EU Constitution: Concentration of Power in Brussels

[onedomino]

From a British conservative member of the European Parliament:

Be Wary of the EU Constitution
By Martin Callanan
Published March 2, 2005

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050301-085632-1395r.htm

Last week President Bush was in Brussels, meeting with NATO, the European Council and the European Commission president. Many of the EU elite may not have told Mr. Bush his trip coincided with one of the most pivotal points of U.S. and European relations. This year starts the countdown to many national referendums on the proposed European constitution.

Mr. Bush did not hear at his meetings that, under the choke hold of the constitution, member-states' sovereignty will be overridden by the EU. European federalism is the antithesis to the American definition. Unlike the protections against a domineering central government afforded to the United States through its framework of federalism, the European Union will be made a superstate by its constitution, removing powers from member states and concentrating many of them in Brussels.

Among other headaches, the EU constitution will create a legal personality, an unelected president, a foreign minister and diplomatic service, a judicial system, recognized external borders, a military capacity and a police force. Under such a regime, trans-Atlantic relations will be dealt a fatal blow.

As a "legal personality" many EU cheerleaders believe the organization should be eligible for a seat in the United Nations -- a voice that will no doubt carry strong French and German anti-American overtones. The newly created EU foreign minister will almost certainly not echo the sentiments of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He or she will undoubtedly more closely resemble French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, who only last fall said relations with the U.S. must be reorganized to better manage disagreements and says Europe is to become a world power that does not exclude the use of force.

Perhaps the most immediate concern to U.S.-Europe relations is the constitution's impact on NATO. The constitution is peppered with defense-related clauses that together would much increase EU's legally binding power in security matters -- including an EU mutual defense commitment. Armed aggression against one EU member state would demand an instant and unequivocal response. Further, an EU military alliance and common foreign policy would cut across the obligations of the EU's NATO members, while ending the neutrality of its non-NATO ones. This would put the large number of NATO forces committed to Europe in limbo.

America can also forget about coalitions of the willing or the inroads made by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her recent visit to Europe. The stated view of those attempting to build a European military capacity is to build an alternative to NATO, outside its umbrella. While countries like Great Britain and Poland still provide vital support to U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the majority in the European Union does not support the War on Terrorism. Under the EU constitution, member countries will be forbidden from operating an independent foreign policy position. They must "explicitly and unreservedly support the Union's foreign and security policy." Undoubtedly, the U.S. will face even more opposition in the United Nations and be left to fight without its historic allies.

Trade will also suffer. Protectionist regulations are inevitable under "a united Europe." While about 19 percent of America's trade is with the EU, the majority of that commercial relationship is based with the United Kingdom. Between 1995 and 2003, 64 percent of total U.S. investment in the EU went to the U.K. In terms of total EU investment to the U.S., 62 percent originated in the U.K. What will happen with an increased EU veto over U.S.-U.K. trade agreements?

This is not a friendly proposal. If the constitution is not rejected by one of the EU member states, America will face increasingly difficult and strained relations with Europe. America will lose support for its global peace and security efforts and American companies will be further targeted and regulated out of the European marketplace.

Spain faced its constitutional referendum on Feb. 20. As Spain has about $60 billion in EU subsidies over recent years, it was no surprise it voted "yes" to the new constitution. Meanwhile Portugal, the Netherlands and France are to vote in the spring.

Europe is besieged by the EU's "Yes" campaign, supported by millions of dollars of propaganda advertising. "Yes" propaganda, among other things, is telling Europeans the constitution will create a "United States of Europe," but this is by no means a compliment to America. The constitution could be one of the most significant blows to an important history of mutual support and alliances.

The EU constitution is more than a single telephone line to Europe, as once wished by Henry Kissinger. It will be the beginning of one of the greatest rifts in the Western World. America will stand alone.

Martin Callanan is a British Conservative member of the European Parliament.

 

[onedomino]

Are NATO and the European Union Partners or Rivals?

http://www.economist.com/World/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3690939

It used to be said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union were in the same city, but on different planets. As George Bush will have noticed this week, the two Brussels-based organisations are just ten minutes apart by motorcade. But they have always had different missions and cultures. NATO is a military alliance, invented during the cold war to deter the Soviet Union; the United States is by far its biggest and most powerful member. The EU grew out of the European Economic Community, a title that encapsulates everything that sets it apart from NATO: it is purely European and its business has always been primarily economic.

