them they might have done something because the blanket of indifference would have been torn.

    Also–white Europeans–Dutch, French etc are like, white–so where does the “racist” bollocks come in?.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “That-s a non sequitur. I don-t think you-ve understood the point.”

    No it is not. You said the criteria for the good delivery of public good was the size of the population. The larger the better. The only criteria. If it is so, China must be very good at delivering public goods.

    “And let-s not get into the mad racist diatribes again, OK?”

    You see what you want to see. Not my problem.

    “Everyone here except you, apparently, is bothered by the deaths of others, whether they live in the UK or not.”

    It is cute you think so but obviously it is not true. It is a basic human truism that we care a lot more about people we are closer to. That is why 9-11 was such a major news story and 2000 people dying in a Central American landslide, as actually happened around the same time, was not.

    It would be nice if it were otherwise. But it aint.

    “Hence why we all bang on about helping the extremely poor, why Tim keeps writing about how best to help Africans out of poverty, and so-on.”

    Which is an excellent reflection on TW but not true of most other people. That is why Britain did not lift a finger for the people of Biafra. That is why Mugabe can do vastly more to his own people than he could if he was in, say, the former Yugoslavia.

    If you want to ignore everything we know about people and the news that is fine by me. But do not blame me for your willful ignorance.

    “You can test just how widespread the view is, if you like. All you need to do is go outside, stop people in the street, and ask them if they-d be bothered if you killed some random person they don-t know. According to you, no-one will be bothered [] but I rather think you-ll find yourself being carted off for a psych-eval by the police.”

    I might be, but only because the question is stupid. Someone else has done this experience. Various Christian groups have run TV ads telling people that they could save a life in Africa for the price of a pint a month. How many British people give up that pint? More than you would think, admittedly, but not that many. Are they bothered? I doubt one in a million of them even thinks about it.

    “Whether you-d pass, I have my doubts, because your claim that you couldn-t care less if [other Europeans] die is so sociopathic that there must be something pretty seriously wrong with you.”

    Now you are just lying. I did not say that. Pathetic. In the meantime ETA was allowed to operate from France for decades. The IRA did operate in the Netherlands for years – and in the Republic for decades – without any one much doing anything about it. The governments and people of those countries were indifferent.

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “If that was all their was to it however, how the fuck have all the Earth’s government scum managed to murder 150-200 million people in the past 100 years and get another 80 million or so killed in wars in that same time?”

    To support that point some more – Zygmunt Bauman was a flunky Political Officer in Stalin-s Army. He was then in military intelligence in his native Poland. In other words his job was to track down and execute Poles who were then resisting Stalin-s colonial regime.

    If people cared as much as they say they do, people like him would be shunned. Not honoured.

    Now Dave has to lie and distort to come up with what he thinks is a clever point. It is not. No doubt he will run with it a bit longer because it suits him – and because he has no other credible or coherent argument.

  12. I can’t believe so many intelligent and no doubt handsome men actually care what this pompous Portuguese popinjay has to say! Don’t you know that these cretinous fools are paid by the verbal yard (well, in Europe it’s probably by the verbal metre) and they’ve got all the bravado of a virgin outside a brothel.

    A federal Europe has been the dream of every penile-stunted Marmaduke since Hadrian hired his bricklayer. I’ve spoken to lots of European men (and not a few women) so I know that Britain isn’t the only country to actually like being a nation not a state. The only way plans could be implemented is through mass mind control or invasion.

    Vive la différence, is what I believe, and the bigger la différence, the more the viva, if you know what I’m saying and I’m sure that you do…

  13. Sorry about the nonsensical post 13. It seems my exotic form of apostrophes breaks the comment system. I wouldn’t want people to take ‘I can’ the wrong way… Of course ‘I can’, but would I? That’s what you need to ask yourself…

  14. Is Brtitain still a country.
    I thought it had been broken up to be a set of sub states ready for an erzatz USA in Europe.
    Similarly the forced importation of many races has shattered the English people. This to also simulate the USA pattern.

  15. SMFS>

    I’m pretty sure you’re just stupid and somewhat insane, but if you’re doing this on purpose you must be quite a piece of work.

    Still, on the evidence presented here I’ll have to go with rank inability to read or think.

    “No it is not. You said the criteria for the good delivery of public good was the size of the population. The larger the better. The only criteria. If it is so, China must be very good at delivering public goods.”

    That is entirely incorrect. I did not say that. What I said is just back up there for you to have another go at.

    “You see what you want to see. Not my problem.”

    I see you spouting irrational hatred and bile. I understand you’re too sociopathic to see that as your own problem, but it’s society’s problem.

