´óÏó´«Ã½

Such is democracy today. The people vote, but if the politicians think we've voted the wrong way then we're made to vote again and again until we vote for what the politicians want. And then the votes stop. This has happened many times in the past 25 years.

It's a very good move to keep the debate alive. It is true what she says, Europe needs a better administrative framework to work on its growing scale with more members than ever before. What is important is to make Europe more efficient, more action and less talk. I believe a constitution will provide the framework for that.

The mistake that was made in the past was to have the population vote on the constitution: let's face it, it always turns out to be a political vote pro or against whatever current government of the country. The broad public is simply not educated enough to vote on this matter. Let the experts do the job who actually know what's in the constitution and can judge the big picture. I hope Angela Merkel will also work in this direction.

Nothing has changed. Those in politics tell us that they will represent us, and once chosen forget to listen.
Oscar

After the French and the Dutch had their chance in 2005, I think it's only fair to allow voters in all the other EU member states a chance to reject the "European Constitution". Perhaps Germany should get to go first with their vote?

Let us hope she stirs up enough controversy that the need to restore sovereignty to individual nations becomes clear.

As a British national working and living on the continent I am probably more pro European than most British people. That said I don't think people in the UK are fundamentally against the ideals of the EU. The issue is in the packaging and communication. Like every large venture, getting communication right is half the battle in getting people to 'Buy In'. I am not sure Angela Merkel can do this in six months but she can at least get the ball rolling.

By the way I am living in France, one of the coutries which so unceremoniously dumped the European constitution. There is groundswell of opinion that the constitution was right but the plebisicute itself a bad idea.

We should vote NO to this constitution,how many times do we have to go through with this and how much does it cost

Europe needs new tools to cope with its expansion and the global challenges. Therefore, it would be more interesting to hear what opponents of the Constitution have to propose instead - in order to make the EU mechanisms more effective and the decision-making quicker

I can only wish her well. Maybe it needs a politician with her personal background to state what great project this Union is. And that it's about so much more than money and bureaucracy. That doesn't mean there's nothing to improve! But: You learn to appreciate the EU when you talk to people from other continents. Good luck, Frau Merkel!

Given the recent high profiles of environment and poverty alleviation, brought about through previous EU presidencies, world-wide debate and strong media coverage of political reports, it seems erroneous for Angela Merkel to push at a European constitution. Most member states regard the constitution as a threat to their national sovereignty (rightly or wrongly) and as such it can be dismissed as a non-starter. Even if national governments were to endorse the constitution, it is highly probable that a number of member states will reject the constitution through a referendum.
The chancellor's time could be better spent fully removing agricultural subsidies to improve trade conditions with less developed countries. Or, as a strong proponent of environmental tax reform, the chancellor could utilise the current corporate and political goodwill to drive the necessary changes to ensure a sustainable energy future within Europe.

It's obvious that what's changed and is changing are the leaders and therefore their own opinions. Nicolas Sarkozy’s a good example, if he does become France's President he'll be pushing for mini treaties rather than referenda. That said, Gordon Brown is broadly far less in favour of a constitution. It will be interesting to see to what extent Blair can tie down a future Brown Government before his departure. There are other member states who's votes might not go Chancellor Merkel's way, Spain, Italy and Poland. Noteworthy are the Dutch who along with France voted against last time around.

As for us here in "Blighty", we'll probably be last to get a vote (again) if at all, adding credibility to the argument that we wouldn't want to be the odd one out.

Austria has just ended it's 6 months at the EU's helm by resurrecting the constitution in readiness for Merkel's crusade.

I think it's more likely an attention grabbing mechanism that gives leaders the self important attention they crave, than a truly viable attempt at drafting a meaningful or robust constitution.

With the joint hand and all the heads involve will share in her vision i think it will not be a watered down vision if she eventually get it through. Thanks

Hi,

Iyt is reassuring that Mrs. Merkel (sure that isn't Mrs. Merton?) has confirmed that the imposition of this obscene concept with the added evil of a Constitution can be disrupted by the honest MEPs, few though there are.

She has said that EUroSceptic MEPs can disrupt the process.

Perhaps with a small amount of effort, since they have no real job or democratic say, British MEPs could represent the informed British people and disrupt the process adequately that we could save £1,800,000 per hour and reject our vassal status as a little group of Regions in this Supra National, corrupt, centralised undemocratic EUropean soviet - membership fo which has been so damaging for Britain & our peoples.

May we leave and excercise our human right of democracy and self determination in Independence with Justice, Sovereignty and control of our own borders & foreign trade, diplomacy and commerce restored, rather than alien intervention from our commercial rivals.

Let us hope Mrs. Merkel is right and our MEPs have the integrity to disrupt her evil and obscene ambitions sufficiently.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Women's charm may prevail and she might be lucky this time round or unless she has some EU leaders at the background who are willing to support her in a much larger group. Otherwise, I do not see her succeeding what's so ever.

The Constitution has been rejected by voters but the governments of Member States and the Commission persist with it.
The E.U. is run in the interests of those organs of power,not in the interests of the citizens.Mrs. Merkel's speech makes it clear that the power structures of the EU will not accept the will of the electorate if they don't agree with that view.
The electorate's response should be to refuse to accept those things that the EU seeks to impose when popular consent has been witheld.
Many governments around the world regard their own population as an enemy,and the British goveernment is starting to behave as if it regards its own population as suspects.
These developments must be resisted and defeated if we are to retain anything of the idea of the sovereignty of the people.

I should be resurected and it should not be watered down.

Anything might be O.K. PROVIDED
TURKEY were dropped for ever.

A Frenchman of course!!!

Anything might be O.K. PROVIDED
TURKEY were dropped for ever.

A Frenchman of course!!!

Will this be another try by the god botherers,(I read somewhere that she is one),backed by the Vatican to get Christianity mentioned in the Constitution, religion should not have a place in it.

I think, the Eropean public is not well informed of what the Constitution is all about.
Can we have one minister give us the
basic resume of that, But not Tony Blear, we don't want any Sexup, only the basic trouth traslated in 20 different languiges.

Alessandro

I do not think she will have much sucess, after living in Germany for some time I believe the German people are against it. Also what makes her think that countries like The Netherlands and France will vote "yes" this time round?

She has no chance of it being accepted in the present form, it must be watered down. As a resident here in the Netherlands I would definately vote against it again.

