Hmmmm...so it's ok for a military to use its strength to impose a Dictaorship, but wrong for Democracies to establish Democracy and freedom from persecution and terror.

Your opinion of the EU is somewhat corect but mostly wrong. The EU council (PMs/Presidents) set policy and can overturn the ECB at will.
I largely agree that the EU parliament should have a wide power remit.

I think Tony would be good for the EU as head and I wish him well.

Your general sentiment appears to be one of utopia rather than that of the real world, which is a pity.

In general, I fail to see why socialism is ok for us but for those that advocate world socialism, it falls at the neraest hurdle that a mad lunatic, such as Saddam hosted.
You see, Bob, you appear to stick up for lunatics who practice terror upon their own.

Can't you see it?

Gary

As so often, Gary, you completely miss the point. In fact you do this so often I think I would have to put it down more to malevolence than stupidity. When you get back from signing up for the task force to invade China, try reading it again.

We are not opposed to dictators, autocrats, monarchs nor even absolute bastards. Nor are we opposed to mad lunatics. Suharto was responsible for the deaths of anything up to 2 million people when he came to power, and 250,000 plus more when invading East Timor and estimates of half-a-million others during his reign of terror. He suppressed opposition, jailed and murdered trade unionists and according to the World Bank embezzled up to 30% of Indonesia's development budget.

Did we:
a) invade?
b) threaten to invade? or
c) continue to trade happily with Suharto and his band of thugs?

Go on, Gary... have a guess?

So, Gary, don't tell me I stick up for lunatics. It is you who want to be picky about your lunatics.

You are wrong about the ECB too. They set the European inflation target and establish its monetary policy independent of national governments. In fact Sarkozy has had his knuckles rapped recently for having the temerity to criticise the independence of the ECB... which wouldn't make an ounce of sense if, as you say, he can ignore it anyway. Nation states still set fiscal policy, Gary, but that is somewhat different, and the Eurocrats have that in their sights.

We need to press for a clear three-tier democratic federal system for the European Union, with legislative power being determined by parliaments at European, Nation State and (where appropriate) Regional-sytle levels. Which could only be democratically achieved via referendums.

When it comes to trying to export democracy, we should press for international institutions (including the United Nations) to be run as democratically as is feasible - even if some of its members will have serious democratic deficits. When seeking to assist democratic developments in basically undemocratic States, we should direct our attention to assisting their internal democratic forces (who may be forced to act in a clandestine way). It might be counter-productive in places to seek to use Western Governments to engage in this work, as they often have other agendas for interfering inside other nations. But there are interest groups within democratic systems who need to provide such support (e.g. the Trade Union Movement and what remains of the extra-parliamentary Labour Party).

Military intervention (democratically sanctioned) may in special cases be justified to, say, prevent genocide. When this invervention takes place, the agenda should then be to reconstruct the society concerned with aid and encouragement given to its internal democratic forces. But the notion that we go out to impose democracy upon systems is a contradition in terms. Did Miliband learn nothing from his Dad?

I've just read the Guardian article you have referenced and I'm afraid it looks like you are setting up something of a strawman so that you can knock it over. Miliband is only quoted as saying that sometimes we should interven militarily to support democracy.

The rest of the article doesn't really do much to address what "sometimes" means - but it does indicate some circumstances where it might be the case such as

- organisations like the UN or Nato should consider offering "security guarantees" to new but fragile governments, conditional on them abiding by democratic rules;

- support for "civilian surges" for democracy led by "literate, better-educated people able to access information and communicate with others".

There are lots of cases in the past where parts if not all of the Left has supported military action in order to support democracy e.g Spain, Poland, Bosnia (or at least some of us), Sierra Leone and I can think of other cases where the Left have supported military action in order to remove/restrain dictatorships (e.g. in East Timor - but the list is pretty long). Hopefully supporting democracies and removing/restatining disctatorships is what the Left does - the real question is how and what does "sometimes" mean when supporting military action. It isn't the same as "never" or "always" - and perhaps before we get into the next mess it is time that we have a proper debate about what it should mean - and on that score I think Miliband is right to raise the question.

