| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| European DisUnity News Roundup |
| 2003-09-19 |
| UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown attacks EU push towards federal state Brown is tipped (not least by himself) to be Blair’s most likely successor as Labour leader. Gordon Brown launched his most outspoken attack on the European Union yesterday, accusing its leaders of planning a "federal state" with harmonised taxes that would be a recipe for economic failure. "The credibility of Europe is at stake," the Chancellor warned. He insisted that economic reform was not just "desirable" but an "urgent necessity" if the EU economy is not to fall further behind the United States. Mr Brown’s remarks, in an article for the Wall Street Journal Europe, left little doubt that he has privately ruled out a referendum on the euro before the next election. His stridently sceptical tone will alarm Tony Blair, who insisted on Wednesday that a referendum before the next election remains an option. Rather than making the case for Britain to be at the centre of the EU - as the Prime Minister wants ministers to do - the Chancellor put the onus on Europe, saying it had to adopt the British and American model of deregulation before it could move forward. He also appeared to undermine Mr Blair’s attempts to play down the importance of the EU constitution when he accused European leaders of having a "federal" agenda. "As long as Europe clings to the outdated view that the single currency will be followed by tax harmonisation and then a federal state, confidence about future economic growth will remain low," wrote the Chancellor. Mr Brown’s comments came two days before Mr Blair travels to Berlin for talks on Iraq and the future of the EU with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and President Jacques Chirac of France. Mr Blair is keen to mend fences with both leaders following disagreements over Iraq and before an intergovernmental conference on the EU constitution opens in Rome next month. A Treasury spokesman said that Mr Brown was outlining the responsibilities the EU had to face up to before a meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Dubai this weekend. Mr Brown painted a picture of a Europe held back by outdated economic and political ideologies. It was throttled by regulation, inflexible labour markets and product and capital markets that desperately needed to be liberalised. He added: "Every proposed regulation should be put to the costs test, then the jobs test, and then the ’is it really necessary?’ test." 99 % of all EU dictats would fall at one hurdle, at least... Yesterday, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president who chaired the Convention on the Future of Europe that drew the initial blueprint for the constitution, said the whole exercise could fail if the federalists pushed nations such as Britain too far. Addressing a conference in Brussels he said efforts to force Britain and others to accept tax harmonisation would fail. He said: "This is a fragile situation, and if anyone tries to make big changes to what we have proposed, the balance will change and that could bring the whole structure tumbling down." What he’s saying is, "sign or don’t sign". But don’t try to water down the constitution, Tony. Franco-German pact ignores critics’ cries of profligacy The leaders of Germany and France announced a grandiose multi-billion pound investment programme yesterday, despite criticism that their spending is already out of control. At their meeting in Berlin, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and President Jacques Chirac announced a vast programme that would include spending on 10 infrastructure programmes designed to boost growth in the sluggish euro zone. Both countries have run up huge budget deficits, in breach of the European Growth and Stability Pact, which limits government overspend to three per cent of GDP. Both countries are expected to breach the limit next year, too. But the two leaders airily waved away questions about how they planned to finance the projects, which unofficial estimates have suggested might cost £35 billion. They said it would include public and private funding and loans from the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. "We did not talk about figures in detail," Mr Schroder said after six hours of meetings between the two. "We’re not talking here so much about state funding in the specific sense, rather about projects that would be financed by the European Investment Bank, which is why I can’t talk about exact figures at this stage." M Chirac did little to clarify the funding issue: "There’s nothing to be gained from talking about figures," he said. EU politics - there’s never much room for ugly realities. "The most important result of this meeting is our shared conviction that Europe cannot wait for growth, but must seek it out." Despite the mention of the European Investment Bank, the institution only puts up a maximum of half the funding on any project. That would leave France and Germany still looking for vast sums from elsewhere. The initiative will be presented to other European Union members later this month. But it is sure to be criticised by smaller euro zone states which have asked Brussels to impose financial penalties on France and Germany for their budgetary profligacy. The project would cover telecommunications, transport infrastructure, research and development and sustainable development. Other initiatives discussed included plans to develop the Galileo satellite and to merge the high-speed railway networks between the two countries. Mr Schroder, who has recently started much-needed structural reform in Germany, was quick to dismiss criticism that either his fiscal policy or the Franco-German initiative was endangering the future of the growth and stability pact. He said he thought it was a mistake that the word "growth" was often excluded from the pact’s title. "We are now in a stage - the third year of stagnation in Germany - where we have to stress the