Nothing has changed! The majority are against it. It will have to be watered down or the wording will have to be seriously foggy to get anywhere.
If voted for, even in a watered down form, we can be sure that piece by piece it will be strengthened until we have no independence at all.
Start saying NO! now. Or better still get out of Europe. We would be far better off, and we would be able to get(with a change of government first) control of our borders,laws and fisheries.
Sue Smith, Coventry, England

Not needed, not wanted, a waste of time.

Angela Merkel's attitude to the constitution is typical of the anti-democratic approach of the EU; the attitude that broadcasts: "we politicians are elite and superior people to you , the plebs we condescend to rule. We know what is best for you, so if you reject our wonderful ideas at first, we will just 'educate' you until you see that we are right and you are wrong (or we'll find some way to bend our own rules to do what we want anyway)."
Ms Merkel should start by offering her own people a referendum on the constitution and she might be dismayed but not surprised at the result, - a probable rejection. If she were to do this and receive a proper mandate from the German people, I for one would have more time for her current crusade but she will not do this for the same reason that she will not listen to the will of the French and the Dutch, - she is determined to continue the process towards a United States of Europe that a majority of the people do not want.
Even if she were to succeed, against the will of so many by somehow forcing things through with the help of like-minded Euro fanatics, such shot gun marriages are not conducive to marital harmony. She would create only disharmony and strife where there was once peace, not the happy, clappy one Europe that she hopes for.

This suggests that Ms Merkel is reverting to the totalitarian practices which she learned (with ease?) in East Germany. If we wanted to be part of a dictatorship then Britain would have folded in 1939

good idea! I hope that she succeeds. Without new ideas and new enthusiasm the european project doesn't go very far, especially not here in England (not Scotland :) So cross fingers that the Germans succeed!

LET US TRUST THE LADY HAS ALL THE LUCK IN THE WORLD GETING THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH I WOULD TRUST HER 200% MORE THAN AN MEMBER OF THE PRESENT SITING GOVERMENT WE HAVE TODAY. YES I AM ENGLISH BORN IN DEVON BUT WE HAVE GONE FAR TO FAR AWAY FROM OUR ROOTS UNDER LABOUR TO MANY NON BRITS BEEN LET IN KICK THE DAM LOT OUT>>

Well ! Does not the very word conjure up . Making everyone equal. The world is not ready yet for a great levelling.The idea that constitutions can make ppeople adhere to a set of rules is futile . Goverments may agree but with toothless penalties , Constitutions are just words. I would honestly say that Germany has elected, to wave a none boat rocking flag, in its decision to back a call for a European Constitution . I would have liked her to make a point of eradicating discrimination of her Eastern neighbours who work for her economy ,and to support for the fight against global terrorism. The mandate that elected her ,probably bars her from getting involved in many of the planets problems ,of which she has many at home to cure.
R Berrow

this is an affront to popular democracy. if the constitution has been voted against by a population this should be respected. continually "running the race" until you win is the kind of arrogant behaviour that politicians indulge in to our cost and is what earns them the contempt of many.

Of course she is a brave lady as well as able to turn the others' opinion in favour.

I second her voice.

Best of luck to her.

As a limited trading bloc, the EU was a valuable asset to the handful of similar economies which participated in it. As a hopeful continental sized nation superstate encompassing a large number of highly diverse economies and social structures it is an unmitigated disaster in a terminal phase of decline. The very notion of the EU constitution was badly flawed. Unlike the American Constitution which lays out in a few short pages of plain language the structure and powers of government, the most recent 500 page tome was a typical European construct which sought to proscribe every aspect of every life on the continent. How many people actually read it? How many could even understand it if they had? Not having a working constitution is only one of many problems facing the EU. Its desire to grow into a major politically unified force was greater than its realizaton of the need to find a workable structure to govern that force. Now it will live with the consequences. Angela Merkel seems to be acting from a position of desperation. At least she's smart enough to understand the plight. One thing she can be sure of is that the US will not become a de facto member of the EU as she apparantly hoped in her recent visit to Washington. This time Europe is strictly on its own. Another is that if she miraculously begins to make progress, she won't get very far with it as her time will be up and she'll be replaced by somebody new who will have very different ideas.

If the government would get us out of the EU we wouldn't have to worry about the constitution!

If she is going to ignore the wishes of the electorate then can we ignore the regulations that are brought in on the back of it?

Thought not.

In which case are we allowed to hold a referendum at a later date to get rid of the constitution?

Thought not.

Ever get the impression that politicians are in it for their own vanity and self inflated egos? Obviously our Prime Minister does not fall into that category .....

By far the biggest single mistake the EU elite have made, after 50 years of extremely successful "softlee softlee catchee monkey" tactics was to believe that they were so close to total victory that they could afford to stop pretending and bring in a Constitution that would finally make it clear to all but the purblind that their objective is a single State called Europe.

Having now recognised that mistake they are now planning to bring back the two ways - through the front door a second time (as they did in Denmark over Maastricht and in Ireland over Nice)by ignoring objections and giving "another chance to give the right answer" or if that fails, through the back door, piecemeal, replying to complaints that they have no legal basis for each step by saying "Show me where it says we can't".

It is vital to recognise that it makes no difference which way it happens - it is going to happen whether we like it or not - and the ONLY way to avoid a EU Constitution (that would over-rule our own) is to leave this fraudulent, incompetent, anti-democratic and doomed farce as soon as we possibly can.

Like tomoorrow. Better still, tonight

The constitution was effectively killed off by France, ao much so that Tony Blair shelved the vote in the UK, in order to save the EU further embarrasment.
This is just so typical of the Euro fanatics.
They should learn to move on. The EU is a half baked idea in its present form and in my opinion the only way to make it work is to split the whole area into regions, abolish national governments and create a system similar to the USA. Can you see anyone buying THAT.

This sums up the whole nature of the EU. What they can't get in through the front door, they bring in through the back. The EU is corrupt.
The sooner the public wake up to this the better - but they never will whilst the media portray the EU through rose coloured glasses.
Let the ´óÏó´«Ã½ take the lead in giving the subject the attention thats needed before its too late to save the sovereignty of our country.

First a comment on the above editorial. The constitution has not yet been dumped. At least, not as long as all heads of state agree upon. That is the reason why countries are continuing to vote (mostly through parliament) on the matter. If my count is up to date, 20 have expressed their position of which 2 have rejected the treaty. Therefore, 5 including UK do need to still go through the process. In theory, if 80% agrees, the text can be enforced.