Even today, the cultures of the two organisations are different. The EU is based in a string of grandiose offices in the centre of Brussels; its operatives are technocrats in suits; and its administrative culture is built along French lines. NATO is based in a compound in suburban Brussels that looks like a cross between an office park and a military base. Like the EU it is full of civil servants and diplomats, but they rub shoulders with a lot of uniformed officers with crew cuts. The atmosphere is brisk, military and American-accented.

Socially, the two remain worlds apart. NATO people mix with NATO people, and Eurocrats hang around with fellow Eurocrats. But with the end of the cold war, the missions of the two organisations began to change—and to bump against each other. After the demise of the Soviet Union, NATO lost its original raison d'être; prompted by America it has sought a new relevance, partly by taking on such “out-of-area” operations as Afghanistan. Meanwhile the EU has been developing a common foreign and security policy and even a fledgling military arm. Both NATO and the EU are now creating “rapid reaction forces”, potentially drawing upon the same pools of soldiers. Britain's Tony Blair, who has backed the EU's military ambitions, has repeatedly assured the Americans that they are intended to complement—not duplicate or rival—NATO.

Yet an implicit rivalry remains, and was a subtext underlying Mr Bush's visit to Europe. For the Americans, NATO is still, as Mr Bush put it in Brussels, “the cornerstone” of the transatlantic relationship. But just before Mr Bush's visit, Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, appeared to put the opposite view, when he said that “NATO is no longer the primary venue where transatlantic partners discuss and co-ordinate strategies.”

This contradiction is about much more than which set of Brussels offices has the most congenial meeting rooms. It is ultimately about how the transatlantic relationship is structured, and whether the Europeans will deal with the United States individually or as a single block. A senior French diplomat explains that his country sees NATO as so dominated by the United States as to be little more than a tool of American foreign policy. France's vision is that the EU should develop its common foreign and defence policy to the point where it speaks with one voice within NATO. At that point, the French hope, the transatlantic alliance would become a partnership of equals. This idea skates over the fact that there would continue to be a huge mismatch in military might between the United States and Europe. But its political implications still make it deeply unpopular with the Americans. A senior American diplomat in Europe has gone so far as to say that the formation of a European caucus within NATO would be “the death” of the organisation.

In a presidential visit dedicated to celebrating a renewal of the transatlantic relationship, both Europeans and Americans were anxious to avoid pushing too hard on this sensitive spot. Mr Bush was careful to pay his respects to both NATO and the EU. He attended a NATO summit on the morning of February 22nd, and moved on to a conference and dinner at the EU headquarters later the same day. His European hosts noted delightedly that this was the first time that an American president had stepped inside the European Commission—and they lapped up Mr Bush's every reference to his support for European unity.

Cowboys and Indians
But did these genuflections mean that Mr Bush—through either naiveté or conviction—has suddenly accepted the idea that the Europeans will henceforth deal with the United States as a block, even within NATO? Hardly. It seems more likely that the Americans are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. They know that any overt American attempt to thwart European unity might play into the hands of “Euro-nationalists” like France's Jacques Chirac. And the administration also knows that the Europeans are less united than some of them might wish.

The European split over Iraq went far beyond the merits of deposing Saddam Hussein. It showed that there are two broad approaches to security within the EU. One group of countries believes that their security ultimately depends on the United States. As a senior Czech diplomat once put it: “One lesson we learnt from the 1930s, no more security guarantees from France.” These instinctive Atlanticists include Britain, Poland and most of the rest of central Europe, as well as the Netherlands and Italy (at least when the centre-right is in power). Another group, which includes France, Belgium and (in certain moods, and under certain governments) Germany, wants an autonomous European defence identity, as a key to achieving the “multipolar world” that Mr Chirac so often praises.

In Brussels, Mr Chirac met Mr Bush for a dinner, accompanied by an exaggerated (and unconvincing) display of friendship. Mr Bush was asked whether he intended to invite his guest to his Texas ranch. He laughed and said he needed a “good cowboy”. Mr Chirac smiled back. But it is precisely because the French fear that, within NATO, they will always just be cowboys on an American ranch that the rivalry between the EU and NATO will not disappear anytime soon.

