Where's the luv?

Jebus

Background Radiant
Orderite
The New York Times said:
Caustic Turn Jolts Europe
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: June 19, 2005

BRUSSELS, June 18 - Something shattered in Europe Friday night.

The leaders of the 25 European Union nations went home after a failed two-day summit meeting in anger and in shame, as domestic politics and national interests defeated lofty notions of sacrifice and solidarity for the benefit of all.

The battle over money and the shelving of the bloc's historic constitution, after the crushing no votes in France and the Netherlands, stripped away all pretense of an organization with a common vision and reflected the fears of many leaders in the face of rising popular opposition to the project called Europe.

Their attacks on one another after they failed to agree on a future budget - for 2007 through 2013 - seemed destructive and unnecessary, and it is not at all clear that they will be able to repair their relationships. Even if they do, the damage to the organization is done.

Most embarrassing for the European Union was a last-minute attempt by its 10 newest members to salvage the budget agreement late Friday night. They offered to give up some of their own aid from the union so that the older and richer members could keep theirs.

For the new members, that offer was an opportunity to prove their worth. Criticizing the "egoism" of countries driven by national interests, Prime Minister Marek Belka of Poland said, "Nobody will be able to say that for Poland, the European Union is just a pile of money."

But for the older members, it was a humiliation. "When I heard one after the other, all the new member states - each poorer than the other - say that in the interest of an agreement they would be ready to renounce part of the money they are due, I was ashamed," Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister and the departing European Union president, told journalists after talks collapsed.

Even as a number of leaders stated that the European Union was in one of the worst crises of more than half a century of European integration, none of them predicted its end. Certainly, it will have to continue to negotiate over money, and it can survive without a constitution using existing treaties.

The process of European integration has faced crises in the past. In 1954, for example, the French National Assembly rejected an initiative to create a European defense community to forge closer military ties among the bloc's six founding members. In 1965, French President Charles de Gaulle refused to allow France to take its seat in the bloc's governing body to protest a switch in voting procedures.

In 1992, Danish voters rejected a treaty creating the current European Union with a single European currency. In 1996, Britain announced it would block European Union decision making after the bloc imposed a ban on British beef because of an outbreak of mad cow disease. The current crisis comes as the European Union has begun to play a much more important role in the world, most visibly in negotiations over one of the most serious global security issues: Iran's nuclear program.

President Bush will welcome Mr. Juncker, José Manuel Barroso, the head of the bloc's administrative arm, and Javier Solana, its foreign policy chief, to the White House on Monday, and he will underscore the need for a strong Europe.

Many other signs suggest that the Bush administration has sought to work more closely with the European Union. It has begun to work with France, Germany and Britain on the European Union-sponsored talks on Iran. The United States and the European Union also are jointly planning projects for Iraq's reconstruction.

Whether the crisis will affect the bloc's foreign policy in the long run remains unclear.

But the failure of the summit meeting laid bare the deep divide with the European Union between grand but competing visions of Europe.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain leads the camp that wants a Europe with fewer trade and employment barriers and a more free-market orientation to better compete against rising giants like India and China. Yet he rejected all criticism of Britain for vetoing the final agreement on the budget, which would have required Britain to reduce the annual rebate, now $6 billion a year, that it gets back from its contribution to the European Union budget.

By contrast, Mr. Chirac and some of his allies are skeptical of what they call the "Anglo-Saxon model" and protective of the continental "social model" that offers citizens a protective economic security shield. He refused to compromise Friday night on Mr. Blair's demand that France reduce the $13 billion in farm subsidies it receives every year from the European Union.

Meanwhile, Mr. Blair, who assumes the six-month rotating European Union presidency next month, says he will use the current crisis to push for what he contends are needed reforms.

"I'm not prepared to have someone tell me there is only one view of what Europe is and that's the view expressed by certain people at certain points in time," he told reporters on Friday, clearly alluding to Mr. Chirac. "Europe isn't owned by any of them; Europe is owned by all of us."