importance of growth," he said. "In the pact itself there is room to give impetus to growth." In their joint declaration, the leaders criticised what they saw as the European Commission’s anti-industrial stance, and gave warning of the "danger of the de-industrialisation of Europe" through over-regulation. Going to need the slave nations to come up with the goods, after all. Their defence ministers also discussed plans to merge two shipbuilders - Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft of Germany, and the French company DCN. There was also a commitment to the controversial idea of developing an autonomous EU military capability despite criticism that it would duplicate and undermine Nato. There was a commitment to transforming the European security and defence policy into a full-scale defence union "so that the EU can emerge as a full and equal partner on the world stage". The defence union would be open to all EU members, an offer sure to anger Washington. Yesterday’s meeting, including cabinet ministers and an entourage of aides, was part of the consolidation of the Elysee treaty which was signed between the two countries 40 years ago. Other projects under the pact include an annual Franco-German day on January 22, the creation of a joint history book for schools, and eventually, dual citizenship. It gets complicated here. The proposed constitution includes dual citizen status for all EU members (national citizenship & "EU citizenship"). Therefore, French and German citizens would be triple citizens, not dual. That is, until the problematic national citizenships are revoked. M Chirac spoke of the importance of French and German language learning to intensify co-operation, although observers were quick to point out that neither Mr Chirac nor Mr Schroder speak the other’s tongue. The gathering came two days’ before the leaders are due to meet Tony Blair in Berlin to discuss the European position on Iraq. They will also try to gain his backing for the investment project, which is entitled "Germany and France for more growth in Europe". Franco-German axis? Nonsense! EU plan to outlaw smoking in bars Or "Hypocrisy and Autocracy: EU gotta love/hate the weed." The European Commission is drawing up plans for a ban on smoking in bistros, bars and cafes across the European Union, ignoring the message from Swedish voters in last weekend’s euro vote that Brussels is meddling too much in national affairs. Legally, Brussels lacks the power to dictate tobacco policy, but EU officials believe that they can force through the rules as a health and safety measure aimed at protecting workers from the effects of passive smoking. The proposals are certain to face strong resistance from some EU governments which may be able to veto the idea. They will also be opposed by sections of the European Parliament, and may not come into force for several years. David Byrne, the European health commissioner, said the plans were at an early stage but would ultimately take the form of restrictive laws. "My officials are working to try to see in what way we can bring forward policy that is directed at this problem," he said. "There might ultimately be legal exposure for employers in circumstances where workers have been exposed to this risk." It was crucial to protect employees who were often exposed to smoke for hours on end, he told the Brussels news agency EUpolitix.com. Perversely, the EU continues to spend £700 million a year, or one per cent of its budget, on subsidies for tobacco farmers in Greece, southern Italy and the Loire Valley in France. CAP: perverse? Well who’da thunk?! Terry Wynn, a Labour Euro-MP and chairman of the European Parliament’s budget committee, said this situation made a mockery of Mr Byrne’s anti-smoking drive. "It’s a nonsense to try to stop smoking while you’re spending a billion to grow the stuff. It does the credibility of the EU no good whatsoever," he said. Mr Byrne, a straight-laced Irishman, has made it a personal crusade in Brussels to cut smoking. Aaaah, that good ol’ Kremlin-flava EU democracy. Ireland and Holland already impose smoking bans on restaurants, forcing diners out on to the pavement if they want to light up. But smoking is still a way of life across Mediterranean, and EU newcomers such as Poland and other East European states are still cigarette societies. Mr Byrne said smoking played its part in the death 500,000 Europeans a year and was too important an issue to be left in the hands of national governments. No comment necessary. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #16 Not at all Aris. But if I don't like what my government does, I can kick it out at the next elections. I cannot do the same with the EU Commission or the European Council (the latter also only indirectly accountable to the people). And the European Parliament, which is the only democratically elected body of the EU cannot pass a single law or guideline, it can only suggest, assist or endorse or whatever. It cannot make a single decision alone. I don't say that the EU institutions are not democratic, but they could be a lot more. And the decision to change your currency that stood for prosperity in your own country for a currency shared by 12 nations IS INDEED more than just another important national decision. And because the major German parties supported the Euro, the Germans weren't even able to influence the decision. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-19 11:44:44 PM |
| #15 The Commission can't pass guidelines by itself without authorization/support by either the European Council or the European Parliament. Other than that, I also want more democratization of the Union. But frankly there are a ton of important *national* decisions that don't get put on the polls either... people truly seem to me to be much more sensitive about imperfect democratic structures of the EU than they seem about imperfect democratic structures at the national level. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-19 10:59:04 PM |