-

 

[musicman]

"As a Czech diplomat once put it: 'One lesson we learnt from the 1930s, no more security guarantees from France.' ".

There are still some pockets of sanity left in Europe. Predictably enough, they seem to exist either where a manner of conservatism still enjoys a voice, or in nations where the blessings of American defense have not always been a reality - to be taken for granted, or scorned.

Former Eastern Bloc nations tend not to take liberty so lightly.

 

[Merlin1047]

Armed aggression against one EU member state would demand an instant and unequivocal response.

Yeah, right. That's gonna happen. I know I'd sleep well at night with the french and Spanish pledged to come to my assistance. You betcha.

Besides the obvious hypocrisy in this, I can't fathom why any country would subordinate its sovereignity to the EU. That is truly mind-boggling.

Had Napoleon thought of this concept, he never would have had to raise an army. But then again, had Europe been in this sad condition back in Napoleon's day, it would hardly have been worth conquering.

 

[theim]

Yeah, right. That's gonna happen. I know I'd sleep well at night with the french and Spanish pledged to come to my assistance. You betcha.

Besides the obvious hypocrisy in this, I can't fathom why any country would subordinate its sovereignity to the EU. That is truly mind-boggling.

Had Napoleon thought of this concept, he never would have had to raise an army. But then again, had Europe been in this sad condition back in Napoleon's day, it would hardly have been worth conquering.

It's not that hard to understand. Europe is a continent full of has-beens. The British, the Germans, the Spanish, the Italians, the Austrians, hell even the French, they all at one point held great empires and technological achievements which were the envy of the world. Like a 1940's hollywood star, their time of greatness is over, and the only time anyone really cares what they say is at one of those get-togethers where the new big star (US) pays a tribute to the good ole days when the old fogies were the big shots.

And also like a has-been actor, they are desperate to get back on the world stage. So their line of thinking is...maybe if we take all these little countries that no one really cares about, and make a really big country, we could be a great world power again!

Only problem is that the EU is a negative force in the world. It does not value freedom and liberty. The EU values Stability. "Stability uber alles" should be the USE's national motto. The thing is, they are happy to supply the Chinese with weapons and coddle the Iranians and their goal of nuclear jihad because that's better than going to war and changing things. When things change, it gets messy. Oil deals get cancelled, that sort of thing. The USE will be an ideological rival to the USA much as was the USSR. Only instead of capitalism vs communism it will be progress vs. stability.

 

[onedomino]

EU Aims to be Military Superpower
Anthony Browne in Brussels
March 03, 2005

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12422216%255E601,00.html

AMID a trans-Atlantic row over its determination to resume arms sales to China, the European Union has outlined plans to become a military superpower and close the defence technology gap on the US.

The EU would develop unmanned drones, new armoured vehicles and advanced communication systems, the British head of the newly created European Defence Agency said.

EDA chief executive Nick Witney said the 25-nation EU would establish a joint fighter-pilot training program and co-ordinate the testing of military equipment.

The initiatives represent the EU's first step in military research and development.

They are aimed at transforming the EU from being a political power, in charge of policies such as agriculture and trade, to a military one, capable of sending troops around the world to enforce a foreign policy agreed by its member states.

The strategy is controversial. EU members such as Ireland and Sweden fear their traditional neutrality is being threatened, while in Britain there has been concern that the initiative will undermine NATO and its close military relationship with the US.

Moves to turn Europe into a military superpower will also heighten concerns in Washington over the EU's plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo on China. US President George W.Bush and congressional leaders from both parties presented a united front yesterday in opposition to the plan for renewed arms sales.

The US Congress has warned it will consider retaliatory trade action against European countries that start selling military technology to China, a move Washington fears would threaten Taiwan and US troops in the region.

Resuming arms sales to China "is a non-starter with Congress", Joseph Biden, senior Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, said after a meeting with Mr Bush.

Republican senator Richard Lugar said that if the embargo were lifted, Congress might impose "a prohibition on a great number of technical skills and materials, or products, being available to Europeans".