But the feelings against Britain among some other members are so raw that even Mr. Juncker, who is passionate about collegiality, said that he would "not be listening" when Mr. Blair outlines his priorities to the European Parliament next week. He said he would hand over the presidency "without comment and without advice, because clearly my advice is not appreciated."

Lost in Friday night's turmoil over the budget debacle was a joint communiqué issued by the leaders that their constitution could one day be carried out. It did not explain how, given the French and Dutch rejections and the requirement that all 25 countries ratify it. Before the referendums in both countries, there was widespread speculation that there could be a "Plan B" either to revise the current text or salvage the parts that are not objectionable to voters.

In announcing that the constitution would be put on hold so that it could be better understood, Mr. Juncker insisted that there would be no "Plan B" Instead, he told reporters Thursday night, "there is a Plan D - for dialogue and debate."

What's going on here?

Is this really only greed, or is there perhaps an agenda of sabotage?

I don't really see how this could only be greed. After all, 1 and 5 billion € for the Netherlands and the UK is, although being a rather large sum of money in itself, not really large enough to go whining like a little bitch in the first big budget meeting since the expansion.
I agree with Juncker: the fact that the newer member states even offered to hand in a bit of their due subsidions is striking. They need the money the most, and yet they are willing to give in to a whining Netherlands that apparently wants to give another tax cut... Pretty embarassing, indeed.

Although I do agree with Blairs proposal that agricultural subsidies should be screwed back somewhat.

Also - should the American president George Bush really get involved in this?

Discuss.
 
I think W wants, or should want (I know that's not the same) a better relationship with the EU. It's important to the US that Europe remains vibrant and stable- you guys are our key allies (despite the occassional tussle) and our main trading partners. But nothing here seems to suggest to much US involvement. I think this is a mess of your own construction.

Possible to look at this three ways-

(1) The EU moved towards to much to fast. The countries aren't quite ready to give up much sovereignty as they might (old countries) vs the new countries wanting in on a better deal. Thus the conflict- variations in policy lead to division without the means to bring unity in the middle (weak federalism among the European states) and divides between the new and old members.

(2) Sabotage- If its intentional it's the idea of 25 countries all have to agree. But I guess that can't be avoided as you are all sovereign. Thus the problem- notions of sovereignty and identity.

(3) The way I see this- a popular backlash against the status quo. The EU's expansion is favorable to both political and capitalist class- expansion offers new investment opportunities close to home, a near abroad for EU goods, favorable labor costs, etc. Those who benefit- capitalists (corporations), investors (bankers & insurance) and political elites. Those who lose- labor and small farmers. Labor and small farmers have a chance to frustrate this by voiding "no" against the status quo. It's a vote of protest due to reduce quality of life issues. The real reason why this got screwed up is that the political coalition that has pushed EU has forgotten the small guy and people are pissed about being unemployed.
 
Welsh said:
Those who lose- labor and small farmers.

Um. No.

The EU packed massive amounts of money into small farmers in Poland. The agricultural sector, although hampered because it lacks any "big" agricultural enterprise *whatosever* since the commie era, is parcelled in (relatively) little pieces: A farmer & his field.

Since the downfall of "social realism" in Poland, 1989, the farmers had it very rough taking in the shock therapy of economical restructurization. In fact, they're one of the main social groups that took the main blow from the radical change, as they were previously aided by the communist government, there were huge agricultural projects/farms called PGR's , and of course, they could always charge astronomical prices for meat and other hard-to-find goods such as eggs, fresh milk and sugar during the 50 years of total state.
After the system fell, the regime turned into an (IMO) overly agressively capitalist one, which had the (mostly useless) farmers biting dust and eating mud.

The EU introduced back subsidies and aids to the farmers, along with big restructuring of Polish agriculture. In fact, it's one of the biggest EU / UNDP projects at the moment.

