Article

2003-11-05 Britain

UK Chancellor Gordon Brown blasts EU federalism

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-05 6:38:15 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 8:26:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 9:46:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 10:27:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 11:47:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 1:03:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 1:21:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 1:47:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm glad someone in the UK still opposes Eurabia.

Posted by Charles 2003-11-5 2:12:40 PM|| 2003-11-5 2:12:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 3:45:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 4:23:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-11-5 4:29:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-5 8:30:33 PM|| Front Page Top

12:32 alaskasoldier
08:34 Brian (MN)
07:53 B
04:42 Super Hose
04:08 Bulldog
04:01 Bulldog
00:12 NotMikeMoore
00:07 NotMikeMoore
23:56 NotMikeMoore
23:52 Uncle Joe
23:51 Alaska Paul
23:46 Grunter
23:46 NotMikeMoore
23:40 NotMikeMoore
23:36 Bomb-a-rama
23:34 NotMikeMoore
23:30 NotMikeMoore
23:29 Mike Kozlowski
23:22 Dev
23:19 marek
23:15 NotMikeMoore
23:04 NotMikeMoore
23:01 NotMikeMoore
22:55 NotMikeMoore