| #14 I would have preferred that not the "country" (read government) had chosen the euro but the people. But in that case the Euro would not exist today. In Germany the two big parties favored the Euro, so the people couldn't even vote out the Euro in elections. Interestingly enough, a German referendum of the Euro would have been very similar to the Swedish results, all polls of 1998 prove this. I think this is something Bulldog rightfully deplores: The "big" EU decisions are made over the heads of the people. And there is no real accountability of the EU commission, that technically makes guidelines that the different countries have to follow by making the respective laws. If this doesn't change in the next years, Europe will just be choked to death by its bureaucrats. That's not what I want. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-19 10:20:43 PM |
| #13 True. In fact joining the Euro has become EU "acquis", and the ten new members had to also accept to join the euro once they satisfy the criteria for it, before they could join the EU. I'm not bothered by this -- after all a country that has chosen the Euro can still choose to abandon it by leaving the EU as a whole, if they think such a course adviseable... |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-19 10:07:16 PM |
| #12 This is actually true for the Constitution. But not for the Euro. I remember the discussions in Germany. Every time somebody stood up and asked: Can Germany leave the Euro and get its DM back if it wants to, there was a lot of wavering and "yeah, technically speaking" etc... As a matter of fact, there are no provisions about the possibility of leaving the Euro. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-19 9:47:03 PM |
| #11 Anonymous> Given the that you haven't chosen a nick, I hope you don't expect me to remember what previous discussion of ours you are referring to. I don't bother trying to decipher whether the "Anonymous" people of one day are the same as the "Anonymous" people of another day, so you may have just as well started posting today where I'm concerned. In short - I really don't remember or understand what your comments about you not being a boy or a male refers to. "Have the nations altered their constitutions to fit this?" Most nations already have articles in their constitutions that concern their entering (or withdrawing from) treaties with other nations. "What guidelines has the European Council set out?" The article says this: "...the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State....", etc, etc. I definitely get the impression it means that the European Council will provide guidelines of negotiation after examining said notification -- after all the reason for a withdrawal may differ from case to case, so the kind of negotiation needed will be different from case to case. "Once the State has said goodbye, the constitution no longer applies. However, the constitution can be extended. So, one can leave and still get the benefits of the constititution while under negotiation to leave?" I don't know what you are talking about. I think you are confusing the notification of departure with the actual departure from the union. The country gives a notification it wants to leave. By mutual agreement with the rest of the union (aka negotiation) the time it will leave or the terms of its departure can be arranged --- if no agreement is reached, then two years after the notification the constitution nonetheless ceases to apply. "This Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period." |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-19 4:35:50 PM |
| #10 Aris, Enjoyed the heated discussion on the Canadien activists yesterday. Florida is a state that is full of internal divisions. Even the Hispanic vote includes Cuban Americans that vote conservatively and other Hispanics that vote more consistently with other Hispanic communities in America. Counties in Florida routinely almost block vote Republican or Democrat except in Palm Beach where some of the older liberals have trouble reading the ballots and accidently vote ultra-conservative. I think of Greece and Florida mostly because they jut out into the large bodies of warm water and as such are ocean trade. While other states are reducing spending, Florida is making an effort to establish trade with foriegn nations like Chile. That would work less well here in Indiana. Florida has a very low tax rate and vibrant tourism industry (or used to, anyway.) Florida's physical proximity to Cuba is an approximation to Greece's proximity to Turkey. Have been to Corfu once and Souda Bay twice, so I may be reading mainland Greece wrong. P.S. Florida is also governed by George Bush's younger brother. How does that sound :-) ? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-19 12:24:48 PM |
| #9 Chirac and Schroder couldn't give any specifics of their spending plans because I suspect they don't have any plans.They want some favorable pr at a time when both are being hammered in press. Fearless prediction-desperate for money to jump-start their economies,French and German workers at EU-ocracy are going to start proposing heavy fines on American business's for violating just created EU regulations and will send forth a wave of new regulations(w/heavy fines attached) for EU members in next few months. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-9-19 12:16:35 PM |
| #8 Sort of OT: I took Aris' suggestion and read Article 59. First problem out of the box, #1. Any member state may decide to withdraw from the EU in accordance w/its own constitutional requirements. Have the nations altered their constitutions to fit this? We had a war. #2, what guidelines has the European Council set out? I can't find the guidelines. Set out the arrangements for withdrawal??? XXX plus 500% interest? #3, Once the State has said goodbye, the constitution no longer applies. However, the constitution can be extended. So, one can leave and still get the benefits of the constititution while under negotiation to leave? Another interpretation could be the negotiations on getting out will go for years, but the state can choose to either live or not live under the constitution. P. 46 in my pdf format. The constitution may cease to apply after 2 years, that doesn't mean the state is out. Guess we won't know until someone tries. And I'm neither male nor a boy, Aris. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-19 11:56:02 AM |