Mr Witney explained his plans to boost Europe's "defence, technological and industrial base" by co-ordinating EU members' military activity.

"Europe does not have the defence capabilities that it ought to. I want to see what we can do to get more bang for the buck and I am sure we can go a long way applying all the separate defence lines across Europe more coherently," he said.

Concern about Europe's military weakness came to the fore in the 1990s when it was unable to prevent civil war in the Balkans. Since then, the EU has been developing a common foreign policy and has set up the EDA to increase its military power.

Mr Witney said Europe's armies, as well as being fragmented, had failed to move "to the information age" of warfare.

"Is it really useful that we spend money in Europe maintaining in service 11,000 main battle tanks? Just what do we think we are going to do with those?" he said. "Would it not be better to concentrate on more modern technologies such as communication?"

-

 

[onedomino]

The Loss of the U.K.: America's Emerging Foreign Policy Challenge

The big news in the European Union last week was the Spanish people’s overwhelming approval of the proposed E.U. constitution. When we checked in to El Pais to read the coverage, there was a banner ad urging a “yes” vote taken out by the European Commission that read:

Justice…..or no?

Tolerance…..or no?

Peace…..or no?

Friendship…..or no?

The Europeans say the Americans are simplistic and drawn to empty slogans, but it’s hard to find a better example of both than that ad. Simply draw up a document giving yourself power and tell everyone with their own tax money what monsters they are if they disagree. One of the reasons the E.U. project is so popular is that its P.R. campaign has convinced a whole generation of Europeans that it is synonymous with those values and not, say, a completely unaccountable and undemocratic Leviathan.

Imagine the poor Spaniard who objected. Obviously, he’s for injustice, racism, war and spite. Why, his own government says so! One way or another—not the least of which is the fact that the E.U. is notorious for not taking “no” as an answer—this constitution is likely to come into force sooner or later. And with it, we can say goodbye to our greatest ally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Constitution of the European Union

Nothing evidences the utter futility of the European Union more than the proposed constitution. You’ve seen those pocket versions of the U.S. Constitution that the Federalist Society and other conservative groups hand out? The ones that can fit in the back pocket of your tightest pair of jeans? Don’t try that with the E.U. Constitution; you’re likely to break something

The HTML version linked to above weighs in at a hefty 475 pages and covers a ridiculous amount of territory. While the Common Law tradition allowed the United States to erect a bare-bones framework that laid out general principles, thereby allowing the beautiful old thing to remain relevant to a world the Framers wouldn’t even recognize, the Civil Law perspective of the Europeans compelled its constitution drafters to attempt to produce an all-inclusive document for all ages.

The summary released by the E.U. on its proposed constitution declares that:

The draft Constitution first of all defines essential principles regarding:

- the principle governing the allocation of the Union’s powers;
- lawmaking in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and the proportionality of the
exercise of competences;
- the primacy of Union law, which is stated unambiguously;
- the obligation of Member States to implement Union law.

Distinctions are drawn between three categories of Union powers: areas of exclusive competence, of shared competence and areas where the Union may take supporting action, provided this conforms with the provisions of Part III relative to the area where action is to be taken. Particular cases that do not fit into the general classification are dealt with separately: for example the coordination of economic and employment policies
(Article 14) and common foreign and security policy (Article 15).

The flexibility the system requires is guaranteed by a clause allowing the adoption of measures necessary to attain any of the objectives laid down by the Constitution where there is no provision for powers of action to that effect in the Constitution. Its scope is therefore wider than that of the current Article 308 of the EC Treaty, which is confined to the internal market, but the conditions for its implementation are stricter in that, as well as requiring unanimity in the Council, Parliament’s approval will also be needed. This provision is complemented by the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which provides for an ‘early-warning system’ involving national parliaments in monitoring how the principle of subsidiarity is applied.

And you thought the Establishment Clause was difficult to understand. Keep in mind, this is the summary, and of only one portion of the constitution at that.

Recently, Times columnist William Rees-Mogg published an article entitled “Are We Fools Led By Liars?” about the debate over the constitution in the U.K. It seems that leading members of the government, led by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, are representing to the British people that the constitution merely formalizes what is already in existence and represents no threat to the sovereignty of the nation.

