 Saturday, June 14 – Episode #35  Click image to go to No Agenda. |
This Episode’s Show Notes by KD Martin
From our promising pundits’ manors in England and northern California — it’s another No Agenda!
Adam starts with the new EU Constitution and, as predicted, Ireland rejects the EU’s proposal. Adam has asked Parliamentarians about this but people can’t even read and understand it. The public has no clue. Is it a fascist European takeover?
Adam has a great way to get through airport customs and meets the Prime Minister. John wonders why some other countries don’t resist this EU constitution.
Off to Northern Michigan and a discussion about Keith Olbermann. To heck with sports, is he the number 1 Bush Basher? Yes! John says, “Obermann is obviously an Obama fan.”
Adam brings up the internet age, some quotes from 3 years ago and why is this stuff interpreted by a bunch of lazy journalists? John’s best quote, “Obama is basically the Macintosh Of Politics.” Adam wonders why they get angry emails about Obama bashing. John pegs it with how Obama will react when the “real journalists and comics take him on and put his feet to the fire.”
Is this a setup with the Obama camp? The Dvorak Uncensored videos are here. This video might be what Adam had in mind:
John still claims McCain should take Hillary as his VP and shows why she didn’t make it. We’ll miss Tim Russert. What’s this? Conspiracy theories abound.
Adam doesn’t like Marylin Monroe? John recounts some tales from his trips to Amsterdam. Whoa! Now, when I was in Croatia…
Adam diverts the talk into the Middle East. John asks, “Why do we send troops into these places? We should just send assassins and cruise missiles. Why are we in bed with the Pakistanis?” Oh boy, Indian take out. Adam might have things right with the “follow the money” angle.
The public is bamboozled by gasoline prices and the rolling blackouts, the greenies and the giant Enron scam. John brings up the next giant scam. Why was there no investigative reporting? Maybe we can sell some books!!
Adam and John argue over Hillary’s posibilites as McCain’s VP nomination. Oh, Good Grief, not the sorority sisters. Nice way to run a campaign, total incompetence at every level.
Adam gets a scoop and asks the president of Afghanistan, “How are you going to beat the Taliban?” The answer, “I don’t think we can defeat them by 2010.” Here we are pouring billions into this mess, and we can’t get out by 2010? “The core Taliban is in Pakistan.” Adam brings up even more conspiracy theories. John thinks we should go short on oil. [Ed. You read it here first.]
McLellan’s new book, “What Happened?” Adam and John’s summary, “Nothing.”
We’re off to legal land, Ireland and Gitmo. Will Adam spend 42 days in Gitmo? Maybe, but according to John, Adam is part of “the machine.” John claims the public has become extremely passive.
Now it’s sports. John claims that the American sports machines will see a dramatic drop-off in fans in the next 10 – 20 years.
Cue the closing credits — We hope you enjoy the show!
Running time: approx. 90 mins.
[Ed. Duplicate post deleted]
Okay Europe, I did my bit here in Ireland and voted “no” to save you all.
Now, next time,if you care so much, have your own bloody referendums (or whatever the plural is), and stop leaving it up to a country of 4 million people to rescue you all. We’re not your friggin’ fire brigade.
What was Keith’s name again?
Keith Oi’Bama-man?
The bad voice quality?
It sounds just like Skype when the band width goes down. It happens to me all the time when I am calling from China to a land line in the US.
This problem doesn’t seem to happen very often if at all when calling Skype to Skype.
Mr. C. Dvorak, there were a number of instances (such as when you were talking about Charlemagne and the Napoleonic wars) where it sounded as though you were having aaaaaaa strrrrroookkkke.
Other than that, superb, as always, for the NA podcast.
Funny, JC could “remember” going back to Charlemagne for the unification of Europe. Clearly he is not as old as he looks, cause he’s forgotten all about the Romans…
Kachingggg!!! 😉
As a big follower of European politics, I want to just make a comment on your EU discussion. Most of your concerns ironically enough would have been addressed in the Treaty.
The common tax, immigration and army issue allow countries to maintain veto power (1 member state disagrees, they don’t participate.) And the “EU Army” would be purely voluntary and Ireland would keep neutral status. Also, if the EU Army did ever get agreed upon, the UK and French would be leading it (and Sarkozy is leading the effort for one), as Germany has invested very little in their military and the French are actually asking them to invest more. The EU would become more democratic. It would give the National Parliaments a “red card” to stop EU legislation. If at least 1 million citizens sign a petition, the EU Commission would have to re-evaluate the issue. Also, the “non-elected” issue would be improved by giving more power to the European Parliament, which is the only democratically elected EU institution. The Qualified Majority Voting is only on certain issues. The common foreign and defense policy are still only by unanimous consent. And, one of the best pieces for the Euro-skeptics, it formalized a process to leave the EU, something the current treaties do not have.
The problem we can 100% agree with is that the backroom Brussels dealing and communication to citizens is awful. The Irish succumbed to FUD. Ireland will be neutral, retain its tax authority, and maintain veto over all common foreign and defense policy. Abortion and gay marriage would not be legalized.