    “It is a basic human truism that we care a lot more about people we are closer to. That is why 9-11 was such a major news story and 2000 people dying in a Central American landslide, as actually happened around the same time, was not.”

    OK, now you’re either batshit insane or deliberately dissembling. Are you seriously comparing the largest, most noteworthy global news event since the Berlin Wall fell, with something that sadly happens somewhere in the world something like annually? The terrorist attack on the WTC is by a massive margin the deadliest terrorist attack in history, and you think the attention paid to it was because New York is about a third closer, out of thousands of miles? That’s barking.

    “Which is an excellent reflection on TW but not true of most other people.”

    In your opinion. But not theirs. It’s perfectly possible to care about something you’re unable to do anything about.

    “Now you are just lying. I did not say that.”

    Yes you did. That’s precisely what you said. You wrote that Europeans don’t give a shit if other Europeans die, but the only European you could actually be talking about there is you. You therefore said, albeit without realising that you were giving away your true colours, that you don’t care if other people live or die.

    Mr Ecks>

    I’m having trouble following your stream-of-consciousness ramble. Did you have a point?

    This bit was pretty clear, though:

    “Also

  16. Mr Ecks>

    I’m having trouble following your stream-of-consciousness ramble. Did you have a point?

    This bit was pretty clear, though:

    “Also — white Europeans — Dutch, French etc are like, white — so where does the

  17. (Fuck. )

    Mr Ecks>

    I’m having trouble following your stream-of-consciousness ramble. Did you have a point?

    This bit was pretty clear, though:

    “Also — white Europeans — Dutch, French etc are like, white — so where does the ‘racist’ bollocks come in?.”

    Ask SMFS – he thinks they’re all different races. He’s said so in the past. (If you disagree on that count, then it would be bizarre for you to think other than that SMFS’s national-separatist nonsense is correct.)

    That aside, the modern meaning of racism does not rely on the notion of race, what with that concept being obvious bollocks, but instead substitutes other more easily defined groups like culture/ethnicity.

    Of course, some people like to worry more about the fact that a word is slightly changing its meaning than about the actual fucking prejudice under discussion.

  18. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave- “I-m pretty sure you-re just stupid and somewhat insane, but if you-re doing this on purpose you must be quite a piece of work.”

    Now you are just wasting my time. If you do not want to deal with the real world that is fine by me. But perhaps you might like to do it elsewhere.

    “That is entirely incorrect. I did not say that. What I said is just back up there for you to have another go at.”

    What you said is:

    “and the very nature of public goods makes them something best pursued by the largest possible group of people

    China is a very large group of people. Larger than Europe. They must therefore be better at public goods. You did say it.

    “Are you seriously comparing the largest, most noteworthy global news event since the Berlin Wall fell, with something that sadly happens somewhere in the world something like annually?”

    Sadly happens somewhere in the world some thing like annually? Sure. In the Third World. If it happened in Essex it would be in the news for weeks. If it happened in America it would be in the news for days. If it happened in Latin America it would be in the news for hours. And if it happened in Africa perhaps minutes.

    As we all know.

    “In your opinion. But not theirs. It-s perfectly possible to care about something you-re unable to do anything about.”

    As a matter of psychology I am not sure that is true. I would think that people rapidly stop caring about things they can do nothing about. What is your evidence?

    However it is irrelevant as people can do something about children dying in Africa. If they lived in Bangor they would. But if they live in Lagos, the vast majority of people will not.

    Now all you are doing that I can see is diverting a sensible conversation into a direction you must know is untrue. Why?

    “Yes you did. That-s precisely what you said. You wrote that Europeans don-t give a shit if other Europeans die, but the only European you could actually be talking about there is you.”

    So it is not precisely what I said. It is your inference. I gave clear and specific examples to back what I said. None of them involved me. You are flailing desperately now.

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “he thinks they-re all different races. He-s said so in the past.”

    No I do not and no I have not. You are, as usual, making sh!t up.

    “That aside, the modern meaning of racism does not rely on the notion of race, what with that concept being obvious bollocks, but instead substitutes other more easily defined groups like culture/ethnicity.”

    Actually race is anything but bollocks. You give any DNA you like and someone will tell you what part of the world they came from and what their race is.

    Not that it is relevant as the obsession with race is yours not mine.

  20. “China is a very large group of people. Larger than Europe. They must therefore be better at public goods.”

    OK, so it is just a basic failure of reading comprehension. We also have your claim that you are unaware that the implications of what you say are part of what you say, but I’m afraid they are because that’s how language works.

