ROFL!!! Sacre bleu!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Point taken.In which case I now propose a compromise candidate who might be acceptable to Schaveiger AND give both Sarkozy and Blair a run for their money.May I present...
 
http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/pepelepew.jpg
 
 

Hey! Bugs Bunny is an American!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

The rebate the UK get's since 1984 amounted to 5.7 billion euros in 2006. This loss had to be compensated by all other member states of which France contributed 1.6 billion. They call that "the British correction".

It is true that at the start the UK was contributing more than they got back but this is no more accurate. In fact, the "net contribution" is very difficult to figure out exactly. It is therefore difficult to get official numbers. I don't know which parameters the BBC used to calculate the "net" but I'm pretty sure that they'll be controversial with the UE ones (for if they exist).

Anyway, the UK was the only one who claimed a "rebate" while others did not. Now claiming the presidency is a bridge too far for me ...

@Schaveiger

Perhaps you and I can agree upon a compromise candidate for Herr POTUSE.
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Falling_hare_bugs.jpg
 
He gets my vote.
 

@ Schaveiger
 
Er,dair ain't no  "Could be" aboud it! Ask the Wabbit...

Schavagier: "The UK contributions per inhabitant are far below these of Germany, France, Holland and even Belgium."

Net contributions? Your source please for the net contributions per capita of the UK being "far below" those of France for the years I quoted. I'm happy to concede Germany and Holland. Do you concede Italy? (My source was the BBC, those well-known eurosceptics, because at the time I did my post the relevant europa.eu page was unavailable!)

Could be, but I prefer to be part of a big club rather than beg for help to a bigger one.

Bob Doney: Oh, the nation that between 1996 and 2005 contributed net twice as much to the EU budget as Italy and France?

Please use the genuine figures, not the ones chewed for you by the Eurosceptics.
The UK contributions per inhabitant are far below these of Germany, France, Holland and even Belgium.

Schaveiger: "A candidate from a nation who refuses systematically to contribute their share towards the Union..."

Oh, the nation that between 1996 and 2005 contributed net twice as much to the EU budget as Italy and France? That nation?

You are right atheling; poor Marvin can’t read well because of those voices telling him what to think and say.  He seems to have spent too much time reading about ‘conspiracy theories.’  Maybe he will run into a few ‘Muslim youths’ who will give him a sample of what life will be like under Shania law.  My guess is he will quickly submit and convert to Islam to avoid ‘offending’ them.
 
 

@ Huntsman

1) I see a clear conflict between calling someone "a potential indictee" (manifestly a pejorative term or 'designation') and then revealing that it is before a thoroughly corrupt institution.

2) I do not know  "prof. Reyntjes of Antwerp university" and I am in no position to judge whether he is "inestimable" or not.  But I certainly reserve myself the right to doubt that, merely on the basis that he allows himself to be even associated with any kind of UN-created 'tribunal' or with the ICC.  I simply have no confidence in the UN in general, and certainly not in anything 'judicial' that is UN-related.  If the Belgian bureaucray has a deserved reputation for being 'politicised', it is still miles better in that respect than the thoroughly corrupted and politicised UN administration. 

3) Who does prof Reyntjes think he is, sitting in his comfortable sofa at Antwerp univ., making judgments about someone like Kagame?  Did he spent years in the brousse, and in exile, fighting to free his homeland from an atrocious regime?  And when that regime proved its atrociousness, by starting and executing an internal holocaust, did Reyntjes urge the Belgian government or the UN to show some backbone of any kind?  Again, I doubt it very much.  So, how would Reyntjes behave in a 'civil war', or how would he control all his troops, after most of them find many of their relatives and friends hacked to pieces? 

If the UN or the Belgian government had lifted 1 little finger and had dared to stick their neck out (with the troops they had on the ground) to stop the atrocious holocaust perpetrated by their former 'friends', then they might perhaps have some inch of moral ground to sit in judgment.  In Nurenburg the US and the USSR sat in judgment of top nazis, but they had 'earned' that 'right' with the blood of their soldiers.  In the  Ruandan debacle, the UN, the French and the Belgian governments had shown themselves to be utter cowards and hypocrites, and they certainly do not deserve the 'right' to engage in their selective and politicised show trials.

4) My views on the Ruandan civil war are largely based on (a) the writings of the Canadian general, Dallaire, who was the UN commander in Ruanda at the time, and who got essentially 'abandoned' by his immediate political boss (Annan) and by the then-Secretary-General, and on (b) many lengthy conversations and listening to many African 'leaders' (including Kagame).   To me that carries much more weight than the opinions and ideological/political games of 'salongeneraals' at Antwerp university or politicians in Brussels and Paris. The latter would be well advised to keep out of 'verbal/political games' surrounding the central African wars that are inevitably going to come over the next few decades, unless they are willing to put the blood of their own soldiers on the line.

How can Marvin "study" history and read the news when the little voices in his head won't shut up?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Are you serious Marvin?

 
‘The threat of Islam is a myth maintained by the US and EU. At the next "Islam" attack we can be sure it will be an attack from the US and/or EU leaders just like WTC 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.’

 
Any one who thinks the threat from Islam is not real should read the news and study history. You only need to listen to what the Islamic leaders are saying today.
 

Donkey,rabbit,national sovereignty,it's all the same.Nor does the danger necessarily come from the stick or even the carrot.It's the wallop from the loon wielding that big club( of Europe) in the other hand that'll kill you,if you're dumb enough to hang around and let it.
 
http://www.klixxx.com/archive/archives/carrotandstick.gif
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Paranoid_Android
 
 

There is no conflict between the fact that Kagame is a potential indictee of the ICTR and making the observation that the ICTR is a less than wonderful organisation.