We could of course follow the standard foreign policy analysis of some on the Left and just oppose the US position whatever that may be.

Being a good internationalist - I do believe that the main solution to this problem must be through international bodies. But, if we think that the UN is fit for purpose in this regard we are deceiving ourselves - and perhaps we need some long hard thinking

Quite frankly the subject is of such importance that comments about the EU are of second order( Yes democratic accountability can be improved within the EU - but you do have to be a democracy to join the EU)

a blast from the past Miliband,kenya,sudan, ireland, iraq,palestine, all great morale expeditions of the empire, david msut have been a sleeep during history lesson, or perhaps he wants to repeat the lesson of past and present failures of the empire.

Ahhh..I see. It is me that sticks up for lunatics and it is you who sees reason. Well, at least we've established that you are the 'voice of socialism' and I don't believe a word I say(!?).

I disagree at tad though. Where do I start?

Firstly, we have to establish the 'British interest' or bog standard British values.

The British interest will always involve the economy (my view. Iraq sat on oil and a nutter, busily gassing his own people, stuck two fingers up to oil dependant Nations of the world. I needn't dwell on what was bound to happen.

British values probably relate to Suharto. hy would I waant my country to invade him? For what gain and at who's cost? (similar to Zimbabwe).

Britain can only do so much, physically and I think this may be Miliband's approach. As far as 'values' are concerned, these are manly 'free issue'.(Pakistan, for example).

So, Bob, it's ok to go on about how treacherous, the Blair idea of socialism is, but in the main, he did what he did and at his own expense (that was for Harry Barnes who wrote a bit of nonsense here the other day).

Your socialism is utopia, Bob. Nice, free but in general, unobtainable. Not that I think your dream is unworthy, far from it, I just think it's not in reach. We do what we do and what we can, whenever the circumstances allow.
It mainly doesn't, as umpteen ignored UN resolutions bear witness to.

Saddam got away with murder for far too long because of Utopian socialists, whom argued till they died of Saddam's 'rights'.

Your interpretation of the EU and the power of Gordon Brown (eg) to raise, or reduce interest rates, I believe is wrong. The PMs and Presidents have the power to alter the economic policy of the ECB, if they believe it to be wrong. Am I wrong? It's a brave man who suggests the saviour of Stoke, the saviour of the People's Republic, is wrong.

Gary
President for life (if I can find a Country that will have me)

Stephen, you raise some good points, as does Harry. Where I worry about Miliband's speech (as reported - as I say, the article may not accurately reflect what he is saying) is where talks about having this policy but bearing in mind our own economic interests. Do you get the impression the Government are preparing to support even "civilian surges" for democracy, let alone overt or covert military action in, say, Saudi Arabia? I think not, somehow.

The EU think isn't entirely spurious, either. It is an institution we are part of and it has a massive democratic hole in it, which our foreign secretary should be addressing rather than fancy talk about governments over which we intend to develop a whole range of diverse responses to, depending upon the level of our 'economic interests'.

Silly me, Gary, and there was me thinking socialism had something to do with adopting principles, and all along I find we just have to behave like the Tories anyway (who also have principles - but not ones that I would subscribe to) and deal with everything on the basis of whether we can make a shilling out of it. Mrs Thatcher would be proud of Stoke's finest.

You're not necessarily wrong about the ECB... you just don't understand how it works, that's all.

One of the reason I opposed the "regime change" business in Iraq was that it would make it that much harder for places where bona fide intervention (pace Darfur) to take place, but oh no. Boy George and his sidekick Tony plunged ahead. I have just been vindicated!

I noted that you said
"perhaps they could start much nearer to home. No, I don't just mean scrapping the House of Lords with its chamber full of hereditary inbreds, the privileged rich and those promoted through patronage and paychecks. He could also spread the message of democratic enlightenment to that bastion of democracy.... the European Union."

- Surely a better starting place would be the UK. How can anyone claim that we are a democracy when the party whips decide how votes should go? Too many people I know don't vote any more because they feel that our system is bankrupt. How many people (apart from 'Tony' who wanted his history book entry) really wanted a war in Irag? How many believe that the new EU 'not-a-treaty' is in fact not a treaty? Are we all happy NOT to have a referendum opportunity? If we had one, would the wording be other than leading? Does anyone trust a politician as far as you can throw one (if you can extract their trunk from the gravy trough)?

OK then, Bob, just say why democracy should not be supported and exported by Britain and British values?
The way I read you, is of a pre-Neil Kinnock policy review. Unilateralist Socialism.Wonderful. Trouble is, we were nailed, we were toyed with by the Tories. Then came the policy review. Some took it on board and some didn't. I have my own nuclear warhead in my backyard now, I was sold the story.

Today's socialism is not yesterdays socialism, and that is a fact. Hated by a number up here in little red book land.

So we are where we are and globalisation is as bigger enemy of socialism as Thatcher was. We could get rid of Thatcher, but not globalisation. Now what?

The spread of democracy, for democracy's sake, is as good a weapon as I can think of.

This talk of 'taking a shilling like a Tory' is flawed. Firstly, I am not a Tory and don't think like a Tory.You've never heard me suggest that we should tax dead people.

I do, however, admire your principles of supporting the underdog, but at this point I ask you to take caution, simply because as I wrote earlier, you seem to champion terrorists comitting acts of terror in the name of freedom (Hamas/Palestinians/Saddam/Sunnis you name it).Go on, admit it.

David Miliband can't do everything and I suppose he's described as a 'progressive socialist' whereas you are 'old Labour'or is it 'just real Labour' (whatever).

What David Miliband can do is the 'do able' and that is support the push for democracy fot those denied simple access to conversation.

In short, old Labour dwells at navel gazing and new Labour doesn't.
Some of my mates who are die hards to the death, agonised over Saddam's loss of rights and the bombing of his men in arms.
Not me, I followed it closely for 20 years and wasn't really bothered about wmd. I lost no sleep.
Old Labour needs to grow up and bring its principles into the 21stCentury.
The spread of democracy is the buzz word for now.
More rights for the masses, less rights for the dictators. What's non socialist aboutn that?
I've puzzled over two things lately. One is that Democrat delegates may vote Republican if they wish (and vice versa) and also who can and can't alter(PMs etc) ECB policy.

I either dreamt it, or I am right all along.
I say I'm correct on both scores andI stand by it.
Politics isn't hard, Bob. it's just a matter of opinion, that's all.
Gary

No, Gary, I don't champion terrorists. Once again, you are either malevolent or stupid. It is you who wants to support dictators. You who are worried where your next pair of Nike trainers will come from if you don't suck up to YOUR dictators. I was just one of the stupid ones who thought Robin Cook's notion of an ethical foreign policy didn't mean following the US into wars for oil or smiling at dictators who murdered trade unionists for opposing exploitation. You clearly think it is OK as long as they are our friends.

You were just duped into thinking the Iraq war was about freeing Iraqis or getting rid of dictators. I hope they're not all that gullible in Stoke.

Did you support a task force to invade Chile to get rid of Pinochet? Of course you didn't... I grieve not for Saddam but for those who have died being "liberated", and those bombed on a daily basis, and starved too, for a decade before that to soften them up for the kill... all in order to control the oil fields of Iraq.

Some Canadian twerp told be the US didn't invade Iraq for oil because Canada had the second largest oil reserves in the world. Well, just see how good US-Canadian relations become if the Canadians start getting uppity and thinking it's all theirs.

OK Bob, I'll concede that you don't champion terrorists. But you don't like it when the other side has a katyusha rocket dropped into a school playground, and then has the temerity to answer back. Go on, admit that one.
The Gaza strip is run by a terrorist organisation, outlawed by the UN and yet you defend them from any Israeli response.
Where are you going with this sort of line?