But, in the long run, the true question that was not addressed by the current treaty under proposal is what kind of European Union does the people of Europe wish? When that is solved, the next treaty is much easier to define. So, should it be a business plan or a political one to design?

I remain convinced that the countries already in the Eurozone should create a true political union based on a (con-)federate model. The Veimar republic model could be a reference.

By the way, a test in UK can be asking the Scots if they would prefer a political union with continental Europe rather than England.

Daer sir
plaese tell them Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel if have some looking for relgioge poeple I,m not the right one becouse I do belive in any thing Secoend She did sighing up to making a tarding accounet in any bank in germany She and some of this Groups are have thing agiant case wich I don,t have some one in germany or an weher She bring all my Infmation to the police stition I, m coprating with the Stock Mark around th global and the Germany gevermeng dosn,t accepting.
I have a trading licens with the Gev.Tax Nr and more I can,t going in an bank a I get any Account and I can,t have a credit card thas throbel to stay in Germany.
am end they are Talking eine mensch ein mensch der vergess der verdehernt smthing like this.
they aren,t registioned my adderss in wich I living Can talking She have som proplim with Berlin or.

It seems strange for the Germans to re-introduce the constitution as such when all we need are individual components enacting separately as is already happening for it to be implemented without any fuss. However, they have always made it clear as one of their intentions.
Hopefully it will be much more simple this time dealing only with the questions of national veto and majority voting.
Hopefully it will then succeed.

Why?. Why does she think that she, or any other politician, has the God given right to sign up millions of people to something that a lot of people, and in this country, the vast majority, dont want.
This can only be enforced if it is the will of the majority of people in EVERY country and the majority of people WITHIN THE EU.
Again, if any one country rejects it, it cannot proceed, either as a whole, or in part.

The EU Constitution is dead from the neck up and down. We don't need it and I for one don't want to pay the inevitably high price for having such a goldmine for lawyers...

Poor Angela has obviously been in the job too long and is looking for a fast way out. This could be it!

Here we go again. Why is it that the "Leaders" of the EU never accept NO in any referendum. They always keep on and on until they get the answer they want.

I hope Blair isn't going to try and sneak this through Parliament without us having a say!! I have heard a rumour that Blair will try and sign up before Merkel finishes her stint as President in June.

These Eurocrats are not true democrats, the people have already decided that further political integration is a bad idea. Are they going to repeat their performance with Denmark over the Maastricht Treaty and keep putting the referendum forward endlessly until the people can no longer be bothered to vote against it?

Regarding Angela Merkel's reviving the idea of imposing an EU constitution. 80% of our law comes from Brussels . Any measure our House of Commons passes can easily be struck down by Brussels especially if the Human Rights lobby grasses on us. Brussels wants to tighten the deadly boa constrictor grip it has on us and ckoke the life completely out of our law and customs. The proposed constitution will be written by unelected eurocrats.
Roger Brunskill

It wasn't widely publicized a year ago how in 1999 the entire European Commission had to resign due to allegations of corruption. In the midst of loud pro-constitution propoganda (with astoundingly vague terms like "opening up the boundaries for tourism") neither was it heard how on average 5 billion Euros per year 'disappear' from the EU budget. Not surprising, perhaps, since most of the media in the major EU countries are pro-constitution. A serious approach would include coming to terms with these facts openly, and covering ground in dealing with them effectively.

In 1954 the six most powerful nations in Europe, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands formed the European Coal and Steel Community. At that time the UK decided not to join. Then in 1960 the UK formed EFAT which was an alliance between The UK, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Then in 1973 The UK applied with Ireland and Denmark to join what had become the European Community'(EU). In 1975 I was a Deputy Director of 'Britain in Europe' when The UK held a Referendum on our continued membership of the EU. 67% of those that voted supported our continued membership. At that time it was unanimously agreed the overwhelming reasons for the existence of the EU were to provide a realistic and strong balance in the Cold War between Russia and USA as well as to enable economic partnership between the members.

Between 1973 and 1995 we added a further six nations bringing the total membership to 15. In 1991 at Maastricht it was decided to change the name from the EU to the European Community (EC) and in my opinion that is when everything started to go wrong and the Federalists saw a way of hijacking the show.

I would like to put the question 'Who really wants a Federal Europe' It is not like the USA where all those applying for Citizenship have first to swear an allegiance to the American Flag and become Americans first. In Europe we are and always have been totally separate Nations and are all proud of that fact. An Economic Union YES, Freedom of Movement YES within civilised limits but NOT a Federal Europe.

In 2004 we added a further six nations and next year a further six making 21 in all. Yes we should have a strong Economic Europe but surely not all members should or are equal. As with all societies though out the World there are people at all levels not everybody can or for that matter want to be equal.

I firmly believe that we should reject a European Constitution as totally unnecessary and irrelevant. Let us take stock and try to build what was originally envisaged namely a strong Economic Union of European Nations to combat what surely must be the greatest threat to our prosperity namely the Growth and eventual economic dominance of China and the Far East.

get us out of here, far away from these idealistic, unrealistic people, whose views seem to bear further and further no relation to everyday life of myself and anybody I know

get us out of here, far away from these idealistic, unrealistic people, whose views seem to bear further and further no relation to everyday life of myself and anybody I know

The Constitution was a fiasco because it deserved to be one.
I am not against the European Union but I voted 'Non' in 2005. The EU constitution should include -and only include- the First part that lays symbolic foundation between countries that share the same Christian culture and common values.
The Second part, which wasn't at the time supported by Valery Giscard d'Estaing, ruined it all.

The EU needs a credible and functioning constitution. For the Dutch and the French to have voted it down, in spite of the shortfalls, was, shortsighted. They missed the bigger picture, specifically, the human rights issues and protections, not to mention establishing a collective legal framework with which to proceed forward. What problems there were could have been fixed and amended along the way.
It will work if you exclude the Dutch and the French in the next round of voting -- the consitution should not have to be ratified by all EC members anyway -- a simple majority would do just fine.

It should be interesting to see how the Lab/Lib/Conservative conspiracy of silence on the EU's control of our country holds up in the face of this. Depending on who you believe the EU controls 70%-80% of the law making in this country already. Couple that with the fact that the EU has been slipping bits of the constitution in by the back door in spite on the French and Dutch 'no' votes. Come on Brown/Blair/Cameron - who runs our country is the only important issue in UK politics now. You can't duck it forever!