    “You give any DNA you like and someone will tell you what part of the world they came from and what their race is.”

    I guess your general inability to comprehend the written word is responsible for you holding that entirely erroneous belief.

    I’m done arguing with idiots for the day. Does anyone else have something to say that’s worth reading?

  21. What the hell is wrong with Typepad????

    I think Dave is confusing intentions with actions.

    People say they are ‘bothered’, obviously. The reality is what exactly are they prepared to do/pay/risk/sacrifice in order to prevent people dying or being oppressed in other parts of the world.

    The reality is: not that much.

    As human beings we are very good at empathising and helping when it isn’t too difficult or inconvenient for us to do so. And, despite us becoming far more empathic and interested in those outside the immediate family circle/tribe/country the reality is that, for the majority of us, our efforts will be more focused on those closer to us.

  22. I think Dave is confusing intentions with actions

    ………………………………….

    Oh, goes a lot deeper than that. Dave’s one of those people, doesn’t believe it’s possible to hold an opinion different from his. If you do, it’s not an alternative point of view to be discussed. Yer jus’ plain e-e-e-e-vil-l-l.

    Also known as a progressive.

  23. If you went out and asked 100 people if they were bothered if you murdered a random stranger then clearly they would say that yes, it bothered them. But if you then asked them what they’d be prepared to do to stop you, I suspect you’d find a slightly different story emerging. I imagine the majority view would be “phone the police”, even though everyone – or everyone except an idiot – knows that phoning the police is tantamount to ‘nothing’ as the police couldn’t possibly act on such an insubstantial complaint.

    yes, people care about suffering, but not nearly as much as they want to be seen to care. Otherwise charities wouldn’t have to solicit donations, merely announce their presence and intentions.

  24. Stuck-Record>

    The question is whether people are more or less bothered depending on distance. That has nothing to do with their actions. The actions they subsequently take may well be different due to real practical differences between two places, but that’s irrelevant to the discussion.

    BIS>

    It entirely depends on the subject. Some things people are entirely free to disagree on. Others they can still disagree with, but will commonly be judged to be evil for doing so. If someone believes murder is a good thing, I have no problem calling them evil.

    I’m quite surprised to find that you’re a moral relativist – I’d have expected to find you firmly on the side of moral-absolutes.

  25. Sam>

    “If you went out and asked 100 people if they were bothered if you murdered a random stranger then clearly they would say that yes, it bothered them. But if you then asked them what they’d be prepared to do to stop you, I suspect you’d find a slightly different story emerging”

    True. But that actually agrees with my point, which is that there’s no difference in how much people care about random strangers tens of miles away than they do about random strangers tens of thousands of miles away.

    Please note that it’s perfectly possible for there to be good rational reasons to care more about something that happens here in the UK than about the same thing happening in some impoverished nation, because those places are not the same. To give a frivolous example, we might care about the bins not being emptied in the UK much more than we’d care about that in Ethiopia, but that’s obviously because we’re paying taxes to get that done here.

  26. Dave, I see what you’re trying to get at. But don’t agree.

    The distinction is not, as you say, fundamentally about distance and convenience. There is no moral relativism involved. It’s simply that the limits of the possible. We can’t do everything for everybody, so we choose. And invariably we choose those closest to us, because we are human.

    Forget, for a moment, about distance. Imagine your child and your neighbour’s child are dying, curable by a vaccine one dose of vaccine

  27. Why is Typepad screwing with my posts???!!!

    Dave, I see what you’re trying to get at. But don’t agree.

    The distinction is not, as you say, fundamentally about distance and convenience. There is no moral relativism involved. It’s simply the limits of the possible. We can’t do everything for everybody, so we choose. And invariably we choose those closest to us, because we are human.

    Forget, for a moment, about distance. Imagine your child and your neighbour’s child dying of an illness curable by a vaccine. There is only one dose of vaccine —which you possess.

    If you are asked the question, “Do you care that your neighbour’s child is going to die when you use the vaccine?” Your answer will be, “Of course. Yes.” And you will be answering truthfully. And if there was some way you could potentially save your neighbour’s life — without endangering your own child’s – you would gladly do it. You might even be prepared to sacrifice yourself. You might even, in extraordinary cases, be prepared to sacrifice your own child.

    Imagine that it’s worse than that. You’re forced to choose which one of your own children you save. In this instance are we supposed to believe that it is morally relative to choose between your own children? It’s not. It’s just an appalling unfortunate choice like the universe is full of.

    However, in the real world, most people won’t.

    So the line between intentions and actions is not blurred by distance or convenience. It’s blurred by The limits of the possibile.