| #7 "I'd compare France to Texas instead" Them thar is fight'n words! |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-9-19 11:50:17 AM |
| #6 Super Hose> I'd compare France to Texas instead - both places seem to produce a lot of the most arrogant obnoxious types populating each union. :-) As for Greece... If Cuba had turned democratic in the 1970s and applied to become one of the United States, that'd be the perfect comparison to Greece in relation to the EU. But now... well I'm afraid I don't know much about Florida's political attitudes in respect to the other 49 states so I'm afraid I can't much evaluate that assessment of yours... |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-9-19 11:41:03 AM |
| #5 "Mr. Byrne...has made it a personal crusade in Brussels to cut smoking." Something's up, because this is a side of David Byrne we've never seen before. Is this not the man who said: "Havin' sex and eatin' cereal Wearin' jeans and cmokin' cigarettes now" and "Yeah - we smoke cigarettes We dance with the dead" His solo work certainly diverges from all this tranzi crap he's suddenly spouting. |
| Posted by: (lowercase) matt 2003-9-19 10:25:47 AM |
| #4 Bulldog, In my book this Brown guy comes off as conservative. Is that an accurate assessment? I often create overly simplistic assumptions that fall apart in the face of fact. In the past I had built the following equivalences between EU/UK institutions and US ones: A. Tory = Republican B. Labor = Democrat c. France with respect to EU = California with respect to the other 49 states D. Greece with respect to EU = Florida with respect other 49 states Please punch holes in these simplifications for fun at your leisure. Also what is with knocking off the smoking in pubs. I thought that Bloomberg's diaster was isolated to NY. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-19 9:31:30 AM |
| #3 Bulldog You are right it wasn't a referendum about the Franc but about the Maastricht treaty as a whole. However this topic was at the center of the campaign: whether France would drop an attribute of sovereignty as important as the right to have her own money.
|
| Posted by: JFM 2003-9-19 6:43:34 AM |
| #2 Blair's only hope of getting the constitution ratified by the UK now is directly through a vote in parliament, and that's only feasible if he can reduce the power of the constitution, as it has been drafted, by negotiation. If Blair fails to gain significant concessions throught negotiation, it will be politically for him to avoid putting it to a referendum, which will almost certainly result in rejection. We are approaching a major watershed in the development of the EU. JFM, the 1992 referendum was over the Maastricht Treaty, wasn't it? Ratification of that gave the French Government the power to adopt the euro and ditch the Franc, but it was not a referendum specifically concerning the adoption of the euro. Or were there separate referendum questions? (Given the federasts' disdain for the democratic process I doubt whether the voters were given the option of voting on separate Maastricht topics during their time in the polling booths.) Britain obtained an opt-out, as did Denmark after the voters rejected Maastricht first time round. No country has yet voted to adopt the euro directly, through a referendum. BTW, Weren't there accusations of other "irregularities" associated with the 1992 French referendum? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-9-19 5:09:45 AM |
| #1 Democracy EU style: "Democracy is far too important to be let to the elector" Here are a few examples: In 1992 there was a referendum in France about the adoption of the euro. The electoral campaign was completely lopsided with journalists massively supporting the euro at TV or papers, making remarks about how wonderful would be a united europe ("If Europe had been united it would have got more olympic medals than the US". The fact is that a united europe would have had only only have two athletes per discipline), a completely unbalanced 'speaking time' for politicians in the yes or no side, apocaliptic forecasts about what would happen if the NO won (BTW the euro was supposed to create millions of jobs, still waiting) and last but not least a tax-payer funded advertisemnt campaign for the YES. Despite this, despite the general feeling that the governing parties would find a way to force the issue even if the NO was to win, despite the shameful way the Alsatian vote was bought (this could have made the difference) there were still 49.5% people to vote NO. But the Eurolatric side had learned his lesson so the next step, Amsterdam treaty, wouldn't face referendum. What was Amsterdam treaty: making every law or regulation (regulations taken by mere bureaucrats) superior to the Constitution. In other words it voided the Constitution. The French constitution was adopted by referendum in 1962 and it was well made clear by its creator, General de Gaulle, that "la voie parlementaire c'est pour les reformettes" ("the parlementay road is only for minor reforms"). And here we had the parlementary way being used for a reform who gave power to any unelected bureaucrat in Brussels to void the constitution. Your democracy at work. Now a politician who no longer would be elected in his own village, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, has written a constitution for us the poor citizens living in darkness, far away from that beacon of light named Brussels. Guess what? The Europeist side is telling that a referendum is unsuitable, that it would be far better to use the parliamentary road. This was about the deep links between the EU and Fascism. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-9-19 4:34:45 AM |