Robin Cook was a wonderful man. The world would be a wonderful place if we were all like him. Unfortunately...............!

For some reason, you persist in doing David Miliband down. Why? You use the old chestnut of, you did this, so why not do that.You invaded Iraq, so why not Zimbabwe? You therefore are neither a socialist or worthy of the term, socialist, so help you God!

Saddam's Iraqi regime, was despised by the whole decent world and almost everyone signed up to its removal (take a closer look). Not everyone is opposed to Mugabe's Zimbabwe. End result-not do-able.

That does not make me a non socialist, Bob. It just proves that not everything is achieveable. Miliband suggests supporting democratic opposition in such countries from within. I have no complaints about that at all.

The Chinese way appears to be quite successful, so why the push for democracy from outside? Very simple,it's not good for business or the British interest, or British values.

I fully understand where David Miliband is coming from. For you to complain about the House of Lords, Parliament whips (I like that one-accurate really.) or the European Union, is just one big old Labour red herring.

A nonsense really.

The big issue and big question is: The spread of Democracy. Why? What for? Why should all Labour CLPs discuss this question? What is there to gain? What's in it for me?

Gary

I'll throw the question back to you, Gary.

Why do you always support the man with the biggest guns, Gary, is it something from your childhood?

When Bush threatens to nuke Iranians for having the temerity to want to develop nuclear power... who does Gary support, why, George Bush, of course.

When Sharon endorses the outright murder of Palestinian elderly men, women, and young children in a Lebanese refugee camp... who does Gary support, the poor beleaguered Israelis, that's who.

When Britain and the US invade Iraq but overlook the poor bastards of East Timor, who can we expect Gary to come out in support of? well, surprise, surprise.. let's back the forces of 'democracy', eh?

I would be deliriously happy if the Palestinians never fired another rocket, Gary.

Funnily enough, it is your good friends in Israel who refused to recognise the legitimate democratically elected representatives of Hamas... but that's OK Gary, because they are the most powerful, and in your world view, that makes them right.

I bet you were the school bully's best mate too, eh?

Bob, you had me going there for o.oooooooooo672 of a second. Not bad for 'old labour'. Its a record. I normally suss them out in 0.0000000765 of a nano second.

Iranians developing 'nuclear power'. Only in Sandwell, Bob, only in Sandwell.

'Sharon endorses the slaughter of palestinians'. The term 'endorses' is a pearl.9/10.

Iraq vs East Timor? You seriously need to re read Davd's script.

For not recognising Hamas, I'm afraid I give you a whopping 0/10. orgive me for not supporting terrorism with as much vigour as you.

David Miliband is suggesting that people may begin to look inside themselves too much and become a little protective due to an inner insecurity and distrust (loosly my words).
Surely, it's wrong to sidestep responsibility in the world by a world power such as ours, because of past mistakes?

Are you sure that this does not apply to you and all that have a serious distrust of your own?

Gary

Harry Barnes? Isn't he dead? Oh yeah, from the neck up mostly.

What a sharp and cutting mind you have diablo. You are indeed a shining wit.... or was that a whining....

Having now read the speech (see link) could I urge Bob and Gary (and others) to read it as it certainly doesn't reflect what either of you were saying. The use of military intervention is fairly tightly prescribed, there is more than a mention of realpolitik and there many other interesting points - I certainly wouldn't read it as support for the status quo or what has happened recently.

I still think a lot more thought is about how to get the UN and other international bodies working effectively. Another topic worth looking into is how do we avoid Cold War II developing with Russia - which most on the right seem to be encouraging, while those on the left are pretty silent because we cannot think of any way to deal with the Russian elites

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1199211862424

Perhaps Batshit Milipede should considering spreading democray in Britain, particularly Sandwell. I visited Sandwell a couple of Sundays ago for a N.A.C. service. Boy is that town a shithole. No wonder my old friend Iman Abu Usamah is able to recruit so many terrorists.

I would never have guessed the National Association of Cytologists would have a wally like C4 in membership. just goes to show, eh?