    I care as much about children killed by machete in Rwanda as in London. London, however I can do something about.

  28. @ Dave,

    I’m still not sure where we are though. I think the point is possibly not the randomness but the subsequent level of depersonalisation. If you asked someone what they’d be prepared to do to stop you murdering, say, their mother then clearly they would be prepared to do more. But that’s artificially separating the two groups. What would be more interesting would be if you were to ask someone what they would be prepared to do to stop you murdering your mother. I reckon they would be prepared to do a bit more. Not because they’ve met and adore your mother, wonderful though I’m sure she is, but because they can identify with the concept of having a mother, which in turn personalises it. (Never mind that the random stranger is statistically fairly likely to be someone’s mother too, inter alia, that’s not how people think.)

    ‘children in africa’ is itself a depersonalisation, compared to ‘children in hackney’ (you might know someone who lives in hackney’ compared again to ‘children in Balham’ (I have friends in Balham who have children’ compared to ‘children in [your part of town/village’] compared to – finally – your own children.

    So I can’t help thinking that it’s got more to do with how far we relate to strangers than where they are. I might identify more with someone who does my job and has a similarly shaped family in, say, France than someone who does a completely different one in my postcode. Or I might find that I identify more with a Londoner thirty years older than me than with someone my exact age who lives in rural Devon.

  29. FWIW I too thought that the logical conclusion of the statement “the very nature of public goods makes them something best pursued by the largest possible group of people” was that the Chinese would be best of all at their provision, given China is the largest group of people under one system of government in the world, by a country mile.

  30. bloke in france

    The idea that stuff is best organised at ultra local or ultra global level, with nothing in between, is completely nuts!
    That is why we want out of Europe, to organise stuff at a national level.

  31. Richard – exploit murphy’s law. Select and copy the whole post in anticipation of it disappearing. Then it never does.

  32. Dave, ot only have you failed to understand the other posters here, you appear to have failed to understand your own first post.

  33. The Thought Gang

    @ Sam

    “Richard – exploit murphy’s law. Select and copy the whole post in anticipation of it disappearing. Then it never does.”

    I thought Murphy’s law was that you asked the state to write your opinions for you. Then they never disappear.. although you might.

  34. Isn’t-t Jose just fleshing out the reality of ?

    The only debating point as far as the EU and its supporters are concerned is the timing.

  35. Well, in a sort of quid pro quo following a previous thread, I must now say that SMFS is broadly speaking on the money, regarding human preferences. It is, like the “pretty girls” argument, a fact so obvious as to be banal. People believe themselves to be members of communities, and care less for people outside those communities than those inside them. Again, this is just one of those things that just *is*.

    David Hume demonstrated a very long time ago that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”. It strikes me though that the biggest problem is how readily many people declare an “is” based upon their preferred “ought”.

    Human community is, by its nature, based upon the concept of an “us” and a “them”. At the very heart of that is the choice of what defines “us”. For most Europeans it seems, and certainly most Britains, “Europe” is not an “us”. I don’t think even most Europhiles feel any such community spirit, although they tend to imagine that one can be invented by some sufficient degree of propaganda and re-education. They make the mistake of believing that a shared polity can form an “us”.

    A community can create a State. But a State cannot create a community.

  36. Jim,

    I think Dave meant that largest possible groups of people leaves you best placed *to try and deliver* public goods. What Dave didn’t say is that largest possible groups of people guarantees the best quality of public goods.

    China having a massive population is best placed to deliver the public good of clean air. Improving the quality of air in China would benefit well over a billion people. But it doesn’t automatically follow that air in China will be cleanest on the planet.

  37. That’s the basic problem isn’t it? Public goods are often public bads. China got to deliver Communism to a billion people, and Hitler’s early military successes allowed him to deliver public goods like freedom from Jews to far more people than he could have done just inside Germany.

    This really is one of the primary public goods of the nation state system. If one nation state goes into a bad state, there will be others that haven’t. That is the benefit of a diversity of polities.

  38. “I think Dave meant that largest possible groups of people leaves you best placed *to try and deliver* public goods. What Dave didnt say is that largest possible groups of people guarantees the best quality of public goods.”

    No, but the implication was there – that we in the UK should join with everyone else in the EU to provide public goods because public goods are best provided by larger collective groups.

    Only they are not are they? As has been pointed out, (much) larger collective groups exist (India and China) where the provision of public goods is considerably poorer than in smaller nations. Ergo there does not appear to the a correlation between size of collective group and the quality public good provision. So by joining with the rest of Europe we are by no means guaranteeing better public good provision than we could attain on our own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *