You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
UK Chancellor Gordon Brown blasts EU federalism
2003-11-05
The Telegraph analyses Brown’s own piece, Flexibility, not federalism, is key to this competitive new world, also in today’s paper. EFL
Gordon Brown has raised the stakes in the battle over a new European constitution by demanding categorical assurances that it will not lead to the harmonisation of taxes and a federal European state. Returning to the political front line after two weeks paternity leave, the Chancellor exposes a growing rift between the Treasury and No 10 over the importance of the proposed constitution for a 25-member European Union.
This is significant as Brown’s regarded as Blair’s most likely successor.
Writing in The Telegraph today Mr Brown calls on EU leaders explicitly to reject "grandiose schemes" for harmonising corporate and other taxes and back Britain’s plans for tax competition. He says the EU must abandon "old flawed assumptions that a single market should lead inexorably to tax harmonisation, fiscal federalism and then a federal state". Mr Brown calls on EU leaders to remove "ambiguities" from the draft constitution that could undermine the role of national governments in economic decision-making.
He wants to avoid having the British foot in the French bucket...
His decision to draw attention to concerns over the implications of the constitution is in sharp contrast to repeated lies assurances from Tony Blair that it will not threaten Britain’s ability to set its own taxes or change fundamentally this country’s constitutional relationship with the EU. The Chancellor’s language, particularly raising the spectre of a slide towards a "federal state", has strong eurosceptic overtones. In his article today, Mr Brown contrasts the "rigidities, inflexibilities and lack of competitiveness" of the rest of Europe with the more flexible and open economies of Britain and the United States. He claims that Britain is leading the European recovery. More countries now agreed that keeping the veto on tax and rejecting federal approaches to fiscal policy "are not only right for Britain but right for Europe too". Mr Brown said continental Europe was failing economically while Britain’s economy was flourishing. While tax harmonisation might be the way forward for a "sheltered trade bloc", it was not the future for the EU member states in a competitive global market. He is concerned that the draft constitution is too loosely worded on whether economic policy should be driven by nation states, the European Commission or the European Parliament. Mr Brown’s call for Europe to copy the US will be supported today by Denis MacShane, the minister for Europe. In a speech in London he will say it is time the EC woke up to the growing economic weakness of Europe. Romano Prodi, the EC president, "should worry less about more powers for Brussels and worry more about more jobs for Europe", according to Mr MacShane.

The Telegraph Editor also notes that:
His duel with the Prime Minister, which reached new heights at the Labour conference in Bournemouth, can only end with the political demise of one or the other. Mr Brown seems to be calculating that Mr Blair’s refusal to concede a referendum on the European constitution could be his electoral Achilles’ heel. If the constitution matters as much as Mr Brown now says it does, why is Mr Blair refusing to give the country a vote on it?
Posted by:Bulldog

#12  Bulldog, that's a good view, and I think one that is workable, except for one nasty little sticking point - France. The French, IIRC, are the ones driving the common currency, driving the common government, the EU Constitution, the EU court, et. cetera, ad nausium. Can Europe come together enough to stand up to France (and Germany and Belgium, who are siding with her) enough to keep this leaky boat afloat?
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-11-5 8:30:33 PM  

#11  ...There's the Eurofighter project though, which has produced the goods. Goods so late they'll be obsolete by the time they're operational, and far more expensive that anticipated...

Stephen, you miss out the most popular view of the future of the EU (at least in the UK) - and that's pretty much view 1, but without the confederation bit or the single currency bit. I. e. an EU which does NOT involve further political or social integration but which remains a simple trade facilitaion bloc.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-11-5 4:29:55 PM  

#10  As to why no common military procurement,let's use tanks as an example.
Frigates would be better. The joint Anglo-French-Italian Common New Generation Frigate (CNGF) project fell apart largely because of ranglings over which country would supply what kit IIRC, though there were other issues like differences over the exact role of the CNGF & the UK's need to have a new AAW frigate ASAP to replace the Type-42s.
Posted by: Dave   2003-11-5 4:23:54 PM  

