I guess it must be easier for the USA to only have to concern themselves with one country rather than 27, but I don't see why President Obama should start saying that Turkey should be in the EU.
The president also reiterated that the US government strongly supported Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union.
"Europe gains by diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith - it is not diminished by it," he said to a round of applause from the audience. "And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe's foundation once more."
Perhaps Barroso, now the EU is considered 'a country' and is present at the G20 - watch this space for their seat at the IMF which was included in the Finance Minister's Statement last month - and Brown had a word with him in London?
It's timely before the European Elections in any case. For Obama is supporting the position held by Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and Greens that Turkey should become a full member of the EU meaning that they get to trough at the pot of money countries like the UK pay massive amounts into. It also means that their population of 110million plus can have free movement across all borders.
And how penetrable are Turkey's borders? Only 10 per cent of the country is actually in Europe with the rest in the Middle East, right next to Iraq. Will it not just end up being a passageway for more migration on the already cracked nipple of the British Welfare State?
I know the Tory line in the past has been that if you have more countries in the EU then the pool becomes wider and more shallow, but given that that was an A-Level question in 1980 and was also used as a reason for Greece to join, it's a straw man because it's simply not true.
I wonder how many people in Britain are even aware of the prospect? Given the general ignorance and lack of coverage given the monstrous state, something I'm sure our politicians actively encourage, will they know the implications and even who is in favour and who is against it?
I see today that a top British judge has spoken out against the European Court of Human Rights, saying that it imposes laws like a federal court. Well, that's because it views itself as a federal court, just like the European Court of Justice. EU law supersedes UK law, although I once again raise the question of how many people actually know that.
Bring on the campaign, I say. Let's have debate and honest and information making its way towards the electorate.
And if Geoffrey Van Driver starts campaigning in the Eastern Region, blathering on about border controls, I will personally get a van, a loud speaker and a lot of leaflets so they know about his actions with Bulgarian entry to the EU.
The usually very sensible Alex Massie has completely the wrong end of the stick.
the EU has been a boon to freedom and there's much to be said for expanding its borders to give more people the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of membership.
This on the day that the internet snooping directive was launched!
Today, an EU directive comes into force which will compel all internet service providers to retain information from all emails and website visits. Data from phone calls and text messages will also be stored and made available to the government, its agencies and local authorities. Having seen how local officials have abused anti-terrorist laws, it's not hard to imagine the damage to privacy that will ensure.
These powers were brought in by a statutory instrument and so were not debated by either house. The accepted view is that the Home Office now bypasses parliament by lobbying Europe directly in the knowledge that the measures they desire will go undebated and unscrutinised, then be smuggled into British law as a European directive.
It is difficult to think of anything that makes the House of Commons look more feckless or more redundant.
Also I would like to raise a point of order regarding the concept that it will be nigh on impossible for decisions to be made.
QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING?
Lessons in the EU. That's what we need.