Interpreting Barroso
As far as I can see, only followed - but then I am checking online. Reading his words, is this interpretation right?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
I’m Mark Mardell, the 91Èȱ¬'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My previous blog, as the 91Èȱ¬â€™s man in Europe, taught me one thing at least: your comments are key. I read them all, so please have your say.
For the latest updates across 91Èȱ¬ blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
Latest from 91Èȱ¬ News blogs
Latest from 91Èȱ¬ News blogs
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
Subscribe to Mark Mardell's America
You can stay up to date with Mark Mardell's America via these feeds.
Mark Mardell's America Feed(RSS)
Mark Mardell's America Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
It's hard to see how it can't be. Barroso is telling Blair to 'ignore populism'. 'Populism', in this case, is the majority of people in the UK who want to say no to a European super state.
Given that every poll has shown a majority of euroscepticisim in Britain, Barroso is clearly telling Blair to ignore public opinion.
This should hardly be a surprise. After the French 'non' to the referendum, and the even more resounding Dutch 'no', the answer from Europe was 'Oh, they are just ignorant or they would have voted yes' and 'Clearly the constitution did not go far enough'.
The breathtaking arrogance of the EU enrages me.
Barroso's words about Britain, as reported in your blog were "We have to stand up in front of our national public opinions and not give in to populism." That appears to be no less than an instruction to British politicians to ignore the British people's opinion.
This may fit the EU's nomenklatura world-view, but cannot be described as democratic, and appears to justify The Telegraph's headline.
Mark,
It appears that the Sun picked up the story as well.
Given that as far as I can work out, apart from yourself they are the only two media outlets in the UK that covered the Barroso speech at all you might say that Farage's comments received a 100% hit rate.
Blair ignored populism when more than a million people marched to prevent war in Iraq.
All politicians ignore popular opinion to a certain extent, knowing how easily it changes or can be manipulated, but Blair has managed to do it to an unprecedented degree.
I'm slightly amused by those posting on this blog who feel the EU consistently ignores democracy. For decades in all its forms member states have always had the right to withdraw and yet none ever have, suggesting that whilst some in Europe may be frustrated their political opinions are not more widely held, that ultimately no leaders see a viable alternative to leaving the EU and they fear the consequences from the voters if they were to do so. On topics such as the "Constitution", I see it as no other issue where political leaders feel they must sacrifice political capital for the good of their nation; doing what is right may not be popular. This is an old political dilemma, and one I'm sure is shared by others in Britain, such UKIP who consistently advocate a total withdrawal despite the majority of Brits not wanting this. They can only argue for what they feel is right, so can Blair and the rest, through democracy they will live with the consequences, though on Europe, the British public has yet to punish any leader for being to enthusiastic, and that is the nature of democracy and Europe.
I don't think Barroso was telling UK politicians to ignore public opinion. I think he just wants the UK leadership to stand up against populist hysterics, clearly state a case for Europe and defend it vigorously. Although the UK, with its populist, irrational and special interest beheld media is a country that clearly needs an European champion, a similar statement might have been said in any other European country and remain valid.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
His words mean that British politicians have to make the argument for European cooperation - it's a strong argument, but they need the courage to make it.
The populist demagoguery that dominates any discussion of the EU in the UK is distorted, misinformed and misleading.
To make, and win arguments, to debate, this is the very essence of democracy - the bullying Euro(phobe)sceptics are trying to shut this debate down by scaring politicans off. This is anti-democratic and damaging to Britain's national interests...
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." (Edmund Burke, speech to the electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774.)
If all the countries agree with constitution except for the UK, I think the EU should go ahead and leave the UK behind. The UK should be able to decide whether they would like to join but should by no means slow the EU integration down.
Dear Mark,
Being ex forces i would like to ask you this question,
" At what point in the future do you see the conflicts being fought on the behalf of democracy, turn into full blown war."?
The major issues not yet determined are, water shortages, leading to mass immigration, and mass social unrest as nations are over run with migrants.
Three decades in Afghanistan, a deteriating east west relationship, and a Europe hugely separative and divisive, things aint happy are they.
" There will be conflict,"
Perhaps Mr. Barroso's speech should be interpreted in the light of the recent comment from the Italian President describing Eurosceptics as 'terrorists'?