#9   Yank,
The difficulty is there are 2 completely differant views on what the EU should become.1 is of an economic Confederation of nations sharing a single currency and no trade barriers/tarriffs between members.The other view is of a political merging of peoples into one nation of Europe.In the economic view,individual nations agree to common goals,ideals,etc. but reserve to themselves the manner in achieving them.In the political view the EU(Or whatever it will call itself)dictates the goals and leaves the reduced national governments the task of fulfilling the mandates.The differance between the two views is,the nation in the economic version can decide a particular goal is not important to it and ignore it.In the political union,the nation must implement whatever and however the EU has mandated.
As to why no common military procurement,let's use tanks as an example.Britain,France,Germany and Italy all manufacture tanks.If a Euro-common tank is to be procured,which country gets order?More importantly,which 3 countries must lay off workers and close factories?You could divide up work(Italy engines,England cannons,etc.)but transportation,differ wages,work weeks,etc.,drive up costs.And you still have voters to convince.
Posted by: Stephen   2003-11-5 3:45:53 PM  

#8  I'm glad someone in the UK still opposes Eurabia.
Posted by: Charles   2003-11-5 2:12:40 PM  

#7  LH, I'm pretty sure he would. He kept fairly quiet re Iraq, leaving Blair, Straw etc. to put their heads above the parapet, but he never made any objecting noises either. The reticence was more about keeping his hands clean for the future, IMO
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-11-5 1:47:11 PM  

#6  There was an interesting article in the Euobserver last Friday about the coming fight on economic fines for France: Duisenberg warns of 'disaster' for Europe ahead of stormy meeting
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-11-5 1:21:03 PM  

#5  I've never understood why the Europeans have jumped straight into a single state when a loose confederation would have made an easier to swallow first step. One type of coinage yes, a uniform system of compatible military procurement, yes, but what's the hurry with harmonizing taxes? Give the EU 1% off the top of everyone's taxes for starters and let the states handle their own affairs. Then if the EU grows the tax burdon can slowly shift.
Posted by: Yank   2003-11-5 1:03:28 PM  

#4  so would Brown be likely to continue Blair's policies wrt to the war on terrorism, Iraq, etc?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-5 11:47:24 AM  

#3  Howard is staunchly anti-Euro and an extremely good debater - watch him, if he wins, during PMQ on C-Span. He will eat Blair's lunch but he is still somewhat vulnerable due to his stint as Home Secty.

I'm not going to get too optimistic re. Howard's performances in the HoC, as he wasn't that great as Home Sec, but I'm sure he'll attract more public attention than IDS has done.

No need to feel confused, LH. You've got it nailed pretty well, except maybe the [p]erhaps for all the talk of Eurosocialism, they fear being submerged into a europe dominated by third wayism bit. Britain being dominated by Europe is simpler and sufficient. Both parties have Europhile elements, but they're fewer in number in the Tory party (two notables are Ken Clarke and Chris Patten (who's spun out of the solar system of rational thought since taking up sticks on the continent)). Brown's to the left of Blair only marginally, but he's got a clearer grasp of economic fundamentals than Blair and is not driven by the same wishful/wooly thinking as Blair when it comes to Europe. No doubt he's going to exploit Blair's Achilles heel, but he's right to do so.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-11-5 10:27:19 AM  

#2  im confused - i thought brown was seen as to the left of Tony, and the left tended to be more pro-european then the right. Is this some subtle aspect of Labour politics? IE moderate tories less euroskeptic than Thatcherites, Labour more pro-euro than Tories, BUT once you get inside Labour, the farther left is NOT more pro-european than the third way Blairites? Perhaps for all the talk of Eurosocialism, they fear being submerged into a europe dominated by third wayism, much as Tories do? Or is it simply personalities between Brown and Blair?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-5 9:46:00 AM  

#1  All of this is a prelude to the Tories electing a new leader (Michael Howard?)and how he takes them down the road. This EU constitution and the Euro itself are very big issues in the UK - more so than Iraq, Man Utd., and the Queen's fairy! Howard is staunchly anti-Euro and an extremely good debater - watch him, if he wins, during PMQ on C-Span. He will eat Blair's lunch but he is still somewhat vulnerable due to his stint as Home Secty. There is a strong underclass and left-wing in UK that will be out to get him. Brown, may be starting to take advantage of all this - an energized Tory resistence, Blair's downbeat popularity over Iraq, the EU and Euro decisions, etc. This may be a much more exciting political battle than the 9 dumbocrats and their circus.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2003-11-5 8:26:58 AM  

00:00