Straw is hampered in this thankless task by two things. First, a strong majority of the British people don’t believe it since it contradicts what a good British friend of ours would call “blind stinking reality”; and, second, other European politicians keep letting the damn cat out of the bag. As Rees-Mogg notes:

The German Minister for Europe, Hans Martin Bury….told the Bundestag that the constitution of the European Union is more than a “milestone”, it is “the birth certificate of the United States of Europe”. Last month Mr Straw said that the constitution treaty signalled “thus far and no further on European integration”. Is the treaty a boundary marker for European integration or is it a birth certificate for “a single European state bound by one European constitution”, to use the language of the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer?

It’s a hard matter indeed to sell the constitution as a mere legal document when all evidence demonstrates that the U.K. will simply cease to exist as an independent sovereign nation should it sign up. As Rees-Mogg goes on to note:

Nevertheless, the constitution does two things which do allow one to answer the question: boundary stone or birth certificate? It creates a state. Article 11: “The constitution establishes the European Union.” Article 15a: “The constitution . . . shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” Article 18: “Every national of a member state shall be a citizen of the union.”

This new state will have broad and predominant powers, with ministers to execute those powers. Article 111: “The member states shall co-ordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by Part 3, which the union shall have competence (power) to provide . . . the union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.”

The EU is already proceeding step by step to the establishment of this common foreign and security policy. Nato is being downgraded; a European diplomatic service is being developed; the constitution provides for a Foreign Minister. The whole European structure has been built by general aspirations backed by creeping bureaucracy. The common foreign and defence policy is likely to become a fait accompli.

The Debate in the U.K.

Despite such overwhelming evidence, however, the debate in the U.K. continues to focus on small matters, completely missing the fact that the country is likely to not exist in any recognizable form in the near future.

It’s simply a matter of numbers. Since the law has to be unified, the Civil Law tradition of the Continent is just going to swamp “outdated” British concepts central to the Common Law. Already, the E.U. uses “human rights” law to declare wide swaths of our cherished tradition out-of-bounds and out-of-touch. Leave aside and forget that the Common Law has been many, many times more effective in securing liberty and prosperity in the legal history of the West.

Little things matter too. Already the U.K. has lost its old system of measurements. Speak of “pounds” of bananas at a produce stall in Manchester these days and you’re likely to face a fine under E.U Directive 234/C/233b-2. Of course, the metric system is more “rational” and works better, as is obvious since the only Western state to retain the Imperial system leads the world in high technology, engineering and space travel.

The mathematics and the structure of the new constitution compel “an ever greater Union” and can do so only at the expense of an independent U.K. Imagine a world where there is another crisis like the Iraq War and the E.U. has a “common foreign policy.” Whose ideas are likely to predominate in such a union: Jacques Chirac’s or Tony Blair’s?

The unique structure and tenor of the British Constitution, the ancient and strange institutions, the vitality of the Common Law, all are at risk, even though they are the only thing that has stood between Europe and whatever totalitarian foolishness is a la mode on the Continent since the time of Napoleon.

But what really amazes is all this is happening without so much as a debate. As Rees-Mogg points out:

I sometimes think that Britain has a Government which takes us all for fools. There may be a case for a United States of Europe. Many continental Europeans believe in that; most Germans, for instance, see a single European state as a natural development, similar to the creation of a united Germany in the 1870s. Britain, as Franz-Josef Strauss used to say, should have the status in a United Europe which Bavaria has in the Federal Republic. Bavaria, he would add, does not feel any need for a separate air force. Some Germans differ. One recently commented to me: “What is the problem for which the European Union is the solution?”

We could have a useful debate on these issues. Is it Europe’s destiny to become a superstate? Is the age of British independence at an end? Can we protect democracy and the rule of law in a fully united Europe? That would be an honest and historic debate. But it cannot be an honest debate so long as the Government pretends that the European constitution is anything other than a constitution for the United States of Europe. The Germans are telling the truth. So long as our Government takes us for fools, we have every reason to take them for liars.

The Labour Party is rushing headlong to this brave, new world, the Liberal Democrats are the party for those who can’t stop talking about how “ashamed” they are of their history and the Conservatives are split. The only thing that stands between the U.K. and its obsolescence are the brave souls of the U.K. Independence Party and those good democrats who are demanding a referendum.