Sorry welsh, but I fail to see where small farmers in newly annexed countries lose. As for "small farmers" in old countries such as France, they're such a small number they can't weigh a substantial EU political decision.
 
Wooz said:
Um. No.

The EU packed massive amounts of money into small farmers in Poland. The agricultural sector, although hampered because it lacks any "big" agricultural enterprise *whatosever* since the commie era, is parcelled in (relatively) little pieces: A farmer & his field.

Since the downfall of "social realism" in Poland, 1989, the farmers had it very rough taking in the shock therapy of economical restructurization. In fact, they're one of the main social groups that took the main blow from the radical change, as they were previously aided by the communist government, there were huge agricultural projects/farms called PGR's , and of course, they could always charge astronomical prices for meat and other hard-to-find goods such as eggs, fresh milk and sugar during the 50 years of total state.
After the system fell, the regime turned into an (IMO) overly agressively capitalist one, which had the (mostly useless) farmers biting dust and eating mud.

The EU introduced back subsidies and aids to the farmers, along with big restructuring of Polish agriculture. In fact, it's one of the biggest EU / UNDP projects at the moment.

Sorry welsh, but I fail to see where small farmers in newly annexed countries lose. As for "small farmers" in old countries such as France, they're such a small number they can't weigh a substantial EU political decision.
That's all fine and dandy, but explain it to Croatian dairy farmers who are forced to dispose of millions of liters of milk because it doesn't conform to strict EU standards of microbiological purity. Explain it to thousands of small farmers who will go out of business once trade tariffs between Croatia and EU are abolished and the Croatian market is flooded with cheap foreign agricultural products.

When talking about agriculture, the issue of joining the EU is much more complex than "OMG FREE SUBSIDIES!!!1". It will mean the deepest and most massive agricultural restructuring since the socialist collectivization in 1950s. This tremendous process will inevitably crush thousands of small farmers and leave everybody in the agricultural sector disillusioned and disgruntled. Restructuring and technologization through government subsidization will eventually create competetive agriculture, but not without a lot of sacrifice and loss on producers' side, as high-tech farming really cannot be viable for small family farms with a few hectacres of land and half a dozen goats. It's really no wonder most farmers are vehemently opposed to EU.

But it doesn't matter, really. At least not to Croatia. Over 50% people are against EU here, and entry talks haven't even begun yet. No EU candidate in the history has ever seen such low public support for entry. By the time the referendum is held, I imagine well over 60% population will say 'no', myself included. It will considerably hamper EU's plans to spread into southeastern Europe, but they will find a way to deal with it without Croatia.
 
Oh no!

And the EU citizens were so looking forward to accepting Balkan states!

Anyway, I will reply more to this thread when my examns are *finally* over. In a large week, that it.
 
Jebus said:
And the EU citizens were so looking forward to accepting Balkan states!
Croatia is not a Balkan state. Also, seeing as Croatia is, among other things, one of the last remaining European countries with an almost unlimited supply of fresh water, it would definitely be an asset of increasing value as water becomes more scarce. Also, if Croatia rejects EU membership, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia will surely reject it too, which increases the probability that this region will continue to be one of the most unstable in Europe. And who wants to see another 1991?
 
I am not so sure I fully agree with you Wooz. Historically farmers have been a very powerful class, even in industrialized or industrializing states. French farmers have had a lot of power in pushing french policy, and I doubt they would want to see money spent on Polish competitors. Your thoughts?
 
No, sorry, but I feel like being a bitch today.

Unless you prove me your point with better arguments than to a CCR debate, I won't care to reply to yours. Newsflash: French agriculture: 3% of the social sector.

@Ratty: The EU doesn't give a fuck about integrating the balkans. It's a reliable place to sell weapons to. And stuff. Like bridges. And other stuff. That gets blown up a bit afterwards. So they can sell other stuff to rebuild. Hur Hur?
 
Ah yeah. True, better land mines.

It still doesn't give a fuck about integrating the balkans. Ukraine's a better bet.

:kisses:
 
Back
Top