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
Europe
Blair attack on 'out-of-date' Chirac
2005-03-25
Today's dispatch from EUtopia.
Tony Blair launched a fierce counter-attack against Jacques Chirac yesterday, accusing him of running an out-of-date economy that delivers low growth and high unemployment. In a statement to the Commons on this week's fractious EU summit in Brussels, the Prime Minister said struggling EU economies such as France's should imitate Britain which had successfully combined flexible labour markets with generous worker protection. The Prime Minister's remarks were aimed directly at the French president who accepted his help in a summit row over economic reform only to march into a press conference hours later to demand the end of Britain's £3 billion EU rebate. In a further sign of Mr Blair's anger, the Prime Minister insisted that the British backed the "services directive", which aims to liberalise the services market across Europe, and said it would still be voted through by EU countries - despite Mr Chirac's claims that he had forced a complete rethink.

Mr Blair told MPs there was an open argument between countries that wanted to modernise the out-of-date European "social model" of lavish welfare benefits and subsidies, such as Britain, and others such as France that wanted to cling to it. "Some, notably France, believe this model should remain in its existing form," said Mr Blair. "Some, like Britain, believe firmly in Europe's social dimension but want it updated to take account of modern economic reality." Britain had the benefit of "empirical evidence" that its approach was the right one, in the form of higher growth and lower unemployment.

Mr Chirac secured agreement in Brussels that the services directive, which is deeply unpopular in France where it is seen as a symbol of rampant Anglo-Saxon liberalism, would be rewritten. EU leaders decided to give ground to Mr Chirac because of fears that the issue could boost the No campaign with less than two months to go before France's referendum on the EU constitution. But yesterday Mr Blair disputed the French claim that the directive, in its original form, was effectively dead following the summit. He said he still believed it would be voted through by the 25 EU nations, the majority of which still backed its main thrust. EU diplomats in Brussels also disputed Mr Chirac's claims. One said: "What Chirac claims he got out of the summit is not consistent with what was agreed, or what was published in the final conclusions. But I think all EU leaders understand his needs. He had to come away from the European Council assuring the French people he is still the big man of Europe." Mr Chirac currently has support from Germany, Sweden, Denmark and probably Spain, a formidable voting bloc.

The most controversial part of the directive is the so-called "country of origin principle". This permits service providers from one EU nation - a British IT consultant or a Polish house painter - to take short term contracts in other EU nations without having to go through the bureaucracy of applying for local qualifications, such as membership of a German house painters' guild. They would have to accept local regulations if they wanted to stay for a longer period.
Posted by:Bulldog

#16  Pretty much so. Not to forget Gerhard.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-03-25 7:47:38 PM  

#15  Der Alte, My impression is the Germans economic disaster was self inflicted with the terms of reunification. The Euro was icing on the cake. No?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-25 6:21:04 PM  

#14  Shipman, the Euro was economic warfare the French waged against Germany. And they won.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-03-25 6:05:41 PM  

#13  It's a way to live off the disipline of the Bundesbankers with only the Germans paying the price. There! I said it! And I'm glad!
Posted by: Shipman   2005-03-25 5:28:49 PM  

#12  Michael Jackson
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-25 4:15:10 PM  

#11  Louis 13?
Posted by: mojo   2005-03-25 4:13:53 PM  

#10  ..just one superstate with one set of rules.

Just call everything Euro. Birthplace: Europe. Nationality: Euro. Monetary unit: Euro. Unit of Measure: Euro. Etc., etc.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-03-25 3:44:35 PM  

#9  And yet, the so called "service directive" is deeply flawed.

True, but it is at least a step in the right direction for what is supposed to be, or at least has always claimed to be, a free trade zone. The directive is little, late, but better than nothing.
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-03-25 2:58:30 PM  

#8  The reasoning behind this, is that many rules and regs pertaining to trades and professions are just restrictive practices maintained by a monopoly. Introducing cross border competition free from the local regulations will introduce competition and bring down costs. The UK is upset about this becuase it has a large and very competitive services sector and would be the big winner.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-03-25 2:42:11 PM  

#7  I think it's because the EU bureaucrats are planning for the day when there are no individual countries with their own regulations, just one superstate with one set of rules.
Posted by: Steve   2005-03-25 2:11:13 PM  

#6  And who thought this up and why? How does an idea that is so fundamentally flawed pass through the system? Is it because the EU intends to regulate the services?
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-25 2:00:26 PM  

#5  Jackal, indeed, and the US is actually one country.

To give an (exaggerated) example to state the absurdity of that law. Imagine that one EU country wouldn't regulate that hard hats have to be worn in mines (because they have no mines), a company could offer services in another country and ignore safety regulations there.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-03-25 1:53:54 PM  

#4  Nobody hates massive regulation more than I, but I have to agree with TGA here. Wal-Mart has to follow California laws in California, and New Jersey laws in New Jersey. It doesn't get to demand that Arkansas laws apply.
Posted by: Jackal   2005-03-25 1:23:03 PM  

#3  And yet, the so called "service directive" is deeply flawed. It says that any person or company providing services in any of the 25 member states is only subject to the regulations of his own country.

That's absurd. You work in a country, you make money in a country, you follow the rules and regulations of that country.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-03-25 12:46:59 PM  

#2  Passa da' popcorn. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-03-25 12:38:44 PM  

#1  Payback can be tough, especially verbal payback from someone who has to address a very vocal parliament every week. Tends to bring out the "George Bush straight talk" -- or as the French call it, "rampant Anglo-Saxon liberalism".
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-25 9:19:27 AM  

00:00