Of course, the U.K. has some very good reasons for wanting to be in the E.U. But we wonder what would happen to the debate were we to make a good counter-offer. Perhaps a U.S.-U.K. political-economic-military union where the U.K. and its people have full and complete access to the United States and under which we would neither demand their sovereignty nor their laws is an idea whose time has come. Perhaps the time has come for us to rescue our most important ally, even if it doesn’t seem to know it’s in mortal danger.

-

 

[ScreamingEagle]

-EU Aims to be Military Superpower

How the heck do they plan to pay for it?

 

[Merlin1047]

As creeping (or galloping) socialism becomes more prevalent, the economies of European nations begin to struggle. Germany with unemployment exceeding ten percent. The french forced to sell arms to potential enemies simply in an effort to inject money into their economy. Fifty percent plus income taxes in some nations, Britain struggling to stay afloat amid ever-increasing entitlement programs.

By combining all their problems into one umbrella state, the Euros hope to put the genie back into the bottle. What I fail to understand is why they seem to think that by combining their respective problems, they will somehow find a solution.

They remind me of the old joke about the kid digging in a pile of horse shit because he was convinced there was a pony under there somewhere. I very much doubt the Euros will find a horsie under this particular pile. Jacques Chirac sold it to China.

 

[ReillyT]

Yeah, right. That's gonna happen. I know I'd sleep well at night with the french and Spanish pledged to come to my assistance. You betcha.

Besides the obvious hypocrisy in this, I can't fathom why any country would subordinate its sovereignity to the EU. That is truly mind-boggling.

Had Napoleon thought of this concept, he never would have had to raise an army. But then again, had Europe been in this sad condition back in Napoleon's day, it would hardly have been worth conquering.

It is pretty easy to see why many countries are in favor of it. Besides a greater international importance for a consolidated Europe, each country gets something extra out of the deal. Developed countries like France and Germany have a greater say than their less developed breathen. They get to be heavyweights in the union and this appeals to them. Smaller under-developed countries get gigantic development and agricultural subsidies to bolster their backward industries. Everybody gets complete and fair free trade with other EU members just by joining.

I don't think that I am in favor of the EU, but if you are a country with the opportunity to join, there are some benefits.

 

[taff]

As creeping (or galloping) socialism becomes more prevalent, the economies of European nations begin to struggle. Germany with unemployment exceeding ten percent. The french forced to sell arms to potential enemies simply in an effort to inject money into their economy. Fifty percent plus income taxes in some nations, Britain struggling to stay afloat amid ever-increasing entitlement programs.

By combining all their problems into one umbrella state, the Euros hope to put the genie back into the bottle. What I fail to understand is why they seem to think that by combining their respective problems, they will somehow find a solution.

They remind me of the old joke about the kid digging in a pile of horse shit because he was convinced there was a pony under there somewhere. I very much doubt the Euros will find a horsie under this particular pile. Jacques Chirac sold it to China.

If you can all stop slapping yourselves on the back and telling each other how great you are for 5 minutes perhaps you can look at facts and figures.The British economy has not been this strong in decades, certainly longer than i can remember.Lowest unemployment since records began.Or dosent this fit in with the picture you are painting of how poor and worthless we all are if we dont posess an American passport.

 

[musicman]

If you can all stop slapping yourselves on the back and telling each other how great you are for 5 minutes perhaps you can look at facts and figures.

That's hard to do, though, taff. We're so fucking GREAT.


[/QUOTE]The British economy has not been this strong in decades, certainly longer than i can remember.Lowest unemployment since records began.Or dosent this fit in with the picture you are painting of how poor and worthless we all are if we dont posess an American passport.[/QUOTE]


So, "embrace socialism" is what you're saying?

Tell me, why is it going to succeed THIS time where it has failed EVERY TIME BEFORE?

If you don't like the picture we're painting, perhaps you should take it up with a famous British painter - Sir Winston Churchill. It's interesting that you stop your sig where you do. Didn't Mr. Churchill end that speech by saying, "...until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its wealth and might, comes to the rescue of the Old"?