As the inestimable Prof. Reyntjens of Antwerp Univ. has so often pointed out there is ample evidence available which would pass the threshold for indictment against Kagame and a host of his people for egregious crimes committed during the 1994 war.

Sadly the ICTR wilfully refuses to indict anyone from the RPF side because they believe that that would halt the work of the ICTR in its tracks and, incidentally, thus bring the gravy train to an end. Kagame thus controls the ICTR by threatening, whenever the subject of RPF crimes comes up, to end co-operation with the ICTR.

I should like to see Kagame indicted but sadly it is a fact that the tribunal which would try him is a deeply flawed and deeply corrupt entity and he would be unlikely to receive a fair and timeous trial from the ICTR as presently run.

That fact in no way invalidates the nature of the evidence against him which is both credible and voluminous.

He also continues to preside over a military which conducts operations in The DR of Congo which routinely breach the laws and customs of war and which also amount in many cases to crimes against humanity and, probably genocide. As such he would be a candidate for the International Criminal Court but for the fact that Rwanda is not a signatory.

Given Rwanda's history of genocide, you might care to wonder why Kagame has not signed the Rome Statute and made Rwanda subject to its jurisdiction. I suggest it is because he would become a prime candidate for indictment as a superior authority who knows or ought to know that crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction are being committed by his forces in DRC but he steadfastly refuses to prevent or punish such crimes.

To be "defended" by liars and mass murderers?
Thanks, but no thanks.

Europe prefers not to be defended by those who mass murder their own people. See:
www.911belgium.be

It would be a great advantage for everyone on Earth if the US would die as it is today and would collapse into its state and Europe would never integrate into Euviet Union.
Big empires are realms of neros, hitlers, stalins, bushes, sarkozys, merkels, and the like. The threat of Islam is a myth maintained by the US and EU. At the next "Islam" attack we can be sure it will be an attack from the US and/or EU leaders just like WTC 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.

Democracy is a system of self-governance and designed for small countries, who have the sense of a big family and can develop a free economy, autonomous budgetary system, monetary policy and a welfare state of their own. We don't need thugs and parasites like Merkel and Sarkozy who spend their dear work hours paid richly by Europe's taxpayers' by designing a conspiracy against Europe's taxpayers. These troubled minds, power-thirsty thugs, liars and warmakers of the US and EU and their parasite administration (including Blair) may settle down on an other planet within another galaxy. Have fun building a brave new world over there. (Hint: you may invite some living communist experts of the past, as the best advisers on the subject.)

Although Blair's political skills are undoubtedly of a high standard, I think that there are more suitable candidates available. A candidate from a nation who refuses systematically to contribute their share towards the Union and unwilling to enter the Euro-zone should not be withheld. But Sarkozy maybe thinks that by reaching a carrot the donkey becomes less stubborn.

"The problem for Blair, and therefore Sarkozy, is that he brings, shall we say, some rather unfortunate baggage. He is the intimate of President George W. Bush whose policies generally make Europeans throw up their hands in horror and he, together with Bush, is seen as a man with blood, Iraqi blood, on his hands."
 
Question to the "horrified" Euroweenies: just who do you think if the US died tomorrow would have the decency and military might to protect you from the thugs, be it the Putins or Iran, of the world?
 
No answer necessary.  Sip your lattes and continue keeping your dhimmi heads in the sand, and, perhaps, reflect on all of the reasons that Americans find you pathetic. 
 
Blair is perfect as President of the EU, a non-elected self-designated socialist slob filling his private coffers and ego in Brussels.  
 
 

1) That the French public will have its reservations about Blair as POTUSE would seem a reasonable position to take.  But what is the rationale for this lengthy and manifestly biased attack on Kagame of Ruanda?

2) It is also reasonable to assume that central-african leaders in general cannot be exactly boy scouts, but Kagame certainly appears to have a much better record than his opponents, including those European governments that wanted to destroy him.  Let's remember that: (a)  the Ruandan holocaust took place BEFORE Kagame got into power in Kigale, (b) that the French government continued to help militarily the Hutu government that was perpetrating the Ruandan holocaust, and (c) that the Belgian government 'turned tail' as soon as some of its 'UN peace keeper soldiers' got murdered at the beginning of that holocaust.  Given the way 'francophone European governments treated Kagame, how can it be surprising that he has been seeking support from the dreaded anglo-saxons?

3) It is ironic that the author undermines his own position by: (a) first referring to Kagame as "a potential indictee of the International Criminal Tribunal for Ruanda (ICTR) and, (b) then proceeding with his own lengthy and justifiable indictment of the "appalling standards of this singularly corrupt institution".  How could it be otherwise, but corrupt?  Anyone who can take serious judicial institutions of a very corrupt and undemocratic 'international community' ought to have their heads examined.  I am afraid that would thus have to include the French (and European) public which wilfully-naively does 'believe' in such institutions.  How could the international community be a 'democracy'?   And how could a nondemocratic 'polity' produce a 'legitimate' judicial body?

4) While no one should have any illusions that terrible things occur in civil wars, it doesn't take much intelligence to be able to realise that Kagame is a much more 'civilised' African leader than most of his 'colleagues', at least if one is willing to engage them in a serious and lengthy conversation.  And if one is going to hold some people INDIRECTLY responsible for the Ruandan holocaust, then a number of European politicians (plus the 'passive' Kofi Annan himself) belong IN FRONT of Kagame on the bench of the accused before the ICTR.  Of course, the people that truly belong there are the actual perpetrators of that holocaust, and not Kagame.