I have no idea what is on this ladies mind.
However, it may be a resurgence of Germany's age old dream for the domination of Europe.
If history does repeat itself it's somewhat overdue.
1914-1918
1939-1945
Berlin wall-1961
1989-reunited Germany-2007.

Let us hope that she has the same result as the last time this was tried.

The goal of the EU is the unification of Europe, which will destroy the old national boundaries and loyalties. This is now within sight after a 50 year uphill struggle. The EU - Europe will take over all aspects of government within 10 to 20 years creating a new country, and this country will need a constitution. Andrea Merkel is quite right to press ahead with this key aspect of the European project despite the setback to it engineered by reactionary forces in France and The Netherlands.

Consulting the ignorant public on these important and complex matters is foolish, they just do not understand the issues. Andrea Merkel should tell her EU colleagues that there will be no further referenda on the constitution. This may require changes to the national constitutions, but these will soon be redundant along with the nation states that own them.

There is now no doubt that there is a network of political elite that have there own agenda, their own plan and nothing but nothing least of all the will of the population of Europe will stop it.

We are faced with nothing other than dictatorship by stealth - it is only a question of time before the population will have to confront their so 'elected representatives' to establish Freedom and Democracy in Europe.

We are facing a new kind of totalitarian instinct - a politically correct we know best conspiracy

The road to hell, paved with good intentions.

The moral for modern times: Circumstances alter cases ! And Amen to that !

I believe, (as many european do) that citicens havent been taken into acount on all this extensions. And the map of Europa has never included Turquia. So unless the politicians care more for the citizens opinions, they will be doom.
Its been bad eunough to take in such a harry 12 more members without even asking the citizens.

Germans are never asked, maybe she will make a new law forbidding a referendum!

People forget it was only a few years ago that the British people were told unequivocally that there was NO intent for there to be an EU superstate, with its own police force, army, anthem, foreign office and secretary, embassies, currency,president, legislature, border controls and finance controls - all of the things in fact which make up a Nation State. The British people have been lied to since the 1970's by the traitor Ted Heath and continue to be lied to by the present government and opposition, in what is the biggest con in history.
The EU Constitutino proved once and for all time that that is exactly the goal towards which the political elites of the member countries are working - and against the wishes of the people themselves. France and Holland showed that to be so.
Said arrogant elites will try to, and will in time, force through piecemeal everything that is is in that objectionable Constitution so that the member states become just vassals - part of the New European Soviet under the control of a small political oligarchy - just like Soviet Russia used to be.
What Britain needs desperately is to assert the Bill of Rights 1689 and GET OUT of the EU as quickly as possible to regain that precious commodity that people fight and die for - SELF GOVERNMENT.

Democracy is seemingly dead - I guess we will have to take to the streets (if we stop watching Big Brother and soaps!) What is particularly depressing is there is no real petit "revolution" which may be necessary if we human beings and citizens are to reclaim our rights and voice.

I for one am quite happy for the EU to have a constitution - but only with with the following conditions:

1) the language of the whole of the EU will be English
2) the currency of the whole of the EU will be Sterling
3) government of the EU will be based in London and only the UK population will be given a vote
4) the name of the EU will be changed to the UK

Sounds like a good idea to me.

What a farce it all is! Why have a vote if those that concoct it chose to ignore the result?

Back in 1973 we were told that we were merely joining a 'Common Market'. Now it turns out to be a politicians' dream to support their egos and the well endowed bureaucrats under them.

There remains the fundamental problem that for some the EU should never be more than a free trade area and for others the 'vision' is political union; two incompatible aspirations. For the political unionists the constitution is a vital stepping stone and this debate is a vital test of ‘the will of the people’ however the Irish vote on expansion has shown us that when it comes to referenda ‘go back and do your homework again until you get it right' is the preferred EU strategy. The EU is a brilliant vision that has turned into a scandalous gravy train and we should keep saying no until there are fundamental reforms and a majority in favour of Union. That is the one democratic right that trumps any would be constitution.

Will someone please get us OUT of this bureaucratic white elephant that is the EU! Angela Merkel can resurrect anything she likes, as long as we are not part of the gravy train.

Blair promised us a referendum, please don't let this be another lie.

Cameron says, absolutely nothing at all.

Europe doesn't recognise England so England shouldn't recognise Europe?

Dear Sir,
The ATLANTIC CHARTER of 1941 promised the peoples of this Island freedom from Londons colonialism, The English still wait for their manumission. The London Gov't only represents £ondon it is a dysfunctional entity only concerned with its own welfare, politics is about locationlocationlocation and nothing else, it is our real estate.

Fundamentally there is no left or right public or private all there is - is the city and the Country. Wonder who put the side into country-side - who sidelined us - who confounds our imaginations with visive grammer and ... spellings. The geofascist London Governments acidic coinage confirms we are made to be slaves to our own language, who prostitutes our tung - why should we believe in belief to beleave - trust is cheap and love is blind!

The English Flag is not one of their cleverly - deliberately concocted distraction such as the cross of st george (inspired by the myth of Bellisarius) ... it is OUR ENGLISH FLAG and nothing - else! Why be Double Crossed, remember only Citys have Empires and Empires only recognise colonys!
Here is the key to our stolen inheritance
The Atlantic Charter of 1941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 14

Declaration by President Rooseveldt and Prime Minister Churchill

Later called "The Atlantic Charter"


FIRST, their Countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

SECOND, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

THIRD, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

FOURTH, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

FIFTH, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic adjustment and social security;

SIXTH, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

SEVENTH, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

EIGHTH, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.


Franklin D. Roosevelt

Winston S. Churchill

Oh No, not another "tidying up" exercise

The posters in favour of the EU Constitution might have their own agenda. There is no doubt it will be beneficial to one or two classes of people, especially if there's an eye to a post within it. Also, there might be younger, eager people who see it as a salvation from our own politicians; but let them beware of who and what the EU is comprised of. People who have long memories are rightfully suspicious of the political class, wherever they hail from. No.74's post used the word "power-hungry". He's right. Haven't we all noticed the ever-grander and ever more costly EU summits, the panoply, the "topping" of venues, menus and entertainment, the quarrels over order of car/retinue/photo position, imagined slights by this or that "top" politician? Royal protocol has nothing on the demands of the EU higher echelons - elected or unelected. Things never turn out to be what was "sold" to us. Loads of Constitutional things have already been put in place via the "back door".