 

[ReillyT]

That's hard to do, though, taff. We're so fucking GREAT.

You are a twit. I don't even agree with the notion of the EU, but you are the kind of American that the rest of the world despises, and I can understand why. Europe is hardly the backwards place that you think it is, and I am willing to bet that the bottom 10% of the socio-economic class in France or Germany is better off than they are here in the U.S. They do things differently than we do and place a higher emphasis on collective welfare, but that is their choice. Get off your high horse and get a clue you nut.

 

[Merlin1047]

If you can all stop slapping yourselves on the back and telling each other how great you are for 5 minutes perhaps you can look at facts and figures.The British economy has not been this strong in decades, certainly longer than i can remember.Lowest unemployment since records began.Or dosent this fit in with the picture you are painting of how poor and worthless we all are if we dont posess an American passport.

Relax, bloke. Nothing personal. The US economy isn't all that great either. We've lost much of our heavy manufacturing capacity, we're sending money to China at an alarming rate, we still don't have a coherent energy policy, SUVs and other gas-guzzlers keep the demand for gasoline high and so the prices stay up also. I could go on but no doubt you get the picture.

But is THIS the British economy you're so pleased with?

http://www.marxist.com/Economy/brit_economy0304.html
How healthy is the British economy?
By Michael Roberts


Just before Gordon Brown announced his 2004 budget, the European commission declared that the British economy was one of the healthiest and strongest in the European Union.

Of course, that is not saying much. The Commission forecast that UK national output would rise by 2.6% in 2004, more than double the expected Eurozone average of 1%. The Commission also predicted that the rate of growth in the number of jobs likely to be created in Britain this year - at 0.5% - was second only to Spain and Luxembourg. By contrast, Brussels estimates that seven EU member states including Germany will see jobs disappear. The unemployment rate will be lower, the government debt is lower and even after Gordon Brown's increased public spending, the government's budget deficit will be lower as a % of national output.

If the UK is the best with just 2-2.5% annual real growth, then all this just shows what a terrible state European capitalism is in. Europe, it seems, cannot manage to grow or find jobs for its people.

But it does pose some questions. Why is the UK apparently doing better? And does this mean that British capitalism has finally overcome what used to be called the British disease: slower growth, higher inflation, continual currency crises and a falling behind in living standards compared with the US, Europe and Japan?

The reality is that the underlying health of British capitalism is really no better than it was in the terrible days of the 1970s and 1980s. It certainly has not returned to the brief halcyon golden days of the 1960s. Consider these facts. National output rose an average 3.4% a year in the 1960s. During the 1970s and 1980s it managed only 2% a year. Now after the great 'reforms' of the Thatcherite days and under New Labour, it manages 2.3% a year.

And as for the manufacturing sector, it has been decimated. Whereas it grew at a 3.6% clip in the 1960s, it failed to grow at all for two decades in the 1970s and 1980s and is now growing at just 0.8% a year. And of course, it is now a pathetically weakened and forgotten part of British capitalism, employing less than 3.4 million workers out of a total workforce of 30m. Indeed, last year for the first time since before the industrial revolution, more people worked as self-employed in various useless services (estate agents, financial advisers, advertisers, etc) than now work in British manufacturing making something!

Only the services sector (finance, property etc) has kept the UK economy growing. New Labour's pathetic trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, says that "modern manufacturing is central to our future as leading knowledge-based driven economy". The problem is that British capitalists don't agree. They prefer to invest in financial services or send their profits abroad. As a result, British industry is increasingly not British-owned at all. Whereas in 1973, 17% of UK manufacturing output came from foreign-owned companies, now that figure has reached 25%, and the share of British workers in foreign-owned manufacturing companies has risen from 13% to 17%. Inward investment from foreign companies was just 0.5% of GDP back in days of Harold Macmillan

Or this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3082827.stm
UK economy 'disappointing and worrying'


Manufacturing remains weak
The British economy has revived slightly in the past few months but remains sluggish, according to a survey.
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said manufacturing and service sectors have shown a modest improvement in the last three months but this followed a particularly bad period previously.

Many areas of the economy also remain in a worse state than last year, added the BCC's Quarterly Economic Survey.

