It must not, that is the point.
Germany once was the Holy Roman Empire of german nation, then a bunch of indepdendant mini states, then part of empires and nations, these days the EU. Still, a guy from Hamburg and a guy from Munich are as distinguihsable in fashion, language and customs as they ever were.
Lately, however, some ppl have started to define tools as identity.

Currencies are a tool, so are financial systems in general. They were built for a purpose.
If they are marked as "identity", then you start having a problem, because tools are instruments geared to fullfill a task within a then present reality.
Realities, however, change over time and if your focus is to let things stay the way there are simply to let them stay the way they are, then you lose the ability to adapt to new sitations. That is the moment you lose out.

That is the reason why the US is losing out currently, that also is the reason why the UK and much of western Europe is losing out, because they do not adapt to the realities of a rising China and a developing third world in general, but want to stay in the cozy 80ies.

Evolution at its finest.

But yeah, suprisingly enough, it is the british foremost stating this fear of loss of identity. Yet have to hear it from any other European. I suppose when you live here and see things at work, you are much more at ease with realities compared to that rather theoretical british approach.

Populism and herd instinct. Switch off your brain and let others do the thinking (deciding) for you. Working like a charm since Adam and Eve(TM).

Daniel Hannan...

You can't ignore Hannan. He gets to the point, and doesn't confuse with big words... and long speeches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObI5m5CXVQ&feature=fvst

Very to the point, perhaps a bit unecessarily over-dramatic though.

That aside, he's not doing his job. As a member of the European Parliament he's supposed to represent the EU, not the UK. That's the job of the people in the Council and the European Council. It's complicated, but members of the European Parliament don't have constituencies like in Westminster, instead they're supposed to represent people based on ideology (so a UK MEP could be repsenting people in France, Greece, Romania or whatever). Anyway, the point is, him standing up and making that speech (along with a lot of other speeches he's made) would be rather like an MP in Westminster standing up and saying 'Hey, this whole government thing isn't working, we should give it up.' That's not how it's supposed to work and people like him are just hindering things unecessarily.

EDIT: Just to be clear, it's perfectly fine if that's his opnion, but he should voice it in the Council, not the Parliament, because that is what the Council is for. It always concerns me that EU citizens don't really know what MEPs are supposed to do (i.e. represent the Union, not their member states), although that's probably largely the fault of the Union for not explaining it to anyone, but it's even more concerning if even he doesn't know what his own job is supposed to be.

This video is at European Parliament..

same meeting as thread starter posting.

That's the point I was making. It's kind of complicated to explain without going into too much depth, but the example of the United States is always a good one.

The Council and European Council are somwhat like the Senate, in which the people in them represent their member state (or state in the case of the US)

The Parliament is somewhat like the House of Representatives, in that they are not supposed to represent their specific member state or state, but the Union as a whole.

Therefore, it makes no sense for him to be discussing matters that relate to something that the United Kingdom has done because even though he is British in the European Parliament he does not represent the UK, but the European Union.

If he were in the Council or the European Council these kind of comments would make sense, but he isn't, and therefore they don't. It is sort of like having anarchists elected in parlaiment, it doesn't really serve a purpose. They are not elected to the parliament to choose how or what to govern, but to simply govern over what is given to them in the treaties. In his capacity as an MEP (same applies to Farage) there is no point in him expressing these opnions (although of course he is more than free to do so) and, at the same time, his opinions therefore don't matter to anyone important in the Union because it's not his job and he has no real effect on these things. Again, as I said, it just hinders the process by wasting everyone's time.

Anyway, I've spent quite a lot of time studying EU Law and the treaties of the EU and it's the fact that the EU doesn't make any effort to educate people about what it does and how that most annoys me about it. But at the same time, I still haven't found a way to explain it in a way that's very easily understandable either. I just wish that peoples reasoning for not supporting the EU was based on fact and not heresay perpetuated by the press, members of government and people like Farage or Hannan.

One world, one race, one nation.
My a...:evil:

The Euro is dying.

It will soon be dead.

As soon as the British Pound is worth Two Euros, i will leave my Island Home and live in Germany.

Best Regards,
MB_Euro.

You're not kidding! Everything you have just posted about the rights and responsibilities of the EU parliament and it's members and it's relationship to other EU bodies and the council of ministers is totally incorrect.

What specifically about it was wrong?

EDIT: Ok, I've had a look at the treaties.

As to what I said about the Council (used to be the Council of Ministers, but they changed the name), article 16, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union (from the consolidated version post-Lisbon):

"The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at a ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote." - Therefore, members of the Council represent the interests of the member states, as I said.

As to what I said about the Parliament, article 14 paragraph 2, same treaty, though I've seriously cut it down because most of it is irrelevant:

"The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens." - Meaning, like I said, they represent the Union (or the citizens of the Union), not their Member States.

I can go deeper into the treaties to show what I said about the relationship between the two, the decision making process etc., but it's boring and written in very long-handed legal speak so I'm not going to post it here.

Knowing these treaties is my job. If you can find any other articles in the treaties, or anything elsewhere, that proves me wrong, seriously please let me know, since I am interested to read these sorts of things and although it is my job, that doesn't mean I know everything so would like to learn more. But, as it is, that's how it's written in the treaties and so that's how it is as far as I know, unless you can show me otherwise :P

Daniel Hannan is the elected member for the European parliamentary constituency of South-East England. He represents about 850,000 people! He is a member of the British Conservative party and stood for election under the Conservative party banner. His job to to represent them and speak for them in the EU parliament. Just as if he were an elected member of the British House of Commons the functions are the same. He was not elected to represnt the "EU" he is there to represent his constituents. Within the EU parliament he can say whatever he likes, that IS his job.

Plenty of people across Europe but perhaps not within the UK understand the function of the EU parliament. That is why Congo-Otto called it a "blatherer shop" earlier in this thread. The EU parliament is still a rather toothless Tiger. Although it has been gaining more powers recently it has no powers to introduce legislation on it's own. These powers are still reserved for the EU Commission and the Council of Ministers where the real power still lies.

Daniel Hannan cannot speak in the council of ministers as he is not a member. The council of ministers, when it meets, is made up from one representative from the cabinet of the government of the individual member states. Since 2009 you cannot be a member of the EU parliament and a member of a national parliament simultaneously. Therefore he cannot speak in the Council.
Nor can he speak in the Commission either as the Commissioners are appointed by the Council of Ministers although the EU parliament does have a veto over the appointment of the Commissioners these days.

I'm not sure what you mean by him "representing people in Fance, Greece, Romania or whatever". Are you confusing the function of the "blocks" within the EU parliament? Under the leadership of David Cameron our Conservative Party left the European Peoples Party - the main centre right block and joined the "GranPa was a war criminal" party of the rather further right movement. Daniel Hannan was instrumental in this rather bizarre move.