The FT has noted:
The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, the latest in a string of controversial decisions from the Norwegian panel.
Thorbjørn Jagland, head of the Oslo-based Nobel Committee, justified the award by stressing the EU's role in bringing France and Germany closer together, and by helping strengthen democracy in southern as well as central and eastern Europe.
Hang on: Greece and Italy lost democratically elected prime ministers at EU behest.
Governments across Europe are having to give up powers to the EU and must impose austerity on demand.
This is democracy?
Orwell - spin in your grave.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Daring maybe, but I don’t think it’s bizarre.
You need to take a longer-term view. The prize has been awarded, not for the EU’s handling of the present crisis, but for its significant achievements over the last 60 years:
“The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe. ”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2012/press.html
The moment may be ill-chosen – though I’m not even sure of that. Personally, I take my hat off to the Nobel Committee.
I agree, the EU for all its faults, has made us all so inter-dependent that it has preserved peace for 60 years. Let’s not forget that the early part of the 20th century was when Europe lurched from one conflict to another. The Treaty of Rome was incredibly forward-thinking in seeking to take military conflict off the agenda.
Also anything that gets the eurosceptic tories (that’s all of them by the way) and UKIPpers choking on their G&Ts is undoubtedly a good thing.
I also agree. When you look back to the mishandled peace after the first world war, our leaders did a lot better second time round. The price of peace has to be compromise, and accepting countries can’t always do what they want.
Which is not to disagree with the view that current EU policy is disastrous
Perhaps now Henry Kissinger is not the most undeserving recipient of the prize.
Well that might stretch it a bit, but to award a peace prize given what is currently happening in Greece, is a slap in the face.
If you will nominate Genghis Khan I will nominate Attila The Hun.
Deal
I think anrigaut has a point.
When you say the EU is imposing, the EU is not a person or a state. The decision is made by elected leaders working together for what they think is the common good. Dictatorships use the language of patriotism but work in the service of ideology of a ruling group and also do their best to ban dissent. We are free to campaign against it-not like under Franco or in the DDR (East Germany)
The rationale of the EU is that together we can achieve things which 27 separate nations could not achieve, or only some would achieve, or most would achieve only to a degree. This means there has to be some surrender of an individual choice but more chance of getting that end by collective action. Their end is the common good but we would agree they are totally wrong on the means. Not only is it painful for the Greeks and others but the pain is largely unnecessary. But it is not only in the EU that that view reigns.
The EU is the large scale expression of other movements whereby European countries have come together e.g. CERN which gave us the web, Airbus which competes with Boeing or the European space agency.
One has to ask whether the free movement of labour and capital is for the common good or for the benefit of big business. This is the question which the eurosceptics from the left debate.