It follows a survey from the Ernst & Young Item Club, suggesting the UK is still growing at a slower rate than the government predicted.

The think tank said the UK economy remains "stuck in first gear".

Uncertain recovery

The BCC's survey suggested that despite the slight improvement in manufacturing, the sector as a whole remains weak in the face of strong foreign competition.

In the service sector, the survey suggested only a very modest upturn and "highly uncertain" recovery prospects.


Recent data suggest that the consumer sector is cooling off too quickly

Is the UK economy 'stuck in first gear'?

"Disappointing and worrying is how we would describe these results," said David Kern, the BCC's economic advisor.

The Item Club's report meanwhile said the economy was struggling against a weak global recovery and slower household spending

It predicted economic growth of 1.7% this year, rising to 2-2.5% in 2004 - a gloomier outlook than that suggested by the Chancellor Gordon Brown, who earlier this year predicted 2-2.5% growth in 2003 and 3-3.5% in 2004.

I take no pleasure in pointing out that the socialist programs your government has pursued are beginning to take their toll on your economy. Truth is that we're not that far behind you.

My point was not to denigrate any nation in particular -well, that's a lie, I have to admit that I rather enjoy stomping on the french. My point was that socialism ultimately implodes under its own weight as it saps the energy and resources of an economy. My other point was that combining your troubled economy with the outright disaster areas which pass as the french and German economies will not bring any benefits to Britain.

Have you ever seen how live crabs behave when in a pot? If one of them starts to climb out, the others will pull it back down. That's what I think of the EU. There are some economies which, left on their own, have a chance of surviving. But the other crabs in that pot are going to drag you down if for no other reason than jealousy or what the Germans call "schadenfreude".

 

[taff]

That's hard to do, though, taff. We're so fucking GREAT.

The British economy has not been this strong in decades, certainly longer than i can remember.Lowest unemployment since records began.Or dosent this fit in with the picture you are painting of how poor and worthless we all are if we dont posess an American passport.[/QUOTE]


So, "embrace socialism" is what you're saying?

Tell me, why is it going to succeed THIS time where it has failed EVERY TIME BEFORE?

If you don't like the picture we're painting, perhaps you should take it up with a famous British painter - Sir Winston Churchill. It's interesting that you stop your sig where you do. Didn't Mr. Churchill end that speech by saying, "...until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its wealth and might, comes to the rescue of the Old"?[/QUOTE]
Who mentioned socialism.Um noone.,
An yes please rescue me Musicman,Im a poor lonely Brit who needs rescuing by big brave musicman.In your dreams,Pal.

 

[Merlin1047]

You are a twit. Get off your high horse and get a clue you nut.

Ummm - Reilly - you flunked out of sarcasm 101, didn't you? I very much doubt that MM's "we're so great" comment was intended to be taken seriously.

So, if I may, let me direct this comment to you - it's a quote I read somewhere in this forum. Don't recall exactly where I saw this, but you may find it familiar: You are a twit. Get off your high horse and get a clue you nut.

 

[ReillyT]

Ummm - Reilly - you flunked out of sarcasm 101, didn't you? I very much doubt that MM's "we're so great" comment was intended to be taken seriously.

So, if I may, let me direct this comment to you - it's a quote I read somewhere in this forum. Don't recall exactly where I saw this, but you may find it familiar: You are a twit. Get off your high horse and get a clue you nut.

I don't think he was being sarcastic, but I do like your sense of humor - using my quote was pretty funny.

 

[musicman]

taff:

You don't see socialism coming at you? I'm sorry, my friend, but the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

I find the sexual overtones of your post a bit disturbing.

Are you going to tack the last line of Mr. Churchill's speech onto your sig? You're cherry-picking, you know.

 

[taff]

I know all about your points of views concerning Germany and France yet reading the European threads there is always a lot of negativity about all of Europe.Quite a few of those countries in Europe still have forces in Iraq yet still Europe as a whole is attacked.People point out it,s not personal yet if i constantly banged on about faults in the America,s it would soon piss people off.

 

[ReillyT]

you will find it easier to get along not using the sarcasm option at all, especially with a long time respected member like MM!

The sarcasm was his (possibly), not mine. A determination of whether one is deserving of respect is an individual, not collective decision.