Reply to Greg Lance-Watkins

.....or Mrs Merkin who pickles a fine gherkin in her spare time!

It seems that some in the EU want the EU to be as big as possible. With even Albania and Georgia joining. At the same time these same state(s) don't want proper working institutions. It's obvious with a very big EU and no proper rules this EU could only but colapse. The UK loves this strategy of unruly growth. And the US don't want a strong EU, becoming its rival. Isn't the UK a vazal state of the US? Looks like Blair is a Trojan Horse put forward by his boss Bush to destabilise the EU.

Bill Potter #44
So if I understand you correctly, the poison the citizens of the EU won't swallow voluntarily in one gulp should be forced down their throats in smaller doses or administered intravenously whether they like it or not because you say it's good for them no matter what they think. So that's what Europe's concept of democracy is all about. We have a different name for that where I come from. We call it "tyrannical dictatorship."

she´s strong willed but she won´t alter the leaderless EU. Also, her proposal is so typically German---"let´s make everything neat and tidy". She hopes to tidy away the EU attic, stack the boxes neatly and tidily without daring to look what is actually in the boxes.

Before we can have a united Europe with a proper constitution, we must be able to vote for our European leaders. The people of Europe do not want decisions made for them in Brussels by unelected leaders.

THE CUROPEAN ON-STITUTION..WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH A CURE THINKING ON-STITUTION

The purpose of Europe seems to be to cure each town and contributor of every source of argument activism local culture energy appetite and debate..

So where is this going for libertarians ...who want to create our own language and worlds...if we are all declaring our freedoms our ambitions and our dares

...against... the ethnic purity delusion of eminent minds...

We support polyversity of culture and farming

I love to say it's a good thing to try and revive the constitution, but German chancellor is not the right person to try and do that at this time of their presidency , German chancellor is increseingly be seeing as serving the interest of the american gorvement , for that facy alone i dont think she will succed and i should say , she as absolutely shown that the germen chancellor will not get any thing done nor have any effect on the EU as whole with start of the presidency clearly showing that she want to undermine the french public and the dutch. well i look forward to the summer and see what result or effect the german presidenct will have on the EU.

The sheer momentousness, grandeur and utter vagueness-of-declared-purpose/status of the EU make my flesh creep, even before I contemplate the mendacious utterances of the political class that have sought to distract from this coup by stealth.

A few of the strongly pro posts on this page make clear such creatures' contempt for the non-elite population. They seem quite content with a state of affairs where we proles do not understand what is good for us, since in their eyes, we are mere livestock to be husbanded, slaughtered, replaced with outside stock etc as necessary.

The only occasion that this country did benefit from being in Europe was on , June 6th, 1940 when we invaded it.

The only occasion that this country did benefit from being in Europe was on , June 6th, 1940 when we invaded it.

This proves that we need to extract ourselves from the EU rapidly ... while we still can.

If Scotland can withdraw from the Union, then England can withdraw from the EU.

Of course, England would be facing obstacles that may actually be assisting Scotland's secession.

For instance, England would need both:
- a strong and incorruptible political leadership, more interested in the needs of its electorate than in serving its own selfish ambitions,
and
- a non-political non-partisan fact-reporting English news media, uninterested in foisting its poltical/social ideology onto the public.

So not much chance there!

"The broad public is simply not educated enough to vote on this matter. Let the experts do the job who actually know what's in the constitution and can judge the big picture."

So Charles, you don't believe in democracy then? The only people who will benefit from the whole excercise are the so called 'experts', the politicians. Quite frankly they are the people that I would trust the least to make this decision

In many ways our current "democratic" leadership is worse by far than the old constitutional monarchies ever were. Our democratic elites form teams of professional liars and lawyers in order to maintain their grasp on the public purse strings, but have no long term interest in the fortune of the nation they pretend to represent. The aristocratic rulers tended to own large tracts of land, and therefore had an interest in increasing its value to hand down to their children.

1. The EU club, formed 50 years ago with 6 members, now has 27 and needs to update its rule book. So I've no problems with a new Treaty, but think 'Constitution' is too big a name for it.
2. Let's remember that France and the Netherlands voted 'No' in their referendums as much for national political reasons as hostility to the Constitution. This is an inevitable risk that has to be faced whenever the public is asked for an opinion.
3. Why did Newsnight have to present the issue in such a puerile way? Ditching copies of the 'Constitution' may be ok for the 'Sun', but we expect more from a public service broadcaster.

Ex French President Giscard d'Estaing said that the proposed European constitution was ‘so complex that no one person could understand the whole document’. Another major contributor to the drafting of the constitution (Lord something or other, name escapes me) said that the broad scope of the document meant the true meaning of many portions of the constitution would only be discovered in the courts, once it had been adopted. After listening to one constitutional pundit contradict another over a period of many months, I became convinced of the truth of these statements. The European constitution, as it stands, is a shot in the dark and will further undermine the sovereignty of Britain. This issue will transform the fortunes of Nigel Farage and UKIP.

Sir, I am totally against a European Constitition being forced on the English. I emphasis, English not British, as the English nation has been subjected to attempts to subjugate its sovereignty over hundreds of years that have seen the Scots supporting the French to achieve a similar state. Now we are being attack by a coterie of over paid bureaucrats who will try to get us to submit. We have our own (albeit unwritten) constitution that has worked for centuries and have a reputation (questionably until recently with our illegal attack on another sovereign country) as a leader in the development of democracy thoughout the world. I believe in Europe as a trading 'nation' - lets leave it at that.

Before anything else is signed in this corrupt bureaucratic rag bag of an EU the auditors should sign off the books.

Only 7% of the European budget can be accounted for!

It's not just the Constitution, Frau Merkel might have to try and rescue the Euro too !

Let´s just sort this thing out about the Germans being "dangerous" as the UKIP MEP put it in or as Hugh Jones above said they need "cohesiveness". The truth is such.

After the fall of the roman Empire, the Franks (originally from the German area) took control of the roman province of Gaul. The franks empire (das Frankenreich) grew and grew incorporating the saxon area in the north remaining a broad collection of fifedoms until the political unification under the king the Germans call Karl the Great and the french call Charlemange. He was christened in what is now france but had strong connections with Aachen now in Germany. He was also very intelligent and was literate. Sometime in the ninth Century he was pronounced Holy Roman Emperor by the pope. Hence France and Germany under the Franks (orignally Germans) became the official succeeders of the roman empire. Karl divided the Kingdom between his three sons, roughly along the lines of what is now, 1.Germany, 2.Austria, Switzerland and Bavaria, and 3.What became known as France or Frankreich.

