 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
More accurately, the quote should read: "*any* consession to the EU is unacceptable with the voters It'd be political suicide for Blair to give a consession without something hyped to bring back"
The CAP is sure big bone of contention in the EU, but a reform of the CAP isn't actually solid for the British taxpayer's pockets. Even if the CAP was removed in favour of research, medicine, regional development etc., Britain would still be a net contributor to the EU, by far. The money would still pour to other countries (though less to France/Spain, and more to the new members). And it would be as legitimate for the average voter to whine about Britain losing all its money to the EU.
However, thanks to a relatively successful communication strategy, Blair managed to overhype the issue in Britain, so that it appears extremely important to the interests of the British voter. |
True.
The average citizen will not see the money taken from their pockets should the rebate be abolished even though €100 per person is sizeable. Its a massive stealth tax because no-one realises where its coming from in the first place. (I don't even know, but I'm thinking its primarily VAT)
So, its not the paying of the money that is the bone of contention as no-one will notice the difference. Its the realisation that "our" money is spent on something that is considered a complete waste - CAP. It is compounded by the fact that the French are the biggest beneficiaries of CAP money. In Westminster it is therefore easy to galvanise the population to a European message "Why are we paying to subsidise French farmers?".
If the CAP was reformed, and other developments such as research, medicine, regional development etc. increased by more than the CAP savings Britain would forego its rebate. Under such a situation Britain would be paying more, but the politics of Westminster would say that "We aren't subsidising the French farmers, we got the reform of disproportionate spending that we wanted, we are paying our share in line with the wealthy countries of Europe". The populous would happily swallow that line.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
Why would it be bad for Europe? (honest question. I have no idea if it would be good or bad...) |
What I call the "British vision for Europe" isn't what was debated these two days (it isn't about the CAP and the rebate). The British vision for Europe is an Europe that is mostly (or only) about free trade, and nothing/little else.
The reason why I think this vision is terrible for Europe is the following:
1. Economic competition without a sense of common bondage has a good chance of degenerating into rivalry and jingoism from the population, as the population must fear competition from abroad. Already in the French Non campaign, the underpaid Pole worker was harshly stigmatized. History teaches us that Europe + jingosim is a very, very dangerous combination. No thanks.
2. As time passes, and as new powers rise, the US will probably be increasingly egoistical in the defense of its geopolitical interests (simply because the US will try to defend an ever weakened power). If the European countries want to defend their own geopolitical interests, they'll have to harmonize them to succeed. If there is no harmonization, the European stance will explode whenever there is a disagreement, which will be the joy of our rivals.
3. Western Europe largely has a homogenous economy, with similar growth sectors, with similar education levels, and relatively similar infrastructure. The fragmentation of the economic policies makes little to no sense, and it's exploited shamelessly by those which play a country against another.
The 1993 currency crisis was a good example of it. Speculators played on the fact that Europe was chock-full of relatively powerless currencies, and that no common monetary policy existed, and they made the worst European financial crisis in recent history. Millions of unemployed emerged from this. The Euro makes intra-European speculation impossible now, and it contributed to shield us from the Asian economic crisis.
A common monetary policy makes sense, but it only makes sense if we also have a common economic (public budget) policy. Otherwise, there will be a grave imbalance between national economic policies and the European monetary policy. It is also bound to create frustration, as some countries will whine that the others have too low taxes, while the other countries will whine that the former ones don't have enough budgetary discipline. Though there are usual suspects, the roles do change: Germany did both.
4. A free-trade Europe where decisions are taken by diplomats is horribly antidemocratic. Typically, diplomats represent the interests of their country or of their leaders (especially the short term interests), rather than what the population stands for. For all its flaws, a Parliamentary system is much more representative of what people think. But the adoption of a Parliamentary system would mean the rule of the majority, and it would mean an unacceptable loss of sovereignty for the British government.
The sovereignty concerns are the main reason why Europe is still so antidemocratic today, with a Parliament that is the least important of the 3 institutions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2005 05:29
Can you read mate? I said Spain WILL be a net contributor in 3 or 4 years, because the next ampliation to the east. That change will be in fact an important (and i mean important) sacrifice for many people right here. But you hardly will see spaniards whining and opossing to the ampliation or underming the EU in any manner. How can this be? 
- you have a good mind DanS, you should use it.
|