Those who know American history should look at it and compare the efforts. From the Articles of Confederation and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution to today, they had the same issues. The States just integrated and moved much quicker than Europe is. The Electoral College was created b/c they did not trust the people (mob rule), it wasn’t until later that electors were tied to popular vote. Party bosses used to choose party nominees, again, until delegates were tied to popular vote. The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was the big debate over Federal v. State authorities. The Constitution also came into power with only 9 state ratifications. At least the Lisbon Treaty needs unanimous consent. Also, a continental war in Europe again is virtually impossible b/c of the EU, and won’t replicate the US Civil War.
The basis of the EU was to integrate so much that war would be economically impossible. When it was just the European Coal and Steel Community, the principal was if those industries were tied together, the war industrial machine would not allow the countries to fight against each other.
Sorry for the long rant, this was my first time listening to your podcast and I must say, quite enjoyable the way I got riled up. I haven’t explored you blog much and don’t know what your comment community is, but I’m hoping I’m not declared a troll.
Cheers
#7
RE: EU Army
I think you are overlooking the potential evolution of an EU Army. In the US, prior to the Civil War, the individual States contributed men to the centralized Army. However, after the Civil War, voluntary contribution ended for good. It is not difficult to foresee a time when the “voluntary” part of the Army makeup ends once the EU government achieves sufficient power. Granted, that might not happen for many decades or even a century or more, but it is not a stretch to see it happen. The biggest issue with a centralized army is no longer, I think, that it will be used to suppress dissent within your own country (although that is still a threat, just not the biggest threat), but rather that it would be used to engage in conquest overseas. The US, at the time it was founded, was adamantly against engaging in any war overseas and thus did nothing to assist in the toppling of Napoleon. Almost 140 years or so later, we were sending troops to fight a war in France.
> At least the Lisbon Treaty needs unanimous
> consent. Also, a continental war in
> Europe again
> is virtually impossible b/c of the EU,
> and won’t
> replicate the US Civil War.
On what basis do you think a European civil war would be impossible, especially if you compare it to the US Civil War? The US was far more homogeneous and had existed for about 85 years before Civil War broke out. Slavery was obviously a big catalyst but unfair tariffs, State sovereignty and the authority to pull out of the Union were equally at issue. It is not as if war amongst Europeans is a new concept.
> The basis of the EU was to
> integrate so much that war
> would be economically impossible.
I think economic cooperation and elimination of trade barriers and tariffs is clearly an admirable and mutually beneficial goal. However, in light of the evolution of the US Federal government, I would be wary of granted any military or direct taxation power to the centralized EU government. A weak central government is better than a strong one. The achievement of that power by those that wish to wield it will be done in subtle, clever ways. They will give people veto power, claim they can pull out etc. The States felt they had the same authority until Lincoln walked over the Constitution and used the Army to force the South to comply.
#8
RE: EU Army
You have an excellent point about the mission creep of the EU and the formation of the possible EU Army, but by your own comment, it is something that would not come for decades or a century or more. For the past sixty years, the EU has been going overall in one direction, integration, but in terms of the direct fears of the Irish in rejecting Lisbon, I feel the common army should have been the least of their worries. If the next intergovernmental conference instituted an army and Ireland disagreed, by all means they should reject the treaty, but Lisbon did not do this. It had one clause that set the stage for the possibility of it if some member states choose to.
RE: European Civil War
True, Euro Continental War is nothing new and obviously was a huge basis of the the 2 World Wars, but as the issue with the EU Army, it is something, that even if it became a dangerous prospect, would not happen anytime soon with the political climate trends. The member states are more hostile to Turkey’s membership and the “clash of civilizations” rather than another war amongst themselves. I would say a conflagration due to minority treatment as a trans-European issue is much more likely, and arguably I feel a more suited as EU level task. The Roma and non-assimilation of Muslims would spark fighting much more than the nationalism of yesteryear and all the member states coming together wold prevent countries like Italy currently singling out and scapegoating “undesirable” people.
In the end, this academic debate should be continued, but I want to keep re-iterating, the Lisbon Treaty is not as scary as your predictions. It may be a first step to EU-level militarization, but far from a point of no return. The “stopping point” is for another more ambitious treaty yet to be drafted, if it happens at all.
True.
I’m not a big fan of the way the European governments tried to slip pass the people this disguised Constitution. It was as if we (the people) are too dumb to vote on such important matters. But, OTOH, it’s true that the way Europe is constructed, nothing ever gets done. There are too many interessed parts in the negotiations and too many barriers. I believe, in the end, a treaty like this (and henceforth, a Constitution) will be necessary to the inner workings of a United Europe. But it will take time. And National interests will have to diminish in favor os the bigger picture: something that the current state of things percludes.
“John recants some tales from his trips to Amsterdam.”
Uh, I think you meant “recounts” ?
[Fixed, thanks!]
MikeG: Very good and well thought out post.
Keep ’em coming!