France, Germany were the cultural economic and military power houses of the middle ages and until early modern times, the printing press and Martin Luther there was much cultural exchange and stability. The Germans learned a lot from the French, agin not at all hermogionising and facist. Here´s a case in point Martin Luther was a German (a saxon) and he was the biggest leader rebel of early modern europe. His influence caused the break up of the Germany conflicting catholic and reformist states which co-operated with one another. This again only eventually became peaceful again through clever diplomacy and cultural exchange. So again diplomacy regional independence and cultural exchange were more important than unity.

This was the birthplace of the German desire for unity, the religious wars were bloody, then came the French revolution and Napoleon and the Germans saw unification of the separate German speaking states as the best way of protecting their interests from interference from France, this was entirely justifyable, who wanted to be ruled by the French? The word for the German language (Deutsch) is a corruption of Tuistsch meaning peoples language. Deutschland is simply the land of people who speak German. There were big new reforms brought about upon the formation of the second German in 1815, for freedom of speech, and intellectual freedoms influenced by France but the aristocracy were still allowed to play a role in running the country. So the Germans throughout their history until 1930 were liberal, intellectual, reformers and not disciplinists and hermogenisors. there was some oppsition to the unification from Heinrich Heine the German poet for one who writes a Satirical collection of poems called Deutschland ein Wintermärchen, Germany a winters fairy story about how things had gone downhill on visiting his homeland.

To cut a long story short. Modern day Merkel knows that Germany is at it´s best not when it dominates, but learns from other countries. She is very brave becuase she wants Germany to forget about it´s reputation for the past and no longer always take a passive military role in peacekeeping for example and she wants Germany to take a lead on the European Constitution. She doesn´t want to enforce a Hitleresque German dominated Europe, as the UKIP boss was suggesting when he called her "dangerous" because the vast majority of EU countries ratified the constitution, they want it!! And above all she wants their voice to be heard, and for a social aspect (becuase the CDU party stands for a mixture of democratic socialist and free market politics) to be maintained in Europe. Why should the rest of Europe sell its political soul to the Devil and become like us. It is us that are bullying her, calling her dangerous "like a Nazi" being at the back of our minds. Mr UKIP your party should go back where it belongs IN THE SKIP. UKIP BELONGS IN THE SKIP. Just look at how Germany has done so much good over the past fifty years and all we´ve done is complain about them. Lets have a union of close friends not be imperious UK isolationists.

I have to just say something that really makes my blood boil about every time implying subtley that all Germans are Nazis.

I grew up in a London playground still singing "We won the war in 1984", I watched the endless documentaries about the Nazis on British TV and so on. I lived in Germany as a 1 year old in West Berlin when my father rushed me home to be educated "british".

But what courage the Germans have shown over the last fifty years. The Germans would love to talk openly about the war and what it means, but they feel they do not have the right to do so. They cannot have an open debate about Naziism, they cannot weigh it up rationally and ask what was good and bad about it, becuase they are constantly told this part of their national identity stinks. There are many things which have been associated with naziism, certain atrocities for example carried out by other 3rd parties like the Russians for example blamed on the Nazis which Germans do not have the intellectual right to disprove, they have to try and influence foreign investigators to write papers on these things for them.

In school, Nazis are bad, and they are German forefathers, no one can write essays or debate to the contrary and this drives what otherwise would be healthy debate about good and evil underground, sometimes into neo facist organisations.

There were many normal Germans who hid Jews from the Nazis in the war, unsung heros, who reunited boys and girls with their mothers, who helped people, even though they were members of the party themselves and if they spoke out, they were shipped to the eastern front. In Micheal Degen´s Book "Nicht alle Waren Mörder","they weren´t all murderers" the famous actor in Berlin tells us about his true life as a Jewish child in hiding in Berlin, being hidden away from the powers that be, and helped by Nazi nurses and so on who knew he was Jewish and who eventually lost their lives for helping such people. To understand just how much pressure normal people were under, a Nazi official fell in love with Degen´s mother and wanted to resign from the party, he felt sorry that her husband had died in a camp and he could not go on believing the Nazi rhetoric about how Jewish women were supposed to look becuase he thought she was so beautiful, within 6 months he was dead. No one hears about these little stories of courage.

And what about our war crimes! Dresden. This was no mean feat. So many innocent people died in one night (tens of thousands), some of whom were immigrants trying to escape from certain death and rape at the hands of communist soldiers. So many bombs dropped that people tried to jump out of windows into the rivers to escape the heat not knowing that the water was boiling and they were cooked alive. The bombing was totally indescriminate and applauded as an act of revenge by the head of the RAF, People who were opposed to Hitler died there, people like those who helped Degen, people who had already lost their homes in Schlesia. Had that happend now it would have made 911 seem like a drop in the ocean. Makes you think.

Then there are the post war heros of Germany. Konrad Adenauer. Mayor of Cologne who lost his job because he didn´t turn up for a Nazi rally in the 30´s and began to condemn them. Who lost his first wife early on, was
in a concentration camp during the war, lost his second wife becuase she was tortured by the Gestapo so badly that she never recovered from an attempt to take her own life inside and died 1 year later, who narrowly avoided being killed by the US soldiers accidentally at the end of the war and who became the first German chancellor. Who led his people from the dark into the light in his seventies and eighties. Why don´t we ever have a ´óÏó´«Ã½ documentary about him. He is a hero, Hitler was a villian lets forget about him, and celebrate the heros of the anti Nazi movement.

I know it´s not on message but it is relevent to our current thinking about Germany. Germans are defenceless about Naziism all they can say is it´s a fair cop sir, very true, even though it´s not even relevent to most of them and even though they know some things that are said are not true. The best thing would be for us Brits to take an interest in encouraging the Germans to have this internal debate and internationally too. Let´s involve them, it was our attempted punishment of them that led to the second world war and all that it meant. Lets take a close look at our war crimes in WW2 let´s take a more rational view of our treatment of this European Partner.

We can do without comments like those made of UKIP, using existing predjudice to back up their own outragous policies, like ripping England out of the EU.

Sorry to go on about it. Reading my text I would just like to say I am in no way justifying any of what many Germans DID do in WW2. Its just that living and studying here I see the effect that it has on what it means for my generation of German people.

Hate and predjudice breeds hate and prdjudice too. I remember a professor at a German uni reading an essay of mine about Rilke´s poetry. He totally took me to pieces over it, complaining about everything from the language to my ideas. And then he said that when he studied at Leeds in the 1960´s or so he tried explain something in English and was told by the English professor, "whenever the Germans try to say something, they always end up face down in the mud". Now I don´t know whether that had any effect on his judgement of my essay but I thought it was rather disturbing.

Another example of such feeling was my friends scout visit to England in the eighties. He tells me all the English scouts didn´t talk to the German ones and greeted them with "Heil Hitler" whilst the Isreali scouts played with them talked with them at had a camp fire with them. This is so typical of the kinds of things which go on, even on a political level.

We just need to rethink the way we treat the new generation of Germans, there are strong anti facist direct action groups in the West of Germany but sadly anti semitism and other forms of racism are flairing up in the east again, and it is in our own political interest to help Germany deal with this the best they can. The last thing we want to do is fuel the fire of neo facists by the kind of petty racism and predjudice we see from many countries. Can we in Britain take a lead on this and stop the vast majority of Germans, who are freindly becoming frustrated by predjudice born out of crimes they didn´t commit. If my grandfather was a murderer, it would be ludicrous to try me or taunt me about his crimes, so why do we do it still.

We are in the EU because we were lied to on two occasions and our politicians have lied to us incessantly ever since.

We should leave the EU immediately; the mess this may cause will be as nothing compared with the mess we shall become if we remain members.

The EU will mean Civil War in this country and only the historians will be able to say when it started - remember the tanks in Czechoslovakia?

Hugh Waldock #98, 99
In 98, you said you were going to "cut a long story short." Then you cut it even longer. I get like that myself...towards the end of a bottle of claret.

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"....just as long as I don't have to read it all.

Waldock - The 'moral equivalence' argument is what has lead to the current state where a prepared and predatory intruder has more rights invading a persons home than the sleeping home-owner who responds with fear and alarm to an unprovoked threat. The idea that a desperate blow forced by threatening circumstances from a half-awake person (unshod, clad only in their pyjamas, eyes slowly adapting to whatever light there is, and whose intention is to defend and protect) has to be weighed equally in law against an opponent who has every advantage (and whose intentions are unknown and will only become known if they win) I regard as quite mad; and the associated idea that any blow from the home-owner has to be of minimum force to stop the immediate physical threat is unrealistic and impractical, (as such an assessment, plan and application of measured minimum force would be extremely difficult even if one were fully awake, prepared and trained for such physical action).

Such is your approach towards the Great Britain of World War 2 facing the aggression and barbarism of Nazi Germany, state facing state. You may say there were nice Germans within the Nazi state but the truth is that they still supported that state and as such were acting against Great Britain. Was Dresden an ally, did it rise up against Hitler? No! It was an asset of the Nazi's wasn't it?

I'll exchange story for story. A friend of mine, a schoolboy at the time, was looking up at a German plane reurning from its bombing run when they fired on him with a machine-gun; he told me 'they could see I was only a child, there was no-one else there, why would they do that?'. Clearly, he had never heard of the bombing of Guernica (1937). Nazi Germany set the limits of barbarism and I cannot see that Great Britain, even fighting for its very survival, approached them.

As for the attitude that RAF Bomber Command should have taken a more considerate, selective and humane approach with its actions - well, I think 'Bomber' Harris may have been thinking foremost of his duty towards Great Britain and his responsibility for his men (55,500 aircrew were killed. It had the highest attrition rate of any British unit). It is a disgrace that the government witheld the campaign medal from Bomber Command.

(Of course, it was a Labour government that witheld the campaign medal from Bomber Command, even though Labour were part of the coalition government that authorised the area bombing of German cities as a strategy, not for revenge. Is there a word for those preening self-righteous people who carry a guilt for which they expect others to pay dearly?)

In Harris's words at the start of the bombing campaign - "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." When Nazi Germany was dominant and there was only one way to strike back then Bomber Command lead the way. They were carrying out the duty they had been assigned. I'm pretty sure they didn't enjoy it, that they were shit-scared and that it will have scarred the lives of the survivors. Why don't you run them down a bit more, eh?

Guilt-driven revisionist attitudes such as yours are commonplace in those who receive the benefits of winning but did not have to sacrifice anything in the struggle to win; such people can always do things better with hindsight. Why, if you knew last weeks winning lottery numbers before that win was decided then you could do things differently at that time, couldn't you, though next weeks selection will still be problematical.

Waldock, again - As to current European attitudes, I have worked with Germans and found it a pleasant and productive experience. So pleasant that I subsequently visited Germany on holiday several times and I always enjoy it. I only have phrase-book German (and always need to refresh even that before a visit) but the Germans I have met appear pleased whenever a British tourist makes the effort to try to speak their language, though to carry on a conversation depends upon their very good grasp of English (a vastly different response to my similar efforts to speak French in Paris).

On one trip to Berlin I visited Sachsenhausen concentration camp; I applaud the German effort to maintain the memory of dreadful war crimes so that they won't be repeated - by anyone.

But what other lessons can be learnt from this German effort. There are three memories I would like to share from that visit, a couple of which are relevant to the political framework of the EU.

1 - It was grim, going through the camp, and it takes a long time to see everything but I forced myself. By the end, when I was leaving, it seemed to me that there were no birds flying overhead and no birdsong, lifting my feet to walk was an effort and I felt drained. Later that evening, over beers, my friends said they had similar experiences and still felt a shadow from the visit.

2 - During that visit one large hut was closed to visitors because there was a convention of Germans meeting in it. Being nosey I poked my head around to see what was going on; I saw that all the photos showing atrocities were still on the walls while all these Germans were eating a cooked lunch, chatting and laughing in a very convivial atmosphere, something I felt jarring.
(Possibly people can be gradually and persistently exposed to unpleasant ideas they might otherwise choose to avoid or resist, and over time they will become accepting, even oblivious, of them.)

3 - Part of the camp is dedicated to a museum, containing period photos, letters and relevant information. What seemed clear to me was that the Nazis were clever enough to focus on political, religious and community leaders who might be the kernel of any resistance to Nazi rule. Once those leaders were removed the ordinary people had no safe options to resist the Nazis.
(Of course, the Nazis were murderous, unsubtle madmen in a hurry. Otherwise, without any violence or killing, just through cynical manipulation of the law and clever adjustment of the political framework they could have simply:
a) reduced the political choices so there was no resistance to their policies;
b) set in place an elite that was not politically representative or accountable;
c) lived lavish lifestyles;
b) skimmed as much money from the state as they wished.)

I am not saying the EU is anything like that, but it seems there will soon be an EU political elite in place (+ cronies), who:
- will not have been voted in through political representation,
- will not be accountable to the public so cannot be removed at the public's needs,
- will be running an organisation where hundreds of millions of pounds are unaccountable every year.
Naturally, this idea seems totally ridiculous, but then why is it that EU auditors who complain about large financial irregularities lose their positions, and the politicians responsible can throw a hissy fit until they get their way.

Dear Derek,

Maybe you are right. The whole issue of Naziism is a very complex one, becuase it is very difficult to draw a dividing line between national German cultural heritage and naziism. The arguements are very very complicated and you simply can´t begin to understand them until you have been in Germany for a very long time, understand the lanugage and all of the different points of view. I have been at uni in Germany for the past four and a half years and my German is excellent, I have lived under a number of different conditions and have seen many side of German society.

The problem is in England we look at the behavior of these people but we don´t understand the reason behind it. Hitler took German literature, songs and culture and demonised it. He spun it, rather like some of our modern spin doctors (which is what I find so alarming). This is for all to see in the German national anthem. What was a new concept in Eurpoean thinking "Deutschland", the voluntary and negotiated unificaton of German speakers for the purposes of stopping German ideas disappear entirely in the wake of the French revolution was reinvented by Hitler.

It came to symbolise forcible unification, aggression towards and the surpression of others to their detriment in order to "conquer" greatness for the people of Germany.

But the original meaning of working as a team to achieve the best for your people, yourself and others as seen in the third verse (now the only verse) which has been an essential and deeply impregnated element of Germaness since 1815 (maybe not so much now) could have be misconstued if Germany had continued to use it´s team building skills to look after its own interests. The Christain Democrats seek to use German qualities for morally sound aims, such as its potential to help growth. I think the CDU feel that these good German qualities could be used not for evil but for moral purposes such as insuring the stability of Europe.

For a long time European Nationalism was the only acceptable form of nationalism in Germany and there is this pent up aggression that Germany cannot show its true self. A case in point being having to take all German flags down after the world cup, which many Germans resented.

I think they need help from us to sort out a peaceful solution to this current psychosis in relation to national pride in order that they can go forward, if necessary without having to push for an EU constitution and to allow them as sceptics of their national identity to have a recview of what it means to be German. This is essential if you don´t want to push for an EU constitution. They must sort out HOW they are allowed to be and peacefully be in a co-oprative rather than single Europe.

Hope you understand me.

Peace and love

Hugh

Jesus, sorry Derek there are some glaring typos and so on in what was otherwise a good arguement. I hate spoonerisms.

Corrections:

Paragraph 2

"demonised them"
"He spun them,"
"German ideas dissapearing"

Paragraph 3

"misconstrued"
"their potential for growth"

Last paragraph

"review"

I´ve been here too long!!!!

Don't worry, they weren't getting in the way. Interesting stuff but has led to some introspective thought and quite a bit of reading.

By way of coincidence (if that's the right word or circumstance) not all the words of God Save the Queen are usually sung either. And I did find the words of the 3rd verse of Das Lied der Deutschen , I think; is this the verse you meant (seems relevant)?

Unity and right and Freedom
For the German fatherland;
For these let us all strive,
Brotherly with heart and hand.
Unity and right and freedom
Are the pledge of happiness.

In reference to your post 103 which I´ve just seen. Please read this and 105.

Just to pick up on the Dresden thing. Dresden was an absoulute ambomination.

I used to think like you, my grandfather was a war MBE and was involved in the strategic planning of field hospitals. He was one of the first in to Bergen Belsen and he hated the Germans for the rest of his life. I fully understand the situation people were in and I thought just like you, with the facts presented to me at the time, seen from my very British angle and my English education.

However, when I lived in Kassel which was 70% destroyed because of the Henschel factory I began to open up to the possibilty of a more balenced analysis, there is always 2 sides to a debate. I learned that 10,000 people died there in one night. Can you imagine that. One day you´re going to school with your mates and the next day at least five of them are dead.

Blanket bombing is murder, and it doesn´t matter how you justify it, it is indescriminate murder, people being boiled alive, sinking into boiling tarmac, innocent people like my friend´s grandmother walking through Dresden with a pram, trying to shield her baby´s head from the heat with a damp cloth and then walking from Dresden to Berlin to find shelter having lost their home.
There was no tactical reason for it the German army was already finished. Nowerdays we wouldn´t quarm about risking our own troops to insure the lives of others, would we.

I´m sorry but I think Dresden was a big deal. I´m scared to go there and show my face as an Englishman such is the resentment there still. So judge the arguement for yourself.

Ask any politician and they will tell you that the trouble with democracy is that the electorate don’t always vote correctly. This is the reason we will never get a democratic vote on Europe. People are nationalistic and if threatened will stand up for their country. Look what happened in the former Yugoslavia when one of the countries that made up Yugoslavia wanted out. Is this the fate of Europe again? This will happen when the countries of Europe are united as one, but one of those countries feels aggrieved and wants out. Talks will take place, and then back handers will be given. Some other country will want the same so threats are made and then finally action and war.

How can we speak about a decent Christian burial in respect of anything to do with the EU, in particular the East German Communist referred to?

Angela merkel was an organiser for the East German Communist Youth Organisation, so it is in her nature to think that she can order people around and get her own way. There is no difference between the old Marxist-Stalinist thought process and the modern "we were commies but we aren't anymore" gang's view of the world. Half of the British cabinet are "former" communists, so I am sure they will be quite happy to oblige Frau Merkel

Which part of NO! doesn't comrade Merkel understand?

its not only time bury the EU constitution
its time to bury the EU and let its people live

I am not adding my comment because I would be banned, silence is more appropriate
I hope the UK will NEVER EVER join or agree with treaties or mini treaties that could overwrite far better regulations and put at risk democracy
but is best to not go in deep
mouze
Italy